Responsive harvest control rules provide inherent resilience to adverse effects of climate change and scientific uncertainty

2019 ◽  
Vol 76 (6) ◽  
pp. 1424-1435 ◽  
Author(s):  
J P Kritzer ◽  
C Costello ◽  
T Mangin ◽  
S L Smith
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Biomass Yield ◽  
The United States ◽  
Scientific Uncertainty ◽  
Fish Stock ◽  
Fishing Mortality ◽  
Climate Effects ◽  
Control Rules ◽  
Harvest Control Rules

Abstract Climate change is altering marine ecosystem and fish stock dynamics worldwide. These effects add to scientific uncertainties that compromise fisheries management. Among the strategies that can respond to climate change and scientific uncertainty, modifications to harvest control rules (HCRs) might be among the most direct and impactful. We used a bioeconomic model to compare alternative HCRs in terms of biomass, yield, and profits in response to potential effects of climate change and scientific uncertainty, specifically simulated retrospective patterns, for 14 stocks on the Northeast Shelf of the United States. Our results suggest that a responsive HCR in which fishing mortality changes with measured changes in biomass builds inherent resilience to adverse effects of both climate change and scientific uncertainty relative to an HCR in which fishing mortality is precautionary but fixed. This was despite that fact that the HCR algorithm did not account for the climate effects modelled. A fixed fishing mortality HCR was effective when climate effects were negligible or beneficial. Scientific uncertainty further reduced biomass, yield, and profits by about the same magnitude as climate change. Our results suggest that simple changes to HCRs can be a readily implementable strategy for responding to climate change and scientific uncertainty.

scholarly journals Developing and evaluating harvest control rules with different biological reference points for the American lobster (Homarus americanus) fishery in the Gulf of Maine

2011 ◽  
Vol 68 (7) ◽  
pp. 1511-1524 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuying Zhang ◽  
Yong Chen ◽  
Carl Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Gulf Of Maine ◽  
Homarus Americanus ◽  
The United States ◽  
Reference Points ◽  
Systematic Evaluation ◽  
American Lobster ◽  
Natural Mortality ◽  
Control Rules ◽  
The Status ◽  
Harvest Control Rules

Abstract Zhang, Y., Chen, Y., and Wilson, C. 2011. Developing and evaluating harvest control rules with different biological reference points for the American lobster (Homarus americanus) fishery in the Gulf of Maine. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 68: 1511–1524. The American lobster (Homarus americanus) supports one of the most valuable commercial fisheries in the United States. Controversy exists, however, in terms of the biological reference point (BRP) used in assessing lobster stock status, and there is no fully established or evaluated harvest control rule (HCR). A sex-specific, size-dependent operating model is developed to evaluate the performance of two HCRs, discrete and continuous, which adjust annual fishing mortality discretely and linearly, respectively, based on the status of the fishery. For each HCR, different BRPs are considered along with management duration, recruitment dynamics, and natural mortality. HCRs with a suitable set of BRPs can drive the fishery from an undesirable status to an optimal status. The continuous HCR tends to perform better than the discrete one. The Ftarget of 0.31 year−1 showed the best performance in the long term by balancing the needs of the fishing industry and conservation bodies. However, this was not the case in the short term. An Ntarget of 49.6 million would allow the American lobster to be maintained at its current stock level, with high recruitment and stable natural mortality. The study provides a framework for a systematic evaluation of management regulations for the American lobster.

scholarly journals Implementing a science-based system for preventing overfishing and guiding sustainable fisheries in the United States

2013 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. D. Methot ◽  
G. R. Tromble ◽  
D. M. Lambert ◽  
K. E. Greene
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Incomplete Data ◽  
The United States ◽  
Maximum Sustainable Yield ◽  
Scientific Uncertainty ◽  
Fishing Mortality ◽  
Sustainable Fisheries ◽  
Accountability Measures ◽  
Management Measures ◽  
Management Approaches

Abstract Methot, R. D., Tromble, G. R., Lambert, D. M., and Greene, K. E. 2014. Implementing a science-based system for preventing overfishing and guiding sustainable fisheries in the United States. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 71: 183–194. Fisheries management in the United States is primarily governed by the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, first enacted in 1976. Overarching principles are that fishing mortality rates should not jeopardize the capacity of a stock to produce maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and that overfished stocks (i.e. biomass is too low) should be rebuilt to the level that will support MSY. The science-based system for achieving sustainable fisheries is implemented, in part, through setting annual catch limits (ACLs) that cannot exceed the acceptable biological catch that is recommended by Scientific and Statistical Committees using methods that account for scientific uncertainty. Accountability measures (AMs) are management measures to prevent ACLs from being exceeded or correct any overages that occur. Implementation in 2012 of ACLs and AMs in all Federal fisheries was a historical achievement in the United States; one that will help rebuild stocks and ensure sustainable fisheries into the future. Some remaining challenges include: determining appropriate catch levels and management approaches for stocks with incomplete data; assessing more stocks, more frequently; addressing differences between managing stocks as a complex vs. managing individual stocks in a multistock fishery; and incorporating social and economic factors in determining the appropriate response to uncertainty.

