slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Stakeholders can be responsible PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Stakeholders can be responsible

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 57

Stakeholders can be responsible - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 122 Views
  • Uploaded on

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. Stakeholders can be responsible. How and why did recreational anglers, CCA, and NGOs become more conservative than managers?. Existing Council process.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Stakeholders can be responsible' - chynna


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
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

Stakeholders can be responsible

How and why did recreational anglers, CCA, and NGOs become more conservative than managers?

existing council process
Existing Council process

Status ?

Stock Assessment

Invite,

Inform

&

Ignore!

Management

regulatory

recommendations

Public scoping

Council

decision

Council amends FMP

Accept

Reject

i 3 stakeholder involvement
I3 stakeholder involvement

Managers and scientists select objectives

Recommendations

Stakeholders

Develop options

Model development

and modification

Present

model results

stakeholder centered approach
Stakeholder-centered approach

Stakeholders propose objectives,

options and performance measures

Recommendations

Revise options and performance measures

Stakeholders

Model development

and modification

Review

model results

council and fishsmart processes
Council and FishSmart processes

Status ?

Stakeholder centered

FishSmart Process

Stock Assessment

Information

Management

regulatory

recommendations

Stakeholder

recommendations

Anglers voluntarily

adopt recommendations

Public scoping

Council

decision

Council amends FMP

Accept

Reject

project challenge
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
the players and their roles
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
case study king mackerel scomberomorus cavalla
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
biology
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 Dunaway

workshop process
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
stakeholders
Recreational anglers

For-hire operators

Commercial fishermen

Environmental NGO representatives

Managers and biologists

Tackle shop owners

Tournament organizers

Stakeholders
stakeholder vision statement
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.”

stakeholders goals
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
options
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
performance measures
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
weighing options
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
model schematic
Model Schematic

Reproduction

Migration

Fishing

“Natural” Deaths

Growth & Maturity

model structure
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
model processes
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
model structure1
Model Structure
  • Abundance
  • Mortality
  • Catch

N = Abundance F = Inst. Fishing mort. Rate

M = Natural mort. Z = Total mort.

p = migration rate

y = year s = season

a = age x = sex

o = area f = fishery

parameter uncertainty
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
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

Sample results for stakeholders
building consensus
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
consensus example
Consensus example

Unanimous consensus was reached on most motions relatively quickly, but not always

A.7. The FishSmart stakeholder process should be a part of the Council decision making process for all fisheries.

  • Member’s Comments and Reservations (November 2008):
  • This is too presumptuous. Can be part of a presentation to the Council
  • “For all fisheries”
criteria for recommending options
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
recommended options

8M, 32in

8M, 32in

8M, 32in

8M, 2 Fish

8M, 2 Fish

8M, 2 Fish

Status Quo

Status Quo

Status Quo

8M, 2 Fish, 28in

8M, 2 Fish, 28in

8M, 2 Fish, 28in

Recommended options

Season closure

F

SSB

status of fishsmart recommendations
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
benefits magnusson stevens
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
benefits general
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
lessons learned communication
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
lessons learned management involvement
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
lessons learned stakeholder identification
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
lessons learned stakeholder involvement
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
potential for other applications
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
acknowledgements
Acknowledgements

Funding

Facilitation

Support

time line and costs
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
other
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
fishing mortality
Fishing Mortality
  • Fishery divided into three sectors
    • Commercial
    • General recreational
      • Private boat
      • Charter
    • Tournament
quotas
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
estimating effects of tournaments
Estimating Effects of Tournaments

Estimated # fish kept

FL GA SC NC Total

8,980 1,265 2,630 4,925 17,530

Estimated total weight ~245,000 lbs

catch and release mortality
Catch and Release Mortality

Selectivity

Catch

15.5%

84.5%

Retention

Alive

Released

Dead

74%

26%

C-R mortality

Harvested

Released

12.5%

87.5%

Die

Live

slide52

Predicted Catch Distribution

2007

140

140

100

100

60

60

0

2

4

6

8

11

14

17

20

23

26

29

Frequency (Number of Trips)

20

20

MRFSS Intercept Data

0

0

2007

n = 180

29

0

2

4

6

8

11

14

17

20

23

26

Number of Fish Avail

starting abundance
Starting Abundance
  • Used estimated abundance from “Base” assessment model for Atlantic migratory group
starting fishing mortality
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
management control rules thresholds and targets

Overfishing threshold

FMSY

Overfished threshold

Predicted equilibrium

relationship

Management control rules: thresholds and targets

Exploitation rate

SSBMSY

Spawning stock biomass

fishsmart process
FishSmart process
  • Develop new process that conserves stocks 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
slide57

Fisheries Management

Can Be Contentious!