Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
ICES Scientific and Advisory process
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

ICES Scientific and Advisory process

929

Published on

Lecture at Wageningen University

Lecture at Wageningen University

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
929
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
13
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  1. ICES Advisory practice: shaping the boundary between science and policy Martin Pastoors 23 November 2009 FNP-21806 Policy for Natural Resource Management: Models and Trends
  2. A sea full of life and activity
  3. How to maintain sustainable fishing?
  4. The role of ICES as a knowledge provider....
  5. ... and the boundary between science and policy Science Policy
  6. ICES To advance the scientific capacity to give advice on human activities affecting, and affected by, marine ecosystems.
  7. Advisory “space”
  8. My ICES CV <ul><li>Member of working groups </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Herring, north sea demersal (1997-2003) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Chair of North Sea demersal Group </li></ul><ul><ul><li>2002-2004 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Chair of Advisory Committee on Fishery Management (ACFM) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>2006-2007 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Vice-chair of Advisory Committee </li></ul><ul><ul><li>2008 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>And now: out of it </li></ul>
  9. Topics <ul><li>Fisheries advice and policy landscape </li></ul><ul><li>The TAC machine </li></ul><ul><li>Introduction of precautionary approach </li></ul>
  10. 1. Fisheries advisory and policy-landscape in Europe
  11. Fisheries advisory / decision process
  12. Disproportionate advisory capacity in the European Commission?
  13. ICES 2005 annual input & output
  14. “ cod science” input and output
  15. cod science quality assessment
  16. ICES advice structure Working Group Review Group Advice drafting group Advisory Committee
  17. Advisory Committee culture <ul><li>Ownership of management problems: “We” </li></ul><ul><li>Highly committed </li></ul><ul><li>Translators of science </li></ul><ul><li>Textual arguments / negotiated advice </li></ul>
  18. Example: textual arguments in North Sea Cod advice http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/press_corner/pictures/north_sea_cod_en.jpg
  19. Cod advice (2002) <ul><li>Given the very low stock size, the recent poor recruitments, and continued high fishing mortality despite management efforts to promote stock recovery, ICES recommends a closure of all fisheries for cod as a targeted species or by-catch... </li></ul>
  20. Cod advice (2003) <ul><li>Given the very low stock size, the recent poor recruitments and the continued substantial catch ...., ICES recommends the implementation of a recovery plan to ensure a safe and rapid rebuilding of SSB to levels above Bpa. .... </li></ul><ul><li>In accordance with such a recovery plan ICES recommends a zero catch in 2004. </li></ul>
  21. Cod advice (2004) <ul><li>Given the low stock size, recent poor recruitment, continued substantial catch ..., the uncertainty in the assessment, and the inability to reliably forecast catch, ICES recommends zero catch until the estimate of SSB is above Blim or other strong evidence of rebuilding is observed. </li></ul>
  22. Cod advice (2005) <ul><li>Given the low stock size and recent poor recruitment, it is not possible to identify any non-zero catch which will be compatible with the Precautionary Approach. Rebuilding can only be achieved if fishing mortality is significantly reduced on a longer term. </li></ul>
  23. Cod advice (2008) <ul><li>Because the existing recovery plan is not considered to be in accordance with the precautionary approach, ICES continues to advise on exploitation boundaries in relation to precautionary limits, and recommends that the fisheries for cod be closed until an initial recovery of the cod SSB has been proven. </li></ul>
  24. Conclusion on cod <ul><li>Many textual permutations on the same message </li></ul><ul><li>Different strategies of dealing with science-policy interface. </li></ul>
  25. Advisory report highly technical
  26. ICES website also technical
  27. “ Explaining” advice with 3 key terms Credibility Salience Legitimacy Scientific plausibility Relevant and useable Unbiased, meeting standards
  28. 2. The TAC machine
  29. TAC Machine?
  30. © Bygdeforskning Artist: Bjarne Stenberg The Cyborg fish: chain of standardizations allow stock assessments and TAC forecasts http://www.cyborg-fish.net/
  31. “ TAC Machine”
  32. The TAC Machine requires VPA
  33. TAC as a boundary object <ul><li>Certification of Knowledge </li></ul><ul><li>Authorization of intervention </li></ul><ul><li>Valuation </li></ul><ul><li>Legitimation </li></ul>
