Gresham, Ah ha. The term "TAC" Total Allowable Catch is usually related to stock assessments in fisheries parlance. With regard to PNG, I will try to fill in the holes (since I don't know everything being done there). I assume that you are referring to the program of net trainings and underwater surveys being conducted in PNG, that is headed by David Vossler. He hired a number of people from the MAC and at least on person from ReefCheck.
The Reef Check methodology involves underwater surveys to assess whether the fishes found there are present in sustainable numbers for net collection. When I pressed Dr. Ochavillo (headed the Reefcheck surveys in PI) on this forum, he finally admitted that there was no fisheries model to estimate population numbers, from which one could derive a TAC. What he meant was that periodic surveys were being used to assess whether the population was increasing or decreasing (without obtaining an estimate of relative population numbers). Hence, no TAC is possible with this method. One can recommend less fishing effort, if the time series of fish counts decreases.
With regard to the paper I presented at the Science Symposium at WOC, I presented a simple population model. Benthic habitats are mapped using high resolution IKONOS satellite imagery. Underwater surveys along transects allow verification of the benthic habitat types identified with IKONOS imagery. Underwater fish counts along transects (in numbers per meter square) are tied to the benthic habitat types identified with IKONOS. This allows the numbers of fish (or invertebrates) to be estimated as a function of the areas determined for each benthic habitat type using geographic information systems (GIS). Hence, recommendations can be made for a total allowable catch (TAC) for each species because one can estimate population numbers by areal expansion (numbers per meter square are bumped up to the areas for each benthic habitat type determined from the satellite imagery).
Basically, I presented the EASTI approach called CBuGS (Community, Business, Government, and Science). The Science described above ties in with a spatial management strategy by allocation of use rights to areas (TURFS) managed by local communities. NGOs and governments have been advocating the creation of no-take MPA Networks. The CBuGS stragety advocates alternative livelihoods tied to the creation of micro-enterprises (like exporting MO fish by fisher cooperatives) that are tied the allocation of space (TURFs). TURFs and no-take MPAs are a workable management strategy. I don't believe that no-take MPA Networks alone will work, because they do not provide alternative livelihoods in the short term. They displace fishers from areas they have traditionally fished without providing alternatives sources of food and income.
Peter
Your new one sounds promising as well. Cost per unit? couple pennies?
