Dorothy's summer PhD project plus intro to previous work

• Intro to harvest rules

– why an HCR?

• Intro to Dorothy

• Management model = biological + stakeholder model

– current manuscript

– GB haddock case study

• Milestones

• AFS symposium

Outline

SSB

F

Harvest Control Rules (HCRs)decision-making framework of a management strategy currently used for some fish stocks, including:

Norwegian spring spawning herring, Northeast Arctic cod, some mackerel stocks

despite increasing practical use, theorectical research is lacking

Why an HCR? Stakeholder and mgmt objectives can be translated into such a rule

SSB

F

stable SSBconstant Fconstant catchconstant escapementprotective measure

meet Dorothy

(me)

I live in

Bergen

but come from

Indiana

I like to

&

I support

and I have a blog…

So friends & family can stay updated

www.dorothydankel.blogspot.com

and where interestedpeople cancomment on topics

www.dorothydankel.blogspot.com

I am a biologist…

and a PhDstudent in fisheriesmanagement

I am very interested in the social and economic sides of fisheries

And I want to make my work in science relevant to those it affects…

we know there are conflicts of interest in marine resource management

I want to explore ways conflicts of objectives in fisheries can be resolved

Utility functions can serve as common language between stakeholders

uti

lity

my fish

uti

lity

my fish

but, stakeholders have differentideas about how fish can be useful!

vs.

therefore, natural conflicts of objectives between stakeholders arise

uti

lity

healthy fishstock

uti

lity

catch

Then Ray Hilborn wrote a paperabout fisheries conflicts…

Fishing Effort

Benefits(utility)

0 population crash

Hilborn (2007) ”Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives”

Marine Policy

Fishing Effort

Benefits(utility)

yield

0 population crash

Hilborn (2007) ”Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives”

Marine Policy

Fishing Effort

Benefits(utility)

yieldprofit

0 population crash

Hilborn (2007) ”Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives”

Marine Policy

Fishing Effort

Benefits(utility)

employmentyieldprofit

0 population crash

Hilborn (2007) ”Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives”

Marine Policy

Fishing Effort

Benefits(utility)

employmentyieldprofit

ecosystem preservation

0 population crash

Hilborn (2007) ”Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives”

Marine Policy

Fishing Effort

Benefits(utility)

employmentyieldprofit

ecosystem preservation

zone of traditionalfisheries

management

0 population crash

Hilborn (2007) ”Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives”

Marine Policy

Fishing Effort

Benefits(utility)

employmentyieldprofit

ecosystem preservation

zone of newconsensus

zone of traditionalfisheries

management

0 population crash

Hilborn (2007) ”Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives”

Marine Policy

Fishing Effort

Benefits(utility)

employmentyieldprofit

ecosystem preservation

zone of newconsensus

zone of traditionalfisheries

management

0 population crash

Hilborn (2007) ”Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives”

Marine Policy

zone of traditionalfisheries

management

Fishing Effort

Benefits(utility)

zone of newconsensus

0 population crash

Dorothy asked herself:

zone of traditionalfisheries

management

Fishing Effort

Benefits(utility)

employmentyield

zone of newconsensus

0 population crash

Can I model this? Does the zone of consensus really exist?

I thought this would make a great summer project…

and Ulf and Mikko thought so, too!

and Ulf and Mikko thought so, too!

Let’s bring Dorothy down to IIASA this summer.

Mmmm…Ok.

So Dorothy stayed 90 days and 90 nights at the Schloss in Austria…

(not exactly this one, but similar…)

and came up with an idea that she wants to share with stakeholders, scientists and managers

+ =Management

model

A model that quantitively describesRay Hilborn’s discussion on conflictsof interests in fisheries

In order to answer this question:

Can stakeholder conflicts of objectives be reconciled in

marine fisheries management?

