1. 2 stakeholders can be responsible council recommendation 10m lbs quota 3 fish bag limit >24 in...
TRANSCRIPT
1
2
Stakeholders can be responsible
Council recommendation• 10M Lbs quota• 3 fish bag limit• >24 in max size
Stakeholder choice• 8M Lbs quota• 2 fish bag limit• >28 in max size
How and why did recreational anglers, CCA, and NGOs become
more conservative than managers?
3
Management regulatory
recommendations
Stock Assessment
Status ?
Existing Council process
Public scoping
Council decision
AcceptReject
Council amends FMP
Invite,Inform
&Ignore!
4
I3 stakeholder involvement
Managers and scientists select objectives
Develop optionsModel developmentand modification Stakeholders
Present
model results
Recommendations
5
Stakeholder-centered approach
Stakeholders propose objectives, options and performance
measures
Revise options and performance measuresModel development
and modification Stakeholders
Review
model results
Recommendations
6
Stakeholder centered FishSmart Process
Management regulatory
recommendations
Stock Assessment
Status ?
Council and FishSmart processes
Information
Public scoping
Council decision
AcceptReject
Council amends FMP
Anglers voluntarilyadopt recommendations
Stakeholder recommendations
7
Project challenge
• How do we include the full range of stakeholders in a process that conserves the resource and– Benefits from stakeholder knowledge– Is scientifically-based– Reflects stakeholder preference– Results in increased acceptance and
compliance with management, and improved stakeholder-management interactions
8
The players and their roles
• Informed stakeholders– Provide a vision for the future of the resource, identify and
evaluate options for achieving that vision
• Scientists– Provide quantitative and qualitative tools that permit
stakeholders to evaluate the efficacy of alternative options
• Facilitators– Manage the process to ensure full, open participation and
representation of all stakeholder views
• Managers– Receive results of process and provide guidance on legal and
practical constraints
9
Case Study:King mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla)
• Recreationally and commercially important
• Management changes were likely to be made
• Stakeholders and managers were welcoming of our involvement
10
Biology• Mobile coastal pelagic piscivore• Highly variable growth• Sexually dimorphic• Maximum age 26; 2-10 Typical• Warm Water > 20ºC • Supports extensive commercial (~40%) and recreational
fisheries (~60%)
Original artwork by Kevin R. Brant, copied with permission from “Sport Fish of the Atlantic” by Vic DunawayOriginal artwork by Kevin R. Brant, copied with permission from “Sport Fish of the Atlantic” by Vic Dunaway
11
Workshop process
• Four stakeholder-centered workshops to develop model, explore alternatives, and develop recommendations
• Focused on developing recommendations that the angling community could implement voluntarily or could be implemented by management
12
Stakeholders
• Recreational anglers
• For-hire operators
• Commercial fishermen
• Environmental NGO representatives
• Managers and biologists
• Tackle shop owners
• Tournament organizers
13
Stakeholder vision statement
“A sustainable Atlantic king mackerel fishery should be managed to prevent overfishing from occurring, prevent the species from being overfished, to ensure optimum yield is not exceeded, while maintaining the genetic diversity of fish and providing acceptable levels of access and allocation for all sectors while conserving biological and ecological functions.”
