THE PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION
OF
FISHERMEN'S
ASSOCIATIONS
From Fishermen's News of June, 2000
Best Viewed With Netscape
Back to
PCFFA Home Page
Back to
PCFFA Home Page By Molly Thomas and Zeke Grader
A great deal of hype and controversy now surrounds one of the newer concepts applied to the management of our fisheries - the "precautionary principle." Many within fishery management circles, academia and the environmental community chant it as if its their mantra, while many in the fisheries view it with fear and trepidation, believing it will be used to shut down fishing or fisheries wherever uncertainty exists. And, clearly there is much uncertainty about our fish stocks.
Our purpose here is neither to praise nor condemn the precautionary principle but to examine what it is intended to do and how it should be used in managing fisheries, other natural resources and the protection of the global environment. After all, the term precautionary principle may be relatively new but, in fact, the concept is an old one. "Proceed with caution," "better safe than sorry" are but two aphorisms we are all familiar with and those approaches have been used successfully in managing a few, however too few, fisheries over the past century.
Much has been written about the precautionary principle over the past five years. In nearly every recent fisheries science publication, workshop or seminar there is some mention of it or someone's new interpretation. The United Nation's Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO) has issued papers on the principle, including its "Precautionary Approach to Capture Fisheries" (FAO Technical Paper 350) and "Precautionary Reference Points and Some Proposals for Their Use in Data Poor Situations" (FAO Technical Paper 379). The latter paper provides some useful reference points for sustainably managing fisheries. The FAO's Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, published in 1995, also calls for the use of the precautionary approach in fisheries (see below). Finally, the recently introduced legislation to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation & Management Act, the Gilchrest-Farr "Fisheries Recovery Act" (HR 4046) makes the use of the precautionary approach one of its centerpieces.
HR 4046 defines "Precautionary Approach" as "exercising additional caution in favor of conservation in any case in which information is absent, uncertain, unreliable, or inadequate as to the effects of any existing or proposed action on fish, essential fish habitat, other marine species, and the marine ecosystem in which a fishery occurs;" and "selecting and implementing any action that will be significantly more likely than not to satisfy the conservation objectives....."
The definition in the Gilchrest-Farr bill does not say "stop everything," but simply says that where there is uncertainty go slowly. This is really no different than traveling through uncharted waters or jumping into murky waters not knowing where the rocks or logs may be -- it pays to be cautious. The problem with the precautionary approach is likely to occur with its interpretation and implementation, with agencies or councils unwilling to slow down enough, as we witnessed with groundfish here on the Pacific over the past twenty years, or wanting to come to nearly a dead stop, as we have witnessed in attempting to put in place some experimental fisheries.
The FAO's Code of Conduct For Responsible Fisheries in its discussion on the use of theprecautionary approach recommends, among other things, that:
"States [Nations] should apply the precautionary approach widely to conservation, management and exploitation of living aquatic resources in order to protect them and preserve the aquatic environment. The absence of adequate scientific information should not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take conservation and management measures.
"In implementing the precautionary approach, States should take into account....uncertainties relating to the size and productivity of the stocks, reference points, stock condition in relation to such reference points, levels of distribution of fishing mortality and the impact of fishing activities, including discards, on non-target and associated or dependent species as well as environmental and socio-economic conditions.
"In the case of new or exploratory fisheries, States should adopt as soon as possible cautious conservation and management measures, including.....catch limits and effort limits. Such measures should remain in force until there are sufficient data to allow assessment of the impact of the fisheries on the long-term sustainability of the stocks, whereupon conservation and management measures based on that assessment should be implemented. The latter measures, should, if appropriate, allow for the gradual development of the fisheries.
"If a natural phenomenon has a significant adverse impact on the status of living aquatic resources, States should adopt conservation and management measures on an emergency basis to ensure the fishing activity does not exacerbate such adverse impact. States should also adopt such measures on an emergency basis where fishing activity presents a serious threat to the sustainability of such resources. Measures taken on an emergency basis should be temporary and should be based on the best scientific information available."
