Marine Stewardship Council
Scoring a Fishery Principle 1
MSC CABs Training, September 2014
Dan Hoggarth
Disclaimer
If any interpretive issues arise in relation to the issues covered in these
presentations, the text of the English MSC Scheme Documents will prevail
in all instances.
The MSC is not responsible for any issues arising to any parties as a result
of consulting this presentation. This presentation is also not intended to
act as interim verification of assessor competency.
If you are unsure of any details on any of the subjects covered, or
reference to this presentation, please consult the relevant MSC scheme
documents or contact the MSC at [email protected].
MSC Executive
September 2014
Agenda and Learning Objectives
PI 1.1.1
Stock
status
•
Exercise
PI 1.1.2
Rebuilding
PI 1.2.2
Harvest
Control
Rules
To be able to understand and implement the
changes to Principle 1 in the Default Assessment
Tree, Annex SA in CR v2.0
Metapopulations
Question for you…
What do you know about the
issues the FSR was trying to
address in P1?
P1 Problems (as perceived at start of FSR)
Stock status
How should fluctuations around reference points be scored?
Which reference points are ‘consistent with’ BMSY?
Harvest Control Rules (HCRs)
What are the minimum requirements at the SG60 level?
What is required for fisheries without ‘hockey stick’ HCRs?
Structure of P1
Reference points and rebuilding PIs are double-scored
Tree structure can lead to inappropriate scoring results
Metapopulations
How should they be assessed?
What special considerations are needed by CABs?
Overall changes to P1 assessment tree
Current P1
structure
Component
PI
1.1.1
Stock status
SI a
Recruitment
SI b
Target
SI c
SI d
SI e
Outcome
1.1.2
Ref. Points
Design
Limit RP
Target RP
LTL spp
Proposed
new P1
structure
Component
PI
1.1.1
Stock status
SI a
Recruitment
SI b
Target
SI c
SI d
SI e
SI f
Outcome
1.1.3
Rebuilding
Design
Timeframes
Evaluation
1.1.2
1.1.3
Rebuilding
Design
Timeframes
Evaluation
One third overall P1 weighting here
1.2.1
Harvest St.
Design
Evaluation
Monitoring
Review
Shark finning
Management
1.2.2
1.2.3
HCRs
Info./Mon.
Design
Info. range
Uncertainty Monitoring
Evaluation
Stock removals
Management
1.2.2
1.2.3
HCRs
Info./Mon.
Design
Info. range
Uncertainty Monitoring
Evaluation
Stock removals
1.2.1
Harvest St.
Design
Evaluation
Monitoring
Review
Shark finning
Review of measures
1.2.4
Stock Assess't
Appropriate's
Approach
Uncertainty
Evaluation
Peer review
1.2.4
Stock Assess't
Appropriate's
Approach (RPs)
Uncertainty
Evaluation
Peer review
Two thirds overall P1 weighting for these Pis
Revisions to PI 1.1.1 – Stock status
Component
Outcome
PI
Stock status
1.1.1
The stock is
at a level
which
maintains
high
productivity
and has a
low
probability of
recruitment
overfishing
Scoring
issues
a. Stock
status
relative to
recruitment
impairment
b. Stock
status in
relation to
target
reference
point
achievement
of Maximum
Sustainable
Yield (MSY)
SG60
SG80
SG100
It is likely that
the stock is
above the
point where
recruitment
would be
impaired (PRI).
It is highly
likely that the
stock is above
the point where
recruitment
would be
impaired (PRI).
There is a high degree
of certainty that the
stock is above the point
where recruitment
would be impaired
(PRI).
The stock is at
or fluctuating
around its
target reference
point a level
consistent with
MSY.
There is a high degree
of certainty that the
stock has been
fluctuating around its
target reference point, a
level consistent with
MSY or has been above
its target reference
point, this level over
recent years.
Scoring PI 1.1.1 – a healthy fishery
It is likely that the stock is
above the point where
recruitment would be
impaired (PRI).
5000
BMSY
4000
PRI
1000
‘Highly likely’ above the PRI level (95% confidence interval in green bar)
‘Fluctuating around’ the BMSY target, so 80 met also on Scoring issue b
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
0
1996
Score: 80
2000
1995
The stock is at or
fluctuating around a level
consistent with MSY.
