|
|
|
Review of IEAB's Activities and Contributions to Fish and Wildlife
Planning
January 9, 2003 | document IEAB 2003-1
read full document > (40k
PDF)
Introduction (as letter to Chairman Cassidy)
During the past two months the Independent Economics Analysis Board (IEAB)
prepared the enclosed Review of the IEAB's Activities and Contributions
to NPPC Fish and Wildlife Planning. This document serves as an update for
the Council and as a general background document for those not familiar
with the IEAB. The review demonstrates the wide ranging work that
the IEAB has done for the Council, and it also shows that economic
assessment of projects and strategies in fish and wildlife planning are a
useful adjunct to the scientific and technical assessments performed by
the ISAB and ISRP.
The IEAB's work to date has generally involved three types of
activities: setting general guidelines for the use of economics in
planning, reviewing reports and analyses of others, and completing
cost-effectiveness analyses of specific projects. We believe that these
products have been thorough, accurate and innovative in presenting the
technical material of economic analysis in a usable form. Ultimately,
however, it is difficult for us to assess the degree to which our work
contributes to the Council's decision process.
Recent comments by Council staff and the ISRP suggest that the IEAB
might be more productively engaged in examining broad trade-offs in the
fish and wildlife program. The IEAB identifies two categories of
trade-offs: (1) trade-offs between objectives, and (2) trade-offs among
alternative actions intended to achieve a given objective. An example of
the first type occurs, for example, when the Council must choose between
hydropower and fisheries, or between anadromous fish and resident fish.
The second category of trade-off could involve consideration of mainstem
operations, tributary habitat enhancement projects, or artificial
production projects to protect a given listed salmon ESU. To date,
the IEAB has been focused on the second type of trade-off using
cost-effectiveness analysis. Expanding our role to broader trade-offs
among objectives will require the use of more complex assessment
techniques. These techniques could include multi-objective decision-making
tools or economic benefits measurement.
The IEAB used this self-evaluation process to consider its role in
future fish and wildlife planning. To begin this process, we have
developed the following list of potential topics for broader
investigations.
- Develop better methods of cost-effectiveness analysis to meet
specific Council decision needs. This would focus on the feasibility
of measures of costs and effectiveness for artificial production,
habitat enhancement, and mainstem operations. In particular, the IEAB
needs to determine what sources of information and measures of
effectiveness are appropriate for comparison of projects across
regions and across types of improvements.
- Examine trade-offs among alternative hydrosystem objectives, and
among fish and wildlife objectives, recognizing that the cost of
pursuing any one objective is often the foregone benefit of pursuing
other objectives. The IEAB will work with the ISAB and other science
advisors to first, identify and develop methods for analyzing and
describing the physical tradeoffs, and, second, to develop common
measures of the costs, impacts, and other economic consequences.
- Collaborate with ISAB and ISRP on the selection of elements for the
Council's Fish and Wildlife research plan, understanding that key
biological uncertainties have consequences for fisheries management
and power system operation, and that these consequences often have
economic costs. The IEAB could add operational consequences and
associated costs to the criteria for selection of research projects.
- Re-cast the Hatchery Economics Phase II project to focus on the
economics of specific projects that are currently funded or are being
considered for funding under the Fish and Wildlife Program. To
establish effectiveness measures for supplementation and conservation
hatcheries, the IEAB should collaborate with APAC and ISAB members to
develop appropriate measures of effectiveness. Also, the IEAB will
need to develop a means to partition costs for supplementation and
conservation programs from overall hatchery costs.
- Continue to provide reviews and comments on economic analyses
submitted by other agencies and on specific F&W projects at
Council request
We would appreciate the Council's and Council Staff's reactions to
these possible avenues of future activities. To focus the IEAB's work on
any or all of these will require close coordination between the Board and
the F&W staff and Council members. The IEAB would like to begin a
dialogue with the Council and the science advisory committees regarding
the IEAB's role in this broader policy arena. The IEAB is prepared to
make a presentation to the Council in order to explain this report further
and to get feedback from the Council regarding our past performance and
future role. Please let us know whether and how you would like us to
proceed with this important planning process.
Sincerely,
Ken Casavant, Chair
Independent Economic Analysis Board
^ top
 |
Documents in Acrobat PDF format
require the Acrobat reader plugin |
|
|
home