‘Best available science’ approach to management decisions by the Commission for the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Living Resources: consistent or selective?

L. Goldsworthy
{"title":"‘Best available science’ approach to management decisions by the Commission for the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Living Resources: consistent or selective?","authors":"L. Goldsworthy","doi":"10.1080/18366503.2021.1980264","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources is responsible for managing human activities in the Southern Ocean. The Convention’s Commission meets annually to determine management decisions to deliver the Convention’s objective of conservation of Antarctic marine living resources (including rational use). Members are required to base these decisions on the ‘best available scientific advice’, meaning the best scientific information available at the time. Applied correctly this approach is an effective way to implement the precautionary approach required by the Convention. This paper reviews the Commission’s responses to the Scientific Committee’s recommendations, to assess the extent to which it has used best available scientific information in its decision making. It concludes that since 1990, there has been a consistently high uptake of ‘best available science’ by the Commission, particularly for general fisheries regulation and specific finfish fisheries, and that progress is steady on the implementation of long-term krill management. However, there are inconsistencies in the approach to the application of ‘best available science’ for issues that extend outside explicit fisheries management. Without embracing its obligation to consistently use best available science across all management and conservation responsibilities, the Commission will face challenges in effectively delivering the Convention’s objective.","PeriodicalId":37179,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Maritime and Ocean Affairs","volume":"131 1","pages":"53 - 75"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Maritime and Ocean Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/18366503.2021.1980264","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT The Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources is responsible for managing human activities in the Southern Ocean. The Convention’s Commission meets annually to determine management decisions to deliver the Convention’s objective of conservation of Antarctic marine living resources (including rational use). Members are required to base these decisions on the ‘best available scientific advice’, meaning the best scientific information available at the time. Applied correctly this approach is an effective way to implement the precautionary approach required by the Convention. This paper reviews the Commission’s responses to the Scientific Committee’s recommendations, to assess the extent to which it has used best available scientific information in its decision making. It concludes that since 1990, there has been a consistently high uptake of ‘best available science’ by the Commission, particularly for general fisheries regulation and specific finfish fisheries, and that progress is steady on the implementation of long-term krill management. However, there are inconsistencies in the approach to the application of ‘best available science’ for issues that extend outside explicit fisheries management. Without embracing its obligation to consistently use best available science across all management and conservation responsibilities, the Commission will face challenges in effectively delivering the Convention’s objective.
《南极生物资源保护公约》委员会对管理决策采用“现有最佳科学”方法:一贯的还是选择性的?
《南极海洋生物资源养护公约》负责管理人类在南大洋的活动。《公约》委员会每年举行会议,确定管理决策,以实现《公约》保护南极海洋生物资源的目标(包括合理利用)。成员们被要求以“可获得的最佳科学建议”为基础做出这些决定,这意味着当时可获得的最佳科学信息。正确应用这一办法是执行《公约》所要求的预防办法的有效办法。本文回顾了该委员会对科学委员会建议的回应,以评估其在决策中使用现有最佳科学信息的程度。报告的结论是,自1990年以来,委员会一直高度重视“现有的最佳科学”,特别是在一般渔业管理和特定的鳍鱼渔业方面,并且在实施磷虾长期管理方面取得了稳定的进展。然而,在将“现有最佳科学”应用于明确渔业管理之外的问题的方法上存在不一致之处。如果不履行其在所有管理和保护责任中始终如一地利用现有最佳科学的义务,委员会将在有效实现《公约》目标方面面临挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Australian Journal of Maritime and Ocean Affairs
Australian Journal of Maritime and Ocean Affairs Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信