عربي
English
Español
Français
中文
Русский
 
 

Regularly review  the performance of the management plan and occasionally review the entire management system.

Overview of the activity

EAF is an adaptive management system that requires regularly checking of whether the plan is delivering acceptable outcomes for all the objectives of the fishery. Where performance is not acceptable, changes to the management measures are required. At longer time intervals the entire management system, including what objectives the plan is targeting, should also be reviewed.

Monitoring the outcomes of a management system based on the identified indicators is an ongoing activity so that performance against each of the operational objectives can be assessed at appropriate time intervals.  For most commercial fisheries some level of annual review (often in connection with quota/effort allocations) is undertaken with more frequent reviews needed where real-time management or high risk issues are involved. In some situations (e.g. small-scale fisheries, stock assessment of long lived species) a lower frequency may be adequate (e.g. every 2-5 years). These reviews can either be internal (most of the time) or external (from time to time).

The reviews should assess if the management arrangements are delivering the desired outcomes and, where this is not happening, identify the likely reasons for failure and, where possible, suggest corrective actions.  If these adjustments are allowed for within the scope of the plan (e.g. adjusting TACC, effort values etc.) the change may be negotiated each time or predefined by a control rule within a formal harvest strategy.  Where changes require the formal Management Plan to be amended (e.g. prohibit a certain gear) a longer process involving some of the activities from Step 3.3 will be needed.

After the management plan has been in operation for some time (e.g. 5 to 10 years) a strategic review of the entire management system may be required. This essentially requires going back to Step 1 of the EAF planning process to ensure the basis of the fishery management plan in relation to high level objectives, societal values are all still relevant.

Relevant questions

  • Are each of the indicators being monitored and checked at appropriate intervals?
  • When checked against the performance measures/limits/targets, are the indicators suggesting there is acceptable performance? If not, why?
  • If performance is not acceptable, are there predefined management actions that will occur for this issue (i.e. control rules)?  If not, what are the actions that should be taken to improve performance to acceptable levels?
  • Can the required changes in management arrangements be implemented without changing the formal management plan?  If not, go back to Steps 3.3 and 4.2
  • If a major disruption or event has occurred, review the risk analysis and potentially the management plan (i.e. feedback to Steps 2 &/or 3).
  • If there is a major change in government policies directly related to the fishery, review the entire management system (i.e. feedback to Step 1).

Key actions

  • Regularly review the state of the system, as measured by the indicators, against the agreed performance measures (targets and limits)
  • Where performance is not acceptable, implement any predefined actions as outlined in a harvest strategy or examine what possible alternative management measures may be appropriate (feedback loop to Step 3).
  • After a major disruption occurs, or some outcomes remain at unacceptably poor states, undertake a new risk analysis and review the management plan (feedback loop to Step 2).
  • After a period defined in the plan or a major change in overall government or community policies, undertake a new EAF planning process to review the basis of the entire management plan (feedback loop to Step 1).

Tools

This activity does not require too many additional specific tools because it is essentially using the outputs of tools either adopted for monitoring and assessment (Step 3.2) or those for management option evaluation (Step 3.3) and the implementation of the operational plan (Step 4.1). 

The most relevant tools are if the performance monitoring system needs to be refined and if harvest strategy and control rules are now to be used a formal mechanism to link the indicator and performance measures with changes in the management arrangements.  This would include pre-agreed courses of action (such as increases or decreases in catch or effort quotas etc) based on the indicator reaching certain levels in relation to the performance measures. In general, the less accurate the indicator, the less likely it is that precise preset harvest strategies can be used.

Where additional actions outside the scope of what is allowed in the current management plan are required this will generally require going back to one of the previous steps and the tools relevant to these steps.


The selection criteria for these tools are given in the table below.

Tools and information sources

Selection criteria

Difficulty

Cost

Capacity

Know.

Participation

Time

Performance Monitoring Easy L-H L-M L L-H S-M
Harvest Strategies and control rules Moderate M M M L-M M
Quantitative stock Assessment Fairly hard M-H M-H M-H L M-L
Social and Economic Assessment Fairly hard L-H M-H M-H M-H M-L
Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) Very hard M-H H H L-M M-L
Fisheries Enforcement and Compliance Moderate L-H H-M H-M L-M L-M

L= Low or Long; H= High; M= Medium, S=Short

 


  Back to Activity 4.2        Forward to Activity 4.4 

 
Powered by FIGIS