Good governance for migratory species

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science  21 Sep 2018:
Vol. 361, Issue 6408, pp. 1208-1209
DOI: 10.1126/science.aav2051

eLetters is an online forum for ongoing peer review. Submission of eLetters are open to all. eLetters are not edited, proofread, or indexed.  Please read our Terms of Service before submitting your own eLetter.

Compose eLetter

Plain text

  • Plain text
    No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

  • Governance for species on the move needs mechanisms for newly shared fisheries
    • Malin L. Pinsky, Associate Professor, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
    • Other Contributors:
      • Gabriel Reygondeau, Research Associate, University of British Columbia
      • Richard Caddell, Lecturer, Cardiff University
      • Juliano Palacios-Abrantes, Ph.D. student, University of British Columbia
      • Jessica Spijkers, Ph.D. student, Stockholm University and James Cook University
      • William W. L. Cheung, Associate Professor, University of British Columbia

    We applaud the efforts by Aqorau et al.(1) to highlight a strong example of countries managing multi-national fisheries cooperatively and to a large extent successfully, particularly in a region that is likely to experience especially negative impacts from climate change (2). The system developed by the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) is particularly notable for its system of internationally tradable fisheries access, its approach for regularly updating fisheries access to reflect changes in stock distribution, and the cross-national cap on total fishing effort. All of these are measures that can help countries maintain sustainable fisheries in the face of species on the move, and few fisheries anywhere in the world currently implement these measures (3). We agree with Aqorau et al. that implementing such measures more widely could help avoid fisheries conflict now and in the future.

    However, nearly all fisheries agreements (including the PNA) have gaps around what is perhaps the most challenging aspect of fisheries on the move: a stock that moves to straddle new national boundaries. Incentives for conservation can be rapidly eroded when new parties gain access to a stock and have no agreed-upon responsibilities for shared conservation and management. Such a situation can spark a race to fish and overfishing, as has been observed in the past (3).

    Skipjack tuna, for example, are projected to shift towards the Cook Islands, French Pacific Island territori...

    Show More
    Competing Interests: None declared.

Stay Connected to Science