Blue Matter Science, led by CEO Dr. Tom Carruthers, is a leading organization dedicated to advancing marine science and sustainable fisheries management. With a background in marine biology, experimental ecology, and a PhD in applied mathematics from Imperial College, Tom is also an Adjunct Professor of Fisheries Science at the University of British Columbia. His passion for problem-solving in marine science drives his current focus on developing tools that support robust fisheries management.
In this two-part blog series, we delve into the nuanced landscape of MSE with Tom, unpacking the fundamental components that render MSE indispensable in our collective pursuit of ecologically responsible and economically viable fisheries management.
HS.org: In 50 words or less, can you explain what Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) is and why it is an important tool in international fisheries management?
Tom: International fishery managers are tasked with implementing a harvest strategy that meets the objectives of diverse stakeholders, often in the face of large scientific uncertainties. MSE is a computer simulation approach that tests candidate harvest strategies across various scenarios for the fishery to identify those that can robustly achieve management objectives.
A common analogy for MSE is the testing of pilots using a flight simulator. In the MSE context, harvest strategies are the pilots being tested. Instead of flying conditions, MSE simulates a plausible range of biological, ecological, and exploitation scenarios for the fishery. Like a flight simulator, MSE can provide us with confidence that a harvest strategy (the pilot) will perform well over a wide range of conditions.
HS.org: What are the key components of an effective MSE process, and how do they interact to ensure the long-term sustainability of fisheries?
Tom: MSEs are pursued for various reasons, so ‘effective’ is somewhat case-specific. In the case of Atlantic bluefin tuna, there were difficulties in establishing a scientifically defensible assessment of the resource for use in decision-making. Essentially, there were many hypotheses for biology, ecology, and behavior that were similar to the data. For Bluefin, MSE was all about establishing a simple harvest strategy that was demonstrated to work robustly across all those hypotheses. The challenge in the South African sardine and anchovy fishery was establishing a harvest strategy that could allow for fishing without serious overexploitation of either species. In the case of the Bay of Fundy herring, MSE was used as a sort of ‘due diligence’ for a harvest strategy that had already been adopted and was in use. This might sound like a rather pedantic start of an answer to your question, but it goes to a point: arguably, the most important part of an MSE process is identifying a clear problem statement. Why MSE in this context?
There are three main parts to an MSE that interact in the adoption of a sustainable, robust harvest strategy:
Performance indicators are the basis for the scoring and comparison of harvest strategies. They are the lens through which all participants will view results. The performance aims of managers will be revealed when a harvest strategy is adopted. An effective MSE is one built around participation and communication. It should include a comprehensive consultation process with a range of stakeholders to ensure that their perspectives and values are communicated in results. Any legal requirements for fishery managers should also be expressed as performance indicators. Once established, the set of performance indicators provides a transparent account of harvest strategy strengths and weaknesses. It allows managers to explicitly consider trade-offs between, for example, extraction and conservation objectives. If the performance indicators part is done right, when a harvest strategy is adopted, it is clear why it was selected.
An effective MSE is one where managers have confidence in the adopted harvest strategy. That confidence arises from testing candidate harvest strategies against a wide range of plausible uncertainties (hypotheses) in current and future fishery conditions. Although science is usually the primary basis for developing these hypotheses, an effective MSE process includes stakeholder knowledge and experience, allowing a range of perspectives on the fishery to inform the selection of an appropriate harvest strategy.
Now that we have established how to score them and the conditions by which they will be tested, it is vital to focus on the harvest strategies – the pilots in the flight simulator analogy. An effective MSE is an open process that allows for testing a diverse range of harvest strategies developed by multiple development teams. These teams engage in a collaborative competition where harvest strategies are compared and refined. This diversity, friendly competition, and ingenuity process extracts every possible ounce of performance from a harvest strategy. Within the constraints specified by managers, anything goes. For me, it’s the most fun part of MSE!
