scholarly journals Untimely publications: Delayed Canadian fisheries science advice limits transparency of decision-making

Marine Policy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 132 ◽  
pp. 104690
Author(s):  
D.W. Archibald ◽  
R. McIver ◽  
R. Rangeley
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Fisheries Science ◽  
Science Advice

scholarly journals Shifts in fisheries management: adapting to regime shifts

2015 ◽  
Vol 370 (1659) ◽  
pp. 20130277 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacquelynne R. King ◽  
Gordon A. McFarlane ◽  
André E. Punt
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Fisheries Management ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Regime Shifts ◽  
Sustainable Yield ◽  
Environmental Forcing ◽  
Ocean Variability ◽  
Fisheries Science ◽  
Fisheries Resources ◽  
Limited Success

For many years, fisheries management was based on optimizing yield and maintaining a target biomass, with little regard given to low-frequency environmental forcing. However, this policy was often unsuccessful. In the last two to three decades, fisheries science and management have undergone a shift towards balancing sustainable yield with conservation, with the goal of including ecosystem considerations in decision-making frameworks. Scientific understanding of low-frequency climate–ocean variability, which is manifested as ecosystem regime shifts and states, has led to attempts to incorporate these shifts and states into fisheries assessment and management. To date, operationalizing these attempts to provide tactical advice has met with limited success. We review efforts to incorporate regime shifts and states into the assessment and management of fisheries resources, propose directions for future investigation and outline a potential framework to include regime shifts and changes in ecosystem states into fisheries management.

Science for Canada’s Shelf-Seas Fisheries

1975 ◽  
Vol 32 (10) ◽  
pp. 1887-1932 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. A. Regier ◽  
F. D. McCracken
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Common Property ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Deep Ocean ◽  
Broad Perspective ◽  
Fisheries Science ◽  
Fisheries Resources ◽  
Research Activities ◽  
Shelf Seas ◽  
Experimental Management

From an analysis of major national and international policy issues we judge that a vast cultural and political transformation is now underway. In particular, the common property–open access–willing consent regime towards fisheries development and management will be replaced by some workable alternative. For example, a system of national quotas based on stock by stock total allowable catches, subject to an overall constraint of "full utilization," will likely be found to be impractical. These and related aspects are elaborated for fisheries, and apply also to other resource and environmental issues. Scientific information and research programs must obviously relate to such developments.Canada is reasonably well endowed with conventional scientific and technical competence on fisheries matters. Important and potentially useful innovative science has languished recently; appropriate institutional infrastructures and planning processes to stimulate and direct fisheries science within the country have been absent for several years. Scientific services on the whole remain unorganized. Given these circumstances our recommendations are aimed toward development of perspectives and mechanisms that will help set the scientific process in motion into new directions where necessary. The major "gap in knowledge" relates to the inability of so many conventional disciplined scientists to understand other disciplines’ approaches and we propose a variety of means by which such constraints may be relaxed.A Canadian perspective for tomorrow’s science, related particularly to shelf-seas fisheries resources, should include the following. The client institutions that will use scientific information and insight will likely be organized in three geographic areas: inshore national waters, shelf and nearshore seas, and the distant deep ocean. The three basic components of a balanced scientific information system are: area maps, temporal series of monitored data, and models of causal mechanisms derived from experimentation and simulation. Decision-making is a transdisciplinary activity and appropriate frameworks are needed for identifying relevant research. A policy that users and abusers of resources and the environment should pay for their respective benefits achieved and disbenefits externalized implies that the separate and joint effects of the various uses and abuses be measured. Technical services and scientific research must be made more effective, efficient, and accountable, but must be flexible to accommodate both individual creativity and further political changes.We recommend that 1) separate foci be identified and appropriate infrastructures be developed for carefully planned transdisciplinary programs in: mapping; monitoring; management–harvest protocols; and modeling research involving synthesis, experimentation, and simulation. 2) New fisheries policies and agency infrastructures now developing should include the capability to undertake sophisticated experimental management on an ongoing basis. 3) Some further explicit division of labor is advisable, within the group of scientific and technical personnel, to produce three sets: technical experts whose work is dictated by programs; mission-oriented generalists to take the lead in planning and directing scientific information services and research activities with special accountability responsibilities; and self-directed creative scientists to innovate and ruminate. 4) Scientific credibility, now slumping, must be recaptured — in part by insulating key scientists from direct political involvement within national and international decision-making. 5) Canada’s sea-going research capability is lagging behind that of some other nations and must be enhanced accordingly. These practical recommendations all relate to the five aspects of the broad perspective sketched earlier. The recommendations are not listed in priority sequence and we advise that action should now proceed on all of them.

scholarly journals A review of the past, the present, and the future of fishers' knowledge research: a challenge to established fisheries science

