Scientific stock assessment advice given by the SCRS is presented in the form of the Kobe II
Strategy Matrix (K2SM). Traditionally the K2SM shows the probabilities by year for different
catches of achieving the management objective of ensuring that the stock biomass is greater
than BMSY and fishing mortality less than FMSY. However, a K2SM can also be used, as in this
paper, to help guide discussion about choice of reference points for use as part of a Harvest
Control Rule.Versión del edito

de Bruyn, P.

Kell, L

Ortiz-de-Urbina-Gutiérrez, J.M. (José María)

English

Scientific stock assessment advice given by the SCRS is presented in the form of the Kobe II
Strategy Matrix (K2SM). Traditionally the K2SM shows the probabilities by year for different
catches of achieving the management objective of ensuring that the stock biomass is greater
than BMSY and fishing mortality less than FMSY. However, a K2SM can also be used, as in this
paper, to help guide discussion about choice of reference points for use as part of a Harvest
Control Rule.S

Ortiz-de-Urbina-Gutiérrez, José María

de Bruyn, Paul

Digital.CSIC

Kobe II strategy matrices for North Atlantic swordfish based on catch, fishing mortality and harvest control rules.

Scientific stock assessment advice given by the SCRS is presented in the form of the Kobe II
Strategy Matrix (K2SM). Traditionally the K2SM shows the probabilities by year for different
catches of achieving the management objective of ensuring that the stock biomass is greater
than BMSY and fishing mortality less than FMSY. However, a K2SM can also be used, as in this
paper, to help guide discussion about choice of reference points for use as part of a Harvest
Control Rule

de Bruyn, P. (Paul)

