Prioritization alternatives
Illustrative Application of Prioritization Alternatives By Aja Szumylo and Carrie Nordeen Observer Policy Committee Meeting January 22, 2015 1
3 possible funding scenarios No NMFS funding
Some NMFS funding
above SBRM to cover industry-funded programs
above SBRM to cover industry-funded programs
• No industry-funded monitoring days • No need to prioritize • No cost to industry • Realized coverage equal to No action
• Some industryfunded monitoring days • Must prioritize • Some cost responsibility for industry • Realized coverage somewhere between SBRM and coverage target
Enough NMFS funding above SBRM to cover all industry-funded programs • Funding for all industry-funded monitoring days • No need to prioritize • Some cost responsibility for industry • Realized coverage equals coverage target
2
• Pretend that $300,000 is available above SBRM to cover NMFS costs related to industryfunded monitoring programs. • Pretend that the Councils have adopted industry-funded programs for the herring and mackerel fisheries.
3
Example Established IFM Programs Fishery
Herring
Herring
Mackerel
Coverage Target
100% Categories A+B (with Waiver)
100% MWT Groundfish Closed Areas
MWT 30% CV RH/S Catch
1442
54
72
1442
54
53
225
45
0
1217
9
53
$504,700
$3,150
$18,550
Days fished (previous year) Days needed to reach target Days allocated through SBRM Coverage days needed Total NMFS costs
******These numbers are pretend.******
4
Omnibus Alternative 2: Prioritization Process • Discretionary • Alternative 2.1 – NMFS led • Alternative 2.2 – Council led
• Formulaic • Alternative 2.3 – Proportional • Alternative 2.4 and 2.5 – Coverage Ratio-based
5
Alternative 2.3: Proportional Prioritization When there is some NMFS funding: • Funding would be proportionally reduced • If 20% shortfall then 80% of funding available • Actual coverage would be 80% of coverage target
6
Alternative 2.3: Proportional Prioritization • Need ~$526,000 • Have $300,000 (57% of total need) Fishery
Herring
Herring
Mackerel
Coverage Target
100% Categories A+B (with Waiver)
100% MWT Groundfish Closed Areas
MWT 30% CV RH/S Catch
1217
9
53
$504,700
$3,150
$18,550
$287,679
$1,796
$10,573
Coverage days needed Total NMFS costs Funding allocated based on shortfall
7
Alternative 2.4: Lowest Coverage Ratio-Based Prioritization • Sequentially eliminate FMP with highest coverage ratio • Coverage Ratio = 𝐷𝑎𝑦𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑢𝑝𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝐷𝑎𝑦𝑠 𝑓𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 • Prioritizes the most active fisheries, or fisheries with the fewest days of coverage needed relative to fleet activity
8
Alternative 2.4: Lowest Coverage Ratio-Based Prioritization Example: Fishery
Herring
Herring
Mackerel
Coverage Target
100% Categories A+B (with Waiver)
100% MWT Groundfish Closed Areas
MWT 30% CV RH/S Catch
1442
54
72
1217
9
53
Coverage ratio
0.84
0.17
0.74
Total NMFS costs
$504,700
$3,150
$18,550
Days fished (previous year) Coverage days needed
9
Alternative 2.5: Highest Coverage Ratio-Based Prioritization • Sequentially eliminate FMP with lowest coverage ratio • Coverage Ratio = 𝐷𝑎𝑦𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑢𝑝𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝐷𝑎𝑦𝑠 𝑓𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 • Prioritizes the least active fisheries, or fisheries with the most days of coverage needed relative to fleet activity
10
Alternative 2.4: Highest Coverage Ratio-Based Prioritization Example: Fishery
Herring
Herring
Mackerel
Coverage Target
100% Categories A+B (with Waiver)
100% MWT Groundfish Closed Areas
MWT 30% CV RH/S Catch
1442
54
72
1217
9
53
Coverage ratio
0.84
0.17
0.74
Total NMFS costs
$504,700
$3,150
$18,550
Days fished (previous year) Coverage days needed
11
Omnibus Alternative 2: Prioritization Process • Discretionary • Alternative 2.1 – NMFS-led • Alternative 2.2 – Council-led
• Formulaic • Alternative 2.3 – Proportional • Alternative 2.4 and 2.5 – Coverage Ratio-based
12
Alternatives 2.1 and 2.2: NMFS or Council-led Prioritization 1. NMFS or Council uses weighting approach to develop proposed allocation of resources across FMPs. a. If funding is sufficient, fully implement coverage targets for all FMPs. b. If funding is not sufficient, prioritize among FMPs using certain criteria.
