The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) is about a decade into management procedure (MP) development for its fisheries. There’s a lot to be proud of. The iconic – and controversial – Atlantic bluefin tuna fisheries are now managed under an MP, with science-based catch limits in place. Since its adoption in 2017, the North Atlantic albacore rule has allowed stock growth alongside catch increases each cycle, including in 2020, when a global pandemic prevented the annual meeting. As the 2024 annual meeting convenes in Limassol, Cyprus, later this week, ICCAT has the opportunity to add two more stocks to its list of MP-managed species and to make a plan to take ICCAT’s management strategy evaluation (MSE) efforts into the next decade.
First and foremost, the much-anticipated North Atlantic swordfish management procedure is up for adoption, with proposals submitted by Canada and the United States/European Union. The two proposals are very similar, with placeholder text for agreement on one of the five remaining MP options, all of which will increase catches, are projected to meet conservation objectives and take climate change considerations into account. As a result, ICCAT can’t go wrong with adopting any of these five candidate MPs in Cyprus.
Championed by Brazil from the MSE development to the MP proposal up for consideration at this meeting, Western Atlantic skipjack tuna is another stock ready for MP adoption. As this will be the first-ever management measure covering the stock, the plan is to adopt an MP this year, conduct some additional MSE testing, and develop a method to implement the MP-based catch limit next year to have the MP go into effect in 2026. Learn more about the MP options here.
Once ICCAT adopts MPs for northern swordfish and western skipjack, ICCAT will be done with five of the eight stocks identified for MSE development back in 2015. The three remaining stocks are all part of the multi-stock tropical tunas MSE – bigeye, yellowfin, and eastern Atlantic skipjack tuna. To advance this work toward completion, ICCAT should adopt conceptual management objectives for the stock, as proposed by the United States. The European Union has submitted a competing proposal, but it includes unacceptably risky objectives for all three stocks. Both proposals call for MP adoption in 2026, requiring the MSE development work to start back up in earnest.
With only one more MSE in initial development, it is also time to consider additional stocks of interest for MSE development. South Atlantic albacore is a good candidate since significant uncertainty caused the most recent stock assessment to fail, and an MSE-tested MP could help to improve the management of the fishery. We applaud South Africa for proposing to start developing an MP for the stock and urge ICCAT to adopt PA3-701.
Other stocks that have diverse stakeholder and ICCAT member interest in MSE include South Atlantic swordfish and North and South Atlantic blue sharks, and we urge ICCAT to add them to the MSE roadmap alongside South Atlantic albacore using a streamlined MSE development process based on the lessons learned over the past decade.
This year’s FAO SOFIA report noted substantial progress in stock status of tunas, with 87% of tuna stocks fished sustainably, up from 66% just two years prior. The report credited MSE advancement for these “positive results.” This year, ICCAT should add to this success by adopting an MP for northern swordfish and western skipjack, as well as management objectives for the multistock tropical tunas MSE, and adding four new stocks for MSE development. This will help secure ICCAT’s contributions to better news in the next SOFIA report. Let’s hope ICCAT members seize the day!
The Mediterranean Sea is already home to one of the more well-known harvest strategies – adopted for Mediterranean bluefin tuna in 2022. Fishing for that species has been at high levels for thousands of years, and the harvest strategy implemented by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas should allow for long-term sustainability of today’s fisheries. Now, another regional fisheries management organization with jurisdiction over most of the fisheries in the Mediterranean has an opportunity to adopt its first two harvest strategies.
The General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) has its annual Commission meeting next week, from the 4th to the 8th of November in Rome, Italy. Among other items, the group has an opportunity to adopt harvest control rules (HCRs) for sardines and anchovies in the Adriatic. If members – led by the European Union, Albania, and Montenegro – can agree to adoption this year, it will represent a big step forward for GFCM and for fisheries in the region.
