Improving the Use of the "Best Scientific Information Available" Standard in Fisheries Management (2004) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4 Findings and Recommendations
4 Findings and Recommendations
Pages 51-62
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 51... ...
Sometimes these decisions are based on scientific information that contains substantial uncertainty. In addition, significant regional differences exist in fisheries, in the social and economic constraints on the industries involved, and in the types and amounts of scientific information available to decision makers.
|
From page 52... ...
· It is not tenable to require a threshold of scientific certainty before making management decisions because National Standard 2 requires that managers make the best possible decisions based on the scientific information available. · When presented with an explicit expression of the risks of management options, decision makers are better able to evaluate actions relative to the potential consequences of undesirable or irreversible outcomes.
|
From page 53... ...
· There are regional, as well as fishery-specific, differences in the quality and quantity of scientific information available; the means of ranking data quality; and the degree of transparency about data inclusion in the development of stock assessments and FMPs. This makes it difficult, in some cases, to assess the degree to which scientific information is used from council to council.
|
From page 54... ...
This would provide greater consistency across regions so that given the same information, each region would be expected to develop similar assessments of what is the "best scientific information available." The guidelines must be sufficiently flexible to accommodate the strong regional differences in fisheries and the scientific information available. The guidelines should be used by fisheries science centers, fishery management councils, and all other entities or parties that produce and/or use scientific information for fisheries management.
|
From page 55... ...
The most constructive alternative to such a definition is the development of agency guidelines that provide standards for ensuring consistency in the application of "best scientific information available," as required by National Standard 2. However, scientific information is not readily categorized by its quality because it is conditional on the current state of knowledge.
|
From page 56... ...
Transparency and Openness -- Congress has enacted laws intended to give the public full and open access to the development of federal policies, including advisory meetings, background documents, and other sources of information. Accordingly, the public should have information about each phase of the process from data collection to data analysis to decision making.
|
From page 57... ...
, working with the Regional Fishery Management Councils and the interstate fisheries commissions, should develop a process for independent review of the scientific information generated by the Scientific and Statistical Committees in all regions." Each region should have some flexibility to adapt peer reviews to individual circumstances. However, the following key elements should be included: · the review should be conducted by experts who were not in volved in the preparation of the documents or the analysis con tained in them; · the reviewers should not have conflicts of interest that would constrain their ability to provide honest, objective advice; · all relevant information and supporting materials should be made available for review; and
|
From page 58... ...
when one or a combination of the following circumstances applies: questions exceed the expertise of the internal review team, there is substantial scientific uncertainty, the findings are controversial, or there are a range of scientific opinions regarding the proposed action. Adherence to National Standard 2 NOAA Fisheries should require each fishery management council to provide explicit findings on how scientific information was used to develop or amend a FMP.
|
From page 59... ...
fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico, illustrate that the very structure of the MagnusonStevens Act sometimes impairs the goals of employing, adhering to, and applying the "best scientific information available." The reason for this is that the "best scientific information available" is only one goal among many in a set of national standards that include efficiency, cost minimization, bycatch avoidance, nondiscrimination, and protection of fishing communities. The "science" of the matter is thus in a constant "balancing" competition with other political and economic factors.
|
From page 60... ...
A rigorous secretarial review of the use of scientific information will result in a feedback process that will improve the ability of fishery management councils to prepare FMPs that better meet National Standard 2 and minimize the need for intervention by the courts. The goal is to reduce the pressure on all parties to tailor the management plans to the interests of any one constituency, regardless of the scientific findings.
|
From page 61... ...
This suggests that the framers of the law intended NOAA Fisheries to acquire the scientific information necessary for effective fisheries management. Although use of the "best scientific information available" may involve applying incomplete information to determine management actions, it is not sufficient to rely on inadequate information over the longer term.
|
From page 62... ...
Indeed, a key goal of this report has been to develop guidelines to ensure that management actions are based on the "best scientific information available" as required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, starting with the premise that the scientific information has undergone sufficient peer review to ensure that the methods of data collection, scientific analysis, and scientific conclusions are explicit, transparent (includes the rationale used for the inclusion or exclusion of specific data sets) , and accepted as the best available.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.