scholarly journals An evaluation of acceptable biological catch (ABC) harvest control rules designed to limit overfishing

2017 ◽  
Vol 74 (7) ◽  
pp. 1028-1040 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Wiedenmann ◽  
Michael Wilberg ◽  
Andrea Sylvia ◽  
Thomas Miller
Keyword(s):  
Fishery Management ◽  
Short Interval ◽  
Assessment Model ◽  
Scientific Uncertainty ◽  
High Yield ◽  
Management Objectives ◽  
Control Rules ◽  
Average Biomass ◽  
Harvest Control Rules

In this paper we developed a simulation model to evaluate a range of acceptable biological catch (ABC) control rules to determine their relative performance at achieving common fishery management objectives. We explored a range of scenarios to determine robustness of a control rule to different situations and found that across scenarios the control rules that used a buffer to account for scientific uncertainty when setting the ABC were able to limit the frequency of overfishing. Modest buffers when setting the ABC were generally effective at limiting overfishing, but larger buffers resulted in higher average biomass, similar long-term benefits to the fishery (high yield, low variability in yield), more rapid recovery of depleted populations, and a lower risk of the population being overfished, and these results were robust to the level of uncertainty in the assessment model estimates. In addition, fixing the ABC over the interval between assessments and having a short interval between assessments was generally more effective at meeting management objectives than using projections and having a long assessment interval.

scholarly journals Adaptation of North Atlantic Albacore Fishery to Climate Change: Yet Another Potential Benefit of Harvest Control Rules

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gorka Merino ◽  
Haritz Arrizabalaga ◽  
Igor Arregui ◽  
Josu Santiago ◽  
Hilario Murua ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
North Atlantic ◽  
Potential Benefit ◽  
Control Rules ◽  
Harvest Control Rules

scholarly journals Leveraging scientific uncertainty in fisheries management for estimating among-assessment variation in overfishing limits

2019 ◽  
Vol 77 (2) ◽  
pp. 515-526
Author(s):  
Kristin M Privitera-Johnson ◽  
André E Punt
Keyword(s):  
Fisheries Management ◽  
Previous Analysis ◽  
Risk Tolerance ◽  
Scientific Uncertainty ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Control Rules ◽  
Stock Recruitment ◽  
Us West ◽  
Spawning Biomass ◽  
Harvest Control Rules

Abstract Fisheries management systems can utilize probability-based harvest control rules to incorporate scientific uncertainty and manager risk tolerance when setting catch limits. A precautionary buffer that scales with scientific uncertainty is used to calculate the acceptable biological catch from the overfishing limit (OFL) for US West Coast groundfish and coastal pelagic species. A previous analysis formed the basis for estimating scientific uncertainty as the among-assessment variation in estimates of historical spawning biomass time-series. This “historical biomass” approach may underestimate scientific uncertainty, because the OFL is a function of estimated exploitable biomass and fishing mortality. We developed a new approach that bases the calculation of scientific uncertainty on projected spawning biomass (SSB) and OFLs, accounting for uncertainty in recruitment and among-assessment variation. OFL projections yielded a higher estimate of uncertainty than SSB (0.502 vs. 0.413 for 25-year projections and 0.562 vs. 0.384 for a 1-year projection, assuming a deterministic stock-recruitment relationship). Assuming a stochastic stock-recruitment relationship produced smaller estimates of uncertainty (0.436, 25-year OFL projections; 0.452, 1-year OFL projections; 0.360, 25-year SSB projections; 0.318, 1-year SSB projections). The projection-based approach presented herein is applicable across stocks and regions that conduct assessments with sufficient and consistent outputs for calculating an OFL.

Global Climate Change: European Policy Makers' Views of How Science Enters the Political Process

1995 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 87-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Willett Kempten ◽  
Paul P. Craig ◽  
Craig R. Kuennen
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
Global Climate Change ◽  
Energy Use ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Political Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
Scientific Uncertainty ◽  
Policy Action ◽  
Policy Makers

This paper examines the process of establishing scientific consensus in the global climate change debate, as reported in interviews with policy makers, administrators and advisors in four European countries. We focus on three areas: 1) the European political community's deliberate organization of scientists to advise them on global climate change science policy; 2) European rationales for taking policy action in the presence of high scientific uncertainty, and 3) European interpretations of United States policy in terms of United States culture and public opinion. We find that consensus on global climate change is seemingly being reached - or at least publicly stated - more readily in Europe than in the United States. This appears to result from several deliberately-created European consensus building processes by representatives from the scientific community and government. In contrast, in the United States both the science of global climate change and the implications for public policy have been much more contested and debated. Extreme ends of the range of scientific opinion appear to be given more weight in the United States than in Europe, in part because of the contrasting fora available. Finally, our European interviewees attributed United States timidity on climate change remediation to American culture and voter unwillingness to forgo energy use.