If I’ve answered this correctly, it should be clear why MSE is such a powerful tool in establishing a long-term sustainable harvest strategy for a fishery. MSE is 1) inclusive, open, and transparent. 2) accounts for economic and biological definitions of sustainability in performance indicators, and 3) selects a harvest strategy that has been shown to provide sustainability across a range of hypotheses for the system.
HS.Org: Despite the proven benefits of harvest strategies and MSE, widespread adoption has been slow in some areas. What are the primary barriers to the broader adoption of these management approaches, and how can they be addressed?
Tom: Technical overhead. Previously, a serious impediment to MSE adoption was developing all the code to do the simulation work. Today, MSE packages like FLR and OpenMSE take much of this burden away from the process, allowing it to refocus on performance indicators, uncertainties, and harvest strategy design – the things that matter. However, the false perception of MSE as an expensive, burdensome, complicated techno-rats-nest persists. A big part of our collaboration with www.harveststrategies.org and The Ocean Foundation has been about showing people that this is no longer the case. We have been to management settings with OpenMSE, where managers and stakeholders were very organized, and harvest strategies were adopted in less than six months. A lot of managers and scientists don’t realize what is now possible.
Getting stuck in ‘Assessment mode’. The conventional approach to fisheries management is to develop a ‘best’ model of the fishery that is empirically validated by fitting to data and then used in management decision-making. Yes, you can look at alternative models and assumptions via so-called sensitivity analyses, but fundamentally the focus of stock assessment modelling is scientific veracity. That is not the focus of MSE, which is all about harvest strategy robustness. ‘Assessment mode’ is a condition that is a serious threat to the health of any MSE process. Scientists can get bogged down in the details of the models and data, which may affect perceptions of the stock but are often inconsequential to harvest strategy performance. Managers want to see stock assessments in their harvest strategies instead of simpler approaches that perform similarly. MSE projections are viewed as forecasts, not scenarios, for testing harvest strategies and so on. As is the case for many MSE problems, the solution is to do a thorough introduction to MSE and then get a demo MSE framework up and running as soon as possible so that all participants can see it in action and hopefully interact with it.
Indecision. MSE necessarily requires many decisions to be made, including who to include, when to hold meetings, when to draw a line on developing hypotheses, what performance indicators, what diagnostics, and what types of harvest strategies.
The list is enormous. This can drag out an MSE into an arduous process where momentum is lost to a point where new data and hypotheses emerge, and the process is stalled in a constant update loop. The best way to solve this is to employ an experienced chair of the process who can develop an MSE roadmap and maintain discipline on timelines.
HS.Org: How do you balance short-term economic interests with long-term fishery goals in MSE?
Tom: For most MSEs, the principal performance trade-off among harvest strategies is between what you take and what is left over in the water. Managers must navigate this trade-off between catches in the short term and biomass/catch outcomes over the longer term based on their established objectives and legal requirements. As a mere analyst, this is above my pay grade! Things are not as clear-cut as you might expect, however. I’m currently working on a harvest strategy for an invasive species.
Stay tuned for Part 2: Advanced Perspectives and Future Directions in Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE), where we dive deeper into the challenges, technological advances, and future directions of Management Strategy Evaluation in international fisheries management. Don’t miss the opportunity to learn more about how these modern approaches are shaping the sustainable future of our global ocean.
With the global demand for seafood increasing, the need to prioritize sustainable and responsible fisheries management has become increasingly urgent. An essential tool in achieving this goal is the development and implementation of a Harvest Strategy, which provides a comprehensive approach to guide decision-making in fisheries management. In Indonesia, a vast archipelagic country with abundant marine resources, robust Harvest Strategies are crucial to protect marine ecosystems and ensure the long-term viability of its fisheries. Indonesia has made significant progress in preserving its marine resources and launched a Harvest Strategy for Tropical Tuna in Indonesian Archipelagic Waters. The strategy aims to strike a balance between ecological conservation and the prosperity of Indonesian people. It is MDPI’s hope that the careful management of tuna resources will not only ensure their long-term availability but also create economic opportunities for coastal communities.