3000
1994
It is highly likely that the
stock is above the PRI.
Stock biomass
SG80:
Unconditional
Pass
SG60:
Conditional
Pass
6000
Scoring PI 1.1.1 – a less healthy fishery
It is likely that the stock is
above the point where
recruitment would be
impaired (PRI).
5000
4000
2000
PRI
1000
Still just ‘likely’ above the PRI level, so 60 met (70% probability)
But not so clear now if ‘fluctuating around’ the BMSY target, 80 not met?
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
0
1996
Score: 60?
3000
1995
The stock is at or
fluctuating around a level
consistent with MSY.
BMSY
1994
It is highly likely that the
stock is above the PRI.
Stock biomass
SG80:
Unconditional
Pass
SG60:
Conditional
Pass
6000
Scoring issue a – Likely above PRI
Table SA9 : Probability required at different scoring guideposts
(in P2 section, %s same as in SA2.2.1 in P1 section)
Performance SG60 probability
indicator
requirement
SG80 probability
requirement
SG100 probability
requirement
PI 1.1.1 – P1
species
Likely = > 70th %ile
Highly likely = > 80th %ile High degree of certainty
= > 95th %ile
PI 2.1.1 –
Primary
Likely = > 70th %ile
Highly likely = > 80th %ile High degree of certainty
= > 90th %ile
PI 2.2.1 –
Secondary
Likely = > 60th %ile
Highly likely = > 70th %ile High degree of certainty
= > 80th %ile
PI 2.3.1 –
ETP
Likely = > 70th %ile
Highly likely = > 80th %ile High degree of certainty
= > 90th %ile
PI 2.4.1 –
Habitats
Unlikely = < 40th %ile
Highly unlikely = < 30th
%ile
Evidence of highly
unlikely = < 20th %ile
Low
PI 2.5.1 Ecosystem
Unlikely = < 40th %ile
Highly unlikely = < 30th
%ile
Evidence of highly
unlikely = < 20th %ile
Low
High
Med
Low
Med
Scoring issue b - ‘fluctuations’ around MSY
SG80 requirement:
The stock is at or fluctuating
around a level consistent with MSY
GSA 2.2.2 – Teams must provide
clear rationale that the stock is
fluctuating, taking account of the
biology of the species and the
stock status in recent years
•
•
•
Examples given on next slide
NOT explicit rules (decided against this
at Calibration meeting)
[90%] figure is only illustrative, as
applicable to an example species
Examples of fluctuations around BMSY
80 score for PI 1.1.1 scoring issues (b) is justified where:
•
•
Instantaneous estimate of current stock status not less than [90%]BMSY
Median or mean stock size over last one generation time is not less than
[90%]BMSY, and the trend is consistent with an expectation that the future
biomass will continue to fluctuate around BMSY
• i.e. the trend is NOT consistently downward trend over recent years unless
other information suggests it will soon be reversed (e.g. recent strong
recruitment or reductions in exploitation level).
• Recent trend showing a steady increase in stock size to a level not less than
[90%]BMSY and expected to continue building to above BMSY., and thereafter to
fluctuate around BMSY.
100 score is justified where:
•
•
Median or mean stock size over last two generation times is not less than
[90%]BMSY
Recent trend above BMSY in all years of the last one generation time.