Currently, more than half of the stocks in the Mediterranean are subject to overfishing, but the Commission is making strides to reverse some of those downward trends, and fishing has been reduced to sustainable levels for one of its iconic stocks, the European hake in the Strait of Sicily. Now, the opportunity to adopt HCRs for fisheries targeting the commercially- and ecologically important sardine and anchovy populations in the Adriatic can further demonstrate positive action at the GFCM. These small pelagic species not only support processing industries throughout the area, but they provide important forage for other wildlife. A precautionary HCR should preserve their role in the ecosystem.
While the HCRs under consideration by the Commission have been tested through management strategy evaluation and generally follow Commissioners’ guidance, it would be good to include the other components of a full management procedure (MP) when considering adoption. Recording the fisheries indicators and assessment methods that are needed to implement the HCR is best practice. If these items are not adopted this year, that should be a priority for GFCM during the early implementation phase.
In addition to these proposed HCRs, GFCM should continue its commitment to developing and adopting harvest strategies by following the advice of its scientists and advancing work on the blackspot seabream in the western Mediterranean, the European hake and benthic shrimp fisheries in the Strait of Sicily, and the dolphinfish (or mahimahi) across the whole region. These actions will require support and leadership from the European Union, Morocco, and Tunisia, among others.
GFCM has already demonstrated a commitment to adopting harvest strategies for its priority stocks, a big step in the right direction for fisheries management in the Mediterranean. If they are successful in adopting or advancing all these efforts, next week’s meeting will be one to remember.
When I first delved into the world of harvest control rules and harvest strategies in 2011 during my time with WWF as their global tuna lead, I saw it as a critical opportunity to ensure sustainable fisheries. At the time, except for Southern Bluefin Tuna, none of the tuna RFMOs had established effective harvest strategies, despite the clear benefits they offered. It was a moment where the scientific community, NGOs, and some in the industry began to rally around this concept, recognizing that pre-agreed frameworks for managing fishing effort could mitigate the volatility and short-term pressures that often dominate RFMO negotiations.
A key challenge we encountered early on was the lack of understanding among stakeholders, particularly those outside the scientific realm. Harvest strategies were often perceived as a ‘black box’ solution—complex and intimidating. This is where capacity building became essential. Working on the Common Oceans Project, we hosted a series of workshops, using interactive tools to demystify harvest strategies and get participants actively involved in shaping their development. I remember one workshop vividly: participants were surprised to learn that there isn’t always a single “right” answer when mapping out a harvest strategy. Different components, such as reference points and harvest control rules, can be arranged in multiple ways, depending on the needs of specific fisheries. This flexibility is one of the greatest strengths of harvest strategies, allowing them to be tailored to the unique challenges each fishery faces.
While we’ve made significant progress—tuna RFMOs have adopted several harvest control rules in recent years—the true challenge lies ahead: effective implementation. In the Indian Ocean, for example, despite adopting harvest control rules for skipjack tuna, we’ve seen significant non-compliance with recommended catch limits. Moving forward, compliance isn’t just about enforcement. It’s about fostering goodwill, ensuring all stakeholders feel invested in the long-term goals of sustainable management, and developing fair allocation systems that work for everyone involved.
Monitoring and enforcement will also play a crucial role. The adoption of advanced technologies, like electronic monitoring systems and automated data analytics, will be essential to ensuring that harvest strategies work in practice. We’ve already seen fisheries adopt management procedures that integrate such tools, and it’s a model that will need to be expanded globally.
The journey of implementing harvest strategies over the past decade has been transformative. In 2014, I was thrilled to see mainstream media in the UK publish pieces on the need for harvest control rules and the European retailers demanding this—something unheard of when I began this work. Today, many of our GTA partners instantly understand the value of these strategies. This is a credit to all the capacity building that has happened. However, as we look ahead, ensuring robust compliance and continued capacity building will be critical to their long-term success.
