Impediments to fisheries recovery in Canada: Policy and institutional constraints on developing management practices compliant with the precautionary approach

Anna Marie Winter; Jeffrey A. Hutchings

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104161

Impediments to fisheries recovery in Canada: Policy and institutional constraints on developing management practices compliant with the precautionary approach

Anna Marie Winter, Jeffrey A. Hutchings

Medicine

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The status of many Canadian fisheries is poor, a consequence of inadequate implementation of sustainable fishery policy within the context of the Precautionary Approach (PA). A key component of implementation lies with the provision of science advice. Scientists are responsible for advising on options likely to meet policy intent and objectives. Here, we examine PA-compliance in the role of science in Canada's fisheries management decision-making. We distinguish science-based from science-determined decisions and processes. Science-based decisions emerge from consultation processes involving stakeholders; science need not always have a clear and accountable role that can be transparently separable from other inputs. Science-determined decisions result from impartial, publicly available, peer-reviewed scientific determinations clearly distinguishable from other inputs. Our findings are consolidated with a comparison to the European Union (EU), which is legally bound to PA implementation, but which differs in its institutional organization and decision-making process. Compared to the EU, Canada's science advisory process is less structured and transparent, scientific advice is not always clearly distinguishable, and policy formulation is not explicit in affording science a responsibility compliant with the PA. The institutional structure and policy framework in Canada has potential to obfuscate the role of science, leading to an erosion of credibility and accountability of fisheries management decisions. We emphasize the strengths of a structured and transparent decision-making process, the existence of a coherent system for categorizing uncertainty with respective rules for decision-making, and unambiguous definitions of the responsibility of science in sustainable fisheries policy.

Original language	English
Article number	104161
Journal	Marine Policy
Volume	121
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104161
Publication status	Published - Nov 2020

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The authors thank Olav Schram Stokke, Esther Schuch and Andries Richter for helpful discussions and suggestions. We are grateful for the comments and criticisms offered by two anonymous reviewers. The work was supported by NordForsk [projects GreenMAR and TerMARisk, grant number 81513], the Research Council of Norway [project STOCKSHIFT, grant number 257614], the University of Oslo [Kristine Bonnevie travel stipend], and a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery Grant.

Funding Information:
Canada has an exceptionally long-standing fishing history and deep cultural appreciation for fish, which is considered a common property resource to be managed for the benefit of all Canadians [14]. The government recognizes fishing as a public right. The diminished success of Canada's fisheries management stands in contrast to the level of governmental support to the fisheries sector (675,526 million USD per year — almost double the annual landings value; Table 1) and the high economic (1.74 billion USD per year added to Canada's GDP from fisheries alone; Table 1) and public (3 workers per 1000 are occupied in the fishing sector; Table 1) importance of fisheries.Within the EU, fisheries policy decision-making and governance is performed at the EU level as a Community System for Fisheries and Aquaculture [53]. Fisheries management decisions are taken by the Council of Ministers (Council of the EU; legislative branch) in a co-decision process with the European Parliament (legislative branch). The Council considers proposals drawn up by the European Commission (executive branch; Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, DG MARE), which either consults its own scientific advisers (Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee of Fisheries, STECF) or requests advice directly from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). STECF is responsible for providing “sound and timely evidence-based scientific advice for the implementation and monitoring of the EU Common Fisheries Policy” ([54] (6)) and provides its advice while taking account of the scientific work conducted by ICES. The European Commission's Joint Research Centre also supports STECF with (mainly demanded) scientific research, but its role is relatively small in comparison to ICES (only 8 employed scientists in Fisheries and Aquaculture, as of March 2018). While the advice of ICES is purely of a scientific nature, STECF also considers the economic and social impacts of implementing management decisions [52]. In contrast to Canada's Sustainable Fisheries Framework, the CFP has the provision of sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions explicitly as one of its objectives [52].The authors thank Olav Schram Stokke, Esther Schuch and Andries Richter for helpful discussions and suggestions. We are grateful for the comments and criticisms offered by two anonymous reviewers. The work was supported by NordForsk [projects GreenMAR and TerMARisk, grant number 81513], the Research Council of Norway [project STOCKSHIFT, grant number 257614], the University of Oslo [Kristine Bonnevie travel stipend], and a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery Grant.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd

ASJC Scopus Subject Areas

Aquatic Science
General Environmental Science
Economics and Econometrics
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
Law

