Harvest control rules in context

1
Harvest control rules in context limits,
possibilities and the ICES experience

• Poul Degnbol
• IFM, Denmark ICES
• Workshop on Harvest Control Rules for Sustainable
  Fisheries Management
• 13-15 September 2004, Bergen, Norway

2
Trailer

• The context of Harvest control rules
• Harvest control rules and reference points
• Evaluation criteria
• Evaluation approach
• How to get there

3
The context of Harvest control rules
4
Why harvest control rules?

• Harvest control rules is a fix to avoid the
  annual dealing and wheeling during fisheries
  negotiations
• Harvest control rules is an element in a policy
  to move the focus in fisheries management from
  tactical (annual) decisions to decisions
  regarding longer term goals

5

• Harvest control rules is the tactical element of
  a management strategy
• Management strategies include
• Decision (explicit or implicit) on longer term
  management objectives and performance criteria
• Decision on the relevant knowledge base for
  tactical management decisions
• Decision on implementation framework (mainly
  input or output control etc.)
• Implementation modes such as a management plan
  including
• Sanctions
• Rules for tactical management decisions regarding
  the fisheries in the current or coming fishing
  season (harvest control rules)
• Monitoring requirements

6
The fisheries management system
7
Objectives
Implementation
Knowledge
8
(No Transcript)
9
The normative string - Objectives and performance

• Achievement of explicit and implicit objectives
• Sustainability
• Maintenance of reproductive capacity
• Delivery of ecosystem services
• Societal benefits
• High long term yields
• Social and economic objectives?
• Justice/Equity
• Performance criteria
• Robustness
• Cost efficiency
• Transparancy and legitimacy

10
The regulatory string implementation means

• Implementation means basic choice of main
  instruments
• Output - TACs
• Input effort
• Technical incl closed areas
• The choice of implementation means defines
  options for distributions of benefits
• Once implementation means have been chosen this
  may become a nearly irreversible choice due to
  the distributional implications (Example CFP)

11
The cognitive string Predictive- Adaptive
balance?

• Uncertainty is here to stay!
• Predict or learn by experience from
  implementation
• Passive adaptivity predict and correct through
  next years prediction
• Requires either that relevant reference points
  can be estimated and that predictions make sense
  technically and operationally
• Active adaptivity explore a range of
  exploitation ranges and adapt
• Stocks for which data series short or only one
  state known explore production dynamics
• Target reference points for stocks where
  biological interactions are important or only low
  productivity seen
• Regime shifts?
• Stocks where we are uncertain about present state
  or stock dynamics
• Adaptive elements should be considered for
  several stocks in the NE Atlantic where dynamics
  is poorly known
• Dont hardwire HCR parameters if it can be avoided
• identify conceptual basis
• identify processes to modify

12
The cognitive string what is relevant, valid
and sufficient knowledge?

• The relevance of knowledge relates to objectives
• The validity of knowledge relates to acceptance
  by stakeholders
• Sufficency of knowledge relates to the desired
  robustness of the management strategy

13
Harvest control rules cannot be developed or
evaluated independently of their normative,
cognitive and regulatory context.HCRs must
always be seen as one element in a management
institution which is subject to external
constraints and includes a range of decisions and
assumptions regarding objectives, knowledge and
implementation
14
Distortions in the normative, cognitive or
regulatory embeddedness of HCRs in the management
institution will lead to failure to achieve
objectives and ultimately to conflict
15
If harvest control rules ar used as a fix to
solve problems in the decision making process
they will fail HCRs will only work if the
existing problems are addressed
simultaneously.Harvest control rules should
only be considered as elements in a management
strategy which simultaneously addresses the
cognitive, normative and regulatory issues which
are external to the HCR but conditional for its
operation
16
Objectives
Implementation
Knowledge
17
HCR parameters
18
HCR parameters

• Limit points
• Relates to conservation (reproductive capacity,
  ecosystem services)
• Target points
• Relates to societal benefits
• Trigger points
• Technical signpost for decisions

19
Default current HCR

• TAC decision based on two-year catch forecast
  based on stock size one year prior to fishing
  season
• Limits Blim and derived from this Flim
• Trigger points PA reference points
• No target reference points

20

• PA reference points are only relevant as trigger
  points within current default HCR
• In other management strategies present PA
  reference points may be irrelevant
• With the introduction of an extended range of
  management strategies we will need to change the
  advice framework to link to management plans
  beyond present default option

21

• The present pa advisory framework is just a
  special case for one strategy variant

22
HCR evaluation criteria
23
Management strategy evaluation criteria

• Achievement of explicit and implicit objectives
• Sustainability
• Maintenance of reproductive capacity
• Delivery of ecosystem services
• Societal benefits
• High long term yields
• Social and economic objectives?
• Justice/equity
• Performance criteria
• Robustness
• Cost efficiency
• Transparanecy and legitimacy

24
The PA and HCR evaluation

• The precautionary approach
• Robustness of management regime to uncertainties
  regarding achievement of sustainability
• Sustainability reproductive capacity and
  ecosystem services
• Robustness to
• Data uncertainty
• May be estimated but...
• Model uncertainty
• Sensitivity to model choice
• Implementation uncertainty
• Sensitivity historical performance
• Bias nonreporting and discards
• Uncertainty about future state of nature
• Sensitivity S/R parameters, growth, M, maturity

25
Performance evaluation

• Robustness
• Cost efficiency
• Data requirements
• Assessment costs complexity, updates
• Implementation requirements (MCS)
• Transparency
• Methods acceptance complex, intuitive?
• Process open to public scrutiny

26
Evaluation approach
27
HCR evaluation from objectives
Objectives Performance criteria
28
HCR evaluation by trial and error
29
Uncertainty in HCR evaluations

• Robustness to
• Data uncertainty
• May be estimated but...
• Model uncertainty
• Sensitivity to model choice
• Implementation uncertainty
• Sensitivity historical performance
• Bias nonreporting and discards
• Uncertainty about future state of nature
• Sensitivity S/R parameters, growth, M, maturity
• All these should be included in a HCR evaluation
• Two approaches
• stochastic modelling when uncertanties can be
  estimated
• Sensitivity analysis when uncertainties cannot be
  estimated or modelled
• Stochastic modelling on basis of estimates of
  uncertainty
• Data uncertainty
• Sensitivity analysis
• model uncertainty
• implementation uncertainty

30
How to get there
31
ICES transition

• Develop conceptual base for management strategy
  evaluations incl HCR evaluations, include in form
  of advice framework (2005)
• SG to provide tools for WGs for HCR and target
  ref point candidates in 2005 initially based on
  trial-and-error framework
• 2005 forward
• Dialogue with clients about management strategies
  to develop HCRs in context
• modify advisory framework to relate to management
  strategies from pa reference points to
  management strategies
• Develop appropriate management strategy
  evaluation tools

32
Short term problem in implementation

• The present pa framework is percieved as
  universally applicaple independently of
  management strategies
• Communication issue develop and accept
  management plans which are precautionary relative
  to sustainability concerns but do not relate to
  the present pa reference point framework except
  for Blim.

33
Longer term changed advice delivery mechanisms

• We need to move from Vatican model (smoke out
  of chimney after closed non-transparent process)
• To
• Socratic model - exploratory, dialogue based
  search evaluation of options
• Requires that advice is presented as a wider
  range of options with implications and that
  stakeholders advisors spend considerable time
  exploring these
• Handling unceratinties and risks should be a
  shared responsibility

34
Objectives
Implementation
Knowledge
35
(No Transcript)