Doug S Butterworth MARAM (Marine Resource Assessment and Management Group) Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics University of Cape Town, Rondebosch.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
An Alternative Sardine Recruit Movement Model
Advertisements

An Example of Quant’s Task in Croatian Banking Industry
Copyright © 2010, 2007, 2004 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 Sampling Distribution Models.
Towards Healthy Stocks and Healthy Profits in European Fisheries Rainer Froese IFM-GEOMAR Presentation at Hearing „How much fish.
By, Deepak George Pazhayamadom Emer Rogan (Department of ZEPS, University College Cork) Ciaran Kelly (Fisheries Science Services, Marine Institute) Edward.
Icelandic cod HCR - lessons learned Einar Hjörleifsson Marine Research Institute Reykjavík, Iceland.
An Overview of the Key Issues to be Discussed Relating to South African Sardine MARAM International Stock Assessment Workshop 1 st December 2014 Carryn.
The current status of fisheries stock assessment Mark Maunder Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) Center for the Advancement of Population.
CSIRO WEALTH FROM OCEANS FLAGSHIP Review of the harvest strategy for the Commonwealth small pelagic fishery Tony Smith Hobart, March 24, 2015.
Initial Results Using a Two-Area Directed Sardine TAC SPSWG Meeting 31 st October 2013 Carryn de Moor Doug Butterworth William Robinson Marine Resource.
The Comparison of the Software Cost Estimating Methods
T T18-03 Exponential Smoothing Forecast Purpose Allows the analyst to create and analyze the "Exponential Smoothing Average" forecast. The MAD.
458 More on Model Building and Selection (Observation and process error; simulation testing and diagnostics) Fish 458, Lecture 15.
ES INC: Economic and discounted cash flow techniques: a comparison with respect to the Requirements of the Management Control System.
458 Population Projections (policy analysis) Fish 458; Lecture 21.
Are pelagic fisheries managed well? A stock assessment scientists perspective Mark Maunder and Shelton Harley Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission
T T18-05 Trend Adjusted Exponential Smoothing Forecast Purpose Allows the analyst to create and analyze the "Trend Adjusted Exponential Smoothing"
Using Climate Information in Fisheries Stock Assessments (with a focus on Pacific Whiting) Ian Taylor SMA 550: Climate Impacts on the Pacific Northwest.
MARTIN TSAMENYI (Ghana) SWGSM Chair THE 19th SPECIAL MEETING OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF ATLANTIC TUNAS (Genoa, Italy,
458 Fitting models to data – I (Sum of Squares) Fish 458, Lecture 7.
Incorporating Ecosystem Objectives into Fisheries Management
Compatibility & consequences of alternative potential TRPs for the south Pacific albacore stock MOW3-WP/06 SPC, OFP MOW3 meeting, Apia, Samoa Friday 28.
Some North Pacific Fishing Industry Perspectives on Rebuilding Merrick Burden Executive Director Marine Conservation Alliance.
Capital expenditure decisions: an introduction
Chapter 8: Systems analysis and design
Doug S Butterworth MARAM (Marine Resource Assessment and Management Group) Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics University of Cape Town, Rondebosch.
WP4: Models to predict & test recovery strategies Cefas: Laurence Kell & John Pinnegar Univ. Aberdeen: Tara Marshall & Bruce McAdam.
INTERNATIONAL REVIEW PANEL REPORT FOR THE 2012 INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES STOCK ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP November 2012, UCT NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY.
Investigating the Accuracy and Robustness of the Icelandic Cod Assessment and Catch Control Rule A. Rosenberg, G. Kirkwood, M. Mangel, S. Hill and G. Parkes.
Pacific Hake Management Strategy Evaluation Joint Technical Committee Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Pacific Biological Station, DFO School of.
Doug S Butterworth MARAM (Marine Resource Assessment and Management Group) Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics University of Cape Town, Rondebosch.
Cetacean by-catch M.B. Santos Workshop Marine Environment and fisheries.
Surplus-Production Models
Two Promising Methods for Assessment of Data-Poor Stocks Rainer Froese, GEOMAR, Germany Daniel Pauly, FC-UBC, Canada 9 November 2014, San Francisco, USA.
Pacific Hake Management Strategy Evaluation Joint Technical Committee Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Pacific Biological Station, DFO School of.
A REVIEW OF BIOLOGICAL REFERENCE POINTS AND MANAGEMENT OF THE CHILEAN JACK MACKEREL Aquiles Sepúlveda Instituto de Investigación Pesquera, Av. Colón 2780,
Revisiting the SSC Decision to Use all Available Data to Calculate Average Landings/OFLs/ABCs Southeast Fisheries Science Center.
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND TECHNIQUES.
Chapter 5 Parameter estimation. What is sample inference? Distinguish between managerial & financial accounting. Understand how managers can use accounting.
Doug S Butterworth MARAM (Marine Resource Assessment and Management Group) Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics University of Cape Town, Rondebosch.
Issues concerning the interpretation of statistical significance tests.
Software Project Management
Our Oceans 2015, 6 October 2015, Valparaiso, Chile OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE FLAGSHIP Transforming monitoring and assessment of international fisheries Campbell.
1 Federal Research Centre for Fisheries Institute for Sea Fisheries, Hamburg Hans-Joachim Rätz Josep Lloret Institut de Ciències del Mar, Barcelona Long-term.
1 Climate Change and Implications for Management of North Sea Cod (Gadus morhua) L.T. Kell, G.M. Pilling and C.M. O’Brien CEFAS, Lowestoft.
MSE Performance Metrics, Tentative Results and Summary Joint Technical Committee Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Pacific Biological Station, DFO.
An Illustrative Example of a Management Procedure for Eastern North Atlantic Bluefin Tuna. Rebecca Rademeyer and Doug Butterworth NB: This is intended.
Copyright © 2010, 2007, 2004 Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 18 Sampling Distribution Models.
The inference and accuracy We learned how to estimate the probability that the percentage of some subjects in the sample would be in a given interval by.
EFIMAS - Operational Evaluation Tools for Fisheries Management Options EUROCEAN 2004, GALWAY, IRELAND, slide EU FP6 SSP8-CT EFIMAS Objectives.
Day 4, Session 1 Abundance indices, CPUE, and CPUE standardisation
WHAT IS A MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE (MP) / MANAGEMENT STRATEGY EVALUATION (MSE) AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT? Doug S Butterworth MARAM (Marine Resource Assessment.
MARAM International Stock Assessment Workshop
An Alternative Sardine Recruit Movement Model
THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE
Policy Evaluation I (Performance Measures and Alternative control systems) Lecture 6.
Slides to illustrate relative value of various criteria in DSF
HUMAN RESOURCE GOVERNANCE, RISK MANAGEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
GCE PROFESSIONAL BUSINESS SERVICES AS 3
Policy Evaluation II (Feedback strategies)
Oceanic Fisheries Programme Pacific Community
INTERNATIONAL REVIEW PANEL REPORT FOR THE 2012 INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES STOCK ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP November 2012, UCT NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY.
(Management Strategy Evaluation)
Spatial strata and age groupings
Day 2 Session 2 Biological reference points - Supplementary
FISHERIES MODELLING AND MANAGEMENT
Day 4 Session 2 Biological reference points
MARAM/IWS/2017/Sardine/P9
Technical Briefing Northern Shrimp Stock Assessment
MULTIFAN-CL implementation of deterministic and stochastic projections
Presentation transcript:

