There's lots of buzz at the AFS meetings about an article in the current FIsheries magazine. From the intro:
This subject has proven to be quite controversial. AFS members working on earlier drafts of our study reports offered different opinions on approach and recommendations. Because consensus could not be reached among the three AFS Units contributing intellectual energy to this effort, our work to date is best presented in differing positions on the central issues. Accordingly, this article includes an opening statement by the Water Quality Section followed by a statement by the Socioeconomics Section.
From the conclusions:
This article presents the differing views of two AFS Sections. The challenge before our Society is to weigh these and other options as we decide whether one could form the basis of a Society policy statement. Such statements form the basis for the Society’s position on legislation, and decisions, and are of educational use for the public and policymakers.
The Water Quality Section wants the AFS to adopt a steady state economy with macro policy to dampen growth and improve fish stocks. The (representatives of the) Socioeconomics Section (3 neoclassical economists) think that economic incentive-based fisheries policy would suffice. Here is a background post.
On Saturday, the AFS Governing Board voted to continue to allow the RPC to attempt to reach consensus. Afterwards, I pledged to the Water Quality Section president that the Socioeconomics Section would discontinue our obstruction of their quest to develop a policy statement and bring it to a vote of the Governing Board and, maybe, the AFS membership. I think we've had our say.
That wasn't enough for some (ecologists who have recently joined the section in an attempt to influence its decisions -- I don't think that is what AFS had in mind when sections were created), at the Socioeconomics Section meeting on Sunday a resolution was passed to reconfigure the representation from three neoclassicals to "no more than one" neoclassical ecoomist, one ecological economist and one non-economist social scientist (e.g., a sociologist). This was a highly unusual ploy by the steady-staters (who have recently joined the Socioeconomics Section). I didn't object to the resolution, but think that it odd ... and a sorry way to try to limit the conversation. Drama!
Today, I'll attend the Water Quality Section meeting to see if anyone says anything bad about me. More drama!
