5.  DISCUSSION

The largely F-based reference points discussed in this paper reflect almost a century of development of the ideas pertaining to the dynamics and management of fishery resources. They are now technically complex (in relation to the skills of most managers), require considerable quantities of data, usually collected systematically over many years, are fraught with uncertainty, and need good judgement to apply. Due to their cost of application, they are probably unavailable as tools for managers of most small stocks, and outside the reach of managers in most developing countries, due to their technical complexity. Furthermore, even in those areas where there is abundant data, and the best technical expertise, they have not always provided an adequate basis for sustainable harvesting of fishery resources, although this may be largely because, in the final analysis, strict rules for their application have not been followed.

There are many sources of uncertainty in the estimation and application of references points in fisheries management. The estimation and communication of this uncertainty is increasingly a focus in stock assessment. The methods used in developed countries are usually complex and require extensive data. Given the wide variety of sources of uncertainty, it appears unlikely that all factors which may contribute to the probability of an undesirable event can be accounted for in estimating its probability.

For those stocks where the data and expertise are available, and where the value of the resource can support the associated costs, the current trend should lead to significant improvements in management. However, for the thousands of small/and little studied stocks, mostly in the developing world, these methods will not be applicable in the foreseeable future, and it will be necessary to take a conservative or precautionary approach in a situation of poor stock data in order to account for uncertainty and mitigate risk.

In practical terms, this will mean that many users and managers must accept that they will not have good formal estimates of risk in the near future. Consequently, in order to manage sustainably and responsibly they will have to use the best available information to define, albeit arbitrarily, an acceptable level of risk, and to agree upon often empirical target and limit reference points consistent with the reduction of risk to acceptable levels.

The common perception has been that the failure of management has been due to errors and uncertainties in models: a failure that can be remedied by more investment in technical advice. If this is true, it poses major problems for managing small resources, and for management bodies with limited funds and trained manpower. We may question, however, if the lack of technical advice is the real problem. The lack of inadequacy of the institutional framework for implementation may be as significant a contributory factor in the failure of fisheries management as it appears to be in the case of fisheries development (O'Boyle 1993, Bailey and Jentoft 1990).

What we are proposing here is that within the framework of management, some specific attempts be made to set limits to exploitation, and arrange the flow of advice and decision-making in such a way that ‘precaution’ is the key word for management action, and the setting of practical limits to exploitation, management actions should be based on information, not be decoupled from the fishery it is intended to serve.

There appears to be a variety of straightforward reference points which could be adopted in a participatory manner as conventions, were which might serve to limit exploitation to population sizes which can support sustainable yields. Many of these are based, albeit loosely, on the models which are used to derive the Reference Points in Table 4. However, the emphasis in applying them is different; it is on establishing mechanisms by which management can be implemented almost automatically, on the basis of prior agreement, once there is evidence that a limiting resource condition is in danger of arising.

From the preceding review, it is evident that fishery management reference points are ultimately set by convention. As such, where data and expertise are available and cost effective, they may be technically based, and may be considered in the context of a formal evaluation of risk and uncertainty. However, they may also be based on intuition, traditional knowledge, or just plain common sense. They must be responsible, and where necessary precautionary. Regardless of their basis, to be successfully applied, they must have a public justification and be agreed upon in advance by the participants in the fishery.

To some extent, the perception that fishery management must be based entirely on technically derived reference points has provided decision makers with an excuse to avoid difficult decisions, and has excluded knowledgeable non-technical inputs to the management process. For fisheries management to move beyond its current impasse in industrialised fishing regions, and to make its rightful contribution to economic enfranchisement in developing countries, there must be a new focus on the fishery management process, at national and international levels, with the technical inputs placed correctly in a supporting role, and the flow of advice consultation, and decision-making clearly identified.

The process of applying Target and Limit Reference Points requires a formal institutional mechanism in which they are discussed, agreed upon, and which their implementation overseen. Implementation, in turn must be formally vested in the appropriate national and international agency which can apply the management tools and monitoring systems required to reach a TRP, and ensure that pre-established LRPs and their unfortunate consequences, are avoided.

The required change in advisory and decision-making mechanisms for fisheries management must not just focus on desirable targets, but must meet requirements for action based on Limit Reference Points and precautionary principles. The suggestions provided here are not intended to be peremptory, but simply to promote debate on possible structures and to bring the problem more fully into focus. The problem does not just fall within the ambit of fisheries science under classical ‘biological and bioeconomic approaches’ (Anderson 1987): a proper evaluation of risk and decision-making under a precautionary approach, cannot avoid assessing the efficiency of the management system as a whole.

Absolute dominance in decision making by a non-technical senior committee is not necessarily compatible with precautionary management especially when the resource is in danger. A system of checks and balances involving two groups with different membership, and specific, complementary skills and powers offers the possibility of a flexible precautionary response to unplanned technological changes and other ‘surprises’ that fisheries are subject to. It also offers the possibility of placing fisheries within the broader context of coastal zone management. The dominance might even be allowed to shift between the two groups depending on the state of the stock.

It thus seems advisable for the State(s) concerned to provide for not only a body responsible for routine assessment and management, but also a review body whose role is specifically to limit or override management measures or errors that may lead to resource collapse and/or associated negative effects on national ecosystems. This function could be incorporated within national structures which are already in place for reviewing the health of aquatic ecosystems and their living resources. Such a system of mutual constraints by government bodies should help ensure that long-term natural resource constraints are not subordinate to short-term economic expediency.