Jon asks:

It is the Stalinist crab story that really boggles the mind. How is it that we can figure out how overfishing depletes stocks but we can't use that knowledge to control an invasive species? And a tasty one at that.

We know just how to handle the crabs but European fishing rules are so convoluted and unresponsive that fishermen are prevented from doing what they know. These are after all just King Crabs, a nutritious and delicious food that commands a high price. As noted in the Telegraph article Jon links:

For years the Norwegian government has ignored the underwater advance, undecided whether to treat the crabs as a resource or a pest.

The animal's legs are considered a delicacy and fetch top dollar in Japan and America. Even in Oslo, consumers pay around 200 Norwegian kronor (£15) a pound.

Served with bread, butter, lemon and mayonnaise, the taste and texture of the crab meat is comparable with that of the finest lobster.

One leg is enough to provide a grown man with a filling meal.

At present, some Norwegian fishermen have been granted seasonal licences to catch the Kamchatka crab but stiff regulations on the size of the boat used and other criteria mean they are few in number.

Aasmund Bjordal, of the Department of Marine Resources in the western Norwegian town of Bergen, said: "We're between two policies. One is to get rid of the crabs. The other is to manage it as a fishing resource.

"In the meantime, it's already become an important source of income for some fishermen in the north. The problem is that it may be destroying the fishing stock." [emphasis added]

As noted, this isn't a new problem. This WWF-Norway complaint to the European Convention on Biodiversity from 2002 gives a historical account of the issue.

The Red King Crab originates from the Camchatca-region in Russia. In the 1960s a series of intentional introductions were made in the outer parts of the Murman-fiord in the Russian part of the Barents Sea. In the mid-70ties, individual specimens started appearing as bycatch in fisheries on both sides of the Norwegian-Russian border. Through the 1978 “Grey Zone Agreement” between Norway and Russian a general ban on Red King Crab catch was established. In the 1980s the bycatch numbers increased, and since 1992 the species has occurred in significant numbers in Norwegian waters. From 1994 to 2002 Russia and Norway conducted scientific fisheries on the King Crab stock. Only male specimen above 15 cms shield-size were caught, to ensure recruitment and growth in the population. These scientific fisheries aimed at determining the optimum harvesting strategies for the species. Virtually no studies of the ecological impacts of this species were performed in this period.

While the King Crab has caused serious problems for fisheries along the Barents Coast (entanglement, predation on fish in nets, etc), the prospect of establishing a new commercially valuable species in the region has been the overarching motivation behind the management.

Current situation

As a result of this policy, the Red King Crab population is virtually exploding in numbers and distribution.

As Jon notes this story and the Nazi Raccoon story are examples of the known problems of introducing new species to ecologies. Sometimes they replicate explosively since they have no competition or predators in their new environments. The stunningly stupid bit is that controlling an invasion of valuable, delicious crabs is a problem we know how to handle. It doesn't cost a penny, people will risk their lives to perform the public service of catching and eating them. Allowing them to denude the Barents sea of all other life rather than allowing those suspiciously eager fishermen to catch them is a revealing example of the institutional paralysis that grips Europe. The Barents Sea isn't Davy Jones' locker, the seemingly fathomless depths where little or no life exists, it's the European larder that has sustained northern Europe for centuries.

Europe isn't alone, bureaucratic paralysis is a world wide problem caused by the ruinous centralization of decision making that became so fashionably destructive last century. The WWF-Norway complaint identifies the logic trap that has resulted.

Promoting the rapid growth of the Red King Crab population without any knowledge about its potential long-term ecological impacts is obviously not a “precautionary approach”. Considering the importance of the Barents Sea as one of the worlds most productive marine ecosystem, this policy can better be described as high-level gambling with international conservation values and food supplies. The King Crab population affects the same areas that serve as the main spawning and nursery grounds for the capelin (Mallotus villosus), one of the keystone species in the Barents Sea food chains. No studies of possible interactions between these two species have been performed. Guiding principle 1 also states that: “Lack of scientific certainty about the various implications of an invasion should not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take appropriate eradication, containment and control measures”. In Norway, however, the lack of knowledge about potential or actual negative effects of the King Crab is actively being used by Norwegian authorities to defend the current management strategy. [emphasis added]

The “precautionary approach” would have prevented the introduction in the first place since there was insufficient information to predict consequences. Now, the “precautionary approach” is used to excuse inaction. And that's the problem with the “precautionary approach”; it is so vague that it becomes nothing more than the universal CYA machine for bureaucrats.

It's not easy and not always safe to risk what we have in hopes of having more but it is essential to do so. As risky as it seems we need the courage to get up in the morning, shave and go to work. The inability to do so is one common definition of mental incompetence which requires intervention by those better able to function. This may be the central problem of our times; fear and resistance to risk and change increases both risk and change. There's no certainty that our actions will succeed but doing nothing is sometimes the most dangerous choice. There's no formula for safety, no panel of experts that can reliably make the hard decisions, no authority to relieve us of the frightening task of managing ourselves. Wisdom lies between the extremes of everyone doing the same thing and everyone doing their own thing.

The “precautionary approach” is a bad approach. The decision making process is not improved by a bias toward inaction. Bias is bad, leads to bad decisions, leads to fussy little tail chasing episodes in response to threats and opportunities. Our species produces a range of temperaments; some are cautious and conservative while others are more daring. Individuals change as they age, temperament is not fixed. Let all speak and let all listen without bias. The social mind thrives on information and does its best work when free to judge situations on their merits.

» Crabby Mudge from Crumb Trail
See Dangerously Cautious for an opinionated environmental rant in a minor key at Muck and Mystery.......[read more]
Tracked: March 12, 2004 01:29 PM
» Half A Loaf from Crumb Trail
There has been a flurry of new papers from ecologists in recent months announcing or advocating a break with past practices and proposing new approaches. See Behind The Curve for an example that notes recognition of what may be the chief problem that ......[read more]
Tracked: July 19, 2004 10:57 AM