Recommendation 6: The Scientific Committee evaluate options for ecosystem-based management of all CCAMLR fisheries, taking into account ecosystem and climate change and the types of data that can be reliably obtained.

These evaluations could include the following approaches:

(i) evaluate the spatial extent of stocks, along with the implications of fishing in each CCAMLR area, subarea and division for the management of other areas

(ii) assess the risk of each fishery impacting on Antarctic marine living resources broadly to determine the degree to which attention may need to be given to managing direct and indirect effects in the harvest strategies

(iii) identify the type of data needed to achieve precautionary ecosystem-based fishery management, including with a changing environment, and to develop a strategic plan to collect such data

(iv) develop approaches to identify whether the productivity, structure and/or function of the ecosystem is changing, in order to inform how to achieve the conservation objective of the Convention

(v) evaluate harvest strategies for their robustness to achieve the objective of the Convention given plausible scenarios for ecosystem change and the need to not impede the recovery of depleted populations.

(paragraphs 33 to 35) 

(2018) SC-CAMLR-XXXVII,  paragraph 13.16.

This is a quite generic recommendation that requires review in context of more specific questions.

The extent to which the Scientific Committee can and should take on this range of tasks has been the subject of lengthy debate.

Rather than duplicate the work of other groups (and create unrealistic expectations for the Scientific Committee (SC), it may be more sensible and more effective to ensure good collaboration with other bodies to bring in broader scientific considerations into the working groups and the SC.

The context of this recommendation may reflect the need to better communicate the role and priorities of the SC as many of these are being addressed, albeit not using the same terminology as used in the PR2.  

Recommendation 8: CCAMLR implements practical mechanisms to coordinate and deliver research activities among Members to deliver the long-term research required by the Commission to achieve its objective, including better targeted fish stock research to ascertain productivity and yield of stocks across their ranges, and analyses of status and trends of those stocks and Antarctic marine living resources more generally.

Mechanisms and approaches for co-ordinating research could include the following:

(i) better target fish stock research in exploratory fisheries at stock distribution and productivity and co-ordinate such research across related multiple management areas, rather than fragmented within each management area

(ii) seek mechanisms to assure resources for collecting and analysing data needed to support advising the Commission

(iii) focus on research needed to assist the Commission in meeting the objective of the Convention and determine how general research may be undertaken (see Chapter 7)

(iv) establish a working mechanism to coordinate research activities among Members to deliver data needed to support the work of the Commission

(v) establish research plans in conservation measures for mandatory fishery- independent data collection where data are essential for advising the Commission (see Chapter 5.1)

(vi) in cooperation with SCAR, the Southern Ocean Observing System (SOOS) and other international bodies, establish mechanisms for accessing data useful to the work of the Commission, but which are not part of CEMP.​

(paragraphs 37 and 38)

(2018) SC-CAMLR-XXXVII, paragraph 13.16.

Range of mechanisms have been introduced that facilitate Member engagement in science, e.g.

(i) multi-Member research plans in exploratory fisheries in Subarea 48.6 (SC-CAMLR-XXXVII, paragraphs 3.129 to 3.132), 58.4 (SC-CAMLR-XXXVII, paragraphs 3.134 and 3.135) and 88.3 (SC-CAMLR-XXXVII, paragraphs 3.189 to 3.192).

(ii) Development of the GCSF and CEMP fund (e.g. WG-EMM-2019, paragraphs 5.16 to 5.19).

(iii) Excellent examples of coordination between Members, e.g. 2019 Area 48 krill survey (WG-EMM-2019, paragraphs 2.45 to 2.47).

(iv) see (iii)

(v) challenge is to find a mechanism to make non-fishery-dependent data collection mandatory – Commission.

(vi) Given the priority of the Scientific Committee for work on krill, a good example here is the support for formation of Scar Krill Action Group (SKAG)