WP5: Reference points and harvest control rules Richard Hillary and Polina Levontin, Imperial College London, Division of Biology.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

CSIRO WEALTH FROM OCEANS FLAGSHIP Reviewing the harvest strategy for the Commonwealth small pelagic fishery Tony Smith Hobart, October 17, 2014.

Advertisements

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Status of Mediterranean and Black Sea resources in European Waters in 2013 Results for stocks in.

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.

Discussion: Use of ecosystem level productivity as a fishery management tool New England Not used in management, but currently under consideration for.

CSIRO WEALTH FROM OCEANS FLAGSHIP Review of the harvest strategy for the Commonwealth small pelagic fishery Tony Smith Hobart, March 24, 2015.

Parameterising Bayesian Networks: A Case Study in Ecological Risk Assessment Carmel A. Pollino Water Studies Centre Monash University Owen Woodberry, Ann.

ECOKNOWS WP6 Progress Nov Rainer Froese Cadiz,

458 Population Projections (policy analysis) Fish 458; Lecture 21.

DEEPFISHMAN Stock assessment (WP 4) and Biological Reference Points (WP 5) Phil Large.

Are pelagic fisheries managed well? A stock assessment scientists perspective Mark Maunder and Shelton Harley Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission

Mark N. Maunder, John R. Sibert, Alain Fonteneau, John Hampton, Pierre Kleiber, and Shelton J. Harley Problems with interpreting catch-per-unit-of-effort.

Generic Harvest Control Rules for European Fisheries Rainer Froese, Trevor A. Branch, Alexander Proelß, Martin Quaas, Keith Sainsbury & Christopher Zimmermann.

458 Fisheries Reference Points (Single- and multi-species) Fish 458, Lecture 23.

Spatial planning in the marine environment Gillian Glegg and Jonathan Richards.

Add your Logo in the slide master menu Module IMPLICATIONS WP8- SERVICES WP9-SOCIOECON WP10-VALUATION.

1 FLR: An Open-Source Framework for the Evaluation and Development of Management Strategies L.T. Kell, I. Mosqueira, P. Grosjean, J-M. Fromentin, D. Garcia,

Building the knowledge base for the implementation/ monitoring of biodiversity strategies Breakout group discussion 1.

Descriptor 3 for determining Good Environmental Status (GES) under the MSFD was defined as “Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish.

Status of Exploited Marine Fishes and Invertebrates in German Marine Waters Rainer Froese, GEOMAR Cluster Meeting ökosystemgerechte Fischerei Bundesamt.

Incorporating Ecosystem Objectives into Fisheries Management

1 Proposed Revisions to the National Standard 1 Guidelines: Adding Guidance on Annual Catch Limits and Other Requirements Presentation to the Regional.

Compatibility & consequences of alternative potential TRPs for the south Pacific albacore stock MOW3-WP/06 SPC, OFP MOW3 meeting, Apia, Samoa Friday 28.

MAFMC Forage Panel Discussion April 11, 2013 Richard Robins, Jr. Opening Remarks.

Stock assessment, fishery management systems, and the FMSP Tools -- Summary -- FMSP Stock Assessment Tools Training Workshop Bangladesh 19th - 25th September.

WP4: Models to predict & test recovery strategies Cefas: Laurence Kell & John Pinnegar Univ. Aberdeen: Tara Marshall & Bruce McAdam.

Pacific Hake Management Strategy Evaluation Joint Technical Committee Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Pacific Biological Station, DFO School of.

Cetacean by-catch M.B. Santos Workshop Marine Environment and fisheries.

DAFF PERSPECTIVE ON DEVELOPING A NEW MARINE RESEARCH PROGRAMME J OHANN AUGUSTYN.

Theme II: Fisheries Dynamics The CIMAS Program Jerry Ault Manoj Shivlani Monica Valle Jim Bohnsack Peter Ortner Bill Richards Contributors David Die Maria.

