UMass paper shows that assumption were not 'risk neutral', but 'risk averse'. This contradicts Magnuson act requirements. Given that hundreds of millions are available for law suits, it is natural to expect that the bureaucracy would err on the side of being risk averse, instead of upholding the risk neutral requirements of Magnuson.
SEAFOOD.COM NEWS by John Sackton – Oct 29, 2010 – The request from Gov. Patrick of Massachusetts to Secretary Locke to revise New England catch limits within the context of existing conservation law has substantial scientific backing.
A paper completed by scientists at the University of Mass. School for Marine Science and Technology (SMAST), along with analysis by the Mass. Division of Marine Fisheries, show that the assumptions used to mandate ACL's in New England groundfish in 2010 were not 'risk neutral', but were in many cases 'risk averse'.
This contradicts current Magnuson act requirements for annual catch limits require that models be analyzed in a manner that are neither risk averse nor risk prone, but are risk neutral.
The report provides substantial evidence that many of the choices made for New England groundfish stocks – such as the required uncertainty buffers, the estimates of stock size, and the application of retrospective data, were made in a 'risk averse' mode rather than a risk neutral mode.
In short, the authors claim that the New England ACL's generally are more risk averse than other ACL's adopted in other management regions.
This is the basis of the request for review.
While not ordinarily supporting a Washington override of council decisions, the situation in New England represents a perfect storm, in that overly conservative management assumptions which have served to reverse stock declines and are ending overfishing, nevertheless have also exacerbated allocation decisions made in the implementation of catch shares, so that according to Massachusetts officials, about two-thirds of vessel owners are operating on 50% to 60% or less of their harvest rates from 2007 to 2009.
The relief sought from Commerce Secretary Locke would compensate those permit holders who have been most impacted by the switch in 'currency' from days at sea to catch history; and would seek to implement less precautionary catch limits that are still consistent with the conservation requirements of Magnuson.
The issue of 'risk averse' versus risk neutral decision making is important, because NMFS is frequently sued, and reacts by attempting to avoid potential law suits from environmental stake holders claiming that their models do not sufficiently account for risk.
Given the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars are available for law suits, it is natural to expect that the bureaucracy would err on the side of being risk averse, instead of upholding the risk neutral requirements of Magnuson.
John Sackton, Editor And Publisher
Seafood.com News 1-781-861-1441
Email comments to jsackton@seafood.com