The importance for Indonesian small-scale fishers
Indonesia’s small-scale fishers play a crucial role in the country’s fisheries sector. Small fishing vessels (under 10 gross tons) represent nearly 90% of Indonesia’s fishing fleet and are responsible for more than half of the total catch, thus constituting the backbone of captured fisheries in the country. However, their vulnerability to changes in tuna populations necessitates careful management strategies to protect their livelihoods.
The Harvest Strategy for Tropical Tuna holds particular significance for Indonesian small-scale fishers. By encouraging sustainable tuna harvesting practices, the strategy could help secure their livelihoods while preserving the resource for future generations. The inclusion of small-scale fishers’ data strengthens the knowledge base, enhances their representation, fosters accountability, and promotes a sense of ownership among fishers and coastal communities. This collaborative effort highlights the importance of including diverse stakeholders and recognizing the significance of data from small-scale fishers in developing comprehensive and effective fisheries management strategies.
Since 2014, MDPI, along with small-scale fishers, have actively contributed to the development of the Harvest Strategy, providing valuable insights, technical assistance, and data collection efforts for the small-scale handline segment. This has helped address the specific complex dynamics of Indonesia’s small-scale fisheries. The integration of small-scale tuna fishers’ data into this Harvest Strategy has been a significant achievement, considering the limited data available for certain sectors of tuna fisheries, as well as the requirements, standards and technical challenges.
MDPI’s contributions to the Harvest Strategy extend beyond data provision to include scientific research, technical workshops, and capacity building efforts. MDPI’s early involvement as a data provider who had previously developed protocols to meet the requirements of Regional Fisheries Management Organizations, served as a catalyst for other governmental and non-governmental organizations to design data protocols that could contribute to the Harvest Strategy. MDPI’s expertise and commitment to sustainable fishing practices have facilitated evidence-based decision-making and fostered collaboration among stakeholders. “MDPI and other NGOs can contribute by filling the gaps that the government cannot fill,” said Toni Ruchimat, ex-head of the Marine and Fisheries Research Center, BRIN.
In May 2023, Dr. Fayakun Satria, Head of the Marine and Fisheries Research Center, BRIN, highlighted that “Without data from stakeholders, there is no Harvest Strategy. The Harvest Strategy will not succeed without collaboration.”
Wildan, Small-Scale Fisheries Lead for USAID Ber-IKAN, who worked at MDPI from 2013 to 2023, acknowledged the improvements made in tuna fisheries data through collaborations between various stakeholders, including the government, NGOs, and fisheries associations. He emphasized the importance of regularly discussing the Harvest Strategy and involving all parties, including businesses and fishers, to ensure shared understanding and active participation. In an interview with Mongabay in 2022, Wildan stated, “Through regular discussions on the Harvest Strategy, we hope that all stakeholders will be gradually engaged, including businesses and fishers. Given the highly scientific nature of this Harvest Strategy, it is not an easy task. It requires collective understanding and considerable energy and time to achieve our goals.”
Benefits, challenges, and future perspectives
Implementing the Harvest Strategy for Tropical Tuna brings numerous benefits. It can help maintain fish populations at sustainable levels, which could help ensure a consistent supply of seafood, thus enhancing long-term food security and safeguarding the income and livelihoods of those dependent on the sector. Through the implementation of responsible fishing practices, a sustainable Harvest Strategy can also help protect non-target species, reduce bycatch, and minimize the impact of fishing on sensitive habitats, supporting the overall health of marine ecosystems and promoting biodiversity conservation.
To achieve these objectives, several key management priorities have been identified: restrictions on the use of fish aggregating devices (FADs), area closures to protect spawning grounds, and establishment of Total Allowable Catch limits.
With the Harvest Strategy for Tropical Tuna, Indonesia has a goal to maintain the tropical tuna stocks above 20% of the unfished level with a 90% probability, known as the limit reference point (LRP). The goal is to prevent overexploitation and ensure long-term sustainable catches. The target is based on stock assessments conducted in different regions within the Western and Central Pacific Oceans.