Pacific Hake Management Strategy Evaluation Joint Technical Committee Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Pacific Biological Station, DFO School of.

WHAT “CATCH” MEANS IN ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT? Sachiko TSUJI (FAO) 30/10-01/11/2012 UNECE TF on Environmental Indicators.

North Sea Case Study UNCOVER Report Writing Workshop Holte February 2010.

1 The IMAGE project I ndicators for fisheries MA naGement in E urope A specific targeted research project under the European Commission 6 th framework.

A brief summary of Precautionary Approach work by SCRS [and some personal reflections] V.R. Restrepo Halifax, 3/2008.

DEEPFISHMAN Using bioeconomic modeling for evaluation of management measures – an example Institute of Economic Studies.

Synthesis of Points Made. GEOGLAM General Guidance – Greater institutional engagement needed – Identify some near term manageable successes – focus on.

Need to Invest Investment Objectives and Case for Change Programme Option Identification and Assessment Analysis Strategic Case: Economic Case: Financial.

Priority 8 Call for Proposals Task 2: Understanding the mechanisms of stock recovery Objective: ”The objective of this task is to apply all available and.

Should we integrate assessments of the state-based descriptors? YES – Considering that the MSFD is underpinned by ecosystem management approach, it is.

Sigurd Tjelmeland Barents Sea multispecies harvesting control rules in the making (well, thought-of, anyway) IMR workshop september 2004 A practical.

The management of small pelagics. Comprise the 1/3 of the total world landings Comprise more than 50% of the total Mediterranean landings, while Two species,

B. Question 1 - Climate Impacts How does climate forcing affect the target forage species in terms of timing, distribution, abundance, and species composition?

Mrs Nafisat Bolatito IKENWEIWE (PhD) DEPARTMENT OF AQUACULTURE AND FISHERIES MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE, ABEOKUTA FISH STOCK ASSESSMENT

WP220 – Marine ecosystems and fisheries Tony Beeching Cefas.

Harvest control rules in context – limits, possibilities and the ICES experience Poul Degnbol IFM, Denmark & ICES Workshop on Harvest Control Rules for.

Our Oceans 2015, 6 October 2015, Valparaiso, Chile OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE FLAGSHIP Transforming monitoring and assessment of international fisheries Campbell.

ICES plans 2014 forward. ICES work 2014 Recurrent TAC advice – Sandeel 28/2 – NS main package 30/6 – Rays and skates 30/9 Data limited stocks – DLS categories.

Management Procedures (Prof Ray Hilborn). Current Management Cycle Fishery: Actual Catches Data Collection Assessment Management Decision.

Biological invasions and the Millennium Assessment: bioeconomic analysis & uncertainty.

Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) Bob O’Boyle & Tana Worcester Bedford Institute of Oceanography Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada.

Structure and Function of Marine Ecosystems Steven Murawski Ph.D. Director, Office of Science & Technology National Marine Fisheries Service  Challenges.

Add your Logo in the slide master menu GLOBAQUA Meeting, January 13th-14th, Freising IMPLICATIONS Module Reporting back Implications Module: WP8, WP9,

Oct 1999 The After Effects of the 1999 fishery: Catch and Discard Rates in the 2000 fisheries in the re-opened closed areas.

O. Maury, MACROES meeting Brest 4-5 May 2010 MACROES WP 2 : Methodology in Ecosystems TASK 2.2: Improve the description of functional biodiversity within.

WP6 trends in biodiversity - Review impacts - Explore trends in catch data - Explore trends in survey data - Options for assessing trends in invertebrates.

ECOST PROJECT WP.4. ECOLOGICAL MODELING FOURTH REGULAR MEETING APRIL 2007 GUANGZHOU, CHINA WP.4 ECOLOGY CO-LEADER’S FINAL REPORT Karl Aiken, PhD.

EFIMAS - Operational Evaluation Tools for Fisheries Management Options EUROCEAN 2004, GALWAY, IRELAND, slide EU FP6 SSP8-CT EFIMAS Objectives.

