| Management
                Strategy EvaluationIntroductionManagement strategy evaluation (MSE) in the broad sense involves
              assessing the consequences of a range of management strategies
              or options and presenting the results in a way which lays bare
              the tradeoffs in performance across a range of management objectives.
              In contrast to some previous approaches to fisheries assessment,
              it does not seek to proscribe an optimal strategy or decision.
              Instead it seeks to provide the decision maker with the information
              on which to base a rational decision, given their own objectives,
              preferences, and attitudes to risk.  MSE is a simulation technique based on modelling
              each part of the adaptive management cycle (Figure 1). It was developed
              more than 20 years ago to consider the implications of alternative
              management strategies for the robust management of natural resources,
              such as single fish stocks. Two very useful reviews of the subject
              are Butterworth and Punt (1999) and Sainsbury et al. (2000).  
              
                | 
 Figure
                      1: Adaptive management cycle(Click to enlarge in new window)  [1]
 |  The method
              has  been used by bodies such as the International Whaling Commission
              (e.g. IWC 1992, Kirkwood 1997) and Commission for the Conservation
              of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) (de la Mare 1996)
              and has been adopted as a standard fisheries tool in a number of
              countries including: South Africa (Punt and Butterworth 1995, Cochrane
              et al 1998, Butterworth et al 1998), Europe (Horwood 1994, as of
              Butterworth and Punt 1999), New Zealand (Starr et al. 1997) and
              Australia (Punt and Smith 1999).             The strength
                of the approach is that instead of using a single model to find
                an optimal solution, multiple candidate models are put forward
                to evaluate alternate hypotheses. By modelling each step of the
                formal adaptive-management approach (Walters 1986) the consequences
                of alternate scenarios can be evaluated across the models. The
                other core strength of the process is that it is consultative
                - both managers and stakeholders can have input into the candidate
                models and management scenarios. As the approach demands clear
                objectives to do the evaluations against, the method forces participants
                to be clear about their objectives and to specify performance
              indicators that are in the context of what people are interested
              in.  
              
                | 
 Figure 2:
                        MSE cycle and questions(Click to enlarge in new window)
 |  MSEs can
                be performed qualitatively (Smith et al 2005), but they have
                typically been done using quantitative (or at least semi-quantitative)
                simulations that contain sub-models for each of the main steps
                in the adaptive management cycle. At the core of these simulations
                is a "system state" model that represents the dynamics
                of the resource. As the models were initially used to consider
                single species fisheries management issues the earliest MSE models
                included single species models (e.g. IWC 1992), or single species
                with habitat considerations (e.g. Plectropomus leopardus and
                reef habitat in ELSIM, Mapstone et al. 2004). It was not long
                however, before they were being applied to multispecies questions
                (e.g. 3 species hake and seal model used by Punt and Leslie 1995,
                or the four species and habitat modelled by Sainsbury 1988).
                More recently ecosystem-based management and multiple use management
                questions have been addressed using the MSE approach. Atlantis and InVitro are
                two models developed by staff in the CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric
                Research Division to consider ecosystem-level management questions
                using the MSE approach. Ecopath with Ecosim (developed at the
                Fisheries Centre at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver)
                has also been used in an ecosystem-level MSE (e.g. the overlap
                of seals and fisheries off Macquarie Island, Goldsworthy et al.
                2001). Quite a wide range of questions can be addressed using
                these models (Figure 2). References:Walters, C.J., 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable
              Resources. MacMillan Publishing Co., New York. Sainsbury, K. J. (1988). The ecological basis of
              multispecies fisheries, and management of a demersal fishery in
              tropical Australia. In: Gulland, J. A. (Ed.), Fish population dynamics,
              (2nd ed.), Chapter 14, pp.349-82, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.  IWC 1992. Report of the Scientific Committee, Annex
              D. Report of the Sub-Committee on Management Procedures. Reports
              of the International Whaling Commission, 42: 87–136. Smith, A.D.M. (1994) Management strategy evaluation
              - the light on the hill. Pp 249-253 in D.A. Hancock (Ed.) Population
              Dynamics for Fisheries Management. Australian Society for
              Fish Biology Workshop Proceedings, Perth, 24-25 August 1993. Australian
              Society for Fish Biology, Perth.  Punt and Butterworth 1995: Punt, A.E. and D.S. Butterworth.
