Purported flaws in management strategy evaluation: basic problems or misinterpretations?

Abstract Butterworth, D. S., Bentley, N., De Oliveira, J. A. A., Donovan, G. P., Kell, L. T., Parma, A. M., Punt, A. E., Sainsbury, K. J., Smith, A. D. M., and Stokes, T. K. 2010. Purported flaws in management strategy evaluation: basic problems or misinterpretations? – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67: 567–574. Rochet and Rice, while recognizing management strategy evaluation (MSE) as an important step forward in fisheries management, level a number of criticisms at its implementation. Some of their points are sound, such as the need for care in representing uncertainties and for thorough documentation of the process. However, others evidence important misunderstandings. Although the difficulties in estimating tail probabilities and risks, as discussed by Rochet and Rice, are well known, their arguments that Efron's non-parametric bootstrap re-sampling method underestimates the probabilities of low values are flawed. In any case, though, the focus of MSEs is primarily on comparing performance and robustness across alternative management procedures (MPs), rather than on estimating absolute levels of risk. Qualitative methods can augment MSE, but their limitations also need to be recognized. Intelligence certainly needs to play a role in fisheries management, but not at the level of tinkering in the provision of annual advice, which Rochet and Rice apparently advocate, inter alia because this runs the risk of advice following noise rather than signal. Instead, intelligence should come into play in the exercise of oversight through the process of multiannual reviews of MSE and associated MPs. A number of examples are given of the process of interaction with stakeholders which should characterize MSE.