Generation Time (GT)
Same concept as in CR v1.3
and FAM:
• Generation time = the average age of
a reproductive individual in the fish
stock
May be estimated as: Age at
maturity + (1/M)
e.g. if:
• age at maturity = 5 years,
• and M = 0.33
Generation time = 5 + (1/0.33) = 8 years
MSY and overfishing…
MSC has not defined “overfished” and “overfishing”
Commonly used elsewhere as follows:
•
•
Overfishing: fishing mortality higher than FMSY
Overfished: biomass stock size lower than a limit defined in relation to
MSY. FAO Ecolabelling Guidelines define “overfished” as below a
biomass limit reference point. The limit is often taken to be 50%BMSY,
which is the default assumption for the point below which recruitment
may be impaired (PRI) as defined by the MSC
Box GSA1 – MSC intent on the achievement of MSY
• Many ways to estimate MSY and related reference points
• In ‘common practice’ methods, FMSY should be a limit reference point
• In ‘best practice’ methods, FMSY could be a target reference point
PI 1.1.1 – Proxy Indicators & Reference Points
CR
Guidance
SA2.2.3 – teams
may use ‘proxy’
information
GSA2.2.3.1 – guidance on ‘per-recruit’ approaches, Bpa,
BMSYtrigger (ICES), CPUE/empirical values, fish sizes etc
• Team must justify
equivalence to
PRI and MSY
levels (two step
process)
PI 1.1.1 – Proxy Indicators & Reference Points
CR
Guidance
SA2.2.3 – teams
may use ‘proxy’
information
GSA2.2.3.1 – guidance on proxies such as ‘per-recruit’
approaches, Bpa, BMSYtrigger (ICES), CPUE/empirical values,
fish sizes etc
• Team must justify
equivalence to
PRI and MSY
levels (two step
process)
Traffic lights approach (illustration, not strict rules here):
• 60 – no decline in one proxy of biomass for at least
1GT, and proxy indicates stock above PRI
• 80 – no decline in two proxies of biomass for at least
1GT, and at least one proxy indicates high productivity
• 100 – no decline in three proxies and at least two
indicate high productivity
Proxies should be independent; Note also that one good
proxy may be better than two weak ones?
PI 1.1.1 – Proxy Indicators & Reference Points
CR
Guidance
SA2.2.4 – may use F GSA2.2.4 – (critical) guidance for when F is being used as
to score stock status a proxy for B, and the starting biomass is unknown:
• ‘low enough for
long enough’…
• 60 – F likely <FMSY for 1GT (or 2yr if greater)
• 80 – F likely <FMSY for 2GT (or 4yr if greater)
• 100 – F highly likely <FMSY for 2GT (or 4yr if greater
See MSC research on rebuilding rates (to be published)
Box GSA5 – General expectations for ‘F’
PI 1.1.1 (Stock status): F must be low enough for long
enough for biomass levels to be reached.
PI 1.1.2 (rebuilding): When stock is below a level of
‘fluctuating around BMSY’, then F should normally be less
than FMSY, in order to achieve recovery.
PI 1.2.2 (HCRs): To be regarded as working effectively,
HCRs will normally maintain F equal to or less than FMSY.
Exceptions to these general rules allowed, where justified
•
•
e.g. by special nature of a stock assessment approach
or the availability of other specific information (e.g. recruitment)
Uncertainty in stock assessments
At surveillance (G7.23.23.1):
In reviewing fluctuations in stock size, teams should note that a modelderived estimate of stock size from the most recent year will often be more
uncertain than earlier years. Teams should take this into account so as to
avoid rapid changes in status of MSC certified stocks, which are possibly
not indicative of actual material change in stock status, and so avoid
unnecessary changes in certification status as specified in FCR paragraph
[7.23.23.1b]. A single estimate of stock status unsupported by an estimate
of certainty either derived from a time series trend or from a statistical
model, should only rarely be used to justify a material change in the score.
Key LTL stocks
Generally the same requirements as CR v1.3
•
•
Language just revised for removal of Reference Points PI
Alternative scoring table to use
• SIa – maintain stock above point of serious ecosystem impacts
• SIb – maintain stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with
ecosystem needs)
SA2.2.15 – consideration of ‘F’
•
Where F is available, target level should be 0.5FMSY (as determined in
a single species context), or 0.5M.
GSA2.2.8 - See new box explaining basis for LTL approach
Examples
Would the following fisheries
meet 80 or 100 for SI 1.1.1b:
• SG80: The stock is at or
fluctuating around a level
consistent with MSY.
• SG100: There is a high degree
of certainty that the stock has
been fluctuating around a
level consistent with MSY or
has been above this level over
recent years.
A. GOA pollock
Assume B35% ~ BMSY (‘tier 3’
stock)
Assume Generation Time ~ 6
years
B. BSAI sablefish
Assume B35% ~ BMSY (‘tier 3’ stock)
Assume Generation Time ~ 8 years?