Doug S Butterworth MARAM (Marine Resource Assessment and Management Group) Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa MSE: (Management Strategy Evaluation) WHAT, WHY and WHEN

OUTLINE I.What is MSE? (IWC/CCSBT interpretation) II.Why should MSE be implemented? Feedback control Feedback control III.When should MSE be implemented? IV.Short lived species (a brief remark)

I. WHAT IS MSE? What is a Management Procedure? What is a Management Procedure? An agreed formula, with an agreed set of data inputs, used to calculate a recommendation for a fisheries management measure – typically a TAC MSE is the process of developing and agreeing a Management Procedure MSE is the process of developing and agreeing a Management Procedure (At least for our purposes today)

II. WHY SHOULD MSE BE IMPLEMENTED? Because of shortcomings with best- assessment-based management

BEST-ASSESSMENT-BASED MANAGEMENT E.g. US Magnuson-Stevens Act with its MSY- related recovery targets “Best Assessment” of resource Catch control law TAC

DIFFICULTIES FOR THE BEST- ASSESSMENT-BASED APPROACH Inter-annual best assessment/TAC variation (including MSY-related Reference points) Inter-annual best assessment/TAC variation (including MSY-related Reference points) No consideration of longer term trade-offs (which requires taking account of management responses to future resource monitoring data) No consideration of longer term trade-offs (which requires taking account of management responses to future resource monitoring data) Lengthy haggling Lengthy haggling What if the “best assessment” is wrong? What if the “best assessment” is wrong? Default decision of “no change” Default decision of “no change”

BUT WHY IS FISHERIES MANAGEMENT SO DIFFICULT? SUSTAINABLE UTILISATION Pensioner must live off interest What’s my capital? What’s the interest rate? Multiply the two Don’t spend more than that! EASY!!