14
Stakeholders’ goals
• Achieve the vision (population, fishery, ecosystem)
• While simultaneously– Maximizing access– Reducing/simplifying regulations– Improving stakeholder interactions with
management and each other– Improving stakeholder education
15
Options
• Management– Size limits– Bag/creel limits– Season limits– Constant quota control rule– Area closures
• Voluntary– Increased catch and release fishing– Reduction of catch and release mortality
16
Performance measures• Spawning stock biomass (biomass of mature
females)• Proportion of the population older than 15 years• Average age of spawners• Harvest (numbers)• Yield (lbs)• Harvest in preferred size categories• Average size in harvest• Proportion of year fishery is closed• Number of dead fish due to release mortality
17
Weighing options
• Stakeholders used results from a numerical simulation model to “weigh” the performance of different options they suggested in achieving their desired goals subject to the constraint of minimizing season closures and staying within Federally-mandated thresholds
• All phases of the model development and evaluation were discussed and agreed upon by consensus of stakeholders
18
Model Schematic
“Natural” Deaths
Reproduction
Growth & Maturity
Fishing
Migration
19
Model Structure
• Model tracks– Males and females separately– Ages 1-19+– Fork lengths ~12-63 in (30-160 cm)– Two areas, mixing zone and Atlantic non-
mixing zone (with migration between them)– Seasonal time step (Jan.-March, April-June,
July-Sept., Oct.-Dec.)– 3 fisheries
20
Model Processes
• Growth & Maturity– von Bertalanffy - Separate patterns for males and
females– Model only includes female maturity
• Stock-Recruitment– Beverton-Holt - Depends on the biomass of mature
females in both areas• Mortality (size-based)
– Natural– Fishing
• Migration
21
Model Structure• Abundance
• Mortality
• Catch
N = Abundance F = Inst. Fishing mort. RateM = Natural mort. Z = Total mort.p = migration ratey = year s = seasona = age x = sexo = area f = fishery
oxsayZoxay
osaoxtaty eNpN ,,,
,,,,,,,
f
foxasyxaoxasy FMZ ,,,,,,,,,,
oxasyoxasyfoxasy NFC ,,,,,,,,,,,,,
22
Parameter uncertainty
• Simulations drew from parameter distributions that reflected either– Scientific uncertainty– System uncertainty
• Recreational F – used 3 scenarios: either increasing, constant and decreasing scenarios with white noise variability (lognormal CV 10%)
• Ran multiple simulations to yield distributions of outcomes
23
Sample results for stakeholders
• Stakeholders were provided with histograms summarizing distribution of results of 300 runs of the model options for each performance measure
• Stakeholders could evaluate mean response and extremes so they could avoid undesirable conditions
24
Building consensus
• Consensus developed by iterative voting on a 4-pt scale, following discussion and revision of any proposed stakeholder motion
• Consensus history reported live on-screen during discussion
• Consensus reached when 75% of votes are 3 or 4
Acceptability
RankingScale
4 =acceptable, I agree
3 = acceptable, I agree with minor reservations
2 = not acceptable,
I don’t agree unless major reservations addressed
1 = not acceptable
25
Consensus example
A.7. The FishSmart stakeholder process should be a part of the Council decision making process for all fisheries.
4=acceptable
3= minor reservations
2=major reservations
1= not acceptable
Initial RankingOct 17
10 0 0 0
November 6
Ranking
2 0 5 3Member’s Comments and Reservations (November 2008): This is too presumptuous. Can be part of a presentation to the Council “For all fisheries”
Unanimous consensus was reached on most motions relatively quickly, but not always
26
Criteria for recommending options
• Option had to have a > 50% chance of ensuring the stock was not overfished, nor experiencing overfishing over the next 15 years
• Option must limit season closures
• Option must meet or exceed the 75% consensus threshold
27
Recommended optionsSSB F Season closure
8M, 2
Fis
h, 2
8in
8M, 2
Fis
h8M
, 32i
nSt
atus
Quo
8M, 2
Fis
h, 2
8in
8M, 2
Fis
h8M
, 32i
nSt
atus
Quo
8M, 2
Fis
h, 2
8in
8M, 2
Fis
h8M
, 32i
nSt
atus
Quo
28
Status of FishSmart recommendations
• Recommendations were presented to the SAFMC Statistical and Scientific Committee and to the full Council in December 2008
• Council voted to add FishSmart recommendations to the SSC’s list for public scoping
• Decision expected Summer 2009
29
Benefits: Magnusson-Stevens
• The FishSmart process was an explicit decision analysis that included both scientific and management uncertainty
• Separate recommendations could have been generated based on – Scientific uncertainty (ABCs)
• E.g., recruitment dynamics
– Management uncertainty (ACLs)• E.g., Change in angler behavior in response to
regulations
30
Benefits: General
• Process led to better decisions– More buy-in from stakeholders– Structured stakeholder involvement &
education
• Less conflict among stakeholders
• New partnerships among stakeholders
• Increased stakeholder satisfaction
• New collaborations with research and management
31
Lessons learned:Communication
• Demands clear, open communication to develop trust and respect with and among stakeholders– Commitment to “explanations without jargon”– Research team external to the management
process beneficial
• Professional, neutral and experienced facilitation team is essential
32
