Dorothy's fisheries management dissertation June 12, 2009, Bergen, Norway

1. Building Blocks of Sustainability in Marine Fisheries Stakeholders, objectives, and strategies Dorothy J. Dankel

3. Why be concerned about fisheries? FAO SOFIA 2008

4. Describing the fisheries problem “ The alarming trends in the world’s fisheries demand a fundamental change in management and fishing practices.” “ An integrated solution to the complexity of managing wild resources seems not to have been achieved.”

6. Describing the fisheries problem “ I believe that rocket scientists have it easy... The USA was able to put a man on the moon within a decade of setting that goal. Achieving biological and economically sustainable fisheries has proven more elusive.”

9. Visualizing scientific paradigms Not exactly a scientific revolution, but more a response to mgmt questions Normal science Post-normal science Academic Academic & social Mono-disciplinary Trans-disciplinary Technocratic Participative Certain Uncertain Predictive Exploratory

11. Outline of presentation: Builiding blocks of fisheries sustainability (I) Fisheries management in practice: review of 13 stocks (II) Can we reconcile stakeholder conflicts? (III) Generic properties of harvest rules (IV) Can we increase haddock yield & save the by-catch for later?

13. Evaluating fisheries management ( I )

14. Evaluating fisheries management ( I )

18. Stakeholders are diverse

19. Yield Profit Ecosystem Employment Examples of utility components

20. Stakeholders & diverse preferences Yield Profit Ecosystem Employment

23. Stakeholder preferences assumption: stakeholder group consensus YIELD EMPLOYMENT PROFIT STOCK LEVEL (spawning stock biomass) FISHERMEN ” industrial” 0.3 0 0.7 0 ” artisanal” 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.3 SOCIETY ” employment-oriented” 0.2 0.5 0 0.3 ” profit-oriented” 0.2 0 0.6 0.2 CONSERVATIONISTS 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.5

24. Quantifying stakeholder utilities

25. Quantifying the zone of consensus Area of joint satisfaction Most likely zone of consensus Stakeholder A Stakeholder B

26. Harvest proportion (%) Minimum size (cm) status quo Zone of Consensus Capelin Cod 70%consensus 90%consensus

29. Generic examples of HCRs Biomass Fishing mortality constant F proportional threshold escapement = parameter

33. HCR parameter variation Biomass at time, t C 0 1:1 trigger biomass, B trigger constant catch α = 0 constant F α = C 0 /B trig constant escapement α = 1

35. Evaluating generic HCRs: output according to parameter levels Lowest CV Lowest biol. risk All rules the same Lowest CV Highest catch

38. Study area: Georges Bank, NW Atlantic

39. Fig. 2. Status of 19 groundfish stocks in 2007 with respect to F MSY and B MSY or their proxies based on the GARM III review (NOAA 2008). 2007 Status of Northeast groundfish Georges Bank

40. Separator trawl Ruhle trawl Otter trawl Trawl types for NE groundfishery

43. Scenario results for haddock ( IV ) $$

48. Stakeholder utility results using 2 regulations Zone of consensus Harvest proportion (%) Minimum sIze (cm) Zone of consensus = minimum stakeholder whinge Use more imaginary example

49. Ruhle trawl results from Beutel et al. 2006

50. HCR parameter variation Biomass at time, t C 0 1:1 similar constant catch α = 0 constant F α = C 0 /B trig constant escapement α = 1 trigger biomass, B trigger

51. HCR parameter variation Biomass at time, t C 0 1:1 similar similar constant catch α = 0 constant F α = C 0 /B trig constant escapement α = 1 trigger biomass, B trigger

52. Not a simple task to visualize 4 dimensions Over from a scientific to a stakeholder presentation Evaluating generic HCRs: output according to parameter levels Lowest CV Lowest biol. risk compromise btwn building up stock and protecting with thres. B All rules the same Lowest CV Highest catch Too much protection that it is hard for B to > thres. B

53. Scenario results for all species ( IV ) $$