THE SOURCE OF THE DIFFICULTY. FISHERIES HAVE UNCO-OPERATIVE BANK TELLERS They won’t tell you the interest rate, which in any case is highly variable Recruitment fluctuations They will advise your balance only once a year, with a typically +-50% error, and in the wrong currency Surveys are typically annual only, results have high variance, and bias is unknown

MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES (MSE). MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES (MSE). WHAT NEW DO THEY BRING TO ASSIST SOLVE THE PROBLEM? FEEDBACK CONTROL! Monitor stock changes and adjust management measures (e.g. TACs) accordingly

A FINANCIAL ANALOGY $ invested at 5% p.a. Each year withdraw $  Investment sustainably maintained at $ ton fish stock grows naturally at 5% p.a. Each year catch tons  Sustainable exploitation: resource kept at tons

After 5 years, someone MAY have stolen $ from your investment You keep withdrawing $ per year After 5 years, recruitment failure or IUU fishing MAY have reduced abundance by 30% Catches maintained at tons per year If this event did occur, resource is rapidly reduced No theft Theft

WHY’S THERE ANY PROBLEM? Ask the teller for account balance. If this has fallen to $ , reduce annual withdrawal to $  Sustainability maintained. Resource abundance known only through annual surveys which have large associated errors BUT The teller will advise balance only once a year with  50% error

CAN YOU TELL WHETHER $ WAS STOLEN FROM YOUR ACCOUNT ? In each of the following scenarios shown, the theft occurred in only one of the two cases Can you tell which one? (Equivalently, whether fish abundance was reduced by 30%?)

IMPRESSIONS It wasn’t easy to tell It wasn’t easy to tell It needed usually about 20 years of new data It needed usually about 20 years of new data to be certain to be certain By that time, account was almost exhausted By that time, account was almost exhausted (if theft had occurred) (if theft had occurred) By the time the adverse effect of recruitment failure or IUU fishing is detectable, the resource is already heavily depleted By the time the adverse effect of recruitment failure or IUU fishing is detectable, the resource is already heavily depleted

THREE STRATEGIES (MPs) I: Withdraw $ every year II: Withdraw 5% of the teller-advised balance each year each year III: Withdrawal this year = 80% last year’s withdrawal + 1% teller’s (erroneous) balance withdrawal + 1% teller’s (erroneous) balance Strategy must “work” whether or not theft occurred

No theft Theft I II III Annual Withdrawal

I II III No theft Theft Balance in Account

I II III No theft Theft Annual Withdrawal

I II III No theft Theft Balance in Account

PERFORMANCE I: Going bankrupt if theft occurred II: Stabilises balance in account, but annual withdrawals too variable withdrawals too variable III: Best of the three – stabilises balance without too much change from year to year without too much change from year to year Formula III automatically corrects for effect of recruitment failure/IUU fishing if it occurred. “Feedback control” (MP basis)

THE MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE APPROACH (MSE). NOTE: ANDRE WILL EXPLAIN FURTHER. 1) 1) Specify alternative plausible models of resource and fishery (Operating Models – OMs) 2) 2) Condition OMs on data (effectively alternative assessments); pre-specify future data inputs to MP 3) 3) Agree performance measures to quantify the extent to which objectives are attained 4) 4) Select amongst candidate MPs for the one showing the “best” trade-offs in performance measures across objectives and different OMs in simulation testing

SO WHAT EXACTLY IS AN MP ?  Formula for TAC recommendation  Pre-specified inputs to formula

But isn’t this the same as the traditional approach ? Almost, but not quite

So what’s the difference ? a)Pre-specifications prevent haggling b)Simulation checks that formula works even if “best” assessment wrong