At the Global Tuna Alliance (GTA), our global supply chain partners are deeply committed to pushing for progress in this area. Over the next five years, we will leverage our partnerships to advocate for the effective uptake and critical implementation of harvest strategies across all tuna RFMOs, ensuring that our tuna fisheries remain sustainable for future generations.
About the Author: With 20 years of experience in fisheries and marine conservation, Daniel Suddaby has a deep passion for the ocean, marine life, and sustainable fishing practices. He is an expert in tuna, advocacy, and sustainable market tools that drive change in fisheries and seafood supply chains. Prior to joining the GTA, Daniel founded and led the Tuna and Distant Water Fisheries Program at Ocean Outcomes, building effective relationships with longline tuna and supply chain companies to incentivize transformation through tools such as the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Fishery Improvement Projects. Previously, Daniel spent six years as the Deputy Leader of the World Wild Fund for Nature’s (WWF) global fisheries initiative, leading global engagement in tuna fisheries and advocacy in all Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs), and providing strategic direction to WWF International on seafood engagement. He also has experience as a Senior Fisheries Certification Manager for the MSC.
Squid fisheries are some of the most important but undermanaged fisheries worldwide. Cephalopod catches, which include squids, made up about 11 percent of the global catch of marine species in 2022.
Because of their short lifespan, rapid growth, and fluctuation with changes in environmental conditions, applying traditional fisheries management approaches has been challenging. The result: important stocks of squid are being harvested without hard, science-based limits on fishing or even an understanding of the health of the resource.
The management procedure approach offers a solution to the tricky problems involved in squid management. And it could be in the Pacific, the ocean basin where more of the world’s squid is harvested than any other, where management procedures (also called harvest strategies) for squid are demonstrated on an international level.
Two regional fisheries management organizations in the Pacific, the North Pacific Fisheries Commission (NPFC) and South Pacific Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO), have an express remit to manage squids. They are, in fact, the only two RFMOs with squid as a key species covered by their conventions.
This year, NPFC and SPRFMO are taking steps to improve their focus on squid sustainability, but they need to ramp up their efforts to make a lasting impact. NPFC in August held its first small scientific committee meeting focused on neon flying squid to accelerate efforts to develop the first stock assessment for that stock, whose stock status is unknown at the international level. The largest harvesters are China and Japan.
Turning south of the equator, SPRFMO’s Scientific Committee, which is about to begin its annual meeting on Sept. 30, is due to receive a report on the progress of a new task team focused on assisting in the development of SPRFMO’s first stock assessment for jumbo flying squid, whose status also is not estimated by an assessment across its range but is nonetheless being harvested within the Convention Area and members’ Exclusive Economic Zones in the amount of one million metric tons a year. That makes jumbo flying squid in the South Pacific the single largest squid fishery in the world. China is the significant harvester in the international waters, while catches in Peru’s waters are of a similar scale, with lesser catches in Chile’s and Ecuador’s waters.
Both RFMOs have plans to investigate the use of Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) to better account for the uncertainty in key biological components of their squid fisheries, with potential plans leading to the development of harvest control rules. These aspirations are laudable, but they need to be made much more concrete and translated into actions.
To accelerate their work, members in the two RFMOs should commit to developing full management procedures, tested via MSE. They should also commit to fully sharing scientific and fleet information as necessary to better understand the dynamics of their fisheries, and create science-management dialogue groups with the resources and timelines to efficiently step through the process of developing management procedures.
If data availability problems continue, data-limited approaches should be investigated to develop the MSEs, which could test the performance of simple management procedures against the potential range of different population dynamics (as well as other uncertainties).
Amidst concerns for the global sustainability of squid stocks, with researchers finding that fishing effort on squid increased 68 percent from 2017 to 2020, NPFC and SPRFMO should seize the opportunity to demonstrate how management procedures could help chart out a more sustainable path for these important squid species, one that could be followed by other squid fisheries.
