Bireme-SAP

Comments

Transcription

Bireme-SAP
Formalizing expert knowledge to compare
alternative management plans: sociological
perspective to the future management of
Baltic salmon stocks
Päivi Haapasaari
Fisheries and Environmental Management Group (FEM)
University of Helsinki, Finland
and
Timo P. Karjalainen
Thule Institute
University of Oulu, Finland
Game and Fisheries
Research Institute
1
Baltic salmon
Originally spawned in 80-120
rivers
During 1900s the number of
salmon rivers decreased rapidly
About 40 rivers left
Salmon Action Plan, (SAP) 1997-2006
(IBSFC)
 Goal: to restore salmon populations of selected rivers
to at least 50% of the potential smolt production
capacity by year 2010
 extensive stocking
 stream restoration
 fishery regulations
2
SAP (expired 2006)
Partially successful;
 Best results in the rivers of Bothnian Bay
 Share of wild stocks in catch increased compared to reared
salmon
 During SAP, total salmon catch decreased from 2395 to 913 tn
 From 2005: catches under TAC (2007: 40%)
- Fin & Swe: national technical measures, damages by
seals (coastal fishery)
- Den & Lat: dioxin regulations
- 2005 – 2008 driftnet phasing out (offshore)
Planning for the future
 EU Commission: plan to revise the SAP and to develop a new
management framework
 2007: Call for an evaluation of the socio-economic impacts of
SAP and new management objectives and options for the
future
 Bio-economic modelling
 Economic valuation study
 Sociological study concentrating on stakeholders point of view
Sociological evaluation of four alternative
management options for Baltic salmon
 Study of stakeholders’ potential commitment to four
management alternatives
 Commitment = source of implementation uncertainty
 Approach key informants (experts!) representing 3 stakeholder
groups in 8 Baltic Sea countries (29 experts from 6 countries)
 expert-knowledge to assess management options and to
express the views of stakeholder groups
 cost-effective
 Questionnaire, structured and open questions
 Analysis: quantitative (Bayesian nets) and qualitative
(triangulation)
Bayesian networks: why?
 Enable the comparing of the stakeholders’
preferences in quantitative terms
 Deal explicitly with uncertainties, and thus allow
 small data sets
 subjective experience-based qualitative knowledge
4
Four options evaluated for the future
management of Baltic salmon stocks
A: Continuation of the SAP as it was conducted in
1997-2006
B: Current situation with no specified long-term plan
C: New management plan I with an objective of 75% of
potential smolt production for each river; TAC for sea
and rivers
D: New management plan II with river specific smolt
production targets of 50% and 75% of the potential;
TAC for sea and rivers
The BN for commitment
Qualitative analysis to interpret and check the
modelling results
The commercial sector
Decreased profitability,
decreasing number of fulltime
professionals.
Disappointed because
restrictions have not been
relieved after the SAP
Expectable restrictions
related to different
management optios critical
Options with lower smolt
production targets sound safer
The recreational sector
Number of salmon in rivers
too low because of commercial
fishing
Maximise socio-economic
value of salmon
Maximise smolt production
Smolt production target as
high as possible
15
Summarising commitment utility
Option D
• River specific smolt
production targets 50 and
75% of potential
• For commercial fishers the
threat of restrictions emerging
from option D appears less
critical compared to option C
• For recreational sector D is
the second best alternative
Summarizing commitment utility
Option C
•
•
•
Smolt production target 75% of
potential
Favoured by recreational fishing
sector which believes it would have a
very positive impact on fishing
tourism.
Commercial fishers do not accept nor
believe, and see it as a potential risk
to cease their livelihood.
Summarizing commitment utility
Option A
• Continuation of the SAP as it was
conducted in 1997-2006
• Seen as a quite stable option with
regard to the state of the salmon
stocks.
• Those who want to see improving
salmon stocks do not accept it
while those who are afraid of
restrictions would commit to it.
Summarizing commitment utility
Option B
•
•
•
Current situation with no specified
long-term plan
Believed to maintain salmon stocks at
the currnt state or deteriorate them.
Potentially cease both commercial
and recreational fishing and the
development of fishing tourism
industry.
Conclusions
 The BNs allowed to couple different viewpoints and to lay
foundation for a compromise, in terms of utility.
 Stakeholders prefer management option in which smolt
production target is adjusted to each river (50% and 75% of
potential) and in which international TAC covers sea and
rivers
 Including this information in planning increases controllability
of the system
 The probabilistic language of the BNs makes it possible to
integrate information collected by different disciplines in a
same model, to build a holistic decision support system
Thank you !

Similar documents