C. GOA pollock IF SCORED IN
2009
Assume B35% ~ BMSY (‘tier 3’
stock)
Assume Generation Time ~ 6
years
Scoring stock status in ICES stocks
GSA2.2.3.1 – Use of proxy
indicators and RPs for PRI & BMSY
The BMSYtrigger approach used in
ICES should be regarded as
setting a lower limit to the likely
range of values that BMSY may
take, and not as a target value for
BMSY.
In ICES assessments, fisheries
with B>BMSYtrigger may be regarded
as “fluctuating around BMSY”
(thereby achieving an 80 score)
D. Irish Sea herring
Generation time ~5-6 years (tm~3) …
E. West Scotland
haddock
F. NE Arctic cod
G. North Sea cod
H. NE Atlantic Mackerel
I. North Sea hake
Test!
Which of the following fisheries should be
regarded as ‘fluctuating around MSY’ to
achieve an 80 score on PI1.1.1b?
a) There is no time series, but a single
current estimate of stock size
indicates the stock is 95%BMSY
b) The average stock size over the
last one generation time (GT) is just
under BMSY, but the trend is
consistently down.
c) The recent trend in stock size has
increased to 90%BMSY but is
expected to decline from next year
d) The average stock size over the
last one GT is just over BMSY
SA1.1
Stock Rebuilding PI (PI 1.1.2) ◙
Table SA3: PI 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding PISGs
PI 1.1.2
Stock
Rebuilding
(previously
1.1.3)
Old SG80
level moved
down to 60
SG80 level now
only requires
‘evidence’ of
rebuilding
Component
Outcome
PI
Stock
Rebuilding (C2)
Scoring
issues
a.
Rebuilding
timeframes
A rebuilding
timeframe is
specified for the
stock that is the
shorter of 20
years or 2 times
its generation
time. For cases
where 2
generations is less
than 5 years, the
rebuilding
timeframe is up to
5 years. ◙
b.
Rebuilding
evaluation
Monitoring is in
place to determine
whether the
rebuilding
strategies are
effective in
rebuilding the
stock within the
specified
timeframe.
1.1.2
Where the
stock is
reduced,
there is
evidence
of stock
rebuilding
within a
specified
timeframe.
SG60
SG80
SG100
The shortest
practicable
rebuilding
timeframe is
specified which
does not exceed
one generation
time for the
depleted stock.
There is evidence
that the rebuilding
strategies are
rebuilding stocks,
or it is likely
based on
simulation
modelling,
exploitation rates
or previous
performance that
they will be able to
rebuild the stock
within the
specified
timeframe.
There is strong
evidence that the
rebuilding
strategies are
rebuilding
stocks, or it is
highly likely
based on
simulation
modelling,
exploitation rates
or previous
performance that
they will be able
to rebuild the
stock within the
specified
timeframe.
Moved
down
from
old
SI a
PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding
CR
Guidance
SA2.3.1 – PI 1.1.2 is scored when
PI1.1.1 < 80
Rebuilding target is ‘BMSY’ but scoring
of PI1.1.2 is only required while PI
1.1.1 scores <80
SA2.3.3 – Where F is estimated, it must
be used to score ‘evidence’ in Scoring
Issue b:
• 80 – current F likely <FMSY
GSA2.3.3 – Fisheries should avoid
being in the top left corner of a ‘Kobe
plot’ (high F even when rebuilding)
• 100 – current F highly likely <FMSY
• Exceptions to above rules allowed if
other clear evidence exists for
rebuilding
‘Clear evidence’ that stocks are
rebuilding should include at least TWO
years of stock growth
PI 1.2.2
Harvest
Control
Rules
(HCRs)
Moved
here from
Reference
Pts PI
Revised to
‘robustness’
wording due
to difficulty
of scoring
old version
Key terms:
‘available’ and
‘expected’
introduced at
SG60 level
PI 1.2.2 – Harvest Control Rules
Harvest Control Rules define how the fishery management
actions will maintain the stock at sustainable levels.
