Spawning Aggregations and Confidentiality: Balancing Research Products and Conservation Realities

In January, we posted on the bilingual weblog and SCRFA website (www.scrfa.org; http://amp-pr.org/spag/?p=44, January 2007) a short multi-authored opinion piece entitled "Spawning Aggregations and Confidentiality: Balancing Research Products and Conservation Realities" and solicited feedback.

The purpose of the article was to ask "When is it beneficial to the conservation and management of spawning aggregation sites and species, and in the best interests of fishing communities, to release detailed information on spawning aggregation locations into the public domain?". We concluded that a set of guidelines for decision-making/discussion would be useful and that a precautionary position was to keep aggregation sites confidential or released at low spatial resolution to avoid the risk of further exploitation, unless there is good reason to reveal more detailed information publicly. Such caution is particularly relevant when the species involved has a ‘threatened' conservation status.

We received very constructive and interesting feedback on the article from 12 workers, ranging from managers to biologists, and I briefly summarize a few of the key issues raised to stimulate further responses. We will be using these and any further input to develop a set of guidelines later in the year.

• Fishers are concerned about giving out proprietary information and researchers may wish to guard data until it is published, but if a project is publicly funded, management and conservation are needed and site information would be useful, how can the common good prevail if contrary to individual interests?
• To what extent does a better understanding of an aggregation location lead to better ability to manage it, or conversely, a greater ability to exploit it?
• To what extent has dissemination of research data resulted in increased exploitation?
• Should ‘threatened' species that aggregate be treated differently to those that are not threatened?
• Site information should only be widely released once effective management is in place.
• There was agreement from several respondents on a 1 x 1 degree minimum resolution for general site information release, combined with restricted release of more detailed information for planning and local management; but how is the latter most effectively achieved and who decides?
• Knowledge does not always lead to effective management; in fact effective management is still largely elusive for aggregating species.

We are by no means the only ones considering such issues, and other organizations or projects have had to deal with similar questions. Ultimately who is to decide what is released, when and how and to whom has to be considered? Should there be a time limit applied in relation to data release and what ultimately is in the best interests of the species, locations and communities involved? What happens to large, potentially sensitive, datasets assembled from multiple sources in the long term? SCRFA and other organizations have to address this question. As just one example, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility has conducted an online survey on Dealing with Sensitive Primary Species Occurrence Data, the results and summary of which are available on http://www.gbif.org/prog/digit/sensitive_data. The question of confidentiality of spawning aggregation site data needs to be discussed and we would be most grateful for further feedback from readers interested in or concerned by this important question.

Yvonne Sadovy

May 2007