Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
considered to be most fundamental to the environmental sustainability of a species
or farming operation are considered first and thus have a relatively larger effect on
the final outcome for that fishery unit or farm. This is shown graphically in Figures
16.2 and 16.3, where the horizontal spacing between BA, S and M for DP1 is much
greater than it is for DP5. This hierarchical system is an alternative to the need
for numerical scoring and weighting values, although as discussed above, more
quantitative scoring can be introduced, if required.
16.4.1
Wild fisheries decision-ranking tool
The hierarchical structure of the decision-ranking tool places the greatest weight on
those factors considered first, and since both stock status and fishery management
are so essential to a fishery's long-term viability, the wild fisheries decision-ranking
tool (WDRT) starts with stock status (DP1) and fishery management (DP2) in eval-
uating an individual fishery unit. The health of the stock, depletion definitions,
control rules and stock assessment protocols are evaluated within DP1. DP2 evalu-
ates the nature of the fishery management plan (e.g. precautionary versus reactive);
monitoring, reporting, research and enforcement methods in the fishery; and stock
rebuilding measures. Stock status and fishery management were selected as the most
significant DPs for wild-catch fisheries. The independent outcomes of these two
DPs are combined in an additive model with five solution paths (Figure 16.4). The
result is a single ranking that is entered into the WDRT at the top level (see Figure
16.2). From there, each subsequent DP is assessed sequentially as discussed above.
The bycatch of endangered species, often described as 'incidental take', is as-
sessed in DP3. According to the US Endangered Species Act of 1973, the 'take' of
Figure 16.4 Merging the evaluation of DP1 (stock status) and DP2 (fishery management) within the
wild fisheries WDRT. The respective outcomes from DP1 and DP2 are combined in an additive model
yielding five solution paths. The result is then placed into the main matrix (Fig. 16.2) prior to continuing
with the evaluation of DP3 through to DP5.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search