2014 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 341-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward J. Hind
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Productive Activity ◽  
Fisheries Science ◽  
The Past ◽  
Knowledge Cultures ◽  
The Future ◽  
Qualitative Knowledge ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Fishers' knowledge research is an approach to fisheries research that has a relatively long history, yet has generally failed to become integrated into the fisheries science mainstream alongside approaches that rely primarily on the knowledge of professional scientists. Its continued position on the margins of fisheries science has not however stopped fishers' knowledge researchers from publishing an expanding literature, which they often use to advocate for the greater consideration of fishers' knowledge by fisheries scientists and managers. They believe that the unique and often highly qualitative knowledge of fishers could inform better decision-making, resulting in improved socio-ecological outcomes for fisheries. This review first outlines the scope of the fishers' knowledge literature, before outlining five waves of fishers' knowledge research that have developed over the last century. For each wave, the nature of the fishers' knowledge documented during it is noted, as is the research and dissemination approach taken by its practitioners. The impact of that wave on mainstream fisheries science is then assessed. Overall, it is found that only one wave of fishers' knowledge research is beginning to have consistent success integrating with mainstream fisheries science, a wave that omits the research of many of the unique elements of fishers' knowledge. Other waves have died out, or are in danger of dying out, either because they have failed to be noticed by mainstream fisheries scientists or because mainstream fisheries scientists have not welcomed their outputs. It is summarized that fishers' knowledge research will only continue as a productive activity if mainstream fisheries scientists begin to open their discipline to other knowledge cultures and if fishers' knowledge researchers facilitate this action by disseminating their research so that it is more accessible to these scientists.

scholarly journals Reflections on science advisory systems in Canada

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Remi Quirion ◽  
Arthur Carty ◽  
Paul Dufour ◽  
Ramia Jabr
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Scientific Development ◽  
Recent Experience ◽  
Science Advisory ◽  
Science Advice ◽  
Complex Decision Making ◽  
Solid Foundation ◽  
Advisory Systems ◽  
The Impact

Abstract As the evolution of our world has triggered complexity and technological sophistication, it is now essential to consider sound scientific evidence as an integral element of decision-making. Science advisers or chief scientists have to take into account many factors in giving advice. Depending on the nature and level of advice, factors such as the ideology of the governing body, the state of the social, economic and scientific development in the country or region, potential impacts on the health, environment and security of the community, the balance of risk and reward in various options, must all be considered. Canada has lived through a few of these issues in its recent experience with science advice and advisory systems. This article will elaborate on the impact and influence of changes in science advisory bodies at the federal and Quebec government levels and will provide a perspective on their impact. It examines the historical evolution of the advisory apparatus for science throughout Canada’s history and underscores some of their successes and failures under different regimes. The conclusion drawn in this article is that science and science advisory systems in Canada have lacked continuity and a solid foundation thus weakening efforts to enable sound science-based policy into decision-making. The article argues for a more institutionalized and pluralistic approach to ensuring that evidence and science advice can endure—both at the federal and provincial levels. In many ways, the experience with these advisory mechanisms suggests a growing need to ensure sound advice within increasingly complex decision-making as well as a demand by citizens to have scientific evidence considered more carefully in public policy and for the public interest. This article is published as part of a collection on scientific advice to governments.

scholarly journals Advocacy science and fisheries decision-making

2011 ◽  
Vol 68 (10) ◽  
pp. 2007-2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jake C. Rice
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Ecological Economic ◽  
Privileged Position ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Science Advice ◽  
Different Types ◽  
The Right ◽  
Governance Processes ◽  
The Impact

AbstractRice, J. C. 2011. Advocacy science and fisheries decision-making. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 68: 2007–2012. Science advice is supposed to meet idealistic standards for objectivity, impartiality, and lack of bias. Acknowledging that science advisors are imperfect at meeting those standards, they nonetheless need to strive to produce sound, non-partisan advice, because of the privileged accountability given to science advice in decision-making. When science advisors cease to strive for those ideals and promote advocacy science, such advice loses the right to that privileged position. There are temptations to shape science advice by using information that “strengthens” the conservation case selectively. Giving in to such temptation, however, dooms the advice; science advice becomes viewed as expressions of the biases of those who provide it rather than reflecting the information on which the advice is based. Everyone, including the ecosystems, loses. There are ways to increase the impact of science advice on decision-making that do not involve perverting science advice into advocacy: peer review by diverse experts, integrating advice on ecological, economic, and social information and outcomes, and focusing advisory approaches on risks, costs, and trade-offs of different types of management error. These approaches allow the science experts to be active, informed participants in the governance processes to aid sound decision-making, not to press for preselected outcomes. Everyone, including the ecosystems, wins.

scholarly journals Fishing in the Dark: Science, Values and Deep Water Fisheries Research

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Isabella Cawthorn
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Fisheries Management ◽  
Deep Water ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Scientific Process ◽  
High Stakes ◽  
Fisheries Science ◽  
Scientific Analysis ◽  
Scientific Decision ◽  
Slow Growing