However, developing and implementing a Harvest Strategy is not without challenges. Data limitations, stakeholder engagement, and enforcement of regulations are among the obstacles faced. Robust data collection and monitoring systems remain essential for accurate stock assessments and effective decision-making. Engaging stakeholders, including fishing communities, in the implementation process is necessary to foster a sense of ownership and cooperation.
MDPI has been supporting the dissemination of information and socialization of the Harvest Strategy by the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries through the Fisheries Co-Management Committees, platforms that address current fisheries-related issues and engage various stakeholders, including small-scale fishers. Besides, strong enforcement measures and effective compliance mechanisms are necessary to ensure adherence to regulations and prevent illegal fishing practices. Additionally, flexibility and continuous evaluation are required to adapt the Harvest Strategy to changing environmental conditions, such as climate change impacts and shifting fish distributions. As Indonesia continues to prioritize sustainability and address the challenges associated with fisheries management, including by implementing this newly published Harvest Strategy, it can set an example for other nations in the pursuit of responsible fishing practices. Looking ahead, ongoing efforts are necessary to effectively manage tuna resources while ensuring that the voices of small-scale fishers are heard and the needs of coastal communities are addressed.
About the Author: Juliette Ezdra (she/her) was a Development Lead from 2021 to 2023 at Masyarakat dan Perikanan Indonesia (MDPI), a non-profit organization aspires to empower coastal communities in achieving sustainability by supporting community organization and harnessing market forces. Visit www.mdpi.or.id to learn more about tropical tuna harvest strategy in Indonesia.
References
Notohamijoyo A., et al. 2020. “Sustainable fisheries subsidies for small scale fisheries in Indonesia”. ICESSD 2019.
Have you ever wondered what a Harvest Strategy is? The concept might seem unfamiliar to many, but imagine playing a board game with your friends and family. The game you are about to play has evolved over time, incorporating innovative changes, updates, and additional features. Before starting, you gather around the kitchen table to read the instructions carefully. The updated game offers different pathways or strategies to win, but you must agree on the rules and choose one pathway for the entire game.
Now, let’s shift our focus to the world of fish, specifically tuna. Visualize hundreds of tuna swimming in our oceans, forming a single stock. These tunas, like any other living organism, undergo a life cycle from birth, growth, breeding, and eventually death. While they have their own growth and survival strategies, they face numerous threats, such as predation, disease, competition, and old age. These threats contribute to what is known as “natural mortality”, in other words: fish dying because of natural events. However, this is not the only concern.
Considering that the global annual consumption of aquatic foods reached approximately 20.2 kg per capita in 20201, aquatic foods serve as a significant protein source ensuring food security for humanity. To meet these resource requirements, thinking about how we fish becomes imperative. Fishing, an ancient human activity that has existed for thousands of years, employs different methods and gears depending on the targeted species. In addition to natural mortality, experts must consider “fishing mortality”, as fish stocks are prone to fishing, posing the greatest threat to commercial and other related fish species caught accidentally.
It can be argued that certain fishing methods have different ecological impacts, with some being more sustainable than others. When we examine a fishery closely, we realize it is far from a trivial activity. Ecological impacts are just one aspect to consider; socioeconomic factors also play vital roles. The fishing industry employs approximately 33 million people worldwide, from processing to preparing or selling, with an estimated economic value of landings of USD 20 billion. Tuna alone accounts for approximately 7% of this total1.
Returning to the game analogy, instead of playing with friends and family, imagine that the players are fishers and other stakeholders of a tropical tuna fishery. They all are competitive and want to win, and they each have their own goals and expectations, creating a complex dynamic. Fishers may aim to catch as much fish as possible in the shortest time, while NGOs may advocate for sustainable fishing practices and train communities, and scientists may have a more objective stance as they inform decision-makers based on data analysis. However, all players are interconnected, and the game becomes more complex when data consistently shows declining tuna trends, potentially leading to a scenario where there are no more tuna to harvest.
