ASFB Home > 2001 > Is there more to the meaning of life than data?

Is there more to the meaning of life than data?

Benj Whitworth, Jean Chesson, Rick Fletcher and Keith Sainsbury

Benj Whitworth and Jean Chesson, are Scientist and Principal Scientist respectively in the Bureau of Rural Sciences (G.P.O. Box 858, Canberra, A.C.T. 2601). Rick Fletcher is a Supervising Scientist in the Research Division of the Department of Fisheries, Western Australia (P.O. Box 20, North Beach, W.A. 6020) and Keith Sainsbury is a Senior Principal Research Scientist at the CSIRO Division of Marine Research (G.P.O. Box 1538, Hobart, Tas., 7001)

The title of this workshop suggests that there are two classes of fisheries – the haves and the have-nots – as measured by their data. But what does it mean to be data-rich or data-poor? Are data-rich fisheries happier than data-poor fisheries? Are data-rich fisheries just as data-limited as are data-poor fisheries?

We address these questions by asking why fisheries want or need data (A fishery is defined as a group of people who are involved with harvesting fish. They are usually specified in terms of the methods they use, the area they operate in and/or the species they catch.). Using the National Ecologically Sustainable Development Reporting Framework for Australian Fisheries developed by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (See Fletcher, et al. 2002) as a convenient way of structuring the discussion, we argue that it is a matter of matching the management of the fishery with the type and level of data collection.

Breaking the ‘data poor - collect more data’ link

Fishery managers and scientists often link automatically the state of ‘data poor’ with the strategy of ‘collect more data’. However, this strategy is not always appropriate. To determine when data is limiting and to prioritise the order of data collection (because data collection is costly) we need to determine where data limitations are having the greatest impact on fishery management. Fisheries are managed according to the principles of ecologically sustainable development (ESD) and this is defined in the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (1992) as 'using, conserving and enhancing the community’s resources so that ecological processes, on which life depends, are maintained, and the total quality of life, now and in the future, can be increased.'

The National ESD Reporting Framework for Australia’s fisheries has divided ESD into the following major components and sub-components:

Contributions of the fishery to ecological well-being

• Retained species
• Non-retained species
• Other aspects of the environment

Contributions of the fishery to human well-being

• Indigenous well-being
• Local and regional well-being
• National social and economic well-being

Ability of a fishery to contribute

• Governance
• Impact of the environment on the fishery

Each of these components is further subdivided to suit the needs of a particular fishery using the component tree techniques developed by the Bureau of Rural Sciences (Chesson and Clayton 1998; Chesson, Clayton and Whitworth 1999). Further information on the National ESD Reporting Framework can be obtained from the web site: www.fisheries-esd.com or from Fletcher, et al. (2002).

Component trees provide a convenient tool for identifying where data exist and where they do not. All fisheries are data limited in at least some components. Even a data rich fishery such as the Western Australian Rock Lobster Fishery lacks data on other retained species such as octopus and deep-sea crabs.

Figure 1 presents the generic component tree for the effect of a fishery on the general ecosystem.

Figure 1: Effects of a fishery on the general ecosystem.

Is data collection the answer?

Often data are collected before it is clear what management action the data will inform. The report headings in the National ESD Reporting Framework create the link between the fishery objective, the management action and the data that are needed:

Report headings

Operational objective (plus justification)

Indicator

Performance measure/limit (plus justification)

Data requirements

Data availability

Evaluation

Robustness

Fisheries management response

• Current
• Future
• Actions if performance limit exceeded

Comments and action

External drivers

If the data do not address a clear objective their interpretation may be ambiguous and lead to more confusion. For example, in the Victorian Abalone Fishery the ecosystem can be independently monitored through the use of fishery divers. At present, however, it has not been determined what degree of ecosystem change is important, what level of change is critical, and what management actions would be appropriate if a change is detected.

Alternatives to data collection

Simple changes to management regimes may remove the need to collect costly data for monitoring and evaluation. For example, it may be simpler and cheaper to set a zero Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for the green lip abalone (Haliotis laevigata) in the Victorian Abalone Fishery, rather than collect extensive data for a stock assessment of this uncommon species. Another example is the Queensland East Coast Trawl Fishery where the mandatory use of turtle exclusion devices (TED) may ultimately eliminate the need to record turtle captures.

Smarter use of existing data

In some cases, particularly for social components of ecologically sustainable development, data may already exist. For example, the proportion of people from a regional community employed in a fishery may provide a proxy of community dependence on the fishery. This information may be collected from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and combined with State fishery agency data.

By cooperating with other fisheries, or by using national surveys, fishery agencies may be able to reduce the cost of data collection and analysis. For example, the Bureau of Rural Sciences is developing a project to survey community attitudes to fishing across Australia with the expectation that the acquired information could be used in a number of fisheries for a number of purposes. Similarly, the National Recreational and Indigenous Fishing Survey, funded through the Fisheries Action Program (National Heritage Trust), Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) and State fishery agencies^, will provide 2000/01 data on these sectors and this may be used in fishery management. A report on the survey will soon become available from the funding agencies.

Data quality versus risk

The quality of data should reflect the probability of making a serious management mistake. In some cases it may be adequate to rely on anecdotal or aggregated data. For example the South Australian Lakes and Coorong Fishery suggest that interactions with whales could be monitored through anecdotal reports, considering the low risk of interaction. In the Queensland East Coast Trawl Fishery, non-retained species have been lumped together under the assumption that an overall reduction in non-retained species catch through bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) will safeguard individual species.

On the other hand it may be necessary to improve the quality of data collected for high-risk issues, such as effects on threatened species and the status of primary commercial species.

Conclusions

We argue that data are only the means to an end and not the end itself. Data need to inform management decisions. The National ESD Reporting Framework for Australian Fisheries shows that data are an integral part of the performance review cycle in fisheries management. The performance review cycle involves identifying the issues, determining objectives, selecting indicators and performance measures to monitor performance and specifying management responses. Only after their role has been identified, should data be collected. In some cases a precautionary management response negates the need to collect particular data. In other cases it may be possible to use data that already exist rather than collect more data. When it is determined that data are really needed then data quality should be tailored to the scale or risk of the issue.

We argue that the link between ‘data poor’ and ‘collect more data’ must be broken. This breach can be achieved when data requirements are derived from a clear statement of fishery objectives, indicators and performance measures and the associated management responses.

References

Chesson, J. and Clayton, H. 1998. A Framework for Assessing Fisheries with Respect to Ecologically Sustainable Development. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra. 60 Pp.

Chesson, J., Clayton, H. and Whitworth, B. 1999. Evaluation of fisheries-management systems with respect to sustainable development. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Journal of Marine Science, 56: 980-984.

Fletcher, W. J. 2002. National Fisheries ESD Website: Ecologically Sustainable Development Catching Sustainability. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Fisheries Western Australia. Canberra, Perth. Web site: //www.fisheries-esd.com, updated 12/6/2002

Fletcher, W. J., Chesson, J., Fisher, M., Sainsbury, K. J., Hundloe, T., Smith, A. D. M. and Whitworth, B. 2002. National ESD Reporting Framework for Australian Fisheries: The ‘How To’ Guide for Wild Capture Fisheries. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation Project 2000/145, Canberra, Australia.

Whitworth, B., Chesson, J., Fletcher, W. J., Sainsbury, K. J., Fisher, M., Hundloe, T., and Smith, A. D. M. in press. National ESD Reporting Framework for Australian Fisheries: Technical Support Document Ecological components of the 2000-01 Case Studies. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation Project 2000/145, Canberra, Australia