Squids are both a commercially and ecologically important species, playing an integral role in marine ecosystems as prey for swordfish, sharks, tunas, marine mammals, and seabirds. However, concerns over the declining abundance of squid and lack of management measures to safeguard these fisheries cannot be overstated. It’s imperative that NPFC and SPRFMO members advance modern, science-based fisheries management for these species by strengthening data reporting, creating science-management dialogue groups and beginning the development of management procedures.
The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) Annual Meeting concluded in Panama City last week, and several important decisions and developments will shape and advance fisheries management in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) in the coming years. Below are the key harvest strategy-related proposals discussed, their outcomes, and the work ahead for these critical fisheries.
Science-Management Dialogue (SMD) Working Group
The IATTC agreed to establish a formal Science-Management Dialogue (SMD) group to advance the management strategy evaluation (MSE) process in the EPO. First proposed by the IATTC Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) in 2018, this group will provide a structured forum for guiding harvest strategies. Until now, the Commission has relied on informal MSE workshops, including the most recent one in December 2022, which, while useful for capacity building, lacked the authority to make formal recommendations. Thanks to Ecuador’s proposal, this group will be able to make formal recommendations to the Commission, streamlining progress toward effective and efficient management.
South Pacific Albacore (SPALB) Collaboration
Ecuador’s proposal for improved collaboration between the IATTC and WCPFC for the development of a SPALB harvest strategy was adopted. This collaboration is critical to ensuring effective Pacific-wide management of the stock. IATTC representatives joined the WCPFC’s SMD working group, ensuring that SPALB catches in the EPO are properly accounted for in WCPFC’s developing harvest strategy, which is scheduled for adoption this year.
Tropical Tunas (TT) and Bigeye Tuna (BET) Management
The tropical tunas measure dominated discussions at the meeting. This year’s yellowfin tuna assessment failed, leading to a prolonged debate over how long to extend the current measures. Delegates agreed to adopt a two-year rollover with triggers to review the measure if new information becomes available. While this measure was extended by two years, an MSE-tested harvest strategy is expected for bigeye next year. It is essential to maintain momentum toward this important milestone. IATTC has committed to scheduling at least two workshops/SMD meetings before the 2025 meeting to agree on management objectives and provide feedback on the preliminary MSE results.
Sharks: A New Path Forward
A proposal for improving shark management was adopted, which includes guidance on shark research. This adoption gives IATTC the mandate to work on developing a blue shark MSE, which would align with ongoing efforts at ICCAT and IOTC and improve management for this commercially and ecologically important species.
FAO and HarvestStrategies.org
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), in partnership with HarvestStrategies.org, hosted a well-attended side event at the IATTC meeting that highlighted the ongoing work to promote the adoption of harvest strategies for sustainable fisheries management. The event provided a platform to discuss the importance of implementing effective science-based management tools, with a particular focus on how harvest strategies can help safeguard vital fish stocks in the EPO and beyond.
Looking Ahead in 2025
IATTC made significant strides during its annual commission meeting, but much work remains. With several proposals adopted, including the formalization of the SMD working group and advancing cross-commission collaboration on SPALB, the groundwork is laid for continued progress. Harvest strategy priorities for 2025 include the adoption of harvest strategies for bigeye and Pacific bluefin tuna, the first SMD meeting, and the first climate change workshop, which is expected to highlight MSE and harvest strategies as tools to build climate-smart management systems.
Building on the momentum from this meeting, there is strong potential for member countries, scientists, managers, and stakeholders to collaborate effectively and ensure that modern, sustainable fisheries management in the EPO becomes a reality.
As the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) annual meeting on September 2-6 approaches, key proposals will take center stage, potentially shaping the future sustainability of vital fish stocks in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO). Central to these discussions are harvest strategies—science-based management procedures that are critical for ensuring the long-term health and resilience of our fisheries. The decisions made at this meeting will not only influence the future of fisheries management in the EPO, but also set the stage for addressing challenges like climate change in the region. Therefore, a proactive stance on several key proposals becomes critical.
