Download
1 / 23
230 likes | 367 Vues
Eastern Georgian Bay & The North Channel of Lake Huron Socio-Economic Benefits of Fishery Rehabilitation. Key Findings. Significant gaps in data and understanding are evident: Fish populations Angler populations Economic valuation. Key Findings.
E N D
Eastern Georgian Bay &The North Channel of Lake HuronSocio-Economic Benefits of Fishery Rehabilitation
Key Findings • Significant gaps in data and understanding are evident: • Fish populations • Angler populations • Economic valuation
Key Findings • The current fishery management system is not guided by basic economic analysis principles.
Key Findings • Phase 2 will result in only approximate and imprecise estimates of the benefits of fishery rehabilitation.
Key Findings • The effectiveness of fishery rehabilitation actions will be difficult to gauge in the future.
Key Findings • Phase 2 is an opportunity to initiate change so that the economic, environmental and social benefits of the fishery will be better understood and play a more central role in fishery management decisions in the future .
Fishery Benefits • How does one forecast the benefits of fishery rehabilitation? • Forecasting the benefits of fishery management actions requires linking specific actions to specific outcomes of importance to people. • So what are: • The actions? • The outcomes of importance?
Management Actions • Stocking • Habitat Improvements • Predator Control • Harvest Regulation
Management Decisions • What • Where • When • How much
Decision-making • What are the alternatives? • How will alternatives be evaluated? • Who makes the decision? • The purpose of this benefits assessment is to assist with evaluating the alternatives.
Important Outcomes • The important outcomes of fishery rehabilitation are called benefits. • Deciding on the best management alternative requires assessing the benefits that can be expected. • Three basic types of benefits: • Economic (conventional) • Environmental • Social (non-market)
Benefits Forecasting System Fish Population (Species, Numbers, Size) Management Expenditures (Accommodation, Travel, Materials) OSY (Species, Size) Angling (Days, Species, Size) Demand (Species, CUE, Size) Benefits (Profit, Consumer Surplus) Anglers (Origin, Demographics, Preferences)
Net Benefit & Distribution • Government investments should: • Make a positive contribution to the public interest • Provide greatest improvement at the least cost • Ensure a fair distribution of costs and benefits. • This benefits assessment deals primarily with distribution. Costs Benefits
Conclusions & RecommendationsFish Populations • Significant deficiencies in data, understanding and analytical capabilities are present. • Forecasting the impact of management actions on fish populations will be imprecise and highly uncertain. • It is recommended as a condition of approval, that fishery managers be required to produce explicit quantitative forecasts of expected fish population responses to rehabilitation actions making the best use of the best available information.
Conclusions & RecommendationsAngler Populations • Fishery management is as much about understanding and forecasting angler behaviour as it is about forecasting fish population dynamics. • Significant deficiencies in data, understanding and analytical capabilities are present. • Forecasting the impact of management actions on angler populations will be imprecise and highly uncertain. • It is recommended as a condition of approval, that fishery managers be required to produce explicit quantitative forecasts of expected angler population responses to rehabilitation actions making the best use of the best available information.
Conclusions & RecommendationsValuation • Phase 2 will require the application of a consistent valuation methodology. • Considerable effort will be required to estimate these values. • Even with considerable effort, valuation of the benefits will be imprecise and highly uncertain. • It is recommended as a condition of approval, that practical initiatives are taken immediately to improve the capacity to value the benefits of the fishery.
Conclusions & RecommendationsEconomic Analysis • The application of well established principles and procedures of economic analysis is currently absent. • Fishery management decisions have not relied on social cost-benefit analysis. • It is recommended as a condition of approval, that fishery managers be required in the future to evaluate management alternatives using social cost-benefit analysis to arrive at their recommendations for rehabilitation.
Conclusions & RecommendationsAnalytical Capacity • These recommendations require a means to analyse systematically rehabilitation alternatives. • A practical decision support system is required. • By automating the analysis, new alternatives can be rapidly evaluated. • As well, the analytical procedure will be transparent, replicable and easily communicated to others. • It is recommended that an initial decision support system for fishery managers be developed as part of Phase 2.
Conclusions & RecommendationsGoing Forward • An ambitious agenda for Phase 2 and beyond has been laid out. • Undertaking a benefits assessment of fishery rehabilitation alternatives is breaking new ground. • Waiting for better data, understanding and analytical capacity is imprudent. • It is recommended that Phase 2 be seized as an opportunity to improve fishery management and make it more responsive to the basic requirements of good public policy. • As part of this commitment, it is recommended that investments be made to ensure that critical data and analysis are produced to evaluate the effectiveness of fishery rehabilitation actions.
