kimberly gordon policy analyst, duke university cfmc meeting june 28-29, 2011

Kimberly GordonPolicy Analyst, Duke University

CFMC MeetingJune 28-29, 2011

FISHERIES LEADERSHIP & SUSTAINABILITY FORUM

OUTLINE

• Major Workshop Outcomes• Data-Poor Approaches Recap• Ecological Risk Assessment

(ERAEF)• Concept• Process• Lessons learned/words of

wisdom• Resources

Exploring Tools for Improving Management of Data-Poor Stocks

February 23-24, 2011

• Major Outcomes• Goals and Recommendations• Materials and Presentations • Final Report• Intention• Structure

DATA-POOR APPROACHES RECAP

4 Innovative Data-Poor Approaches• Spawning Potential Ratio

Decision Tree• Dr. Jeremy Prince

• Marine Reserve-based Decision Tree• Jono Wilson

• Ecological Risk Assessment For the Effects of Fishing• Ross Daley

• Density Ratio Control Rule• Dr. Elizabeth Babcock

DATA-POOR APPROACHES RECAP

Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing (ERAEF)


• Developed by CSIRO in Australia

• 4-Step Hierarchical Framework that provides a comprehensive risk assessment

• Risk – the probability that a (specified) fishery management objective is not achieved (Hobday, 2011)


ERAEF Evaluates 5 Ecological Components:• Target Species• Byproduct and Bycatch Species• Threatened, Endangered and

Protected (TEP) Species• Habitat• Ecological Communities

LEVEL 1:Qualitative

Negligible, low risk

Medium, high risk

Risk Managem

ent Response

LEVEL 2: Semi-quantitative


Medium, high risk


Medium, high risk

LEVEL 3: Quantitative

SCOPING

$$$

$

$$

DATA

Data

Data

TIME

Time

Time

Develop a profile of the fishery (sub-fishery) being assessed• Description of fishery• Units of Analysis• Management Objectives• Activities/Hazards

Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects

of Fishing SCOPING

Description of fishery• General fishery characteristics• Gear• Issues• Management• Data

*Template available


of Fishing SCOPING

Units of Analysis

Target SpeciesByproduct/BycatchTEP SpeciesHabitatEcological Communities


of Fishing SCOPING

Species / Stocks

Pelagic / BenthicSpecies Distribution & Biotic Elements

Management ObjectivesSet management objectives for

each sub-fishery for each component

• Core ObjectivesWhat are you trying to achieve?

• Operational ObjectivesWhat are your measureable

endpoints?


of Fishing SCOPING


of Fishing SCOPING Activities/Hazards

Absence/Presence for• Capture• Direct impact without capture• Addition of biological material• Addition of non biological material• Distribution of physical processes• External hazardsActivities/Hazards identified as present are analyzed at level 1*Template available

Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of

Fishing LEVEL 1 - SICA

Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA)Identifies which

activities/hazards lead to significant impact to any component

• Rapid screening tool• Looks at “worst case” scenarios

within each component



Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA)

Exposure – Effects risk assessment

ScaleIntensity

Consequence

* Scoring guidelines & workbook available

Exposure

Effects



Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA)

Consequence of Intensity Scoring

Level Score

Negligible 1

Minor 2

Moderate 3

Major 4

Severe 5

Intolerable 6

Screened Out

Level 2


Fishing LEVEL 2 - PSA

Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA)Comprehensive risk screening

for all units within the ecological components

• Productivity: The rate the unit can recover from fishing activities

• Susceptibility: Susceptibility of the unit to fishing activities

*Excel workbook templates available



Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA)Productivity

Productivity Attribute

Score

Average age at maturity

Low (1) – High (3)

Average size at maturity

Low (1) – High (3)

Average maximum age

Low (1) – High (3)

Average maximum size

Low (1) – High (3)

Fecundity Low (1) – High (3)

Reproductive strategy Low (1) – High (3)

Trophic level Low (1) – High (3)

Averaged to determine

overall score



Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA)Susceptibility

Susceptibility Attribute

Score

Availability High (1) – Low (3)

Encounterability High (1) – Low (3)

Selectivity High (1) – Low (3)

Post Capture Mortality

High (1) – Low (3)

Multiplied to determine

overall score


Fishing LEVEL 3

Fully Quantitative Assessment

ERAEF process will provide guidance on appropriate methods for assessment


So how does this actually work?

LEVEL 1:Qualitative

LEVEL 2: Semi-quantitative

SCOPING

DATA TIME PROCESS

-Gathering information and workshops-Scoping documents, checklists, worksheets

-Workshops-Scoring guidelines and spreadsheets

-Database-Workshops-Scoring guidelines and spreadsheets

ESTIMATES!!!

????

? Days to weeks for each species

2 day workshop

Two workshops (4-5 days each)

2-3 weeks or months

1 day/species

Basic fishery information

-Stock structure – stock range (consensus map of fishery)-Existing data-Expert judgment/stakeholder input

-Spatial, temporal, effort-Expert judgment/stakeholder input

**Comprehensive database of the biological attributes for species

-Working group & group leader-Identify fishery to evaluate*Revise worksheets/scoping documents-Plan process and timelines-Identify data gaps

• Cost effective• Transparent & repeatable process• Clearly documented• Flexible• Precautionary• Comprehensive• Stakeholder engagement• Consensus building

Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing

BENEFITS of ERAEF:

• Precautionary approach can lead to false positives in level 2 - PSA

• Level 2 – PSA usually focuses on fishing impacts

• Level 2 – PSA also ignores some management measures in place to manage risk

• Integration across fisheries/components


Fishing LIMITATIONS of ERAEF

• Learning curve with the method• Clear documentation on the

rationale behind scoring decisions in level 1

• Consult experts for initial guidance and training

• Utilize independent consultant to lead the group

• Decide up front what to do if you can’t reach consensus in scoping or level 1


Fishing LESSONS LEARNED

• Incorporate a representative group of stakeholders in the process to build consensus

• Good communication is key – keep everyone informed at every step

• Set yourself up for success



• Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism• Spiny lobster – lack of basic data• Dolphinfish – level 1 SICA this

month, level 2 PSA next year• Limited personnel

• Chose ERAEF to establish a foundation of information



• Literature and ERAEF reports • Websites

• CSIRO research team• Consultants with expertise• Caribbean Regional Fisheries

Mechanism


Fishing RESOURCES/CONTACTS

Presentation References/Resources:• Ross Daley, Marine and Atmospheric Research (CSIRO)

Workshop presentation and personal communication

• Hobday et al. (2011). Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing. Fisheries Research, 108, 372-384.

• Hobday et al. (2007) Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing: Methodology. Report R04/1072 for the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra.

• Dr. Bob Trumble, MRAG Americas, personal communication

• Dr. Susan Renton, Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM), personal communication


Some things to consider:• SEDAR Process• Leveraging Experts• Building Capacity• Partnerships within the Caribbean

Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing

QUESTIONS?

kimberly gordon policy analyst, duke university cfmc meeting june 28-29, 2011

Documents