For several years, the IATTC Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) has recommended the creation of a formal dialogue group to guide the management strategy evaluation (MSE) process for IATTC stocks. Despite these repeated recommendations—starting in 2018 and reiterated multiple times, the Commission has relied on informal MSE workshops. While these workshops, most recently held in December 2022, were useful for initial capacity building, the group’s lack of authority to make recommendations to the Commission has become a significant obstacle.
The terms of reference for the group have already been preliminarily agreed upon, and the formalization of this dialogue group, as proposed by Ecuador, is now a critical step. This action would empower the group to make formal recommendations, streamlining the path toward effective management. To better understand how an SMD benefits modern fisheries management, read more here.
Incorporating climate change considerations into IATTC activities is essential since there is already evidence of the impacts of changing ocean conditions on EPO fisheries. Adopting a climate change work plan, endorsed by the IATTC Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) in June, that includes climate-informed stock assessments and integrates with MSE processes signifies a step forward in adaptive and resilient fisheries management.
Building upon the momentum of adopting the North Pacific Albacore harvest strategy in 2023, there is a need for the IATTC to collaborate with the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) on developing a harvest strategy for South Pacific Albacore, paving the way for comprehensive, Pacific-wide management of the stock. Ecuador’s proposed collaborative measure is a step in the right direction (read it here), but while the harvest strategy is under development, introducing some management for SPALB in the EPO—such as a cap on longline vessels fishing for the stock, as Ecuador had proposed last year—would be prudent. IATTC should reinstate that language and adopt the proposal this year.
While Ecuador’s comprehensive shark proposal is commendable, it can be strengthened to include a call to develop an MSE for blue sharks in the EPO, following a model similar to that of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).
Following encouraging news from the 2024 stock assessment that the Pacific bluefin stock is no longer overfished, IATTC members are proposing to increase the quota in the EPO by more than 50%. This is a potentially dangerous increase, given the uncertainty in the assessment. It would be more sensible to delay such a quota increase until an MSE-tested harvest strategy is adopted next year as planned, ensuring that uncertainties are properly addressed.
Establishing clear management objectives ensures a guided and effective MSE process, which is crucial for sustainable management. A harvest strategy is scheduled to be adopted for bigeye next year, but objectives have not yet been agreed. There are now four proposals for amending the current tropical tuna measure. As they get blended into one measure for adoption next week, the final version should include a recommitment to the adoption of a BET harvest strategy in 2025 and a list of preliminary management objectives for the fishery, as proposed by the EU.
We commend the IATTC for creating the first Pacific-wide harvest strategy last year to jointly manage North Pacific Albacore fisheries with WCPFC, a significant milestone in international fisheries management. However, the work is not yet complete. Although the IATTC committed to adopting a methodology for translating the Harvest Control Rule (HCR)-calculated fishing intensity into Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and/or Total Allowable Effort (TAE) in 2024, there is unfortunately no proposal on the table to adopt the conversion. It is, therefore, crucial that the IATTC recommit to finalizing this next year to ensure the harvest strategy can be effectively implemented and deliver on its promise of long-term, sustainable management.
As IATTC convenes next week in Panama, it’s imperative that members and interested parties advocate for the development and adoption of harvest strategies that promise a sustainable future for our fisheries. It’s important to note that the IATTC is currently the only tuna Regional Fisheries Management Organization (tRFMO) that has not implemented a harvest strategy. This gap underscores the urgency for IATTC to adopt and implement a harvest strategy to maintain its leadership in modern, science-based fisheries management.
By supporting enlightened proposals, recommending necessary modifications, and addressing missed opportunities, IATTC can ensure that it stands as a leader in fisheries management, adept at navigating the challenges posed by climate change and other threats. Let’s make this year’s meeting count.