An example of a tuna species facing challenges is the yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) in the Indian Ocean, which has been classified as overfished and subject to overfishing since 20182. Overfishing refers to depleting the stock of fish below the level that can sustain maximum yield.
To avoid this worst-case scenario and achieve harmonious and beneficial outcomes for all players, fisheries management becomes crucial. This is where a Harvest Strategy, also known as Management Procedure or Management Strategy, comes into play. Harvest Strategies are used by countries worldwide, including Indonesia, which launched its own Harvest Strategy for Tropical Tuna in Indonesian Archipelagic Waters in June 2023 with MDPI’s active support.
The launch of the Harvest Strategy for Tropical Tuna in Indonesia marks a significant milestone in the nation’s commitment to sustainable fisheries management. The involvement of diverse stakeholders, including MDPI, has played a crucial role in supporting data-driven decision-making and stakeholder engagement. The Harvest Strategy provides a roadmap for responsible fishing practices, balancing ecological, economic, and social objectives. Continued efforts and awareness raising are essential to effectively manage tuna resources, protect marine ecosystems, and support the future of Indonesia’s tuna fisheries and coastal communities.
A Harvest Strategy is a pre-agreed framework based on scientific advice and the best available data. By utilizing data and information about the fishery, experts can simulate different long-term scenarios, taking into account uncertainty and using computer models, to predict how stocks might behave3. This strategy is similar to choosing a pathway before starting the game. Experts can test and compare different scenarios based on fisheries science against agreed-upon management objectives, aiming to prevent stock collapse. This is known as a Management Strategy Evaluation, and is a key component of a Harvest Strategy3. If the available data for a Harvest Strategy is accurate and reliable, it could reduce the need for costly operations like stock assessments.
A Harvest Strategy follows a closed-loop process with different phases and a set of actions prior to its establishment. This includes monitoring and assessing the fishery, adjusting fishing levels based on harvest control rules4 (actions that describe how management measures should be adjusted in response to indicators of stock status), employing specific management measures, and enforcing and monitoring those rules to ensure that stakeholders are compliant. Collaboration among stakeholders is key to successful fisheries management, just like the cooperation among players in a game. Fishers, governments, NGOs, researchers, and other stakeholders must work together as a team to achieve sustainable outcomes. They can all contribute by collecting and sharing data, monitoring the fishery, sharing their expertise, and ensuring compliance with rules.
In conclusion, the Harvest Strategy is a game-changer for sustainable fisheries management. By incorporating scientific advice, data-driven decision-making, and collaboration among stakeholders, we can navigate the complexities of fisheries management and safeguard fish stocks for future generations. Just like in a board game, strategic planning and cooperation are essential for success!
About the Author: Kai Garcia Neefjes (he/him/his) is a Program Associate Specialist at Masyarakat dan Perikanan Indonesia (MDPI), a non-profit organization aspires to empower coastal communities in achieving sustainability by supporting community organization and harnessing market forces. You can contact him at kai.garcia@mdpi.or.id or visit www.mdpi.or.id to learn more about tropical tuna harvest strategy in Indonesia.
References
[1] FAO, The state of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022. Towards Blue Transformation. (Rome: FAO, 2022), 51-82,
www.fao.org/3/cc0461en/cc0461en.pdf
[2] Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, 17th Working Party on Tropical Tunas Report. (IOTC, 2015),
www.fao.org/3/bf342e/bf342e.pdf
[3] CSIRO, Key concepts for Harvest Strategies and Management Strategy Evaluation. (CSIRO, n.d.).
[4] “Report of the 2018 joint Tuna RFMO Management Strategy Evaluation working group meeting,” June 13-15, 2018, www.tuna-org.org/Documents/tRFMO_MSE_2018_TEXT_final.pdf
Pacific saury, a small fish with a big role in the ecosystem, is also an important food source in several nations. However, the stock is both overfished and experiencing overfishing. To rebuild Pacific saury and sustain a productive and predictable fishery, the North Pacific Fisheries Commission (NPFC) is developing a management procedure (MP).