              1995. The effects of future consumption by the Cape fur seal on
              catches and catch rates of the Cape hakes. 4. Modelling the biological
              interaction between Cape fur seals Arctocephalus pusillus pusillus
              and Cape hakes Merluccius capensis and M. paradoxus. S. Afr. J.
              mar. Sci. 16: 255-285. de la Mare, W. K. 1996. Some recent developments
              in the management of marine living resources. In Frontiers of Population
              Ecology, pp. 599–616. Ed. by R. B. Floyd, A. W. Shepherd,
              and P. J. De Barro. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, Australia. Kirkwood, G. P. 1997. The Revised Management Procedure
              of the International Whaling Commission. In Global trends: fisheries
              management, pp. 41–99. Ed. by E. K. Pikitch, D. D. Huppert,
              and M. P. Sissenwine. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 20,
              Bethesda, Maryland. Starr, P. J., Breen, P. A., Hilborn, R. H., and Kendrick,
              T. H. 1997. Evaluation of a management decision rule for a New
              Zealand rock lobster substock. Marine and Freshwater Research,
              48: 1093–1101. Butterworth, D. S., Cowan, C. L., and Johnston, S.
              J. 1998. The development of a management procedure for Namibian
              seals. Report to the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources,
              Namibia. 47 pp. Cochrane, K. L., Butterworth, D. S., De Oliveria,
              J. A. A., and Roel, B. A. 1998. Management procedures in a fishery
              based on highly variable stocks and with conflicting objectives:
              experiences in the South African pelagic fishery. Reviews in Fish
              Biology and Fisheries, 8: 177–214. Butterworth, D.S., and Punt, A.E. 1999. Experiences
              in the evaluation and implementation of management procedures.
              ICES Journal of Marine Science, 56: 985–998. Punt, A. E., and Smith, A. D. M. 1999. Harvest strategy
              evaluation for the eastern gemfish (Rexea solandri). ICES Journal
              of Marine Science, 56: 860–875. Sainsbury, K.J., Punt, A.E. and Smith, A.D.M. 2000.
              Design of operational management strategies for achieving fishery
              ecosystem objectives. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57: 731–741 Goldsworthy,
              S.D., He, X., Tuck, G.N. Lewis, M. and Williams, R. 2001. Trophic
              interactions between the Patagonian toothfish, its fishery, and
              seals and seabirds around Macquarie Island. Marine Ecology Progress
              Series, 218: 283-302. Mapstone B.D., Davies C.R., Little L.R., Punt A.E.,
              Smith A.D.M, Pantus F., Lou D.C., Williams A.J., Jones A., Ayling
              A.M., Russ G.R., and McDonald A.D. 2004. The Effects of Line Fishing
              on the Great Barrier Reef and Evaluations of Alternative Potential
              Management Strategies. CRC Reef Research Centre Technical Report
              No 52. CRC Reef Research Centre, Townsville, Australia. Jones, G, 2005, Is the management plan achieving its objectives? pp555-557 In Worboys, G, Lockwood, M, & De Lacy, T,  Protected Area Management.  Principles and Practice.  Second edition. Oxford University Press.  Available online at http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=7679  Figure 1 References:Jones, G, 2005, 'Is the management plan achieving its objectives?'pp555-567 in Worboys, G, De Lacy, T. & Lockwood, M. (eds) Protected Area
 Management.  Principles and Practices.  Second Edition. Oxford
 University Press.  Case study available online
 (http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=7679).
 Jones, G, 2009, 'The adaptive management system for the TasmanianWilderness World Heritage Area-linking management planning with
 effectiveness evaluation'. Chapter 13 in Allan, C. and Stankey, G.
 (eds), Adaptive Environmental Management. A Practitioner's Guide.
 Co-published by Springer and CSIRO Publishing, 351p. Dordrecht The
 Netherlands & Collingwood Australia.
 www.springerlink.com.  Chapter 13
 available online at http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=15123.
   Last updated: 
              21/03/13
                |  |