As we continue our deep dive into Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) with Dr. Tom Carruthers, CEO of Blue Matter Science, this second and final part focuses on the advanced perspectives and future directions that shape the evolution of MSE in fisheries management. From the integration of Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management (EBFM) principles to the impact of climate change and technological advancements, this discussion delves into how MSE can address the complex challenges facing our ocean. With his extensive experience, Tom shares invaluable insights on stakeholder engagement, international collaboration, and the need for modern innovation.
HS.org: How do you perceive the integration of EBFM principles within current MSE frameworks, and what strides must be taken to ensure a holistic approach to fisheries management that adequately protects marine biodiversity and supports the resilience of oceanic ecosystems and the sustainability of fisheries?
Tom: Ah, EBFM. Scarcely has there been a topic in fisheries of so much discussion and so little management action! A few years ago, I was asked to review the history of EBFM in fisheries. Despite many hundreds, maybe thousands of papers on the subject spanning more than 15 years, I could find evidence of only one fishery, Atlantic menhaden, where the principles of EBFM had shaped tactical management advice.
In my view, MSE is the only existing framework that can operationalize EBFM in the routine provision of tactical advice. This is because most ecosystem models are difficult to evaluate empirically. They often struggle to pass conventional standards of peer review for models used to inform management advice. MSE is expressly designed to navigate such hypotheses, potentially ending in an adopted harvest strategy robust to hypothetical scenarios for ecosystem dynamics.
HS. org: How do you involve stakeholders, including fishers and conservation interests, in the MSE process, and why is their involvement crucial?
Tom: A common reason for pursuing MSE is that the conventional stock assessment approach excludes the interests, experience, and values of the wider group of fishery participants. To many participants whose livelihoods are directly impacted by the results of stock assessments, the process can feel like a technologically complex exercise that removes all but a handful of nerdy scientists and reviewers (I am probably one of those!).
Stock assessment is like designing a car engine – it is necessarily complicated. MSE, on the other hand, is more about driving the car – the controls and the instrumentation. MSE asks stakeholders what they know and care about and how best to achieve those outcomes. All this should be presented in a package that is easy to drive, with the focus being on where we are going, not the complexities under the hood.
HS.org: How have recent technological advances and data analytics improved the MSE process?
Tom: We’ve come a long way from coding a bespoke MSE from scratch for every case study. Packages like FLR and OpenMSE standardize data inputs and harvest strategy configuration, allowing for greater focus on the more important issues, such as management objectives and the harvest strategies themselves.
My colleague, Dr. Adrian Hordyk, has been working hard on Slick, which is a package and online app that presents MSE results and diagnostics using graphics conceptualized by scientific communications experts. All together, this new technology has made MSE much more accessible and efficient.
HS. org: Where is there even more room for improvement?
Tom: MSE is still relatively new in the field of fisheries science and management. As a result, MSE processes tend to be rather ad-hoc and differ among fisheries management organizations and stocks. Much could be learned and synthesized from these various applications.
Having the tech to do MSE easily is one thing. What is needed now is an established framework, an MSE roadmap of sorts, that is integrated with stakeholders and the tech so that the process is standardized, efficient, and disciplined. As it happens, this is something we are currently working on; what are the odds?!
HS.org: How does MSE help adapt fisheries management to the impacts of climate change?
Tom: In a way, this is similar to the question about MSE and EBFM above.
Just about every fishery management organization I know of has an objective along the lines of ‘implement management considerate of changing climatic conditions.’ Despite a huge amount of scientific literature naming possible impacts, there are very few that make quantitative predictions that could be used to inform management advice. From my perspective, the forecasting of climate impacts on fish populations is necessarily hypothetical. I simply don’t think we can reasonably evaluate the credibility of an ‘end to end’ model that combines the predictions of climate, oceanographic, ecosystem, physiology, and fleet models to forecast impacts on a fishery. This is a problem for the conventional stock assessment approach that focuses on scientific veracity. This is less of a problem for MSE, which focuses on harvest strategy robustness, including robustness to highly uncertain future fishery scenarios. MSE might be the only framework we have available for establishing tactical advice for fisheries, providing us with harvest strategies that have demonstrated climate readiness.
