Antarctic Treaty System An Assessment: Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Beardmore South Field Camp, Antarctica, January 7-13, 1985 (1986) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
16. Panel Discussion on Living Resources
16. Panel Discussion on Living Resources
Pages 235-244
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 235... ...
In general discussion, the CCAMLR received strong support both as an effective mechanism for the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources and, on political grounds, because it has dealt effectively.with 235
|
From page 236... ...
Measures to avoid adverse effects of marine debris on living species; and (6) The possibility of creating whale habitat sanctuaries.
|
From page 237... ...
These covered minimum mesh size regulations for nets throughout the convention area and a prohibition on fishing other than for scientific research purposes in waters within 12 nautical miles of South Georgia. Kiss reported that a third proposal to limit fish size did not obtain consensus and that no practical measures had yet been adopted on how to avoid entanglement of marine mammals, birds, and other nontarget species in marine debris, such as lost or discarded fishing gear.
|
From page 238... ...
He advocated giving attention to creating "marine protected areas" in order to preserve the feeding grounds of the great whales, and he was pleased that SCAR, at the thirteenth biennial meeting of the Antarctic Treaty consultative parties in October 1985, will recommend approval of marine protected areas, even if none of these is a habitat sanctuary. (Chapters 13 and 14.)
|
From page 239... ...
_ The scientific committee had agreed that these topics deserved highest priority and that the formulation of objectives in this area would be extremely important, because effective implementation of the CCAMLR depends on capabilities to detect trends, changes, and potential changes in species populations and the surrounding environment. Debate over CCAMLR accomplishments to date and future prospects took note of the fact that the CCAMLR institutions had adopted some conservation measures at their September 1984 meeting, as noted by Kiss, and that the
|
From page 240... ...
On the other hand, lack of adequate data had prevented the scientific committee, despite intercessional meetings, from making certain additional recommendations regarding assessment. Some participants argued that the slow pace in implementation of CCAMLR would discredit the convention and that the commission would be in no better position at its September 1985 meeting to make judgments on conservation measures than it had been in 1984.
|
From page 241... ...
EXPERIMENTAL F ISHERY The discussion of developing Southern Ocean fishing as an experimental fishery contrasted the situation of Antarctic krill with that of finfish in the Southern Ocean. With respect to finfish, CCAMLR is in the same position as virtually every other convention whose objective is to conserve finfish species; that is, the negotiations take place after the stock is already seriously depleted (although the Southern Ocean stocks might not have been so depleted had there not been a rush to establish coastal state 200-mile zones of fishery jurisdiction elsewhere)
|
From page 242... ...
The classic means of data gathering and of studying species distribution and abundance for management purposes -- catch per unit of effort and the monitoring of key indicator species -- might not be applicable to krill. Specific interactions between krill and other Southern Ocean species would cause some difficulty in identifying sound management practices: krill is relatively short lived, and its position in the ecosystem is difficult to establish.
|
From page 243... ...
He wondered whether, with respect to single species -- there might be some similarities with the current situation in Antarctica; that is, vested economic interests would be affected. Gulland agreed with Barnes that in general the lack of accord on allocation of national quotas is a weakness, but he pointed out that many existing commissions do not themselves allocate quotas, leaving this to member countries to agree on.
|
From page 244... ...
Unless fishermen agree that conservation regulations protect their long-term interests reasonably well, the regulations are unlikely to work. Measures to ensure that marine mammals, birds, and other nontarget species are not adversely affected by lost or discarded fishing gear or other marine debris was cited as another substantive area in which the commission could act without waiting for additional data.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.