NPFC will convene its second Small Working Group on Management Strategy Evaluation for Pacific Saury (SWG MSE PS) on Sept. 12-13. This meeting follows the success of the first meeting in February. NPFC established this science-management dialogue group (SMD) in 2021, a forum for scientists, managers and stakeholders to work together as they strive to develop a MP and set a transparent and collective vision for the Pacific saury fishery.
NPFC aims to develop both an interim harvest control rule (HCR) by 2023 and a full MP, to be tested via management strategy evaluation (MSE), in three to five years. To kickstart this process, participants received comprehensive presentations at the first meeting that detailed best practices for MSE development and initial possibilities for a Pacific saury MSE. The group made progress towards the development of the interim HCR and corresponding short-term management objectives.
While a short-term HCR will improve the management of Pacific saury, only a full MSE-tested MP can provide precautionary and predictable management in the long term. An MSE identifies the best performing MP among competing objectives whilst balancing tradeoffs and accounting for uncertainties in the population, fishery and environment. As such, development of an MSE should take place at the same time as the short-term HCR.
At the upcoming meeting, participants will be asked to discuss management objectives and technical matters on operating models and performance measures, among other items related to the development of a MP.
A growing list of MSEs have been explored globally for shorter-lived species, including South Pacific jack mackerel and Northeast Atlantic mackerel. Pacific saury has a lifespan of two years, and so, NPFC can look to these other management bodies’ successes in developing MSEs for shorter-lived species as the MP is developed.
Initiation of the MSE process must not wait until the short-term HCR is complete. Undertaking these two processes simultaneously would benefit the NPFC in several ways. First, it allows the MSE to be informed by the progress made and decisions needed to complete the short-term HCR. Second, it would provide for a smoother transition between the two management measures.
It’s clear that MPs can provide a necessary solution to rebuild the Pacific saury stock – and the valuable fisheries that target it. Now it’s time to dive into the work.
A historic opportunity to adopt the first ever harvest strategy by a regional fisheries management organization dedicated to tunas (tRFMO) in the Pacific Ocean went unfinished this week at the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission’s (IATTC) 100th meeting held in Phoenix, Arizona, USA. After seven years of development, including management strategy evaluation (MSE) testing and a series of stakeholder meetings, a fully specified harvest strategy was ready for adoption for north Pacific albacore. While member states succeeded in adopting a proposal co-sponsored by Canada, Japan, and the USA that contained management objectives, reference points, and a monitoring strategy, they did not cross the finish line. The omission of a harvest control rule (HCR), the operational component of the harvest strategy that sets fishing levels based on population size, means north Pacific albacore management stays essentially unchanged on the water. IATTC will need to return to this issue next year to add a mechanism and trigger for management that can achieve the measure’s vision for the future, a hallmark of the harvest strategies approach.
But, there is still hope that this harvest strategy can make its way across the finish line in the Pacific this year! North Pacific albacore is jointly managed by both the IATTC and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCFPC). The baton is now in WCPFC’s hands to determine how the harvest control rule will operate in the context of the full harvest strategy. Managers will have their next shot to recommend a fully specified harvest strategy at WCPFC’s Northern Committee meeting in October, helping to tee up adoption at WCPFC’s December Commission meeting. IATTC can then follow suit next year, especially as the measure passed this week includes a directive for IATTC to adopt an HCR in 2023.
While the population of north Pacific albacore is healthy, neither overfished nor experiencing overfishing, a harvest strategy offers predictable and effective management that will ensure the fishery stays on track. If the stock takes an expected turn due to environmental or biological factors, the HCR will kick in, providing sustainability while still maximizing catch. The fishery needs action now – history has shown that waiting for population collapse to pass management is a recipe for disaster. WCPFC still can make this harvest strategy happen in 2022, starting with the Northern Committee in October.
