Why do fisheries management institutions circumvent precautionary guidelines?

The precautionary approach to fisheries management is a central strategy by which domestic and international fisheries management institutions pursue sustainable resource development. Yet fisheries management institutions have often allocated quota for commercial species in direct contradiction of established precautionary guidelines. We use Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)'s recent allocation of quota for northern cod (Gadus morhua) while the stock is in the critical zone of the institution's precautionary approach as a case study to ask: why do fisheries management institutions circumvent precautionary guidelines? Our results reveal three core tensions characterizing the use of the precautionary approach: stakeholders and rightsholders (1) disagree on the appropriateness and accuracy of the data inputs used to operationalize the precautionary approach, (2) rely on different metrics to gauge risk associated with fishing a stock in the critical zone, and (3) hold competing views concerning what constitutes an appropriate epistemological foundation for the precautionary approach. Our analysis suggests these differing interpretations of precaution and the design of the precautionary approach are central factors explaining why resource allocation decisions differ from precautionary guidelines. We conclude that decisions to allocate quota in contradiction of precautionary guidelines are best explained by stakeholders and rightsholders reframing how decision-makers gauge risk associated with resource exploitation.