  34. Science-policy interface constituted by the TAC Machine <ul><li>Stock assessment is legitimated as a science in order to stabilize the TAC as a boundary object </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The TAC Machine fish is reconstructed as a realist object </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Stock assessment operator is reconstructed as an autonomous scientist </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Stock assessment science is organized according to a mertonian ethos of science </li></ul></ul>
  35. TAC Machine? ICES Herring Working Group 1996
  36. 3. ICES and the precautionary approach
  37. The precautionary approach and the boundary between science and policy Science Policy
  38. What came before the Precautionary approach: MBAL <ul><li>“ there is likely to be a level of spawning stock size below which the probability of poor recruitment increases ...some idea of the bounds within which it may lie can be obtained by examining the historic variation in recruitment at different levels of spawning stock. For present purposes, this level is named the &quot; minimum biologically acceptable level&quot; (MBAL). ” </li></ul>Serchuk, F. and R. J. R. Grainger (1992). Development of the basis and form of the ICES fishery management advice: historical background (1976-1990) and the new form of advice (1991-??). ICES C.M. 1992 / Assess: 20.
  39. Precautionary Approach: history of a concept <ul><li>Rio declaration (1992) </li></ul><ul><li>UN Straddling Fish Stock and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks agreement (1995) </li></ul><ul><li>FAO Code of Conduct for responsible fisheries (1995) </li></ul>
  40. Rio declaration (1992) <ul><ul><li>(Principle 15) In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. </li></ul></ul>
  41. UN Straddling Fish Stock and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks agreement (1995) <ul><ul><li>“ Two types of precautionary reference points should be used: conservation, or limit, reference points and management, or target, reference points . Limit reference points set boundaries which are intended to constrain harvesting within safe biological limits within which the stocks can produce maximum sustainable yield. Target reference points are intended to meet management objectives.” </li></ul></ul>
  42. MBAL can be reconstituted in the precautionary approach MBAL Precautionary biomass
  43. Request from EC to ICES <ul><li>“ The Commission therefore request ICES to provide for each stock fishing mortality limits and spawning biomass thresholds that will satisfy medium and long terms sustainability of these stocks. The harvest strategy and corresponding fishing mortalities should have associated high probability of maintaining the stock above the defined threshold level within defined time periods. The range of probabilities that may be used by ICES and that would satisfy the Commission are 95%, 90%, and 80%. ” </li></ul>
  44. ICES struggle with the precautionary approach 1997 1998 1998 2001 2002 2003 2007 Study Group on the Precautionary Approach (1) Study Group on the Precautionary Approach (2) ACFM 1998 Study Group on the Further Development of the Precautionary Approach (1) Study Group on the Further Development of the Precautionary Approach (2 + 3) Study Group on the Precautionary Reference Points for Advice (SGPRP) Study Group on the Biological Reference Points for North east Artic Cod (SGBRP) 2003 Workshop on Target and Limit reference points (WKREF)
  45. So what is this beast called “precautionary approach”?
  46. SGPA 1997 is shifting the concept of precautionary approach <ul><li>From a generic description to an specific technical calculation of an uncertainty threshold: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ In order to avoid limit reference points, management actions should be taken before fishing mortality exceeds Flimit or biomass is below Blimit. ACFM/ICES may therefore identify additional reference points, Fpa (Fprecautionary approach) and Bpa where remedial action would be advised in order to avoid the limit reference points being reached.” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ The precautionary basis for advice given by ACFM will be that, for a given stock, the probability of exceeding the limit should be no more than 5% in any given year.” </li></ul></ul>
  47. ... but the ambitions are still quite broad <ul><li>ACFM/ICES will advise and comment on how well aspects of management conform to the precautionary approach with respect to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>the existence, compatibility and measurability of objectives which would influence advice and the choice of targets; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>the existence and choice of limit and target reference points and management plans; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>the existence, appropriateness and effectiveness of recovery plans ; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>the effectiveness of measures taken to monitor and regulate exploitation rate; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>the effectiveness of measures explicitly taken to protect non-target species, biodiversity and habitats. </li></ul></ul>Maximum Sustainable Yield and Target reference points have been dropped