The definition put forth in Gilchrest-Farr and the FAO recommendations for the precautionary approach are pretty straight-forward. Although it was not called precautionary at the time, in fact this approach has already been used successfully in the past in managing some fisheries. Two such fisheries that come to mind are Pacific Halibut and the California herring roe fishery. California at least has likewise exercised the precautionary approach with many of its shark stocks. That was true for threshers that were being harvested with swordfish, and with the great whites as well, where these top-of-the food-chain animals were given, with fishermen's support, permanent protection.
Indeed, it could be argued that a defacto precautionary principle has also long been used in the management of the salmon fishery. Unfortunately, that would be true only if the fishing activity itself was considered. With respect to habitat protection, which is critical to salmon production, agencies have approached this issue with recklessness and indifference. Their failure to correct activities destroying watersheds supporting salmon (e.g., logging) and their desire to continue studying dams, such as those on the Snake, instead of just taking them out as the vast majority of scientists have recommend, is the exact opposite of the precautionary principle.
There are, sadly, too many examples, where caution was not used in the management of fisheries as well, and the results were not just biologically, but economically devastating. There were warnings in the 1940's, for example, that California sardine stocks were being overexploited. Those warnings were not heeded, the fishery subsequently collapsed and only now, nearly 50 years later, have those stocks recovered. Abalone, a historic fishery along the central and southern California coast was not just destroyed by sea otters. A lack of research, failure to monitor all fishing activities, failure to heed clear warning signs, failure to account for and prevent spread of diseases, and a misplaced trust in aquaculture led California to needlessly destroy the fishery for this prized mollusk.
With Pacific groundfish, too, it was known that the data was sparse, much of the foreign research was self-serving and little information existed on many species in the complex. But in those heady days following the 1976 passage of HR 200, the original Fishery Conservation and Management Act, no one was talking about doing the research necessary to determine what level of harvest this complex could sustain. Instead we set off "Americanizing" the 200-mile zone by building newer and bigger trawlers. Groundfish was considered the great untapped resource. Of course, we had no good data to back it up. Managers considered hook-and-liners and trollers to be a thing of the past. To them, bigger was better. Now, twenty years later we have a widespread disaster on our hands, and all because a little common sense, a little caution, was never exercised up front.
Some lessons have been learned from past mistakes. The fishermen's efforts to put in place a research and management program for market squid, despite agency foot-dragging and some outright opposition, and to promote a sustainable harvest of California's largest fishery, was all based on a precautionary approach, even if it wasn't called that. Earlier efforts by sea urchin divers to put in place a management regime on a species once considered a pest, was not termed precautionary, but certainly it amounted to the same thing. And, the passage of the Marine Life Management Act by the California Legislature in 1998, supported by most fishing groups, was an effort to apply the precautionary approach in state managed fisheries. So, in fact, the precautionary principle has been used by fishermen, and successfully.
The FAO's paper "A Short Review on Precautionary Reference Point and Some Proposals for Their Use in Data-Poor Situations" takes the concept further and spells out precautionary management procedures and gives some biological reference points for how the principle should be implemented. (Information on the Food & Agriculture Organization papers can be found at their website: http://www.fao.org.) In using the Precautionary Approach, the FAO recommends a review of the biological basis for fisheries management that should minimally cover:
It should be obvious that the precautionary principle calls for greater caution where less is known. This to us, again, seems straight-forward and is not much different than the way navigation would be conducted if your radar was down between the way you would proceed on a clear day versus a dark and foggy night. In the case of piloting, caution is used to protect the vessel and the safety of the crew. The precautionary principle focus is on the safety of the resource and the fishery.
If we hope to harvest fish at higher, yet sustainable, levels the first step is to understand their life histories and biology better. With the current paucity of data on some fisheries this will be problematic, but arguably less of a problem than harvesting a species at an excessive level, culminating in either depletion or a stock collapse. This fact, more than any other, is why the fishing industry needs to get solidly behind efforts at conducting needed research and assessments and filling the data gaps that now exist with many of our fish stocks.