HCRs include ‘trigger reference points’ at which management
actions are changed (different to ‘outcome reference points’)
As in CR v1.3, SG80 still requires that HCRs are ‘well-defined’
A 60 score can now be achieved in two ways:
1. HCRs are only ‘generally understood’ (not yet explicit), or
2. Stock is still abundant, HCRs not previously used, but are ‘available’
and reasonably ‘expected’ to be used by managers if and when stocks
decline to a level consistent with MSY (see SA2.6.2-5)
Definitions
For SG80: HCRs are ‘well-defined’ when they exist in some
written form that has been agreed by the management agency,
ideally with stakeholders, and clearly state what actions will be
taken at what specific trigger reference point levels.
For SG60: HCRs only ‘generally understood’ where they can
be shown to have been applied in some way in the past, but
have not been explicitly defined or agreed.
Terms defined at end of GSA2.6 Background section
‘Available’ HCRs
CR
Guidance
CB2.6.2 – accept ‘available’
HCRs if:
a) Stock above BMSY (and
expected to remain there for
next 5 years), or
GSA2.5.2-5
b) Stock has not declined over
time
• When HCRs are treated as ‘available’, a
condition to put in place ‘well-defined’
HCRs may allow longer than the normal
five years (as long as the stock is still
above BMSY and/or not declining)
• Stocks that decline during certification and
no longer meet the criteria for ‘available’
HCRs, must put HCRs in place within one
year or be suspended
• Such new HCRs may be either ‘well
defined’, or only ‘generally understood’ but
some action must be taken.
‘Expected’ HCRs
CR
CB2.6.3 – HCRs may be
‘expected’ to be put in place
when needed if:
a) Effectively used in another
‘similar’ fishery, or
b) Required by some formal
arrangement when B<BMSY
Guidance
‘Evidence of effectiveness’ of HCRs (SIc)
CR
Guidance
SA2.6.6 – Teams must
consider current F (or proxies)
in scoring ‘evidence’ of HCR
effectiveness (scoring issue
1.2.2c)
F<FMSY may be taken as HCRs being ‘effective’
Proxies also allowed where
justification is given
e.g. traffic lights approach:
• 60 – one proxy indicates no overfishing
F>FMSY only accepted in special approaches
where FMSY is treated as a target (Box GSA1)
• 80 – one or more proxies indicate likely no
overfishing (e.g. 70% probability)
• 100 – two or more proxies indicate highly
likely no overfishing
HCRs as ‘dynamic’ rules
• HCRs usually define a change in response to some
measured indicator, trigger Reference Point etc, often on
an annual basis
• HCRs may also be comprised of technical measures
only, so long as these are based on some analysis and
rules are in place for monitoring (longer time scale)
• Especially important for small scale fisheries
• e.g. Netherlands sea bass
• See useful examples in CSIRO papers
• Dowling, N.A., Dichmont, C.M, Smith, A.D.M. Smith, D.C. and Haddon, M., 2011a.
Guidelines on developing harvest strategies for data-poor fisheries. CSIRO.
• Dowling, NA., Haddon, M., Smith, D.C., Dichmont, C.M. and Smith, A.D.M., 2011b.
Harvest Strategies for Data-Poor Fisheries: A Brief Review of the Literature. CSIRO.
Test!
How can a fishery achieve a 60 score
for PI 1.2.2 (HCRs)? (Select all that
apply.)
a)
b)
c)
d)
When HCRs are only ‘generally
understood’ (in use but not yet
explicit defined or agreed)
When HCRs are ‘available’ and
‘expected’ to be used by managers
but stocks are currently below target
levels.
When HCRs are ‘available’ and
‘expected’ to be used by managers
and stocks are currently at a high
level (e.g. above BMSY).
When HCRs have been proposed but
are not yet in use or agreed.
Metapopulations
Guidance and definitions provided in
UoC (scope) section of the CR
UoC/UoA may include one or more subpopulations designated as the unit(s) of
stock on which the outcome and harvest
strategy components are to be assessed
Implications of four different types of stock
structure are described
• Harmonisation requirements
• Reference points (local or wider, per
recruit or absolute…)
Metapopulations
Scoring information and uncertainty:
Where metapopulations are assessed,
teams must consider the information
available on stock structure and dynamics,
taking into account any uncertainties
associated with the metapopulation
structure.
• Information (PI 1.2.3)
• Related uncertainties (PI 1.2.2 and PI
1.2.4)
Questions?
For further information, please contact:
[email protected]
www.msc.org