  48. ACFM 1998: role division on reference points <ul><ul><li>ACFM’s mandate to make final decisions on limit reference points , but fishery management agencies should be involved in decisions on precautionary reference points. (ICES 1998a, p2) </li></ul></ul>Science Policy
  49. Preliminary closure in 1998: defining the reference values
  50. Preliminary closure in 1998: reasoning behind the values Blim -> Bpa
  51. Dealing with uncertainty and risk: the basis for e 1.645* σ <ul><li>“ Few studies have adequately estimated the full range of uncertainties associated with assessing fish stock sizes and predicting future catches.... </li></ul><ul><li>The results of studies ... have indicated measurement errors of 20 to 40% CV (Coefficient of Variation) for the projected catches for a particular year. </li></ul><ul><li>Therefore, CVs of this magnitude were utilized (where appropriate) to evaluate uncertainty of the reference points. </li></ul><ul><li>The overall real uncertainty, however, is likely to be greater than the CVs of 20–40% suggest.” (ICES 1998a) </li></ul>Uncertainties are first assumed and then reconstituted as 1.645
  52. ... and the new ACFM presentation Example: Cod in the North Sea
  53. Attempts to apply rule-based decision systems in ICES (2001)
  54. Further developments 2001-2003: attempts to be more systematic Segmented regression to define Blim Method to derive other ref. points
  55. A sudden closure in 2003: clients don’t want new reference points <ul><ul><li>“ It was stressed that harvest control rules would be much better and that EC is requesting this. .... It was considered by some that going for the HCR would need almost exactly the same analysis and considerations of the basic principle and philosophy as the old PA reference points. They may have a new name but would be of a similar nature.” (ACFM minutes 2003) </li></ul></ul>
  56. Conclusion: PA as boundary ordering device <ul><li>Defining resonsibilities between science and policy </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of transparency on basis for choice of reference points </li></ul><ul><li>Pre-determining risk options from science perspective </li></ul><ul><li>No formal closure of debate; the struggle continues </li></ul>
  57. Overall reflections <ul><li>TAC machine and precautionary approach operate in the same way: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Boundary ordering devices </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Science in a mertonian perspective (objective) and as an epistemic community (consensus) </li></ul>
  58. Post-normal Science? <ul><li>Funtowicz and Ravetz </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Science uncertain, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Stakes high, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Decisions urgent </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Extended peer review </li></ul><ul><li>Transparency and process </li></ul>
  59. Garcia & Charles: combining a science-based analytical process with a negotiation-based decision-making process
  60. Wageningen UR, Centre for Marine Policy P.O.Box 1528 8901 BV Leeuwarden, the Netherlands   phone +31 317 487 849 mobile +31 610 939 549 Email [email_address] Internet www.cmp.wur.nl Blog martinpastoors.blogspot.com/ Twitter @martinpastoors or @marinepolicy LinkedIn nl.linkedin.com/in/martinpastoors
  61. Further reading <ul><li>Garcia, S. M., A. Zerbi, C. Aliaume, T. Do Chi and G. Lassere ( 2003 ). The ecosystem approach to fisheries. Issues, terminology, principles, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>Morishita, J. (2008). &quot;What is the ecosystem approach for fisheries management?&quot; Marine Policy 32(1): 19-26. </li></ul><ul><li>FAO (2003). FAO Technical guidelines for responsible fisheries no. 4. Fisheries management. Suppl. 1 The Ecosystem Approach to fisheries, FAO. 2003. </li></ul><ul><li>Gislason, H. (2006). The Requirements of an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (chapter 12).In: Motos and D. C. Wilson. </li></ul><ul><li>Garcia, S. M. and A. T. Charles (2008). Fishery systems and linkages </li></ul><ul><li>Rice, J. C. (2005). &quot;Implementation of the ecosystem approach to fisheries management &quot; MEPS </li></ul><ul><li>ICES (2004). Report of the 13th ICES dialogue meeting: Advancing scientific advice for an ecosystem approach to management </li></ul><ul><li>Holmes, J. and J. Lock (2009). &quot;Generating the evidence for marine fisheries policy and management.&quot; Marine Policy 34(1): 29-35. </li></ul><ul><li>Frid, C., O. Paramor and C. Scott (2005). &quot;Ecosystem-based fisheries management: progress in the NE Atlantic.&quot; Marine Policy 29 (5): 461-469. </li></ul>

×