MSE Introduction Brian Irwin Atlantic Herring MSE Workshop

MSE Introduction Brian Irwin Atlantic Herring MSE Workshop 2 Portsmouth, NH 7 Dec. 2016

Welcome § 2 nd workshop on Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) of alternative control rules for Atlantic Herring § Purpose: provide continued opportunities for public input on the ongoing MSE of ABC control rules for Atlantic Herring

Workshop 1 (summary) § May 16 -17 2006, Portland, ME § Worked towards a common understanding of MSE ― Potential objectives ― Quantifiable performance metrics ― A range of control rules to be evaluated ― Data, models, uncertainties § Opportunity for stakeholders to provide greater input than typically possible at Council meetings, in an environment that supports constructive and open dialogue between users of the resource, scientists, fishery managers, and other interested members of the public

Goals for Workshop 2 § Provide continued opportunity for stakeholder input § Develop a common understanding of outcomes of the MSE technical work § Continue soliciting information from stakeholders ― Identifying acceptable ranges of performance for various metrics ― Begin considering potential tradeoffs ― Narrowing the range of ABC control-rule alternatives ― Identify if any additional (minor) simulation work would be informative for establishing a long-term ABC control rule

Overview for Morning § This presentation - brief review of Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) § Review steps taken in this MSE to date § Present agenda § Expectations

Management Strategy Evaluation MSE – “Simulation testing of alternative management actions and assessment programmes to anticipate policy performance relative to specified metrics” – Irwin & Conroy 2013 MSE workshop background document

Why Do This? § Evaluate anticipated performance of alternatives § Management decisions are based on imperfect information § An MSE may attempt to identify: ― An “optimal” strategy, ― A “less bad” option, ― Strategies that are “robust” to known uncertainties, ― Strategies with undesirable performance that can be eliminated from further consideration, or ― Tradeoffs and points of diminishing returns § Identify important information needs and opportunities to improve information for future decisions

Setting the Stage § View MSE as a decision process ― Useful Information • e. g. , known objectives, empirical data • forecasts of anticipated performance of alternative harvest control rules ― Uncertainty • e. g. , herring recruitment ― Participatory process • e. g. , stakeholder workshops

Making Decisions Decision Choosing one action among multiple alternatives (e. g. , selecting a control rule to implement) Inputs Outcomes What influences the decision? Why do we care?

Models in Decision Making (Purpose) Options What can we do? Model Outcomes Why do we care?

MSE Key Steps Basic overview 1) Identification of mgmt objectives & quantitative performance measures 2) Identification of alternative harvest strategies 3) Development & parameterization of operating models 4) Simulations - Generate assessment data Apply method of stock assessment Apply catch control rule Determine biological implications on “true” population 5) Summarize results Punt et al. 2001

Define Performance Measures (i. e. , measurable attributes) A critical step: – They are used to measure how well objectives may be met – Assist in making choices among alternatives – Facilitate consideration of tradeoffs

Uncertainty & Decisions § The future is uncertain ― Inherent risk in decision making because of uncertainty ― Accounting for uncertainty can change the best option § The existence of uncertainty may be used as the reason to: ― Do less ― Maintain the status quo ― Do more § Ask: ― How was the decision justified? ― What risks were treated as acceptable? ― Whose viewpoints about risk were considered? Irwin et al. 2016

Systems Are Uncertain Nickerson and Adams 1979

Outcomes Are Uncertain Risk Seeking Favoring A over B Risk Avoiding Favoring B over C Expected values for choosing either option A, B, or C: (UNDESIRABLE) (HIGHLY DESIRABLE) Irwin et al. 2016

Considering Tradeoffs Walters and Martell 2004

Roles & Expectations § Facilitators ― Loyalty is to process ― May not be subject-matter expert ― NOT: • judge, jury, or executioner • declaring “right” from “wrong” • attempting to influence decision § Participants ― Carry the responsibility for discussion quality • Generate ideas, provide insights • Actively listen • Provide input on objectives and control rules