Review of CCAMLR’s Seabird Risk Assessment Process

Working under a joint CCAMLR – ACAP internship programme, the lead author compared CCAMLR’s risk management approach to the incidental mortality of seabirds arising from fishing activities, with the International Standard in risk management (ISO 31000:2009 risk management – principles and guidelines). The original project proposal for the internship had the objective of documenting the process, to allow updating of CCAMLR’s seabird risk assessment, and secondly, to identify the criteria for determining when future updates should be undertaken. It became apparent that identifying the process followed in undertaking the risk assessment would not be straight-forward, as key elements of the process had not been documented. As no clear framework existed, it was decided to use the ISO Standard (the Standard) as a guide, as it offers very broad but also very clear and robust guidelines for managing risk. Specifically, the Standard was used as a framework to:
1. Determine exactly what took place in the risk assessment process conducted by the Working Group on Incidental Mortality from Fishing (WG-IMAF) and in doing so, collate this information for the use of anyone wanting to undertake a future review, or to update the process;
2. Identify the factors used in the review process that led to CCAMLR’s success in reducing seabird bycatch, so that lessons can be learnt from this example;
3. Highlight aspects that require further documentation, so that the process may be readily replicated, either by CCAMLR or other organisations.
Recommendations
The notable aspects that require action with regard to the CCAMLR risk assessment process, especially if it is to be readily replicated, are the lack of rigidly defined risk criteria and the lack of adequate detail when reporting. With these issues in mind, it is recommended that:
1. Risk criteria are developed, so that a clearly defined set of criteria are agreed upon and stated explicitly;
2. The process is better documented so that it is transparent and can be replicated; and
3. Reporting requirements are clearly defined, so that the information used is available for future reviews.