Repositorio Institucional Digital del IEO

SCRS/2013/188  Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 70(4): 2009-2016 (2014)  KOBE II STRATEGY MATRICES FOR NORTH ATLANTIC SWORDFISH BASED ON CATCH, FISHING MORTALITY AND HARVEST CONTROL RULES  Laurence T. Kell1, Josetxu Ortiz de Urbina2, Paul De Bruyn1   SUMMARY  Scientific stock assessment advice given by the SCRS is presented in the form of the Kobe II Strategy Matrix (K2SM). Traditionally the K2SM shows the probabilities by year for different catches of achieving the management objective of ensuring that the stock biomass is greater than BMSY and fishing mortality less than FMSY. However, a K2SM can also be used, as in this paper, to help guide discussion about choice of reference points for use as part of a Harvest Control Rule. RÉSUMÉ  L'avis formulé par le SCRS sur l'évaluation scientifique des stocks est présenté sous la forme de la matrice de stratégie de Kobe II (K2SM). Traditionnellement, la K2SM montre les probabilités par année pour différentes prises d'atteindre l'objectif de gestion de garantir que la biomasse du stock est supérieure à BPME et que la mortalité par pêche est inférieure à FPME. Toutefois, une K2SM peut aussi être utilisée, comme dans le présent document, pour aider à orienter les discussions sur le choix des points de référence à utiliser dans le cadre d'une norme de contrôle de la ponction.  RESUMEN  El asesoramiento científico de las evaluaciones de stock facilitado por el SCRS se presenta en forma de matriz de estrategia de Kobe II (K2SM). Tradicionalmente, la K2SM muestra las probabilidades por año de las diferentes capturas de conseguir los objetivos de ordenación de garantizar que la biomasa del stock es mayor que la BRMS y que la mortalidad por pesca es inferior a la BRMS. Sin embargo, la K2SM puede utilizarse también, como en este documento, para orientar los debates sobre la elección de puntos de referencia para su utilización como parte de una norma de control de la captura.  KEYWORDS  Advice, ASPIC, Biomass Dynamic, Harvest Control Rule,  Kobe II Strategy Matrix, Management, Projections, Stock Assessment   1. Introduction  Advice by the SCRS, in common with other tuna Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (tRFMOs), is presented in the form of the Kobe II Strategy Matrix (K2SM). The K2SM shows for different levels of total allowable catch (TAC) the probabilities by year the stock biomass is greater than BMSY and fishing mortality less than FMSY. I.e. of achieving the main management objective of ICCAT ensuring that high continuing catches.  The Commission has asked the SCRS to develop Limit Reference Points (LRPs) for North Atlantic swordfish (Rec. 11-02) that will trigger a rebuilding plan when biomass drops below the LRP. The FAO Technical Consultation on the Precautionary Approach to Capture Fisheries (FAO, 1996) recommended the use of a harvest control rule (HCR) to specify in advance what actions should be taken when a LRP is reached. This requires advice to be based not on a range of TACs but on a HCR, where choices have to be made about target fishing mortality, and other reference points, see Figure 1 for the generic ICCAT HCR (ICCAT, 2012).                                                   1ICCAT Secretariat, C/Corazón de María, 8. 28002 Madrid, Spain; Laurie.Kell@iccat.int; Phone: +34 914 165 600 Fax: +34 914 152 612. 2Instituto Español de Oceanografía IEO- CO Málaga, Pto. Pesquero s/n, 29640 Fuengirola (Málaga), Spain; urbina@ma.ieo.es; Phone: +34 952 19 71 24 Fax: +34 952 46 38 08. 2009  Therefore in this paper we compare traditional K2SM advice based on TACs, to K2SMs based on target fishing mortalities and a HCR with a range of fishing mortality and biomass reference points based on Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) for North Atlantic swordfish based on the 2013 stock assessment. The K2SM in this paper are not those used in the North Atlantic Swordfish Executive Summary. They are simply intended to illustrate the difference between K2SMs conditioned on different types of projection.   2. Materials and methods  2.1 Harvest Control Rule  SCRS2013-150 summarised the rational used by the Albacore Group to propose an interim Limit Reference Point (iLRP) and its use as part of a HCR. The approach taken by the albacore group is based on that adopted by the IOTC. Where in the determination of appropriate reference points and harvest control rules, consideration must be given to major uncertainties, including the uncertainty about the status of the stocks relative to reference points. IOTC will also assess through management strategy evaluation the performance of reference points, including any interim reference points, and of potential harvest control rules to be applied as the status of the stocks approaches the reference points.   The scientific committee of the IOTC is therefore setting interim limit and target reference points for current use in defining limits and targets. MSE will then be used to evaluate the LRPs these as part of a HCR. The approach taken by the albacore working group allowed advice to be provided in the Kobe framework consistent with the Commission’s decision making policy for development and application of conservation and management measures (Rec. 11-13).   In order to advance the Commission-SCRS dialogue, the Albacore WG provided information to the Commission on the basis of a range of interim HCR parameters, i.e. target fishing mortalities and biomass threshold (or buffer which if the stock fell below would result in fishing mortality being reduced).   The HCR meets the Commissions policy objectives based on the assessment outcomes, e.g.  1) For stocks in the green quadrant of the Kobe plot, management measures shall be designed to result in a high probability of maintaining the stock within this quadrant.  2) For stocks that are in the upper right yellow quadrant of the Kobe plot (overfishing), the Commission shall immediately adopt management measures designed to result in a high probability of ending overfishing in as short a period as possible.  3) For stocks in the red quadrant of the Kobe plot (overfishing and overfished), the Commission shall immediately adopt management measures, designed to result in a high probability of ending overfishing in as short a period as possible and the Commission shall adopt a plan to rebuild these stocks, and  4) For stocks in the lower left yellow quadrant of the Kobe plot (overfished but no overfishing), the Commission shall adopt management measures designed to rebuild these stocks in as short a period as possible.  2.2 Stock assessment  The data used are the results from Run 2 of the ASPIC assessment Prager et al. (1996) for the North Atlantic swordfish stock.  During the stock assessment meeting the ASPIC base model was projected to the year 2022 under constant TAC scenarios of 8 to 20 thousand tones. Catch in year 2012 was assumed to be the reported catch plus the average of the last three years (2009-11) for those CPCs that have not reported swordfish catches as of September 5, 2013 (i.e. 14,038 t)  2.3 Projections  Three sets of projections were conducted, i.e. based on a range of i) TACs, ii) target fishing mortalities and iii) target fishing mortalities and biomass thresholds as part of a HCR.  In the case of the HCR, the stock was projected for three years for the fishing mortality based on the assessed stock biomass, a TAC was then estimated by taking the average catch for the three projected years. Other algorithms for setting the TAC could be explored, see SCRS2013-33. This would require discussion and subsequent simulation testing. 2010  2.4 Software  Software used was a biomass production model implemented as a package in R, this allows it to be used with a variety of other packages for plotting, summarizing results and to be simulation tested, e.g. as part of the FLR tools for management strategy evaluation (Kell et al., 2007).   