Proposal on Reforming the ICES Advisory System

1
Proposal on Reforming theICES Advisory System

• Outcome from
• Dublin Brainstorming Meeting
• Revised at MCAP and Bureau
• September 2006

2
Content

• Why change anything ?
• Outlining the issues
• The Current Advisory System
• A New Advisory Model (Dublin Proposal)
• Addressing the issues
• A course of action for 2007

3
Structural and Process Changes

• Structural changes in themselves will not
  facilitate the delivery of improved advice.
• These must be accompanied by process changes

4
COUNCIL
Advisory System 1 Advisory System Proposed in
2000
MCAP
Management of the advisory process
ACE
ACME
ACFM
5
Major Problems with current system

• Limited Flexibility (Timeliness, ad hoc requests)
• Quality assurance of advice
• Integration not working (ecosystem advice not
  working)
• Complicated face to the outer world
• MCAP inefficient in discussing with Clients
• Competition for experts drawn from a limited pool
• Ineffective links with Science
• Financial - paying three ACOMs and MCAP
• PKFM report (Doug Wilson 2005)
• Work overload
• Career dissatisfaction
• Results in poor morale

6
Key Principle

• Any changes should solve problems
• and not create more problems !

7
Addressing the Problems

• Problems (dealt with in the period 2001-2004)
• System inflexible no timeliness
• Inefficient in responding to ad hoc requests
• Quality assurance Provide advice which has been
  through an explicit review process involving
  external reviewers
• Solution
• Flexibility enhanced through Fast track
  Approach.
• Same process used to enhance an effective
  response to ad hoc requests
• Establish review groups for all three pillars of
  the advisory process

8
Advisory System 2 Current Advisory System
COUNCIL
MCAP
Science
Quality Control
ACE
ACME
ACFM
9
Major Outstanding Problems with current system

• Present complicated face to the outer world
• Consistency of advice across time, regions and
  disciplines)
• Integration not working (ASC 2006 ecosystem
  approach not working)
• MCAP inefficient in discussing with Clients
• Competition for experts who are drawn from a
  limited pool
• Ineffective links with Science
• Financial paying three ACOMs and MCAP
• PKFM report (Doug Wilson 2005)
• Work overload
• Carreer dissatisfaction
• Results in poor morale

10
Addressing The Problems

• Give ICES advice a well defined and unified face
  to the outside world
• Consistency of advice (across disciplines, in
  time)
• Integration of ecosystem aspects
• Dealing with Clients - difficult to distinguish
  between the advice itself and the process
• MCAP is not involved with formulation of advice
• Solution
• Advise through MCAP or Council.
• Advisory committees become obsolete
• Council focus on strategic issues
• Requires enhancement of MCAPs capacity

11
Advisory System 3 Abolish ACOMS New MCAP
COUNCIL
MCAP
12
New problem created

• Problem
• No national involvement with formulation of
  advice
• Solution
• Introduce national representation in MCAP and
  rename to Advisory group

13
Advisory System 3 Formation of Advisory Group
MAP Nat Rep !
COUNCIL
Advisory Group Nat. Rep. MAP
14
Addressing the Problems

• Problems
• Excessive Workload
• Effective links with Science
• Solutions
• Strengthen Management and strategic thinking in
  the Advisory Group to ensure efficient and
  effective working procedures
• Pushing advice formulation down in the system
  (expert and review groups)
• Authorise Management to establish and dissolve
  expert, special request and review groups
• Management given an explicit responsibility to
  maintain link with science particular at the
  strategic level

15
Advisory System 4 Advisory Group MAP Nat Rep
! Advice at EG and RG
COUNCIL
ACE
ACME
ACFM
Advisory Group Nat. Rep. MAP
16
Competition for ExpertsMaintain and enhance
access to the best scientific expertise relevant
to advisory needs

• Needs to fund participation in Review Groups
• Cost neutral to member countries
• Solution
• Change the funding principles
• Not funding national representation in the
  advisory group
• Funding Management within the advisory group
  (More professional approach)
• Review groups small and travel and per diem paid
  from ICES funds
• EC funding to National Labs for participation in
  selected expert groups

17
The Dublin ProposalICES Advisory Services
COUNCIL

• Advisory Group
• -1 Chair/Manager
• 2-3 Assistants
• 20 members
• Observers

Science
Quality Assurance
18
Implementation Plan

• 2006 Oct Council decision in principle
• 2006 Nov-Jan Developing a Roadmap (MCAP
  correspondence)
• 2007 Feb MCAP Adopting the roadmap
• 2007 Feb Bureau Adopt the roadmap for developing
  
• the implementation plan
• 2007 Jan-May Consultation Process with
• Clients
• Delegates
• AMAWGC (Jan/Feb)
• ACOMs ACME (April), ACE (May), ACFM (May)
• ICES Community
• 2007 June Proposal for Bureau (The Detailed
  Blueprint)
• 2007 Sept ASC Final Consultation and Plan for
  2008
• 2007 Oct Adoption by Council
• 2008 Jan Commence Implementation

19
Outstanding Issues

• Advisory Group could potentially become
  fisheries-dominated
• Advisory Group balance fisheries and
  environmental expertise
• Council appoints the Advisory Group (National
  nomination)
• Authority of the Advisory Group
• Areas of competence between the Advisory Group
  and the Council
• Link between Review Groups and the Advisory Group
• Linkages to the Science Committees

20
ICES Advisory Services Producing the Advice
decision makers need
21
Linking Science and Advice

• Two sided coin
• Ensure Research reflects then needs of Advice
• Maintain and enhance access to the best
  scientific expertise relevant to advisory needs
• Management responsibility on both sides MAP and
  ConC
• Advice Manager to present advice research needs
  to ConC
• ConC chair to present Science accomplishments to
  Advisory Group
• Apply a system of best practises

22
Key Functions for Advisory and Review groups

• Advisory group
• Oversees and manage the process (communication
  with Clients etc, review performance and plan)
• Owns the advice
• When necessary be the source of the advice
• Review group
• Quality assure the expert group analysis
• Ensure that draft advice is consistent with
  analysis, with advisory principles and
  understandable
• Be the source of the advice

23
Summary and Where to Next ?

• Why change anything ?
• Outlining the issues
• The Current Advisory System
• A New Advisory Model (Dublin Proposal) addressing
  the issues
• A course of action for 2007
• ASC 2006
• Revised Proposal
• Support from
• ACOMs
• Bureau
• Seeking Council decision in principle

24
ACE

• Single advisory Group likely to improve
  timeliness and reliability of integrated advice
• Require support by changes in process
• More effective integration of fisheries and
  environment issues within the Expert Groups
• Must secure link to science

25
ACFM

• Endorse proposal objective and direction for
  change
• Several outstanding issues mostly already
  identified
• Want to contribute further to the proposal

26
ACME

• ACME strongly supported the proposal
• But noted
• Important details outstanding
• need to be specified in implementation plan
•  
• ACME major issues were
• quality assurance (QA) of the advice
• timeliness of response to requests
• Proposal provides
• QA through the Review Groups with external
  experts
• Timeliness through the flexibility and authority
  of the MAP

27
ICES Advisory Services Producing the Advice
decision makers need
There are risks and costs to a programme of
action, but they are far less than the long
range risks and costs of comfortable inaction
John F. Kennedy