In the article “Experts to boost fresh water fish population”, aquaculture experts in Malaysia have determined that in order for the population of fresh water fish in their area to remain high, they must take action. By use of the precautionary principle, the experts plan to “boost the population of local fish which might otherwise, face depletion without proper preservation” (Uggah, 2009). In my opinion, this application of the precautionary principle is not justified. By interfering with the natural fish population reproduction rate, researches risk the chance that this increase will offset the balance of the freshwater ecosystem.
When a species becomes too large by ways that are not natural, a problem can be created for the species prey (too many fish not enough food depletion of the species prey) and their predators (increase in food for predator could cause increase in set said predator). In the article, the author states that the Malaysian Natural Resources and Environment Minister, Datuk Douglas Uggah, declared that this would also promote eco-tourism such as sport fishing in the area. However this again could impose a problem, if eco-tourism increases, more fish are susceptible to capture and ultimately the population will decrease again, which will affect the ecological balance. This is not a proper use of the precautionary principle, which basically is “ a response to uncertainty, in the face of risks to health or the environment... it involves acting to avoid serious or irreversible potential harm, despite lack of scientific certainty as to the likelihood, magnitude, or causation of that harm” (Precautionary Principle, 2003). However it is my opinion that this scenario is not in need of this type of action due to the fact that no “serious or irreversible harm” is present in relation to the population of fresh water fish in Malaysia.
Resources:
Bernama (2009), Experts to Boost Freshwater Fish Population
October 4th 2009
Precautionary Principle Project, (2003), What is the Precautionary Principle?
January 19th 2003
Accessed: October 20th 2009
Emily Hartwig
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Great defence of your rejection of the precautionary principle. Usually I would be inclined to think that it is better to be safe then sorry, however in this case maybe that isn’t so. Boosting fish populations certainly could cause over population which would be more of a problem then the possibility of declining fish stocks.
ReplyDeleteI agree that artificially strengthening the fish population simply for ecotourism isn’t a good idea, however in general ecotourism is beneficial. Natural areas are preserved and the general public have the chance to gain appreciation for and hopefully attachment to them. Without ecotourism many of the world’s natural features would not be known to anyone beyond those who live beside them.
- Amy Adair
Emily, I think you did a very thorough job of outline all the possible outcomes of boosting the fish population. You provided valid reasons for why each of these are not desirable results. This made your argument against the use of the precautionary principle very well substantiated and believable.
ReplyDeleteI agree that using the precautionary principle in this situation is not suitable. It is designed to be used when harm or irreversible damage may occur. I think the principle should be used against this situation to prevent damage that will occur from artificially strengthening these fish populations. I usually wouldn't think of the precautionary principle as being a bad thing, but your argument has convinced me otherwise.
ReplyDeleteElisabeth Shapiro