In fact, in designing this model, great emphasis is placed on integrating sufficient process-based biological and economic detail. Owing to its resulting flexibility, this bio-economic model could easily be employed to address related additional questions, such as predicting the effects of climate change, fisheries-induced evolution, or oil spills on the performance of the current HCR and its alternatives. The developed model includes several simplifying assumptions. An empirically derived size–selectivity curve has only been estimated Omipalisib datasheet for the Norwegian trawlers in the

cod fishery [45], and it would be interesting to account separately for the size–selectivity curve of the Russian trawlers, which

however appears to be unavailable at present. Also, temperature only varies Ganetespib datasheet in our model from 1990–2004, contributing to the initial stock fluctuations, and this model do not further specifically account for the role climatic changes. Furthermore, if there is a non-negligible probability that a stock will collapse, this ought to be reflected in the evaluation of the corresponding management decisions. In particular, if one optimizes profits while insufficiently accounting for risk, it is likely that precautionary buffers will be too permissive for coping with actual risk, and one will typically end up with a stock poised “at the edge of the cliff” [61]. The acceptable level of risk, as well as the chosen discount rate, remain key political choices. The purpose and promise of detailed, quantitative, process-based

bio-economic models, such as the one presented here, is to strengthen the rational and transparent translation of these political choices into policies such as HCRs. This bio-economic model predicts that the current 4��8C HCR rule is practically identical with the economically optimal one, suggesting that economic and biological sustainability can go hand in hand. A relatively low fishing mortality is a major factor in achieving both. Also, yield maximization alone has been demonstrated to potentially result in a lack of precaution. The design of HCRs provides a platform for promoting and structuring the dialogue between policy-makers, managers, scientists, and stakeholders. With this in mind, HCRs can be tailored according to a variety of management objectives. The benefits of translating a harvest policy into an HCR are epitomized by the phrase “quantification leads to clarification” [62]: unclear objectives and “gut-feeling” policies do not lend themselves to being quantified as part of harvest-strategy evaluation. Nonetheless, it is important to realize that quantification alone might increase the precision, but not necessarily the accuracy, of results.