A Review of Policy Instruments used
to Manage Protected Resources
Kathryn Bisack (NOAA) & Gisele Magnusson (DFO)
NAAFE Forum 2015
Ketchikan, AK
Outline
• Policy instruments
• The need for evaluation
• Evaluation components
– Scope
– Evaluation criteria
• Next steps
2
Policy Instruments
Non-Regulatory/
Voluntary Approaches
Regulatory
Command &
Control
Technology
Standards
Incentives
Marketbased
Social/
Normative
Input
Restrictions
Financial
Selfregulation
Output
Restrictions
Tradable
Quotas
Negotiated
agreements
Access
Public
programs
3
The need for evaluation
• Workshop Recommendation
– Conduct post-implementation regulatory policy
analysis
• Benefits: Evaluation of previous actions with backcasting and counterfactual analyses improves our
understanding of policy instrument choices to support
better forecasting needed for regulatory policy analysis
and recovery planning.
4
The need for evaluation
•
1990-1994: Problem identified using IWC rules
•
1994-99: Regulatory Command & Control:
– Monthly Porpoise Closures
– Groundfish Monthly Rolling and Year-Round Closures
1999: Incentives:
– Benefits from Cooperation: Successful Pinger Experiment in early 1990’s
– Payments: Pingers adopted in 1999 TRT and subsidized cost
•
•
•
2007: Biological indicator identifies a problem bycatch > PBR as a result of:
– Non-managed areas: Bycatch increases
– Managed areas: Non-compliance for pingers observed
2010: TRT implementation
– Regulatory Command & Control: Expand area where pingers required
– Incentive: Threat of indefinite Consequential Closure if non-compliance
5
Adaptive Management Cycle
6
Evaluation Scope
• Many protected species move across
ecosystem boundaries
7
Evaluation Criteria
• Link to original management objectives
– For PR usually biological (e.g. PBR)
– For regulation include economic (e.g. positive net
benefits, cost-effective)
• Outcome performance in the areas of:
– Biological
– Economic
– Normative factors
– Sustainability of policy
8
Evaluation Criteria: Biological
1,800
Number of harbor porpoises
1,600
PBR
1,400
Annual Bycatch
5-year Bycatch Average
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
Year
9
Evaluation Criteria: Biological
• The measure is likely species dependent:
– Reduced Bycatch
• Data Rich – Estimate Bycatch
• Data Poor - No observed events
– Increased Abundance
– Increased Distribution
– Reduced extinction risk
• Do these link to public values?
10
Evaluation Criteria: Economic
Change in Profits for alternative means of reducing harbor porpoise bycatch.
% Reduction in Fleet Profits
Series1
0.50
DAR
0.45
0.40
0.35
Yr-Rnd Surcharge
Seasonal Surcharge
0.30
0.25
0.20
CL
0.15
ITQ
0.10
0.05
0.00
Bisack 2008
% Reduction in Cod (Tonnes)
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
$ per
Hapo
Closures All
0.60
Ratio
$3398
Pingers All (All Mid-Atl)
$583 5.8
Pingers All (Partial Mid-Atl)
$294 9.9
Pingers & Consequential Closures
$2915
0.70
Harbor porpoise 2008
Cost-effectiveness
of TRT alternatives.
11
Evaluation Criteria: Economic
• Validating estimates
– Changes in costs and revenues
– Response to incentives
– Regional and international spillovers
• Impact evaluation
– Key is disentangling impacts from other changes (esp.
fisheries management)
• Are there opportunities to simultaneously
evaluate fisheries and PR management changes?
12
Evaluation Criteria: Normative
2012 & 2013 Focus Group
Pinger Compliance Research
What we talked about
(Bisack and Clay, in prep)
13
Evaluation Criteria: Normative
• Normative factors are key to compliance and
participation
• Can we measure changes in:
– Levels of compliance and/or participation
– Attitudes with regard to:
• Social (Community)
• Legitimacy
• Morals (Stewardship)
• Does the baseline data exist to identify change?
14
Evaluation Criteria: Sustainability
• Do outcomes improve or deteriorate over
time?
– Consider biological, economic and normative
factors
– Does the institutional arrangement provide for
maintenance or sunset of the instrument?
– Are there synergistic or cumulative impacts with
other management actions?
15
Next Steps
• Identify 1+ evaluations:
– By instrument type, species or other?
• Clarify criteria/measures for first cut
evaluation
• Expand to additional species/instruments
• Identify those for more detailed analysis
16