2. At joint meeting, NMFS and Councils discuss recommendation, make modifications 3. NMFS presents final coverage levels to Councils at a public meeting 13
Alternatives 2.1 and 2.2: Weighting Approach STEP 1: NMFS/Council weigh 8 criteria Transparent, deliberative framework to decide how to allocate resources to cover NMFS costs to achieve coverage targets
• IFM Evaluation Criteria • Stock status • Commercial/Recreational Value • Industry’s ability to pay • Ecosystem importance • Strong statistical basis • SBRM compatibility • Catch estimate uncertainty • Risk to management 14
Alternatives 2.1 and 2.2: Weighting Approach • 8 criteria may not have equal importance • NMFS or Council assigns weights • One on one comparison to facilitate consideration of relative importance • End result is a percentage weight for each criterion (e.g., 15%)
15
16
Alternatives 2.1 and 2.2: Weighting Scheme Comparison values: • • • • •
1 = criteria are equally important 5 = criterion is more important 10 = criterion is much more important 0.2 = criterion is less important 0.1 = criterion is much less important 17
Ability to pay
Ecosystem importance
Strong statistical basis
SBRM compatibility
Catch estimate uncertainty
Risk to management
Row total
Criterion Weight
Ability to pay Ecosystem importance Strong statistical basis SBRM compatibility Catch estimate uncertainty Risk to management
Com/Rec Value
Stock status Com/Rec Value
Stock status
IFM Evaluation Criteria
x
5
0.1
5
1
10
1
1
23.1
11%
0.2
x
0.1
5
1
10
1
1
18.3
9%
10
10
x
10
10
10
10
10
70
34%
0.2
0.2
0.1
x
0.1
5
0.1
0.1
5.8
3%
1
1
0.1
10
x
0.1
0.1
0.1
12.4
6%
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
10
x
0.1
0.1
10.7
5%
1
1
0.1
10
10
10
x
1
33.1
16%
1
1
0.1
10
10
10
1
x
33.1
16%
206.5 18
IFM Evaluation Criteria
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
Final (average)
Stock status
11% 13% 11% 21% 20% 11% 21% 4% 14%
14%
Commercial/Recreational Value
9% 13% 14% 2% 13% 8% 12% 11% 4%
9%
Ability to pay
34% 13% 3% 24% 30% 24% 5% 22% 22%
20%
Ecosystem importance
3% 13% 6%
9%
Strong statistical basis
6% 13% 20% 4% 11% 16% 2%
8%
8%
10%
SBRM compatibility
5% 13% 20% 8% 11% 13% 2%
5%
9%
10%
Catch estimate uncertainty 16% 13% 15% 9% 11% 19% 18% 13% 17%
14%
Risk to management
8%
3%
16% 13% 11% 24% 1%
1% 22% 13% 15%
7% 17% 22% 12%
14% 100% 19
IFM Evaluation Criteria
Final (average)
Stock status
14%
Commercial/Recreational Value
9%
Ability to pay
20%
Ecosystem importance
9%
Strong statistical basis
10%
SBRM compatibility
10%
Catch estimate uncertainty
14%
Risk to management
14% 100% 20
Alternatives 2.1 and 2.2: Weighting Scheme STEP 2: NMFS/Council rate each IFM program • Rate each industry-funded monitoring program for how much it meets each criteria • Rating scale: • • • • •
0 = doesn’t meet criterion at all 1 = slightly meets criterion 2 = somewhat meets criterion 3 = mostly meets criterion 4 = fully meets criterion 21
Final Scores based on weighting Fishery
Herring
Herring
Mackerel
Coverage Target
100% Categories A+B (with Waiver)
100% MWT Groundfish Closed Areas
MWT 30% CV RH/S Catch
1442
54
72
$504,700
$3,150
$18,550
1.57
2.06
1.80
Days fished (previous year) Total NMFS costs Score based on weighting
22
All Prioritization Alternatives: Sequential allocation? • Option 1: – Fully fund the highest ranked program – Then fund other programs according to rank sequentially – Don’t allocate if funding is less than ¼ of the need
• Other options?