<p>This research sought to assesss the safeguards protecting scientific objectivity in New Zealand deep-water fisheries science decision-making fora. Managing depleted, slow-growing and poorly-understood stocks demands particularly accurate, objective scientific information. New Zealand's Ministry of Fisheries undertakes deep-water fisheries management in an nformation-poor, high-stakes context. This context means neither of the two strictly separate policy and scientific advice processes is able, in isolation, to provide advice confidently. Preliminary investigations suggested that to enable the Ministry to meet the ongoing need for management of deep-water fishing, science fora are effectively taking on a quasi-policy role.  This research investigated whether deep-water fisheries science processes have sufficient safeguards to protect the objectivity of scientific decision-making in this difficult climate, thereby ensuring maximum accuracy in their advice. Twentytwo personal interviews were conducted with key informants, and analysed using grounded theory. Themes thus revealed were analysed in light of concepts from economics, philosophy of science and institutional analysis literature. Research suggested that the scientific process is ill-suited for handling non-scientific judgements, and the spread of non-scientific considerations into scientific fora is risking the objectivity of scientific analysis which is critical for fisheries management. Imbalanced stakeholder representation in scientific fora further imperils objectivity in these fora, with potentially significant implications for sustainable fisheries management.</p>

scholarly journals Fishing in the Dark: Science, Values and Deep Water Fisheries Research

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Isabella Cawthorn
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Fisheries Management ◽  
Deep Water ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Scientific Process ◽  
High Stakes ◽  
Fisheries Science ◽  
Scientific Analysis ◽  
Scientific Decision ◽  
Slow Growing

<p>This research sought to assesss the safeguards protecting scientific objectivity in New Zealand deep-water fisheries science decision-making fora. Managing depleted, slow-growing and poorly-understood stocks demands particularly accurate, objective scientific information. New Zealand's Ministry of Fisheries undertakes deep-water fisheries management in an nformation-poor, high-stakes context. This context means neither of the two strictly separate policy and scientific advice processes is able, in isolation, to provide advice confidently. Preliminary investigations suggested that to enable the Ministry to meet the ongoing need for management of deep-water fishing, science fora are effectively taking on a quasi-policy role.  This research investigated whether deep-water fisheries science processes have sufficient safeguards to protect the objectivity of scientific decision-making in this difficult climate, thereby ensuring maximum accuracy in their advice. Twentytwo personal interviews were conducted with key informants, and analysed using grounded theory. Themes thus revealed were analysed in light of concepts from economics, philosophy of science and institutional analysis literature. Research suggested that the scientific process is ill-suited for handling non-scientific judgements, and the spread of non-scientific considerations into scientific fora is risking the objectivity of scientific analysis which is critical for fisheries management. Imbalanced stakeholder representation in scientific fora further imperils objectivity in these fora, with potentially significant implications for sustainable fisheries management.</p>

Fisheries Management Sciences: a plea for conceptual change

1995 ◽  
Vol 52 (9) ◽  
pp. 2051-2056 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert L. Stephenson ◽  
Daniel E. Lane
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Fisheries Management ◽  
Management Science ◽  
New Paradigm ◽  
Management Scenarios ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Fisheries Science ◽  
Traditional Fields ◽  
Managing Risk ◽  
Economic Considerations

Recent fishery failures, combined with changing views on management, point to the critical and urgent need for a new approach to fisheries management. Future management should focus on integrated fisheries, rather than solely on fish populations, and will require an appropriate combination of biological considerations with operational, social, and economic considerations of the fishery. This requires development of both a conceptual framework and an appropriate methodology for interdisciplinary decision making in fisheries management. We propose integration of the traditional fields of fisheries science and management with the scientific approach of management science to form Fisheries Management Science. Fisheries management science provides the framework and methodologies for defining multiple objectives and constraints, modelling alternative management scenarios, and assessing and managing risk. This framework accepts diverse information sources toward anticipatory decision making and consensus building, and offers a new paradigm within which effective fisheries management can emerge.

Discarding optimality: Throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Simen ◽  
Fuat Balcı
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Perceptual Decision Making ◽  
Reward Rate ◽  
Perceptual Decision ◽  
Standard Observer ◽  
Rate Maximization ◽  
Reward Rate Maximization ◽  
Descriptive Standard ◽  
Observer Model

AbstractRahnev & Denison (R&D) argue against normative theories and in favor of a more descriptive “standard observer model” of perceptual decision making. We agree with the authors in many respects, but we argue that optimality (specifically, reward-rate maximization) has proved demonstrably useful as a hypothesis, contrary to the authors’ claims.

LPCD framework: Analytical tool or psychological model?

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Danks
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Analytical Tool ◽  
Mathematical Framework ◽  
Bayesian Decision ◽  
Perceptual Decision Making ◽  
Psychological Model ◽  
Psychological Reality ◽  
Psychological Theories ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Bayesian Decision Making

AbstractThe target article uses a mathematical framework derived from Bayesian decision making to demonstrate suboptimal decision making but then attributes psychological reality to the framework components. Rahnev & Denison's (R&D) positive proposal thus risks ignoring plausible psychological theories that could implement complex perceptual decision making. We must be careful not to slide from success with an analytical tool to the reality of the tool components.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document