1. Brian Irwin Atlantic Herring MSE Workshop 2 Portsmouth, NH 7 Dec. 2016
MSE Introduction
Brian Irwin
Atlantic Herring MSE Workshop 2
Portsmouth, NH
7 Dec. 2016

2. Welcome
2nd workshop on Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) of alternative control rules for Atlantic Herring
Purpose: provide continued opportunities for public input on the ongoing MSE of ABC control rules for Atlantic Herring

3. Workshop 1 (summary) May 16-17 2006, Portland, ME
Worked towards a common understanding of MSE
Potential objectives
Quantifiable performance metrics
A range of control rules to be evaluated
Data, models, uncertainties
Opportunity for stakeholders to provide greater input than typically possible at Council meetings, in an environment that supports constructive and open dialogue between users of the resource, scientists, fishery managers, and other interested members of the public

4. Goals for Workshop 2
Provide continued opportunity for stakeholder input
Develop a common understanding of outcomes of the MSE technical work
Continue soliciting information from stakeholders
Identifying acceptable ranges of performance for various metrics
Begin considering potential tradeoffs
Narrowing the range of ABC control-rule alternatives
Identify if any additional (minor) simulation work would be informative for establishing a long-term ABC control rule

5. Overview for Morning
This presentation - brief review of Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE)
Review steps taken in this MSE to date
Present agenda
Expectations

6. Management Strategy Evaluation
MSE – “Simulation testing of alternative management actions and assessment programmes to anticipate policy performance relative to specified metrics” – Irwin & Conroy 2013
MSE workshop background document

7. Why Do This? Evaluate anticipated performance of alternatives
Management decisions are based on imperfect information
An MSE may attempt to identify:
An “optimal” strategy,
A “less bad” option,
Strategies that are “robust” to known uncertainties,
Strategies with undesirable performance that can be eliminated from further consideration, or
Tradeoffs and points of diminishing returns
Identify important information needs and opportunities to improve information for future decisions

8. Setting the Stage View MSE as a decision process Useful Information
e.g., known objectives, empirical data
forecasts of anticipated performance of alternative harvest control rules
Uncertainty
e.g., herring recruitment
Participatory process
e.g., stakeholder workshops

9. (e.g., selecting a control rule to implement)
Making Decisions
Decision
Choosing one action among multiple alternatives
(e.g., selecting a control rule to implement)
Inputs
Outcomes
What influences the decision?
Why do we care?
Choosing one action among several available alternatives
Choosing to not do anything is still a decision
Usually involves a commitment of resources

10. Models in Decision Making
(Purpose)
Model
Options
Outcomes
What can we do?
Why do we care?

11. MSE Key Steps Basic overview
Identification of mgmt objectives & quantitative performance measures
Identification of alternative harvest strategies
Development & parameterization of operating models
Simulations
Generate assessment data
Apply method of stock assessment
Apply catch control rule
Determine biological implications on “true” population
Summarize results
Punt et al. 2001

12. Define Performance Measures
(i.e., measurable attributes)
A critical step:
They are used to measure how well objectives may be met
Assist in making choices among alternatives
Facilitate consideration of tradeoffs

13. Uncertainty & Decisions
The future is uncertain
Inherent risk in decision making because of uncertainty
Accounting for uncertainty can change the best option
The existence of uncertainty may be used as the reason to:
Do less
Maintain the status quo
Do more
Ask:
How was the decision justified?
What risks were treated as acceptable?
Whose viewpoints about risk were considered?
Irwin et al. 2016

14. Systems Are Uncertain
Nickerson and Adams 1979

15. Outcomes Are Uncertain
Risk Seeking
Favoring A over B
Risk Avoiding
Favoring B over C
Expected values for choosing either option A, B, or C:
(UNDESIRABLE)
(HIGHLY DESIRABLE)
Irwin et al. 2016

16. Considering Tradeoffs
Walters and Martell 2004

17. Roles & Expectations Facilitators Participants Loyalty is to process
May not be subject-matter expert
NOT:
judge, jury, or executioner
declaring “right” from “wrong”
attempting to influence decision
Participants
Carry the responsibility for discussion quality
Generate ideas, provide insights
Actively listen
Provide input on objectives and control rules