Enforcement Measures Relating to Straddling Stocks - An International and South African Perspective

On 10 March 1995, Canadian fisheries authorities boarded and arrested the Spanish fishing vessel, Estai, outside the Canadian 200 mile Exclusive Fishing Zone on the Grand Banks off the coast of Newfoundland alleging that the vessel was fishing in breach of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO) conservation and management measures. This action served to focus world attention on a dispute that had its origins in the failure of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ("the 1982 Convention") to implement an effective conservation and management regime for fish stocks on the high seas, particularly with respect to fish stocks that straddle the EEZ of Coastal states

Building assessment practice and lessons from the scientific assessment on livestock predation in South Africa

After at least two millennia of human–wildlife conflict over the predation of livestock in South Africa1, the recently completed scientific assessment on livestock predation2 (PredSA) brings the power of a formal scientific assessment to focus on the topic. PredSA represents a global first in terms of applying this increasingly recognised approach to informing policy to the issue of livestock predation at a national level. Here we explore the process behind the assessment, its structure and policy relevance, and some lessons learnt and suggest some avenues for the way forward. Scientific assessments are a relatively recent societal tool. Operating at the science–policy interface, they serve to collate and interrogate transdisciplinary information relating to a complex problem and, through consensus, evaluate the relevance of the findings to policy development. Having emerged over the past three decades, there is a growing body of best practice guiding the basis for scientific assessments and how these should be conducted.3 Briefly, an assessment should have demonstrable legitimacy (a valid issue requiring attention at the behest of a relevant authority), saliency (the focus on stakeholders’ interests in the problem) and credibility (reflecting scientific rigour by recognised experts) to be accepted by, and useful to, society.3 To achieve these criteria, the governance of an assessment process needs to be transparent and demonstrate a commitment to being broadly participatory.3,4 The need for an assessment on livestock predation in South Africa was identified by the national Departments of Environmental Affairs (DEA) and Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF), as well as the livestock industry. Discussions around this need developed through the Predation Management Forum, the latter representing the wool, mohair, red meat and wildlife industries, as well as the regulatory bodies. Financial support was provided by DEA and DAFF as well as the National Wool Growers Association, Mohair Growers Association and the Red Meat Producers Organisation. This support reflects the legitimacy of the assessment, emerging as it does from both the policy/regulatory domain and stakeholders directly affected by predation on livestock. The Minister of Environmental Affairs and the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries formally endorsed PredSA at its launch in 2016.4 The route to the assessment launch, however, started in 2010 with dialogue between the abovementioned role players and the Centre for African Conservation Ecology (ACE) at Nelson Mandela University. This dialogue, facilitated by seed funding from Woolworths SA, resulted in a proposal for the assessment to be hosted by ACE, which engaged recognised experts nationwide and followed the transdisciplinary approach of the 2008 Elephant Management Assessment.http://www.sajs.co.zaam2019Mammal Research Institut

Building assessment practice and lessons from the scientific assessment on livestock predation in South Africa