23
Questions?
24
3 possible funding scenarios No NMFS funding
Some NMFS funding
above SBRM to cover industry-funded programs
above SBRM to cover industry-funded programs
• No industry-funded monitoring days • No need to prioritize • No cost to industry • Realized coverage equal to No action
• Some industryfunded monitoring days • Must prioritize • Some cost responsibility for industry • Realized coverage somewhere between SBRM and coverage target
Enough NMFS funding above SBRM to cover all industry-funded programs • Funding for all industry-funded monitoring days • No need to prioritize • Some cost responsibility for industry • Realized coverage equals coverage target
2
• Pretend that $300,000 is available above SBRM to cover NMFS costs related to industryfunded monitoring programs. • Pretend that the Councils have adopted industry-funded programs for the herring and mackerel fisheries.
3
Example Established IFM Programs Fishery
Herring
Herring
Mackerel
Coverage Target
100% Categories A+B (with Waiver)
100% MWT Groundfish Closed Areas
MWT 30% CV RH/S Catch
1442
54
72
1442
54
53
225
45
0
1217
9
53
$504,700
$3,150
$18,550
Days fished (previous year) Days needed to reach target Days allocated through SBRM Coverage days needed Total NMFS costs
******These numbers are pretend.******
4
Omnibus Alternative 2: Prioritization Process • Discretionary • Alternative 2.1 – NMFS led • Alternative 2.2 – Council led
• Formulaic • Alternative 2.3 – Proportional • Alternative 2.4 and 2.5 – Coverage Ratio-based
5
Alternative 2.3: Proportional Prioritization When there is some NMFS funding: • Funding would be proportionally reduced • If 20% shortfall then 80% of funding available • Actual coverage would be 80% of coverage target
6
Alternative 2.3: Proportional Prioritization • Need ~$526,000 • Have $300,000 (57% of total need) Fishery
Herring
Herring
Mackerel
Coverage Target
100% Categories A+B (with Waiver)
100% MWT Groundfish Closed Areas
MWT 30% CV RH/S Catch
1217
9
53
$504,700
$3,150
$18,550
$287,679
$1,796
$10,573
Coverage days needed Total NMFS costs Funding allocated based on shortfall
7
Alternative 2.4: Lowest Coverage Ratio-Based Prioritization • Sequentially eliminate FMP with highest coverage ratio • Coverage Ratio = 𝐷𝑎𝑦𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑢𝑝𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝐷𝑎𝑦𝑠 𝑓𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 • Prioritizes the most active fisheries, or fisheries with the fewest days of coverage needed relative to fleet activity
8
Alternative 2.4: Lowest Coverage Ratio-Based Prioritization Example: Fishery
Herring
Herring
Mackerel
Coverage Target
100% Categories A+B (with Waiver)
100% MWT Groundfish Closed Areas
MWT 30% CV RH/S Catch
1442
54
72
1217
9
53
Coverage ratio
0.84
0.17
0.74
Total NMFS costs
$504,700
$3,150
$18,550
Days fished (previous year) Coverage days needed
9
Alternative 2.5: Highest Coverage Ratio-Based Prioritization • Sequentially eliminate FMP with lowest coverage ratio • Coverage Ratio = 𝐷𝑎𝑦𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑢𝑝𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝐷𝑎𝑦𝑠 𝑓𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 • Prioritizes the least active fisheries, or fisheries with the most days of coverage needed relative to fleet activity
10
Alternative 2.4: Highest Coverage Ratio-Based Prioritization Example: Fishery
Herring
Herring
Mackerel
Coverage Target
100% Categories A+B (with Waiver)
100% MWT Groundfish Closed Areas
MWT 30% CV RH/S Catch
1442
54
72
1217
9
53
Coverage ratio
0.84
0.17
0.74
Total NMFS costs
$504,700
$3,150
$18,550
Days fished (previous year) Coverage days needed
11
Omnibus Alternative 2: Prioritization Process • Discretionary • Alternative 2.1 – NMFS-led • Alternative 2.2 – Council-led
• Formulaic • Alternative 2.3 – Proportional • Alternative 2.4 and 2.5 – Coverage Ratio-based
12
Alternatives 2.1 and 2.2: NMFS or Council-led Prioritization 1. NMFS or Council uses weighting approach to develop proposed allocation of resources across FMPs. a. If funding is sufficient, fully implement coverage targets for all FMPs. b. If funding is not sufficient, prioritize among FMPs using certain criteria.
