I have
previously described the insight
for fisheries that comes from rocket science, in the form of missile guidance
systems. Unlike many fisheries, missile guidance systems identify a clear
target, monitor progress towards hitting the target, and, most importantly,
make decisive corrections the minute evidence suggests the trajectory is off.
The decisive corrections are the biggest difference between missile guidance
and fisheries management systems.
The
benefit of decisive adjustments is robustness, the quality that for me defines sustainability.
Fisheries managed in this manner can sustain healthy stocks and productive
catches even when scientific information is highly uncertain or even wildly
optimistic. The
cost of decisive adjustments is unpredictable catches. Certain fishing
operations might be able to weather days, months, or even years of low catch
quotas, when environmental conditions or inadvertent excessive catches drive
the stock below target levels. However, most fishing operations, including subsistence,
artisanal, and small-scale commercial fleets as well as processors and
distribution chains, have a strong preference for predictable catches. For
them, an alternative path to sustainability is to set conservative catch
quotas, which need not be adjusted so decisively.
The above
conclusions about fisheries are based on theory. It would be reassuring if
there were some evidence that these approaches work to sustain real-world
fisheries. Such evidence is tricky to obtain. True proof of sustainability
would require centuries, or at least many decades, of consistent management
practices during which time fisheries remained healthy. Modern fisheries are
not suitable for this analysis because of major technological advancements and
the paucity of traditional management systems (meaning that current management
is inconsistent with practices from even the recent past). Fortunately, there
are traditional cultures where we know something of their fisheries management
practices and whether they sustained healthy fisheries. In these cases, we do
have evidence that spans centuries to test the concept of rocket science-based
fisheries management.
Not all
indigenous people were conservation-minded stewards of their natural resources.
There are many cases of extinction that can be attributed to overhunting, and
some cases where entire societies collapsed, most likely from resource use that
failed to recognize limitations or failed to adapt to changes in those
limitations. Collapse:
How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, a thoughtful book by Jared
Diamond, details many such cases.
My favorite example of a society which clearly succeeded is the collection
of indigenous tribes that lived along the Lower Klamath River in northern
California. Their success is described in detail by Arthur McEvoy in The
Fisherman’s Problem: Ecology and Law in the California Fisheries, 1850-1980,
and under-read gem for anyone interested in fisheries. The tribes sustained
healthy salmon fisheries for centuries, and salmon was their principle food
source. The strength and splendor of their culture was something to behold,
from ornate art to a stable and invincible society. Unable to conquer them, the
U.S. Government offered them unusually beneficial treaty terms for Native
American tribes, terms that give them substantial say today over water use
throughout the entire Klamath River Basin.
Studies of
indigenous tribes in what is now the State of California show an interesting
pattern. Salmon and acorns (and the deer they supported) were the staple food throughout
the State prior to European contact, and there is a strong correlation between the
supply of these resources and the pre-contact human population density. In most
of the State, the human population was in balance with the available resources.
Two groups were exceptions to this rule. One lived along the Santa Barbara
Channel, where the human population was unusually dense due to the southerly aspect
of the coast, which provides sheltered and reliable access to marine fisheries
and thus an additional food source. The other groups lived in the Lower
Klamath, and maintained human populations that were smaller than what the
resources could provide.
This was no small feat. In the sciences of ecology and economics, the
norm is for populations to fully utilize resources. Nature and people thrive
when they can and, in doing so, tend to use up what is available. Maintaining a
smaller human population would require purposeful underutilization of
resources. The specifics of traditional fisheries management in the Lower
Klamath included exclusive use of a large fishing weir to catch salmon. The
construction of the weir did not begin until after the salmon run started and a
priest had blessed it, a process that took 10 days. The weir was then
dismantled after 10 days of fishing. Salmon that passed through before or after
the weir was in operation escaped upstream. These practices meant that salmon
truly was underutilized.
Recall that this
strategy is one of the two options to achieve sustainability. And did it
succeed! The tribes of the Lower Klamath developed their strength and splendor primarily
off of healthy salmon runs managed sustainably for centuries. Their purposeful “waste”
of fishing opportunities led to great benefits to society, and serve as proof
that a rocket science-based framework can lead to healthy and well-managed
fisheries. The feat of the Lower Klamath tribes was even more notable because
they managed these salmon runs without the use of formal science. In contrast,
we regularly sidestep managing data-poor fisheries under the belief that data
is necessary to manage. Clearly we can do better, and a rocket science-based
approach will be crucial.
Josh
No comments:
Post a Comment