Access to Document

10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104161

Cite this

@article{d971e42a2c0645cc84acb979b45af41f,

title = "Impediments to fisheries recovery in Canada: Policy and institutional constraints on developing management practices compliant with the precautionary approach",

abstract = "The status of many Canadian fisheries is poor, a consequence of inadequate implementation of sustainable fishery policy within the context of the Precautionary Approach (PA). A key component of implementation lies with the provision of science advice. Scientists are responsible for advising on options likely to meet policy intent and objectives. Here, we examine PA-compliance in the role of science in Canada's fisheries management decision-making. We distinguish science-based from science-determined decisions and processes. Science-based decisions emerge from consultation processes involving stakeholders; science need not always have a clear and accountable role that can be transparently separable from other inputs. Science-determined decisions result from impartial, publicly available, peer-reviewed scientific determinations clearly distinguishable from other inputs. Our findings are consolidated with a comparison to the European Union (EU), which is legally bound to PA implementation, but which differs in its institutional organization and decision-making process. Compared to the EU, Canada's science advisory process is less structured and transparent, scientific advice is not always clearly distinguishable, and policy formulation is not explicit in affording science a responsibility compliant with the PA. The institutional structure and policy framework in Canada has potential to obfuscate the role of science, leading to an erosion of credibility and accountability of fisheries management decisions. We emphasize the strengths of a structured and transparent decision-making process, the existence of a coherent system for categorizing uncertainty with respective rules for decision-making, and unambiguous definitions of the responsibility of science in sustainable fisheries policy.",

author = "Winter, {Anna Marie} and Hutchings, {Jeffrey A.}",

note = "Funding Information: The authors thank Olav Schram Stokke, Esther Schuch and Andries Richter for helpful discussions and suggestions. We are grateful for the comments and criticisms offered by two anonymous reviewers. The work was supported by NordForsk [projects GreenMAR and TerMARisk, grant number 81513], the Research Council of Norway [project STOCKSHIFT, grant number 257614], the University of Oslo [Kristine Bonnevie travel stipend], and a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery Grant. Funding Information: Canada has an exceptionally long-standing fishing history and deep cultural appreciation for fish, which is considered a common property resource to be managed for the benefit of all Canadians [14]. The government recognizes fishing as a public right. The diminished success of Canada's fisheries management stands in contrast to the level of governmental support to the fisheries sector (675,526 million USD per year — almost double the annual landings value; Table 1) and the high economic (1.74 billion USD per year added to Canada's GDP from fisheries alone; Table 1) and public (3 workers per 1000 are occupied in the fishing sector; Table 1) importance of fisheries.Within the EU, fisheries policy decision-making and governance is performed at the EU level as a Community System for Fisheries and Aquaculture [53]. Fisheries management decisions are taken by the Council of Ministers (Council of the EU; legislative branch) in a co-decision process with the European Parliament (legislative branch). The Council considers proposals drawn up by the European Commission (executive branch; Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, DG MARE), which either consults its own scientific advisers (Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee of Fisheries, STECF) or requests advice directly from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). STECF is responsible for providing “sound and timely evidence-based scientific advice for the implementation and monitoring of the EU Common Fisheries Policy” ([54] (6)) and provides its advice while taking account of the scientific work conducted by ICES. The European Commission's Joint Research Centre also supports STECF with (mainly demanded) scientific research, but its role is relatively small in comparison to ICES (only 8 employed scientists in Fisheries and Aquaculture, as of March 2018). While the advice of ICES is purely of a scientific nature, STECF also considers the economic and social impacts of implementing management decisions [52]. In contrast to Canada's Sustainable Fisheries Framework, the CFP has the provision of sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions explicitly as one of its objectives [52].The authors thank Olav Schram Stokke, Esther Schuch and Andries Richter for helpful discussions and suggestions. We are grateful for the comments and criticisms offered by two anonymous reviewers. The work was supported by NordForsk [projects GreenMAR and TerMARisk, grant number 81513], the Research Council of Norway [project STOCKSHIFT, grant number 257614], the University of Oslo [Kristine Bonnevie travel stipend], and a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery Grant. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2020 Elsevier Ltd",

year = "2020",

month = nov,

doi = "10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104161",

language = "English",

volume = "121",

journal = "Marine Policy",

issn = "0308-597X",

publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Impediments to fisheries recovery in Canada

T2 - Policy and institutional constraints on developing management practices compliant with the precautionary approach

AU - Winter, Anna Marie

AU - Hutchings, Jeffrey A.