How is the MP formula chosen from amongst alternative candidates ? a)Compare simulated catch / risk / catch variability trade-offs for alternatives b)Check adequate for plausible variations on “best” assessments

SOUTHERN BLUEFIN TUNA EXAMPLE TRADE OFF More catch More recovery Different HCR options Catch Biomass Year

What are the advantages of the MP approach ? a)Less time haggling of little long term benefit b)Proper evaluation of risk d)Consistent with Precautionary Principle e)Provides framework for interactions with stakeholders, particularly re objectives and trade-offs amongst them f)Use haggling time saved towards more beneficial longer term research c)Sound basis to impose limits on TAC variability

What are the disadvantages of the MP approach ? a)Lengthy evaluation time b)Overly rigid framework (though 3-5 yearly revision) BUT Provides default

When should scientists change the TAC recommendation from a MP? New information / understanding shows actual resource situation is outside range tested New information / understanding shows actual resource situation is outside range tested A MP is like an auto-pilot BUT The real pilot remains to check that nothing unanticipated has occurred (i.e. annual routine assessments continue)

How should managers react to MP- based scientific recommendations ? a)Treat as default (replacing “no change”) so that necessary action is not delayed b)Require compelling reasons to change i.e. such a decision should not be taken lightly

III. WHEN SHOULD MSE BE IMPLEMENTED? Scenario A A large quantity of non-conflicting data covering a few decades A large quantity of non-conflicting data covering a few decades An agreed assessment giving estimates of high precision An agreed assessment giving estimates of high precision Few serious uncertainties about assessment assumptions Few serious uncertainties about assessment assumptions Little argument about the TAC recommendation to follow from the assessment Little argument about the TAC recommendation to follow from the assessment No urgency to implement MSE ARE YOU IN UTOPIA OR DENIAL ??!!

III. WHEN SHOULD MSE BE IMPLEMENTED? Scenario B Few data Few data Perhaps an historical catch series (accuracy questionable) Perhaps an historical catch series (accuracy questionable) No more than a rudimentary: No more than a rudimentary: i) Estimate of abundance in absolute terms; or ii) Very short series of a relative abundance index USE A PRECAUTIONARY DATA-POOR METHOD TO PROVIDE ADVICE Focus first on developing an improved index of relative abundance before considering MSE

III. WHEN SHOULD MSE BE IMPLEMENTED? Scenario C (Minimally – do any NP tuna stocks match this profile? ) Historical catches, with some idea of their accuracy Historical catches, with some idea of their accuracy A relative abundance index good and long enough plus sufficient biological information to develop at least a simple assessment A relative abundance index good and long enough plus sufficient biological information to develop at least a simple assessment Nevertheless assessment results that vary considerably depending on assessment (and data) assumptions that are under debate/dispute Nevertheless assessment results that vary considerably depending on assessment (and data) assumptions that are under debate/dispute Reasonable certainty that the abundance index will continue to be available for each coming year Reasonable certainty that the abundance index will continue to be available for each coming year IMPLEMENT MSE

ABUNDANCE INDEX/INDICES North Pacific albacore – representative series Juveniles - Japanese pole and line CPUE Adults- Japanese longline CPUE MSE simulation testing needs Not only such series continuing But also the extent of their variability about the true underlying abundance trend

SOUTH AFRICAN DEEPWATER HAKE – SOUTH COAST CPUE - DATA

SOUTH AFRICAN DEEPWATER HAKE – SOUTH COAST CPUE – MODEL FIT CV = 0.20 autocorrelation = 0.60

IV. SHORT LIVED SPECIES MSE remains applicable, despite large fluctuations in abundance MSE remains applicable, despite large fluctuations in abundance However focus on attaining a target abundance tends to be dropped However focus on attaining a target abundance tends to be dropped Rather the emphasis is on minimising the probability of abundance falling under some threshold below which average recruitment might be appreciably reduced Rather the emphasis is on minimising the probability of abundance falling under some threshold below which average recruitment might be appreciably reduced

SOUTH AFRICAN SARDINE AND ANCHOVY. TAC formulae are variants of constant proportions of annual acoustic survey abundance estimates. Trade-off as juvenile sardine caught with anchovy. Options ensure low probability abundance < threshold

Thank you for your attention With thanks for assistance with slides to: Carryn de Moor Jose de Oliviera Rebecca Rademeyer