2. At joint meeting, NMFS and Councils discuss recommendation, make modifications 3. NMFS presents final coverage levels to Councils at a public meeting 13
Alternatives 2.1 and 2.2: Weighting Approach STEP 1: NMFS/Council weigh 8 criteria Transparent, deliberative framework to decide how to allocate resources to cover NMFS costs to achieve coverage targets
• IFM Evaluation Criteria • Stock status • Commercial/Recreational Value • Industry’s ability to pay • Ecosystem importance • Strong statistical basis • SBRM compatibility • Catch estimate uncertainty • Risk to management 14
Alternatives 2.1 and 2.2: Weighting Approach • 8 criteria may not have equal importance • NMFS or Council assigns weights • One on one comparison to facilitate consideration of relative importance • End result is a percentage weight for each criterion (e.g., 15%)
15
16
Alternatives 2.1 and 2.2: Weighting Scheme Comparison values: • • • • •
1 = criteria are equally important 5 = criterion is more important 10 = criterion is much more important 0.2 = criterion is less important 0.1 = criterion is much less important 17
Ability to pay
Ecosystem importance
Strong statistical basis
SBRM compatibility
Catch estimate uncertainty
Risk to management
Row total
Criterion Weight
Ability to pay Ecosystem importance Strong statistical basis SBRM compatibility Catch estimate uncertainty Risk to management
Com/Rec Value
Stock status Com/Rec Value
Stock status
IFM Evaluation Criteria
x
5
0.1
5
1
10
1
1
23.1
11%
0.2
x
0.1
5
1
10
1
1
18.3
9%
10
10
x
10
10
10
10
10
70
34%
0.2
0.2
0.1
x
0.1
5
0.1
0.1
5.8
3%
1
1
0.1
10
x
0.1
0.1
0.1
12.4
6%
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
10
x
0.1
0.1
10.7
5%
1
1
0.1
10
10
10
x
1
33.1
16%
1
1
0.1
10
10
10
1
x
33.1
16%
206.5 18
IFM Evaluation Criteria
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
Final (average)
Stock status
11% 13% 11% 21% 20% 11% 21% 4% 14%
14%
Commercial/Recreational Value
9% 13% 14% 2% 13% 8% 12% 11% 4%
9%
Ability to pay
34% 13% 3% 24% 30% 24% 5% 22% 22%
20%
Ecosystem importance
3% 13% 6%
9%
Strong statistical basis
6% 13% 20% 4% 11% 16% 2%
8%
8%
10%
SBRM compatibility
5% 13% 20% 8% 11% 13% 2%
5%
9%
10%
Catch estimate uncertainty 16% 13% 15% 9% 11% 19% 18% 13% 17%
14%
Risk to management
8%
3%
16% 13% 11% 24% 1%
1% 22% 13% 15%
7% 17% 22% 12%
14% 100% 19
IFM Evaluation Criteria
Final (average)
Stock status
14%
Commercial/Recreational Value
9%
Ability to pay
20%
Ecosystem importance
9%
Strong statistical basis
10%
SBRM compatibility
10%
Catch estimate uncertainty
14%
Risk to management
14% 100% 20
Alternatives 2.1 and 2.2: Weighting Scheme STEP 2: NMFS/Council rate each IFM program • Rate each industry-funded monitoring program for how much it meets each criteria • Rating scale: • • • • •
0 = doesn’t meet criterion at all 1 = slightly meets criterion 2 = somewhat meets criterion 3 = mostly meets criterion 4 = fully meets criterion 21
Final Scores based on weighting Fishery
Herring
Herring
Mackerel
Coverage Target
100% Categories A+B (with Waiver)
100% MWT Groundfish Closed Areas
MWT 30% CV RH/S Catch
1442
54
72
$504,700
$3,150
$18,550
1.57
2.06
1.80
Days fished (previous year) Total NMFS costs Score based on weighting
22
All Prioritization Alternatives: Sequential allocation? • Option 1: – Fully fund the highest ranked program – Then fund other programs according to rank sequentially – Don’t allocate if funding is less than ¼ of the need
• Other options?
23
Questions?
24
