Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
(2014)
Minimizing seabird bycatch in industrial fisheries
(2014)
Challenges in seabird bycatch mitigation
C. Boyd (2014)
Minimizing seabird by‐catch in industrial fisheriesAnimal Conservation, 17
Marco Favero, J. Pon (2014)
Challenges in seabird by‐catch mitigationAnimal Conservation, 17
B. Watkins, S. Petersen, Peter Ryan (2008)
Interactions between seabirds and deep‐water hake trawl gear: an assessment of impacts in South African watersAnimal Conservation, 11
B. Maree, R. Wanless, T. Fairweather, B. Sullivan, O. Yates (2014)
Significant reductions in mortality of threatened seabirds in a South African trawl fisheryAnimal Conservation, 17
Favero & Seco Pon ( ) and Boyd ( ) make some valuable points regarding the difficulties in and needs for widespread implementation of seabird bycatch mitigation measures in various fisheries. Boyd considers the different approaches to addressing the vexatious issue of driving change within, and the related issue of compliance, monitoring and surveillance of fishing operations. In principle, we fully support incentivizing and motivating vessel operators (or other levels of management within a fishery). However the dichotomy established by Boyd ( ) is probably unnecessary – imposing regulations (‘command‐and‐control’) and finding mechanisms to incentivize compliance with those regulations are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, in our paper (Maree et al ., ), we introduce the incentive of Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification as a key contributor to the success of the fishery in implementing a regulated measure in South Africa. We have little doubt that without that incentive, the initial assessment (reported by Watkins, Petersen & Ryan, ) would not have taken place when it did, let alone providing rights holders in the fishery with the incentive to use of bird scaring lines. In support of that notion, Favero & Seco Pon ( ) highlight the stark contrast between the South African trawl fishery, and near‐identical analogues operating in the South‐West Atlantic, but which do not have MSC certification. In the latter, and despite many years of active involvement by Albatross Task Force teams, the use of bird‐scaring lines is virtually or entirely absent in some fleets (Albatross Task Force, unpubl. data). Within South Africa's trawl fishery, as noted by Maree et al . ( ), compliance improved over time despite the existence of a very powerful incentive (retaining MSC certification). It is unwise to assume that all participants in a fishery will agree with and accept the imperative to modify their operations (through operational changes, gear changes or use of mitigation devices). It is our belief that within a group (e.g. fishing masters, rights holders or similar) there will be a range of responses to change, and resistance (which is most likely expressed as non‐compliance) should be expected from some quarters. This view is informed directly by the South African experience. Put bluntly, some ‘get it’ and change, while others do not, despite regulations and incentives. We found that it requires consistent interventions from multiple angles (civil society, industry bodies and the government) to bring most operators in line under most circumstances. In support of views already expressed (Boyd, ; Favero & Seco Pon, ), we found it essential to have a presence on the deck. This facilitated maintained awareness within crews, and allowed us to witness first hand any difficulties that might be encountered. A presence onboard (e.g. through trained observers or fisheries liaison officers) gives fishers a tangible mechanism to influence the design specifications and regulations around how and when measures should be implemented. As Boyd ( ) noted, fishers often have a very good sense of what will and will not work onboard their vessels. The specifications of the current bird‐scaring line regulations in South Africa are the direct result of engagement with fishing crew, and trialling variants to ensure that safety, operational practicality, and performance of the lines with respect to preventing cable strikes could be optimized. Elsewhere, we have heard the view expressed by fishers (who profess to be fully supportive of proposed changes), that unless the measures are made mandatory, they see no point in changing. Regulations have the effect of either ensuring uniform imposition of the ‘costs’ (including notional costs such as the effort of changing practices on deck) or providing a mechanism for censure against non‐compliance. But regulations are seldom sufficient, and incentivizing change is a key ingredient to driving widespread change.
Animal Conservation – Wiley
Published: Jan 1, 2014
You can share this free article with as many people as you like with the url below! We hope you enjoy this feature!
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.