ECOSTAT workshop “Hydromorphology and WFD classification Oslo, Norway, October 2015 (back-to-back with ECOSTAT) Organised in close collaboration.

Generic Management Plans Use of the EFIMAS toolbox in their evaluation John Casey, Chair STECF.

Adaptive Management. 2 Growth Recruitment Stock or Biomass Natural Harvest Risk Assessment Economics Sociocultural Political/Legal Management Objectives.

MAFMC Forage Panel Discussion April 11, 2013 Trigger Questions.

Retrospective bioeconomic analysis of Fraser River sockeye salmon fisheries management Dale Marsden, Steve Martell and Rashid Sumaila Fisheries Economics.

Risk Communication in Medicines

Case Study 1c. Directed single-species fishery – less vulnerable – southern blue ling (Molva dypterygia) in Vb,VI, VII & XIIb.

DEEPFISHMAN Kick-off meeting Nantes May 2009.

HCR Evaluation Guyana Seabob.

Day 2 Session 2 Biological reference points - Supplementary

Economic modelling to support fisheries management

Conclusions Group 3 Parallel sessions 2 and 3

Presentation transcript:

WP5: Reference points and harvest control rules Richard Hillary and Polina Levontin, Imperial College London, Division of Biology

Deliverables D5.1: Global review of ref. points/HCRs used for deep-water species D5.2: Strengths/weaknesses of current ref. points/HCRs as applied to case-study stocks D5.3: Report on suitable ref. points/HCRs for EU-related deep water fisheries – present and future

Interaction with other WPs WP2 – certain review deliverables should provide background/motivation for some of WP5 WP3 – Bioeconomic ref. pts./HCRs WP4 – clearest linkage: “follows” much of WP4 work (SW analysis, ref. pt./HCR development)‏ WP7 – Clear link from WP4/5 but also from WP7 to WP5 – MSE informs candidate HCRs

Review: D5.1 Brief review complementary to those in WP2/4 Aim to identify EU applicable/”successful” bio(economic) reference points from wider field

Case study RPs/HCRs: D5.2 Identification of appropriate indicators/RPs/HCRs for case study stocks Also identify potential MPs (given objectives) to be tested in WP7 Problems with current (if relevant) RPs/HCRs will be identified

Designing HCRs for CS: D5.3 Strong linkage with WP4 work – clear that relevant RP/HCR for CS conditional on relevant assessment method/outputs/uncertainty Feedback with WP7 – candidate HCRs from WP5 but MSE process can inform HCR construction/selection...

Reference points Biological/bioeconomic values from which we can measure stock status/targets/objectives Data hungry: MSY paradigm, “absolute” targets (F/biomass limit/reference points)‏ Data diet-friendly: abundance depletion (current to unfished/”good” conditions), indicator-based RPs derived directly from observations

Harvest Control Rules (I) Automatic changes to exploitation level/pattern given stock status relative to RPs (II) Agreed exploitation level – status quo or agreed changes in fishing pressure/pattern at agreed rate until target is reached Future harvest “actions” given RPs, indicators, auxiliary information and historic harvest “actions”

Utility of RPs/HCRs Achieve management objectives specified Use agreed (and tested) MPs to reduce conflict and delays in action Increase transparency in management process

Uncertainty and precautionary approach From WP4 selection of assessment methods will incorporate uncertainty in stock dynamics Preferable to have “probabilistic” RPs HCRs designed according to prec. appr. as a rule require “probabilistic” information on both stock status and reference points

Requirements for RP/HCR/MP design Clear and specific management objectives: time horizons, constraints, targets, some quantification of risk of key events Reference points/assessment models that are estimable from the data available now and in the future

Ecosystem approach Probably the most challenging aspect of designing RPs/HCRs Likely to be qualitative/semi-quantitative given data and trophic dependence/spatial understanding “Simple” multi-species ideas possible Data poor: composite indices of fishery impact