Dorothy J. Dankel1,2

, Ulf Dieckmann1

& Mikko Heino1,2,3

1Evolution & Ecology Program, International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Laxenburg, Austria

2Pelagic Research Group, Institute of Marine Research (IMR) Bergen, Norway

3Evolutionary Fisheries Ecology Program, University of Bergen, Norway

Utility modelPopulation model

+ =

Management modelSimplified modelling situation: don’t take terminology too seriously

What they care about:The stakeholders:

Fishermen ”industrial””artisanal”

Society ”employment-oriented””profit-oriented”

Conservationists

What they care about:The stakeholders:

What they care about:The stakeholders:

Fishermen

Society

What they care about:The stakeholders:

Society

What they care about:The stakeholders:

Conservationists

What they care about:The stakeholders:

Conservationists

What they care about:The stakeholders:

Each stakeholder has a preferencefor each of the 4 utility components

based on stakeholder consultation

Stakeholder preferences

assumptions: stakeholder group consensus

YIELD (tons)

EMPLOYMENT(days-year)

PROFIT (€)

STOCK LEVEL(spawning stock biomass, tons)

FISHERMEN”industrial”

0.2 0 0.8 0

”artisanal” 0.4 0 0.4 0.2

SOCIETY”employment-

oriented”0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3

”profit-oriented” 0.2 0.1 0.7 0

CONSERVATIONISTS 0.1 0.1 0 0.8

uti

lity

component

YIELD (tons)

EMPLOYMENT(days-year)

PROFIT (€)

STOCK LEVEL(spawning stock biomass, tons)

FISHERMEN”industrial”

0.2 0 0.8 0

”artisanal” 0.4 0 0.4 0.2

SOCIETY”employment-

oriented”0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3

”profit-oriented” 0.2 0.1 0.7 0

CONSERVATIONISTS 0.1 0.1 0 0.8

uti

lity

component

Stakeholder preferences

assumptions: stakeholder group consensus

Caveat: stated stakeholder preferences do not always

equal revealed stakeholder preferences…

So, back to Dorothy’s research question:

So, back to Dorothy’s research question:

is there a basis for reconciling conflicting objectives?

Results: generalized & stock-specific

Utility components & their tradeoffswith higher fishing levels

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.0 0.5 1.0Proportion harvested

Utility components & their tradeoffswith higher fishing levels

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.0 0.5 1.0Proportion harvested

profit

Utility components & their tradeoffswith higher fishing levels

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.0 0.5 1.0Proportion harvested

yield

profit

Utility components & their tradeoffswith higher fishing levels

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.0 0.5 1.0Proportion harvested

yield

profit

employment based on effort

Utility components & their tradeoffswith higher fishing levels

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.0 0.5 1.0Proportion harvested

yield

employment based on effort

profit

stock level

employment based on catch

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90

Uti

lity

Proportion harvested

Stakeholder utilities

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90

Uti

lity

Proportion harvested

"industrialfishery"

"artisanal fishery"

Fishermen

Stakeholder utilities

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90

Uti

lity

Proportion harvested

“employment-oriented"

“profit-

oriented”

Stakeholder utilities

Society

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90

Uti

lity

Proportion harvested

"conservationists"

Stakeholder utilities

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90

Uti

lity

Proportion harvested

"conservationists"

"industrialfishery"

"artisanal fishery"

Stakeholder utilities

“employment-oriented"

“profit-

oriented”

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90

Uti

lity

Proportion harvested

"conservationists"

"industrialfishery"

"artisanal fishery"

Stakeholder utilities

“employment-oriented"

“profit-

oriented”

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90

Uti

lity

Proportion harvested

"conservationists"

"industrialfishery"

"artisanal fishery"

Stakeholder utilities

“employment-oriented"

“profit-

oriented”

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90

Uti

lity

Proportion harvested

"conservationists"

"industrialfishery"

"artisanal fishery"

Stakeholder utilities

“employment-oriented"

“profit-

oriented”

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90

Uti

lity

Proportion harvested

"conservationists"

"industrialfishery"

"artisanal fishery"

Stakeholder utilities

even with weight on employment , the”zone of new consensus” is clear

“employment-oriented"

“profit-

oriented”

2 differentlife historysimulations

Results with a min size limit

• short-lived stock tolerates more F than medium-lived stock• minimum size limits have an effect and can buffer against high F

Conclusions

The ”zone of new consensus” is illustratedin Dorothy’s simplified model even whenemployment is considered

• the foundation of democracy is to include the needs of interest groups as much as possible in public policy

• the policy goal of consensus among stakeholders is realistic

So, what’snext?