Management and research have never been seen as part of the job of the fishing community. These tasks have always been located in our agencies, often far away from the waters and communities that are affected by them. Yet who could possibly know better than people who are on the water on a daily basis what is precautionary? We cannot manage by gut instinct, however, and so we will have to keep pressure on the government to fund the needed research. This funding is crucial. Without proper funding for essential research there is no hope of ever understanding what is going on with the fisheries.
In fact, there has probably never been a better time to seek additional fishery and marine research funds than now. The current budget surpluses of the federal and many state governments means that there are public funds that could be made available. That, combined with a greater public attention and in the press on the oceans regarding fishery collapses, gives us perhaps our best opportunity ever to get the money needed for research and stock assessments. We will only have ourselves to blame if we blow this opportunity.
Once the funds are in place we can minimize cost and maximize returns if fishermen and scientists work cooperatively. Fishermen have daily interaction with an area, and also have access to a vessel, while scientists know what to do with data to understand trends and create stock assessment models. This partnership could prove one of the most important in the history of our fisheries. Indeed, this partnership has been encouraged by a number of Congressional leaders, including Senator Ron Wyden and Congressman Sam Farr - "fishermen and scientists have to get together." Rather than spending inordinate amounts of taxpayer money on separate vessels and crew time, why not use the people that are already out there and already have some knowledge about the fish?
This brings us to our third and last suggestion on research, which is that the data that does exist needs to be in an accessible, useable format. Technology exists now, in the form of computer programs, to store and decipher large amounts of data. To date, most of the data that does exist is filed away somewhere in an agency file drawer or is published in a scientific journal that only someone with a Ph.D in Latin could ever decipher. If we, as a society, are going to take an active interest in our resources this knowledge has to be accessible to and useable for all of us.
Currently there is a system for this type of data collection/retrieval in a type of "GIS (geographic information system) plus" system for watersheds called the Klamath Resource Information System (KRIS). This type of system could be applied to ocean waters and marine fisheries to gather existing research findings and data, pinpoint data gaps and where additional research is needed, and serve as a dynamic or "living" system to plug data into as it becomes available, all in an easily accessible and understandable Internet format available to researchers, fishery managers, fishermen, conservation groups and the public. After all, more research, stock assessment and data gathering will do us little good if it is squirreled away in agency file cabinets or closely held by academic researchers where it can never be used.
This effort at getting the funding and implementation of necessary research and assessments and, thereafter, to assure its "liberation" (i.e., through a type of publicly accessible KRIS program) will take a serious commitment on the part of a lot of fishermen in a lot of fisheries. It bears saying here that the precautionary approach used only to assess fish stocks and make management plans will not do much good if we do not implement it across the board for all human caused factors affecting fish productivity, not just harvest. In other words, to go back to our vessel safety analogy, if we use a precautionary approach and change the engine oil every time we come in to dock, but never paint the boat or take any measures to keep it from rotting we're still going to sink. In fisheries management, we have seen this particularly on the Pacific Coast with our salmon runs. While fishing effort on salmon has been systematically cut back, the destruction of spawning and rearing habitat that inexorably will led to near extinction of some runs continues unabated.
Three areas in particular are in need of the application of the precautionary principle, not simply capture fisheries. The first is habitat. With salmon and a number of other commercially-valuable fish stocks, particularly those that are riparian or wetland dependent, merely restricting harvest on a precautionary approach may do little to help stocks unless there is a concomitant use of the principle for the protection of habitat. And, this does not mean just more studies. NMFS's recent decision not to remove the four lower Snake River dams, but instead to commit the issue to further study, is not precautionary but reckless when the vast majority of scientists are telling the agency that breaching these structures in necessary for salmon survival in the Columbia. A precautionary approach also requires actions, not just studying a resource to chart its demise.