Lessons learned:Management involvement
• A management request to use the process helps ensure stakeholder participation
• Managers are involved as a stakeholder who can supply logistic and legal constraints
• Management must listen to the outcome– If managers choose not to implement workgroup
recommendations, they must provide clear reasons to avoid alienating stakeholders
• FishSmart is a long term approach; it cannot solve short-term problems
33
Lessons learned:Stakeholder identification
• Relevant stakeholder groups represented• Determining workgroup members is critical
– Representatives must have clout within their own group
– Effective representation ensures: • Knowledgeable of key concerns • Disseminate results & buy-in• Minimize size & cost
– Stakeholder interest groups must be balanced– Members must be able to work within the process
• Commit to attending all meetings
34
Lessons learned:Stakeholder involvement
• Commitment to involving stakeholders at all stages– Stakeholders must understand model to
believe in it– Implications of the results must be openly
discussed and evaluated
• When this happens stakeholders become passionate advocates for the process
35
Potential for other applications
• Other fisheries case studies under consideration– Pacific rockfish– Snook– Blue crab
• Establishing ecosystem targets and thresholds
• Conflicts between ecosystem services and fisheries
36
Acknowledgements
Funding
Facilitation
Support
37
Time line and costs
• We completed the king mackerel process in 4 meetings in 8 months. – 4 meetings per year is appropriate– More contentious issues will require more meetings and hence
more time• King mackerel meetings cost ~ $40k per meeting
– $20k hotel, food, meeting expenses– $12k facilitation team– $10k overhead
• ~$100k.yr-1 project costs in addition to meetings– $20k.yr-1 – PI salaries– $60k.yr-1 – Programmer, Admin support– $24k,yr-1 – Overhead
38
Other
• Facilitation team is critical – The facilitation team must be independent of
management– Must be involved in all meetings
• Research team must be viewed as independent– Cannot be seen to have an agenda– Must respond to all practical requests from
stakeholders
• Workgroup < 30 stakeholders– Larger workgroups do not develop cohesion
39
Additional information on model structure
40
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 5 10 15 20
Age (years)
Le
ng
th (
in)
Female
Male
Growth
41
Weight-at-length
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Length (in)
We
igh
t (lb
s)
42
Female Maturity-at-length
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
10 20 30 40 50 60
Length (cm)
Pro
po
rtio
n m
atu
re
Observed (NW FL)
Fitted
43
Stock-Recruitment
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Spawning Biomass (million lbs)
Ag
e-1
re
cru
its (
mill
ion
s)
44
Migration
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0 5 10 15 20
Age
Mig
ratio
n r
ate
Spring
Fall
45
Natural Mortality at Age
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0 5 10 15 20
Age
Na
tura
l mo
rta
lity
rate
(M
)
Male
Female
46
Fishing Mortality
• Fishery divided into three sectors– Commercial– General recreational
• Private boat• Charter
– Tournament
47
Quotas
• Fishing stops for the year when the quota is reached– Allocation 62.9% recreational– Extreme because methods are not in place to
manage recreational fishery by quota within a year
48
Estimating Effects of Tournaments
Estimated # fish kept
FL GA SC NCTotal
8,980 1,265 2,630 4,925 17,530
Estimated total weight ~245,000 lbs
49
Catch
ReleasedDead
Alive
ReleasedHarvested
LiveDie
15.5% 84.5%
26%74%
12.5% 87.5%
Catch and Release MortalitySelectivity
Retention
C-R mortality
50
Selectivity
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Length (in)
Se
lect
ivity
Commercial
Recreational
Tournament
51
Retention Probabilities
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Length (in)
Re
ten
tion
Commercial
Recreational
Tournament
52
020
6010
014
0
Fre
quen
cy (
Num
ber
of T
rips)
Number of Fish Avail
0 2 4 6 8 11 14 17 20 23 26 29
2007
n = 180
MRFSS Intercept Data
0 2 4 6 8 11 14 17 20 23 26 29
2007 Predicted Catch Distribution
020
6010
014
0
53
Starting Abundance
• Used estimated abundance from “Base” assessment model for Atlantic migratory group
54
Starting Fishing Mortality
• Commercial and recreational fishing mortality rates were chosen so catches in the first year of the model were similar to estimated catches in 2006
• Estimates for the tournament fishery were developed by scaling up the number of tournaments by an average number of fish caught per tournament
55Spawning stock biomass
Exp
loit
atio
n ra
te
Ove
rfi s
hed
t hre
shol
dOverfishing threshold
Predicted equilibrium relationship
Management control rules: thresholds and targets
SSBMSY1MSYSSB
SSB1
MSYSSB
SSB
1MSYF
F
1MSYF
F
FMSY
56
FishSmart process
• Develop new process that conserves stocks Develop new process that conserves stocks and:and:– Includes stakeholder views and knowledge– Allows stakeholders to “Fish Smarter!”
• make informed decisions about their own actions (improve conservation ethic)
• recommend preferred management practices
– Allows opportunities for relationships between stakeholder groups to improve
– Fits within current management structure– Improves effectiveness of stakeholder input into the
management process
57
Fisheries Management
Can Be Contentious!