N1 - Funding Information: The authors thank Olav Schram Stokke, Esther Schuch and Andries Richter for helpful discussions and suggestions. We are grateful for the comments and criticisms offered by two anonymous reviewers. The work was supported by NordForsk [projects GreenMAR and TerMARisk, grant number 81513], the Research Council of Norway [project STOCKSHIFT, grant number 257614], the University of Oslo [Kristine Bonnevie travel stipend], and a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery Grant. Funding Information: Canada has an exceptionally long-standing fishing history and deep cultural appreciation for fish, which is considered a common property resource to be managed for the benefit of all Canadians [14]. The government recognizes fishing as a public right. The diminished success of Canada's fisheries management stands in contrast to the level of governmental support to the fisheries sector (675,526 million USD per year — almost double the annual landings value; Table 1) and the high economic (1.74 billion USD per year added to Canada's GDP from fisheries alone; Table 1) and public (3 workers per 1000 are occupied in the fishing sector; Table 1) importance of fisheries.Within the EU, fisheries policy decision-making and governance is performed at the EU level as a Community System for Fisheries and Aquaculture [53]. Fisheries management decisions are taken by the Council of Ministers (Council of the EU; legislative branch) in a co-decision process with the European Parliament (legislative branch). The Council considers proposals drawn up by the European Commission (executive branch; Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, DG MARE), which either consults its own scientific advisers (Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee of Fisheries, STECF) or requests advice directly from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). STECF is responsible for providing “sound and timely evidence-based scientific advice for the implementation and monitoring of the EU Common Fisheries Policy” ([54] (6)) and provides its advice while taking account of the scientific work conducted by ICES. The European Commission's Joint Research Centre also supports STECF with (mainly demanded) scientific research, but its role is relatively small in comparison to ICES (only 8 employed scientists in Fisheries and Aquaculture, as of March 2018). While the advice of ICES is purely of a scientific nature, STECF also considers the economic and social impacts of implementing management decisions [52]. In contrast to Canada's Sustainable Fisheries Framework, the CFP has the provision of sustainable economic, environmental and social conditions explicitly as one of its objectives [52].The authors thank Olav Schram Stokke, Esther Schuch and Andries Richter for helpful discussions and suggestions. We are grateful for the comments and criticisms offered by two anonymous reviewers. The work was supported by NordForsk [projects GreenMAR and TerMARisk, grant number 81513], the Research Council of Norway [project STOCKSHIFT, grant number 257614], the University of Oslo [Kristine Bonnevie travel stipend], and a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery Grant. Publisher Copyright: © 2020 Elsevier Ltd

PY - 2020/11

Y1 - 2020/11

N2 - The status of many Canadian fisheries is poor, a consequence of inadequate implementation of sustainable fishery policy within the context of the Precautionary Approach (PA). A key component of implementation lies with the provision of science advice. Scientists are responsible for advising on options likely to meet policy intent and objectives. Here, we examine PA-compliance in the role of science in Canada's fisheries management decision-making. We distinguish science-based from science-determined decisions and processes. Science-based decisions emerge from consultation processes involving stakeholders; science need not always have a clear and accountable role that can be transparently separable from other inputs. Science-determined decisions result from impartial, publicly available, peer-reviewed scientific determinations clearly distinguishable from other inputs. Our findings are consolidated with a comparison to the European Union (EU), which is legally bound to PA implementation, but which differs in its institutional organization and decision-making process. Compared to the EU, Canada's science advisory process is less structured and transparent, scientific advice is not always clearly distinguishable, and policy formulation is not explicit in affording science a responsibility compliant with the PA. The institutional structure and policy framework in Canada has potential to obfuscate the role of science, leading to an erosion of credibility and accountability of fisheries management decisions. We emphasize the strengths of a structured and transparent decision-making process, the existence of a coherent system for categorizing uncertainty with respective rules for decision-making, and unambiguous definitions of the responsibility of science in sustainable fisheries policy.

AB - The status of many Canadian fisheries is poor, a consequence of inadequate implementation of sustainable fishery policy within the context of the Precautionary Approach (PA). A key component of implementation lies with the provision of science advice. Scientists are responsible for advising on options likely to meet policy intent and objectives. Here, we examine PA-compliance in the role of science in Canada's fisheries management decision-making. We distinguish science-based from science-determined decisions and processes. Science-based decisions emerge from consultation processes involving stakeholders; science need not always have a clear and accountable role that can be transparently separable from other inputs. Science-determined decisions result from impartial, publicly available, peer-reviewed scientific determinations clearly distinguishable from other inputs. Our findings are consolidated with a comparison to the European Union (EU), which is legally bound to PA implementation, but which differs in its institutional organization and decision-making process. Compared to the EU, Canada's science advisory process is less structured and transparent, scientific advice is not always clearly distinguishable, and policy formulation is not explicit in affording science a responsibility compliant with the PA. The institutional structure and policy framework in Canada has potential to obfuscate the role of science, leading to an erosion of credibility and accountability of fisheries management decisions. We emphasize the strengths of a structured and transparent decision-making process, the existence of a coherent system for categorizing uncertainty with respective rules for decision-making, and unambiguous definitions of the responsibility of science in sustainable fisheries policy.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85090585535&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85090585535&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104161

DO - 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104161

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85090585535

SN - 0308-597X

VL - 121

JO - Marine Policy

JF - Marine Policy

M1 - 104161

ER -

Impediments to fisheries recovery in Canada: Policy and institutional constraints on developing management practices compliant with the precautionary approach

Abstract

Bibliographical note

ASJC Scopus Subject Areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this