The second area where the precautionary approach is needed now is with aquaculture. Pollution, nutrient loading, habitat destruction (e.g., mangrove deforestation in shrimp aquaculture), spread of disease, and escaped fish into the wild are all prevalent problems in many forms of aquaculture. But instead of applying the precautionary principle to the siting and operation of open water "fish farms" and other forms of aquaculture, the National Marine Fisheries Service and some state agencies have become active proponents of aquaculture, abandoning their regulatory roles to become a type of promotional council. Perhaps no state agency has been as guilty of this as has the California Department of Fish & Game, at least under its old leadership. Aquaculture and its known potential for damage to the environment as well as to native fish and shellfish populations may present a much greater threat than any existing capture fishing operation, and therefore must have the same or greater scrutiny applied to its operations. Given the potential magnitude of any problems, the precautionary approach should be strictly applied to aquaculture.
Third, the precautionary principle has to be applied to genetically-engineered fish or "GMOs" (genetically modified organisms). The transgenic salmon recently produced by New Zealand King Salmon Company, Ltd., and Aqua Bounty Farms, Inc. means that, at least in the case of the latter company, a Prince Edward Island-based and U.S.-owned firm, transgenic salmon smolts will be available for sale to salmon growers internationally this summer. Dubbed "frankenfish," these salmon grow at a much faster rate than natural stocks and to a much larger size.
We have extensive evidence that fish are escaping aquaculture facilities; the same facilities that would utilize genetically engineered salmon. These genetically engineered fish, on which there has been no research either for their impact on the natural environment and native fish stocks, or affect on consumers could, therefore, be loose in the environment within two years, unless some action is taken now. The precautionary principle dictates that governments should now be putting in place tough regulations to ensure the fish do not get loose (as well as conduct tests to assure they are even safe to eat and pose no chronic long-term adverse affects for consumers). The precautionary approach must be applied, too, by the World Trade Organization (WTO) to make sure this secretive international body is not used by large corporate interests to override national environmental and human health statutes when it comes to aquaculture and transgenic fish.
The possibilities for disaster in this arena, if we use our imagination, are overwhelming. Why take the chance? One of the biggest fears in the case of the genetically modified organisms is that an individual will escape and that a mutant gene will be introduced into the wild population of salmon. Such a "trojan gene" could, over time, completely alter the species and possibly making them unfit for life in the wild. This may be very worst case scenario, and proponents of using gene-modification say there is no proof, but it is a real possibility. Well, unless you are purposefully playing Russian Roulette here, do you not first make absolutely certain that a gun unloaded before pointing it at a loved-one? On this issue we need to apply the precautionary approach now before it is too late.
The fact of the matter is that in the past Century we have learned as a species, and particularly by some bad examples in our own society, that our resources can become depleted and in some cases disappear forever. At this point we should be managing all of our resources under the precautionary principle, not just fisheries.
The precautionary principle is really just about common sense. As individuals we use the precautionary principle in any situation that involves our own personal safety, at least most of the time. Usually, the ability to weigh these situations increases with age and experience. It is time in this society that we start to use our common sense a little bit more often. Who better to lead this movement than one of the oldest industries on the earth? We have seen it work in the past on discrete stocks of fish, maybe it is time that we insist that we use it universally.
Molly Thomas is a biologist and the Administrator for the Institute for Fisheries Resources. Zeke Grader has spent his lifetime in the west coast fishing industry and is the Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations. PCFFA is the west coast’s largest organization of commercial fishermen. PCFFA’s Southwest Regional Office can be reached at: PO Box 29370, San Francisco, CA 94129-0370 and by phone (415)561-5080. PCFFA’s Northwest Regional Office can be reached at: PO Box 11170, Eugene, OR 97440-3370 and by phone (541)689-2000. PCFFA’s web site is at <http://www.pcffa.org> or PCFFA can be reached by email at <fish1ifr@aol.com>. The Institute for Fisheries Resources is independent of, but affiliated with, PCFFA and can be reached at the same postal and email addresses. The Institute's Internet Home Page is at: <http://www.ifrfish.org>.