Contested stock assessment: two case studies
We describe two case studies where scientists representing alternative interest groups worked together to attempt to resolve scientific issues of fisheries assessments. In several fisheries in New Zealand, commercial fishing interests hired consultants to review governmental assessments. In some of these fisheries, the two sides provided alternative competing assessments; in other fisheries, there was a cooperative agreed-upon assessment. In the analysis of chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) within the Pacific Salmon Treaty, scientists representing all parties agreed upon an assessment procedure and developed it over a number of years. Such contested assessments provide a number of benefits including (i) intense peer review, (ii) the ability to bring data from all parties into the assessment process, and (iii) better understanding and trust of the assessments by the different interest groups. Effective peer review requires repeating the calculations associated with data sources and assessment models. We suggest that contested assessments, despite the extra cost, are highly valuable, as they provide a substantially improved standard of assessment. Contested assessments will evolve towards cooperative analysis unless participating parties feel that the cooperative assessment is counter to their perceived interests.