3. Results  Stock assessment results are shown in Figures 2, 3 and 4; Figure 2 shows the time series of stock biomass relative to BMSY and harvest rate relative to FMSY. The corresponding Kobe phase plot, Figure 3, the historic median, boot strapped estimates and marginal densities for 2011 of stock biomass relative to BMSY and harvest rate relative to FMSY. The probabilities of being in the green, red and yellow zones of the Kobe phase plot are summarised as a pie chart in Figure 4. To help provide a consistent framework for presentation simulation of HCRs, the results are presented in a similar format as for North Atlantic albacore (SCRS2103-XXX). The Kobe II Strategy matrix, showing the joint probabilities of B > BMSY and F < FMSY is presented in Table 1. There are 5 types of projection i.e. 3 HCRs with different BThresholds, constant F and constant catch. In the case of the HCRs and the constant F projections the different F targets are shown by row. Table 2 shows the probabilities of F < FMSY and Table 3 for B > BMSY.  The associated catches, i.e. mean in next 3 years and cumulative for 5.10 and 15 years are summarised in Table 4.   4. Discussion  A K2SM constructed using TAC projections was compared with K2SMs based on constant F projections and the generic ICCAT HCR with a range of values for FTarget and BThresholds. Since the stock is in the green Kobe phase plot quadrant little difference was seen in the projected outcomes for TACs below BMSY and fishing mortalities below FMSY. The main difference was in at high fishing mortalities when the stock fell below the BThreshold and the HCR caused fishing mortality and hence catches to be reduced then increased in a three year cycle.  An objective of simulating a HCR was to help guide discussion and create a dialogue between the SCRS and the Commission not just on the level of TAC but on what is meant by high probability and as short as possible. For example if the stock falls below BMSY how quickly should F and catches be reduced in order to recover the stock. Also what should be the probability that the stock is greater than BMSY so that the recovery plan is successful.  While it is recognised that different assessment methods will provide alternative estimates of uncertainty it is still possible to provide information to the Commission on the basis of a range of interim HCR parameter values which would meet the Commissions policy based on assessment outcomes as done for North Atlantic albacore. Where a HCR was used to provide a range of time-frames and probability levels for achieving Commissions objectives (as established in Rec. 11-13).  The Precautionary Approach (PA, Garcia (1996)) recommends the use of a harvest control rule (HCR) to specify in advance what actions should be taken when limits are reached and requires stock status to be assessed relative to limits and targets. The proposed HCR is therefore consistent with the Precautionary Approach, which requires the prediction of outcomes of alternative management measures for reaching the targets and avoiding limits. In addition the PA requires a characterisation of uncertainty and imposes specific needs for research, stock assessments, monitoring and management. Particularly, since although HCRs may include several precautionary elements, it does not necessarily follow that they will be precautionary in practice Kirkwood and Smith (1995). Since many harvest control rules are not evaluated formally to determine the extent to which they achieve the goals for which they were designed, given the uncertainty inherent in the system being managed Punt (2008).  It is therefore important to consider appropriate sources of uncertainty; traditional stock assessments mainly considers only uncertainty in observations and process (e.g. recruitment). However, uncertainty about the actual dynamics (i.e. model uncertainty) has a larger impact on achieving management objectives (Punt 2008). Therefore when providing management advice it is important to consider appropriate sources of uncertainty. That is why it is better to consider Management Procedures (MP) or management strategies which are the combination of the available pseudo-data, the stock assessment used to derive estimates of stock status and the management model or Harvest Control Rule (HCR) that generates the management outcomes. Then to test these using Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) to evaluate the impact of the main sources of uncertainty inherent in the system being managed (Cooke (1999), McAllister et al. (1999)). 2011   For example SCRS2013-162 showed that there is considerable uncertainty about the indices of abundance used in the assessment for North Atlantic swordfish which is will have a greater impact on outcomes than the assumptions about process and measurement error. .   Bibliography  Cooke, J. (1999). Improvement of fishery-management advice through simulation testing of harvest algorithms. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil, 56(6):797. Garcia, S. (1996). The precautionary approach to fisheries and its implications for fishery research, technology and management: an updated review. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, pages 1{76. L. Kell, I. Mosqueira, P. Grosjean, J. Fromentin, D. Garcia, R. Hillary, E. Jardim, S. Mardle, M. Pastoors, J. Poos, et al. Flr: an open-source framework for the evaluation and development of management strategies. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil, 64(4):640, 2007. Kirkwood, G. and Smith, A. (1995). Assessing the precautionary nature of fishery management strategies. Fisheries and Agriculture Organization. Precautionary approach to fisheries. Part, 2. McAllister, M., Starr, P., Restrepo, V., and Kirkwood, G. (1999). Formulating quantitative methods to evaluate fishery-management systems: what fishery processes should be modelled and what trade-offs should be made? ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil, 56(6):900{916. Prager, M., Goodyear, C., and Scott, G. (1996). Application of a surplus production model to a swordfish like simulated stock with time-changing gear selectivity. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 125(5):729{740. Punt, A. (2008). Refocusing stock assessment in support of policy evaluation. Fisheries for Global Welfare and Environment, pages 139{152.  2012  Table 1. Kobe II Strategy matrix, showing joint probabilities of B > BMSY and F < FMSY for HCR with different BTresholds by FTargets, constant F and constant catch projections.   Table 2. Kobe II Strategy matrix, showing probabilities of F < FMSY for HCR with different BTresholds by FTargets, constant F and constant catch projections.   2013  Table 3. Kobe II Strategy matrix, showing probabilities of B > BMSY for HCR with different BTresholds by FTargets, constant F and constant catch projections.  Table 4. Catches, i.e. mean in next 3 years and cumulative for 5,10 and 15 years, for HCR with different BTresholds by FTargets, constant F and constant catch projections.   2014   Figure 1. Harvest Control Rule and Limit Reference Points for North Atlantic swordfish that uses the template developed by the Stock Assessment Methods Working Group.    Figure 2. Estimates of stock biomass relative to BMSY and harvest rate relative to FMSY. 2015   Figure 3. Kobe phase plot showing historic median (line), boot strapped (points) estimates and marginal densities of stock biomass relative to BMSY and harvest rate relative to FMSY.   Figure 4. Pie chart show the probabilities of being in the green, red and yellow zones of the Kobe phase plot.  2016

http://www.repositorio.ieo.es/e-ieo/bitstream/10508/9407/1/SCRS_2013_188.pdf

Kobe II strategy matrices for North Atlantic swordfish based on catch, fishing mortality and harvest control rules.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Digital.CSIC

Repositorio Institucional Digital del IEO