Formalizing expert knowledge to compare alternative management plans: sociological

perspective to the future management of Baltic salmon stocks

Päivi HaapasaariFisheries and Environmental Management Group (FEM)

University of Helsinki, Finland and

Timo P. KarjalainenThule Institute

University of Oulu, Finland

1

Game and Fisheries Research Institute

Baltic salmon

Originally spawned in 80-120 rivers

During 1900s the number of salmon rivers decreased rapidly

About 40 rivers left

2

Salmon Action Plan, (SAP) 1997-2006 (IBSFC)

Goal: to restore salmon populations of selected rivers to at least 50% of the potential smolt production capacity by year 2010

extensive stocking stream restoration fishery regulations

SAP (expired 2006)

Partially successful; Best results in the rivers of Bothnian Bay Share of wild stocks in catch increased compared to reared

salmon During SAP, total salmon catch decreased from 2395 to 913 tn From 2005: catches under TAC (2007: 40%)

- Fin & Swe: national technical measures, damages by seals (coastal fishery)- Den & Lat: dioxin regulations- 2005 – 2008 driftnet phasing out (offshore)

Planning for the future EU Commission: plan to revise the SAP and to develop a new

management framework

2007: Call for an evaluation of the socio-economic impacts of SAP and new management objectives and options for the future Bio-economic modelling Economic valuation study Sociological study concentrating on stakeholders point of view

Sociological evaluation of four alternative management options for Baltic salmon

Study of stakeholders’ potential commitment to four management alternatives

Commitment = source of implementation uncertainty Approach key informants (experts!) representing 3 stakeholder

groups in 8 Baltic Sea countries (29 experts from 6 countries)expert-knowledge to assess management options and to

express the views of stakeholder groupscost-effective

Questionnaire, structured and open questions Analysis: quantitative (Bayesian nets) and qualitative

(triangulation)

4

Bayesian networks: why?

Enable the comparing of the stakeholders’ preferences in quantitative terms

Deal explicitly with uncertainties, and thus allow small data sets subjective experience-based qualitative knowledge

Four options evaluated for the future management of Baltic salmon stocks

A: Continuation of the SAP as it was conducted in 1997-2006

B: Current situation with no specified long-term plan

C: New management plan I with an objective of 75% of potential smolt production for each river; TAC for sea and rivers

D: New management plan II with river specific smolt production targets of 50% and 75% of the potential; TAC for sea and rivers

The BN for commitment

Qualitative analysis to interpret and check the modelling results

The commercial sector

Decreased profitability, decreasing number of fulltime professionals. Disappointed because restrictions have not been relieved after the SAP Expectable restrictions related to different management optios criticalOptions with lower smolt production targets sound safer

The recreational sectorNumber of salmon in rivers too low because of commercial fishingMaximise socio-economic value of salmon Maximise smolt production Smolt production target as high as possible

15

Summarising commitment utility

Option D

• River specific smolt production targets 50 and 75% of potential

• For commercial fishers the threat of restrictions emerging from option D appears less critical compared to option C

• For recreational sector D is the second best alternative

Summarizing commitment utility

Option C

• Smolt production target 75% of potential

• Favoured by recreational fishing sector which believes it would have a very positive impact on fishing tourism.

• Commercial fishers do not accept nor believe, and see it as a potential risk to cease their livelihood.

Summarizing commitment utility

Option A• Continuation of the SAP as it was

conducted in 1997-2006

• Seen as a quite stable option with regard to the state of the salmon stocks.

• Those who want to see improving salmon stocks do not accept it while those who are afraid of restrictions would commit to it.

Summarizing commitment utility

Option B• Current situation with no specified

long-term plan

• Believed to maintain salmon stocks at the currnt state or deteriorate them.

• Potentially cease both commercial and recreational fishing and the development of fishing tourism industry.

Conclusions

The BNs allowed to couple different viewpoints and to lay foundation for a compromise, in terms of utility.

Stakeholders prefer management option in which smolt production target is adjusted to each river (50% and 75% of potential) and in which international TAC covers sea and rivers

Including this information in planning increases controllability of the system

The probabilistic language of the BNs makes it possible to integrate information collected by different disciplines in a same model, to build a holistic decision support system

Thank you !