Guilt and Shame in U.S. Climate Change Communication

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Jacquet
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Fossil Fuel ◽  
The United States ◽  
Scientific Uncertainty ◽  
Washington Dc ◽  
Climate Change Communication ◽  
Change Communication ◽  
Corporate Advertising ◽  
Change Behavior ◽  
The One

Some of the major misconceptions in the United States about climate change—such as the focus on scientific uncertainty, the “debate” over whether climate change is caused by humans, and pushback about how severe the consequences might be—can be seen as communications battles. An interesting area within communications is the contrasting use of guilt and shame for climate-related issues. Guilt and shame are social emotions (along with embarrassment, pride, and others), but guilt and shame are also distinct tools. On the one hand, guilt regulates personal behavior, and because it requires a conscience, guilt can be used only against individuals. Shame, on the other hand, can be used against both individuals and groups by calling their behavior out to an audience. Shaming allows citizens to express criticism and social sanctions, attempting to change behavior through social pressure, often because the formal legal system is not holding transgressors accountable. Through the use of guilt and shame we can see manifestations of how we perceive the problem of climate change and who is responsible for it. For instance, in October 2008, Chevron, one of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies, placed advertisements around Washington, DC, public transit stops featuring wholesome-looking, human faces with captions such as “I will unplug things more,” “I will use less energy,” and “I will take my golf clubs out of the trunk.” Six months later, DC activists reworked the slogans by adding to each the phrase “while Chevron pollutes.” This case of corporate advertising and subsequent “adbusting” illustrates the contrast between guilt and shame in climate change communication. Guilt has tended to align with the individualization of responsibility for climate change and has been primarily deployed over issues of climate-related consumption rather than other forms of behavior, such as failure to engage politically. Shame has been used, largely by civil society groups, as a primary tactic against fossil fuel producers, peddlers of climate denial, and industry-backed politicians.

scholarly journals Implementing the precautionary approach into fisheries management: Making the case for probability-based harvest control rules

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias K. Mildenberger ◽  
Casper W. Berg ◽  
Alexandros Kokkalis ◽  
Adrian R. Hordyk ◽  
Chantel Wetzel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fisheries Management ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Reference Points ◽  
Production Model ◽  
Scientific Uncertainty ◽  
Precautionary Approach ◽  
Control Rules ◽  
Stock Biomass ◽  
Harvest Control Rules

AbstractThe precautionary approach to fisheries management advocates for risk-averse management strategies that include biological reference points as well as decision rules and account for scientific uncertainty. In this regard, two approaches have been recommended: (i) harvest control rules (HCRs) with threshold reference points to safeguard against low stock biomass, and (ii) the P* method, a ‘probability-based HCR’ that reduces the catch limit as a function of scientific uncertainty (i.e. process, model, and observation uncertainty). This study compares the effectiveness of these precautionary approaches in recovering over-exploited fish stocks with various life-history traits and under a wide range of levels of scientific uncertainty. We use management strategy evaluation based on a stochastic, age-based operating model with quarterly time steps and a stochastic surplus production model. The results show that the most effective HCR includes both a biomass threshold as well as the P* method, and leads to high and stable long-term yield with a decreased risk of low stock biomass. For highly dynamics stocks, management strategies that aim for higher biomass targets than the traditionally used BMSY result in higher long-term yield. This study makes the case for probability-based HCRs by demonstrating their benefit over deterministic HCRs and provides a list of recommendations regarding their definition and implementation.

People’s Perception in relation to Climate Change and its Adverse Effects in Rural Bangladesh

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 (3) ◽  
pp. 23-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karimon Nesha ◽  
◽  
Atiq Rahman ◽  
Khalid Hasan ◽  
Ziauddin Ahmed ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Rural Bangladesh ◽  
People’S Perception

People and Climate Change

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Lived Experience ◽  
Social Institutions ◽  
Well Being ◽  
The United States ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Social Dimensions ◽  
Community Inclusion ◽  
Global Issue ◽  
Political Challenge

Climate change is a profoundly social and political challenge with many social justice concerns around every corner. A global issue, climate change threatens the well-being, livelihood, and survival of people in communities worldwide. Often, those who have contributed least to climate change are the most likely to suffer from its negative consequences and are often excluded from the policy discussions and decisions that affect their lives. This book pays particular attention to the social dimensions of climate change. It examines closely people’s lived experience, climate-related injustice and inequity, why some groups are more vulnerable than others, and what can be done about it—especially through greater community inclusion in policy change. A highlight of the book is its diversity of rich, community-based examples from throughout the Global South and North. Sacrificial flood zones in urban Argentina, forced relocation of United Houma tribal members in the United States, and gendered water insecurities in Bangladesh and Australia are just some of the in-depth cases included in the book. Throughout, the book asks social and political questions about climate change. Of key importance, it asks what can be done about the unequal consequences of climate change by questioning and transforming social institutions and arrangements—guided by values that prioritize the experience of affected groups and the inclusion of diverse voices and communities in the policy process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document