In a landmark decision by the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), managers have adopted a management procedure (MP) for bigeye tuna. Sponsored by Australia, the Maldives, Pakistan, Tanzania, South Africa, and the European Union, the proposal received broad support from member governments before adoption was finalized at the close of the IOTC Commission meeting today. The adoption of this MP sets two remarkable precedents for regional fisheries management organizations dedicated to tunas (tRFMOs), as IOTC has adopted the first full MP for any tropical tuna species and becomes the first to rely on harvest control rules (HCR) to manage more than one species, namely bigeye and skipjack tuna.
The final MP will set a catch limit for bigeye starting in 2024, the first ever cap on fishing mortality for the population, which is currently undergoing overfishing. The MP includes a directive to avoid overfishing and an overfished state with a 60% probability while the selected harvest control rule takes a “hockey stick” approach, whereby catch rates increase as the population increases, up to a defined target level. Through extensive management strategy evaluation (MSE) testing, the MP is designed to achieve the Commission’s goals, regardless of the inherent uncertainty about the species, fisheries, and future environmental conditions.
Eight years in the making, IOTC has undertaken a rigorous scientific modelling process, coupled with an inclusive dialogue among scientists, managers and other stakeholders, to convert that science into a tangible management procedure for bigeye tuna. After attending this week’s meeting, Shana Miller, Project Director of The Ocean Foundation’s International Fisheries Conservation Project and www.harveststrategies.org partner, said, “Congratulations to IOTC, led by Australia and its co-sponsors, for taking this critical step to solidify a sustainable future for bigeye tuna in the Indian Ocean, the highest priced of all tropical tunas. In so doing, IOTC solidified itself as a leader of the harvest strategies approach among tRFMOs.”
Today’s MP adoption is but one of many more to come at the tRFMOs. The future is bright: IOTC alone expects to finalize MPs for swordfish, albacore, and yellowfin tuna by 2024, which will benefit fish, fishermen, seafood markets, and consumers for years to come.
May is gearing up to be a big month for the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), as members plan to hold four policy and science meetings over the next two weeks. Two of those meetings – the Technical Committee on Management Procedures (TCMP) on May 13-14 and IOTC’s annual Commission meeting on May 16-20, will be crucial to the development and adoption of the RFMO’s harvest strategy portfolio. While a variety of harvest strategies, also known as management procedures (MPs), will be discussed at the TCMP, including those for albacore, skipjack, yellowfin, and swordfish, the big-ticket item will be the bigeye tuna MP. In development since 2014, a draft proposal of a comprehensive bigeye tuna management procedure, submitted by Australia, will be reviewed by the TCMP. Next week’s Commission meeting will then have the tremendous opportunity to adopt the measure, marking IOTC’s first-ever full MP, joining the skipjack tuna harvest control rule as the Commission’s only two pre-agreed frameworks for calculating and recommending catch quotas.
The Commission now has two main decisions to make regarding management objectives and candidate MPs. The management objective for the bigeye tuna fishery includes a mandate to avoid both overfishing and an overfished state, often referred to as being in the “green zone” of the Kobe plot. Objectives should be specific and measurable in the context of management procedures, but the probability by which the final MP must achieve this objective has yet to be decided. As part of the adoption process, the Commission still has to select between a 60% and 70% probability of being in the Kobe green zone in the specified years 2034-2038, with the latter providing a stronger assurance that the MP will be successful and maintain a sustainable stock.
The Commission must also decide between the two final candidate management procedures that the Scientific Committee recommended in 2021 after rigorous management strategy evaluation (MSE) testing. The two candidates are not too different, with both operating under a 3-year management cycle and limiting the fluctuation in catch limits between management periods to 15%. One of the candidate MPs takes a “hockey stick” approach, with catch rates increasing as the population increases, up to a certain population size where the target catch rate levels out resembling a hockey stick when plotting both catch and biomass on an X/Y graph. The other candidate MP relies more on the specified management objective, using internal projections to prescribe a catch limit that can best hone in on and achieve the objective.
