120 likes | 207 Views
Richard Hillary and Polina Levontin, Imperial College London, Division of Biology. WP5: Reference points and harvest control rules . Deliverables. D5.1 : Global review of ref. points/HCRs used for deep-water species
E N D
Richard Hillary and Polina Levontin, Imperial College London, Division of Biology WP5: Reference points and harvest control rules
Deliverables • D5.1: Global review of ref. points/HCRs used for deep-water species • D5.2: Strengths/weaknesses of current ref. points/HCRs as applied to case-study stocks • D5.3: Report on suitable ref. points/HCRs for EU-related deep water fisheries – present and future
Interaction with other WPs • WP2 – certain review deliverables should provide background/motivation for some of WP5 • WP3 – Bioeconomic ref. pts./HCRs • WP4 – clearest linkage: “follows” much of WP4 work (SW analysis, ref. pt./HCR development) • WP7 – Clear link from WP4/5 but also from WP7 to WP5 – MSE informs candidate HCRs
Review: D5.1 • Brief review complementary to those in WP2/4 • Aim to identify EU applicable/”successful” bio(economic) reference points from wider field
Case study RPs/HCRs: D5.2 • Identification of appropriate indicators/RPs/HCRs for case study stocks • Also identify potential MPs (given objectives) to be tested in WP7 • Problems with current (if relevant) RPs/HCRs will be identified
Designing HCRs for CS: D5.3 • Strong linkage with WP4 work – clear that relevant RP/HCR for CS conditional on relevant assessment method/outputs/uncertainty • Feedback with WP7 – candidate HCRs from WP5 but MSE process can inform HCR construction/selection...
Reference points • Biological/bioeconomic values from which we can measure stock status/targets/objectives • Data hungry: MSY paradigm, “absolute” targets (F/biomass limit/reference points) • Data diet-friendly: abundance depletion (current to unfished/”good” conditions), indicator-based RPs derived directly from observations
Harvest Control Rules • (I) Automatic changes to exploitation level/pattern given stock status relative to RPs • (II) Agreed exploitation level – status quo or agreed changes in fishing pressure/pattern at agreed rate until target is reached • Future harvest “actions” given RPs, indicators, auxiliary information and historic harvest “actions”
Utility of RPs/HCRs • Achieve management objectives specified • Use agreed (and tested) MPs to reduce conflict and delays in action • Increase transparency in management process
Uncertainty and precautionary approach • From WP4 selection of assessment methods will incorporate uncertainty in stock dynamics • Preferable to have “probabilistic” RPs • HCRs designed according to prec. appr. as a rule require “probabilistic” information on both stock status and reference points
Requirements for RP/HCR/MP design • Clear and specific management objectives: time horizons, constraints, targets, some quantification of risk of key events • Reference points/assessment models that are estimable from the data available now and in the future
Ecosystem approach • Probably the most challenging aspect of designing RPs/HCRs • Likely to be qualitative/semi-quantitative given data and trophic dependence/spatial understanding • “Simple” multi-species ideas possible • Data poor: composite indices of fishery impact