HS.org: What roles do climate change and environmental variability play in shaping MSE approaches?
Tom: In general, these phenomena interact with the types of harvest strategies being tested. In an attempt to consider possible climate change or environmental conditions, MSEs often simulate changes in future stock productivity. Systematic productivity shifts tend to favor harvest strategies aiming to fish a consistent fraction of the stock over those that aim for a particular stock level. Variable stock productivity tends to favor harvest strategies that are responsive to recent data and allow for larger changes in management advice. Depending on resource conservation objectives, climate change, and other challenging environmental scenarios can be highly influential in harvest strategy selection if they provide an extreme stress test.
HS.org: What role does international collaboration play in developing and applying MSE, especially for transboundary fisheries?
Tom: Collaboration on both scientific and management aspects is absolutely essential. On the science side, an MSE for an international transboundary stock almost always requires the timely submission of standardized data from all fishing nations and a shared understanding of the important fishery uncertainties. Although these may already be a part of an existing stock assessment process, MSE tends to go further and allow for a wider range of data and hypotheses.
You could argue that the most important collaboration occurs at the management level, where I have less experience. Those managers must agree on aspects that may include the mundane, such as how often to update advice; the important, such as the principle management objectives; and the contentious, such as catch allocations. For transboundary stocks, international collaboration can be seen as an opportunity and a strength, but it is also a necessary precondition of MSE.
HS.org: In your opinion, which regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) are leading the way in adopting and refining MSE practices? What lessons can be learned from these pioneers that could be applied globally?
Tom: I think CCSBT does a remarkable job of including new genetic technology in their MSE frameworks, not just in defining fishery hypotheses but also in the harvest strategy itself. I think the lesson from CCSBT is to keep innovating and looking for new sources of scientific information.
Now, sadly, I am biased toward those processes I have had some direct involvement with:
The Canadian DFO is leading the way with data-poor and data-moderate MSE frameworks in B.C. DFO has established a framework for its groundfish fisheries that allows for the rapid adoption of simple empirical harvest strategies where a stock assessment is not feasible. The lesson from DFO is that MSE is not necessarily an exercise for data-rich stocks – the whole idea of establishing tactical advice in the face of uncertainty is very much a data-poor fishery problem.
HS.org: What do you see as the future directions for MSE in fisheries management over the next decade?
Tom: In the next decade, MSE should:
HS.org: What are the key research questions or areas that, if addressed, could significantly advance the field of MSE? Are there particular gaps in our current understanding or methodology that need to be filled?
Tom: For the most part, we still think of fishery management in terms of individual species and data streams for individual species. From the early work I have been doing, it is apparent that if we consider multiple stocks together, the data may have considerably more information about stock and exploitation levels. I think there must be more investigation into multi-species MSEs and harvest strategies. We could be ignoring a lot of information.
In most cases, MSE has been used to establish a harvest strategy that sets a catch limit. There needs to be a greater focus on the efficacy of mixed management options, such as a catch limit in combination with other regulations such as bag limits, effort limits, spatiotemporal closures, and size limits. Exploration of mixed management controls often reveals opportunities to obtain a superior trade-off in yield and resource conservation.
HS.org: What advice would you give fisheries managers and scientists who are new to MSE and looking to implement it in their region’s fisheries?
Tom:
Dr. Tom Carruthers’ insights highlight the critical role of innovation, collaboration, and a disciplined approach in advancing MSE to address the evolving challenges in modern fisheries management. By focusing on efficiency, stakeholder engagement, and adapting to environmental changes, MSE can provide robust and sustainable solutions for the future of our oceans. To learn more about MSE and Tom’s work, please visit www.bluematterscience.com.
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.