Both candidate MPs were able to achieve the prescribed management objective with both a 60% and 70% probability. Performance between the two differs only slightly. The hockey stick MP shows slightly higher average catches while the other has more stable catches, including potentially a higher initial catch. Regardless of which management procedure the Commission selects, they will be choosing one that performs in a robust manner and is likely to succeed.
Although bigeye is not currently overfished, overfishing is occurring, and the MP can help to ensure that fishing levels are again sustainable. This will avoid depleting the stock to a dangerously low level that would likely then require tough management decisions to recover the stock, as IOTC is currently facing for yellowfin tuna.
While a few tuna-RFMOs have a management procedure or harvest control rules in place, no tuna-RFMO has adopted a second MP for another species under its jurisdiction, let alone a full MP for any of the tropical tunas. IOTC will have that chance when Australia champions the bigeye tuna MP at the meeting later this week, and if adopted, the RFMO would position itself as a global leader of management procedures. Hopefully, the dominant bigeye fishing members will join Australia in this effort.
It’s been over a decade since ICCAT began implementing science-based quotas to help recover Atlantic bluefin, the largest of the tuna species. It now appears that the species is on the verge of locking in those gains using one of the most effective forms of management – a harvest strategy. Next week’s Panel 2 meeting, to be held on 9-10 May 2022, offers a tremendous opportunity to make progress. Finalization of the management strategy evaluation (MSE), the simulation-based modelling tool that informs harvest strategy selection, is on track for completion by the 2022 Commission meeting. While the scientific work is largely complete after eight years in development, critical management decisions remain. The scientists will rely on these decision points as they continue their work, making it imperative that this upcoming dialogue proves fruitful and yields concrete outcomes that can be immediately fed into the MSE.
Most importantly, managers will be asked to operationalize management objectives by agreeing on the risk tolerances and associated timeframes that a harvest strategy must meet. First adopted in 2018, the initial conceptual management objectives include clauses that range from concurrently avoiding overfishing and the state of being overfished to limiting the percent change in catch quotas between management periods. Now it’s time to fill in the blanks of Resolution 18-03. To ensure an abundant future for both the species and fisheries, precautionary objectives would include a high probability (e.g., ≥70%) of achieving a healthy stock and a low probability (e.g., ≤10%) of reaching a dangerously small stock size (known as Blim).
In addition to objectives, managers must approve a path forward for narrowing down the current list of candidate harvest strategies, including so-called “tuning.” Tuning levels the playing field and allows an MSE to compare apples to apples. It requires all candidate harvest strategies to achieve a common performance level for one management objective, and then relative performance against other objectives can be compared. For example, in the case of the Atlantic bluefin MSE, all candidates must achieve a certain population size in 30 years relative to the population size that can produce maximum sustainable yield. Once they are “tuned” to achieve that level, one can compare relative catches and stability in catches of the harvest strategy options. For a common population status, ICCAT might opt to cull a candidate harvest strategy that has the lowest catch, for example.
While the main decision points for next week include endorsing tuning processes and operationalizing management objectives, the meeting will also touch on other necessary discussions surrounding the harvest strategy framework and path forward.
It’s a tall order for a two-day meeting, but the scientists have done an extraordinary job updating the MSE and preparing comprehensive results for review by managers. Now, it’s up to the managers to make the necessary decisions that will allow the development process to progress, ensuring that this precedent-setting harvest strategy will be adopted for Eastern and Western Atlantic bluefin tuna at ICCAT in 2022. At a recent webinar on harvest strategies at ICCAT, 100% of participants agreed that ICCAT should prioritize the implementation of the bluefin tuna harvest strategy at its upcoming Commission meeting. ICCAT and Panel 2 must heed this call, echoed from many others, managers, scientists, and stakeholders alike, and continue development without delay.