H-64 



5. PROVISION FOR SCIENTIFIC ADVICE 



5.1 Introduction 



A major objective of the BIOMASS programme is to help ensure the wise and careful 

 conservation and utilization of the hving resources for the benefit of present and future 

 generations of mankind. In particular, we hope to avoid the mistakes that have caused the 

 collapse of many fish stocks. In view of these mistakes, it should be reaUzed that the BIOMASS 

 programme is a vital first step towards providing the necessary scientific information on 

 different resources and their interactions. However, this will not ensure the wise use of these 

 resources. Two other steps need to be taken: (a) examination of the technical aspects of 

 different management strategies; and (b) presentation of the results of the scientific studies in a 

 manner that will facilitate decision making by the governments concerned. 



5.2 Examination of management strategies 



Management, even of a single species, can be carried out in a number of different ways, and 

 the number of alternatives increases rapidly when management is involved with a number of 

 distinct but interacting resources. Management considerations in the Southern Ocean should 

 include investigations on the economics and social condition of the fishery, as well as on its 

 biology, since these can be critical in determining the success or failure of a management 

 strategy. For example, one important weakness of the initial regime established by the IWC was 

 that the overall Antarctic quota was not allocated to countries or to individual enterprises. As a 

 result, a considerable over-capacity developed in the fishery during the I950's; by 1964 the 

 industry was in poor economic shape and not in a position to accept readily the substantial cuts 

 in quota that the IWC Committee of Three then deemed to be necessary. 



Conmiercial scale harvesting of krill may start in the near future, and it is unlikely that firm 

 and precise estimates of the potential annual yield, (ie, the quantity that can be taken year 

 after year without serious damage to the stocks of krill or other species) will be available by 

 then. Two extreme reactions to this situation are: (a) to allow completely unrestricted fisheries 

 for krill untU the need for specific measures becomes obvious, or (b) to ban harvesting untU 

 better data are obtained. The dangers of the former, which has been the strategy impHcitly 

 adopted for many resources in the past, are now well known. The disadvantages of the latter are 

 also great; first, it sacrifices the benefits that could accrue from adequately controlled krill 

 harvesting during the interim period; second, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to 

 determine the potential sustained harvest until some harvesting is done. Without significant 

 exploitation, it is also difficult to estimate the effects of different levels of harvest on the 

 detailed characteristics of the krill populations' abundance, growth, mortality or reproductive 

 rates and on the other populations (whales, birds, etc) that interact with krill. The preferable 

 strategy is one that allows some degree of harvesting, but under careful control and with 

 arrangements to ensure that the harvest can be reduced quickly if there is any evidence that 

 quotas have been set too high. It would, of course, be easier to detect changes if the harvest 

 were concentrated in some limited area. The information obtained on the effects of harvesting 

 on ecosystem relationships could then be used to develop management strategies for the whole 

 area. This plan seems appropriate even though the population boundaries are still poorly 

 defined. 



The required studies will involve a variety of expertise in such subjects as economics, and 

 biology (especially population dynamics). The model described in Section 2.2 of this proposal 