After at least two millennia of human–wildlife conflict over the predation of livestock in South Africa1, the recently completed scientific assessment on livestock predation2 (PredSA) brings the power of a formal scientific assessment to focus on the topic. PredSA represents a global first in terms of applying this increasingly recognised approach to informing policy to the issue of livestock predation at a national level. Here we explore the process behind the assessment, its structure and policy relevance, and some lessons learnt and suggest some avenues for the way forward. Scientific assessments are a relatively recent societal tool. Operating at the science–policy interface, they serve to collate and interrogate transdisciplinary information relating to a complex problem and, through consensus, evaluate the relevance of the findings to policy development. Having emerged over the past three decades, there is a growing body of best practice guiding the basis for scientific assessments and how these should be conducted.3 Briefly, an assessment should have demonstrable legitimacy (a valid issue requiring attention at the behest of a relevant authority), saliency (the focus on stakeholders’ interests in the problem) and credibility (reflecting scientific rigour by recognised experts) to be accepted by, and useful to, society.3 To achieve these criteria, the governance of an assessment process needs to be transparent and demonstrate a commitment to being broadly participatory.3,4 The need for an assessment on livestock predation in South Africa was identified by the national Departments of Environmental Affairs (DEA) and Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF), as well as the livestock industry. Discussions around this need developed through the Predation Management Forum, the latter representing the wool, mohair, red meat and wildlife industries, as well as the regulatory bodies. Financial support was provided by DEA and DAFF as well as the National Wool Growers Association, Mohair Growers Association and the Red Meat Producers Organisation. This support reflects the legitimacy of the assessment, emerging as it does from both the policy/regulatory domain and stakeholders directly affected by predation on livestock. The Minister of Environmental Affairs and the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries formally endorsed PredSA at its launch in 2016.4 The route to the assessment launch, however, started in 2010 with dialogue between the abovementioned role players and the Centre for African Conservation Ecology (ACE) at Nelson Mandela University. This dialogue, facilitated by seed funding from Woolworths SA, resulted in a proposal for the assessment to be hosted by ACE, which engaged recognised experts nationwide and followed the transdisciplinary approach of the 2008 Elephant Management Assessment.http://www.sajs.co.zaam2019Mammal Research Institut

Livestock predation in South Africa: The need for and value of a scientific assessment

Predation of livestock in South Africa has been estimated to cost in excess of ZAR1 billion in losses per year1 and has complex social, economic and ecological drivers and consequences. In this context, livestock can be broadly defined as domesticated animals and wildlife (the former excluding poultry and the latter including ostrich, Struthio camelus) managed for commercial purposes or human benefit in free-ranging (or semi-free ranging) circumstances that render them vulnerable to predation. This conflict between livestock producers and predators, and the attempts to manage it, has persisted for over 350 years, with the most notable outcome being the eradication of the majority of the apex predators across much of South Africa.2 In contrast, the mesopredators, black-backed jackal (Canis mesomelas) and caracal (Caracal caracal) are by all accounts thriving, at least as measured by their impact on livestock production. Increasingly, attempts to manage livestock predation give rise to deep polarisations, particularly between animal rightists and livestock producers, which further confounds an already complex situation. This complexity hampers the development of policy and regulations with regard to managing livestock predation. A recent global review of the scientific merit of studies on the efficacy of various predator control interventions highlighted the paucity of adherence to acceptable scientific methods in these studies, and recommends ‘suspending lethal control methods’ while appropriately designed studies are undertaken.3 Treves et al.3 did not identify any valid (by their criteria) studies undertaken in South Africa. This example highlights the need for a scientifically robust basis for policy and management of livestock predation issues.http://www.sajs.co.za/am2017Centre for Wildlife Managemen

Livestock predation in South Africa: The need for and value of a scientific assessment

Predation of livestock in South Africa has been estimated to cost in excess of ZAR1 billion in losses per year1 and has complex social, economic and ecological drivers and consequences. In this context, livestock can be broadly defined as domesticated animals and wildlife (the former excluding poultry and the latter including ostrich, Struthio camelus) managed for commercial purposes or human benefit in free-ranging (or semi-free ranging) circumstances that render them vulnerable to predation. This conflict between livestock producers and predators, and the attempts to manage it, has persisted for over 350 years, with the most notable outcome being the eradication of the majority of the apex predators across much of South Africa.2 In contrast, the mesopredators, black-backed jackal (Canis mesomelas) and caracal (Caracal caracal) are by all accounts thriving, at least as measured by their impact on livestock production. Increasingly, attempts to manage livestock predation give rise to deep polarisations, particularly between animal rightists and livestock producers, which further confounds an already complex situation. This complexity hampers the development of policy and regulations with regard to managing livestock predation. A recent global review of the scientific merit of studies on the efficacy of various predator control interventions highlighted the paucity of adherence to acceptable scientific methods in these studies, and recommends ‘suspending lethal control methods’ while appropriately designed studies are undertaken.3 Treves et al.3 did not identify any valid (by their criteria) studies undertaken in South Africa. This example highlights the need for a scientifically robust basis for policy and management of livestock predation issues.http://www.sajs.co.za/am2017Centre for Wildlife Managemen