What if I tried to model a real stock?

Like Georges Bank haddock

Developing Fisheries Harvest Policies: Georges Bank haddock

Dorothy J. Dankel

PhD student, fisheries management

Pelagic Research Group, Institute of Marine Research (IMR) Bergen, Norway

Supervisors: Dr. Steve Cadrin (SMAST)

Dr. Liz Brooks (NEFSC Woods Hole)

GB haddock: Key inputs to the model

• Biological characteristics– von Bert. growth model, mortality, recruitment

• Stakeholder landscape

– different views, gears, behavior patterns?

• Objectives for fishery– what are the scientific, managerial and stakeholder goals?

Is there room for consensus?

academic single stock, multi-stakeholder management

model

I look forward to hearing your feedback

Modelling recruitment: 2 step function

Brodziak et al (2006) Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 06-11

Brodziak et al (2006) Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 06-11

Brodziak et al (2006) Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 06-11

• Week 27-31: meet & greet. Collect of biological life history parameter data for Georges Bank haddock

• Week 32-33: Be a sponge at the GARM in Woods Hole & meet more stakeholders

• Week 34: AFS (Ottawa, Canada) theme session: Harvest Control Rules: Experiences in Modelling and Application

• Week 35-40: Simulate different management rules incorporating management objectives

• Disseminate results in a manuscript to be submitted for publication

Project Milestones

SSB

F

HCRs - is backwards the best way forwards? - South African experiences

Doug Butterworth

The Evolution of HCRs in Europe

Laurence Kell , Martin Pastoors, Beatriz Roel

Precautionary Harvest Policies and the Uncertainty Paradox

Steve Cadrin, Martin Pastoors

General properties of harvest rules: the theoretical approach

Dorothy Jane Dankel

Evaluating harvest control rules when life history varies: the case of lake whitefish in the Great Lakes

Jonathan Deroba, James Bence

Are threshold harvesting strategies evolutionarily sustainable?

Katja Enberg, Erin S. Dunlop, Mikko Heino, Ulf Dieckmann

Development, evaluation and implementation of harvest control rules for Northeast Arctic cod, haddock and saithe

Bjarte Bogstad, Harald Gjøsæter, Asgeir Aglen, Sigbjørn Mehl

Integrating stakeholder perspectives with management objectives: a modeling approach for recreational fisheries

Fiona Johnston, Robert Arlinghaus, Ulf Dieckmann

Harvest control rules and user-group agendas: making the two compatible

Joseph Powers, Elizabeth Brooks

Influence of sources of variation on the performance of a harvest control rule

James Bence, Jonathan Deroba, Weihai Liu

Long term agreed management plan for western horse mackerel; “If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience.”

Ciaran Kelly

Harvest Control Rules: Experiencesin modelling & application AFS 2008

SSB

F

dorothy@imr.no

Looking forward to the summer!

Background slides

Population model

(N0, …, Nam-1, Nam

, …, Namax)

immature mature

Population model

(N0, …, Nam-1, Nam

, …, Namax)

immature mature

spawning

biological assumptions: a cod-like stock

Population model

(N0, …, Nam-1, Nam

, …, Namax)

immature mature

spawning

Manaturalmortality

fishing mortality

Fa+

biological assumptions: a cod-like stock

Population model

Utility components• yield (tons)• profit (€)• employment (days)• stock biomass (tons)

(N0, …, Nam-1, Nam

, …, Namax)

immature mature

spawning

Manaturalmortality

fishing mortality

Fa

Uti

lity

of

com

po

ne

nt

Component

biological assumptions: a cod-like stock

+