Stocks with active harvest strategies
Stocks with harvest strategies in development
Tuna
Swordfish
Bottomfish
Herring / Cod
Lobster
Harvest strategies are a tool that are is being used successfully around the world for all different types of fisheries – predators and prey, surface species and bottomfish, international and domestic. This interactive map showcases the global breadth of harvest strategies, including both active harvest strategies (in teal) and those in development (in orange). Navigating this interactive is easy- click on any silhouette to view the details of a that fish’s harvest strategy in that particular location.
Is your stock missing from the map? We want to include you!
FACTSHEET: Case Studies of Harvest Strategies in Global Fisheries; Language Options: Español 🇪🇸 • Français 🇫🇷 • 日本 🇯🇵 • ไทย 🇹🇭
1Active Harvest Strategy
CCSBT
Adopted in 2001; updated in 2019
Fully-specified ‘Cape Town Procedure’ tested through comprehensive MSE process.
Quotas have increased each management cycle since the harvest strategy was adopted (an 87% increase between 2011 and 2020). The number of adult fish increased from 5% SSB0 in 2010 to 13% SSB0 in 2016, and there are indications that adult biomass may have reached 17% SSB0 in 2018.
2Active Harvest Strategy
ICCAT
2017/2021
Adopted in 2021, ICCAT successfully converted the HCR into a full harvest strategy through the addition of an exceptional circumstances protocol and the specification of the data collection and assessment methods needed to apply the the HCR.
The stock was declared recovered in 2016, a year before the HCR was adopted. The 2018-20 quota set by the HCR was limited by the 20% maximum change clause. Using the 2020 stock assessment, the HCR recommended a TAC increase for the 2021-23 management period which was agreed to by all parties without controversy.
3Active Harvest Strategy
Adopted in 2010; Updated in 2017
The original HCR adopted in 2010 proved unsuccessful and was modified in 2017. The current HCR will be implemented until 2024. If circumstances occur outside the ranges tested by the MSE, the exceptional circumstances protocol will be triggered, possibly changing the HCR.
Greenland halibut are considered overfished. The intial HCR adopted in 2010 had to be revised in 2017 as the exceptional circumstance protocol was triggered 4 out of 6 years, likely due to annual catch estimates far exceeding the TAC. The TAC based on the current HCR increased in 2019 to 16521 t.
4Active Harvest Strategy
Indian Ocean Tuna Commission
2016
The current HCR is slated to be expanded to a fully specified harvest strategy in 2021.
Based on the 2020 stock assessment, the stock is currently not overfished or experiencing overfishing. Current spawning stock biomass is estimated to be at 0.45B0, above the target reference point. However, because there is no allocation key, the HCR-associated TAC of 470,029 t for 2018-20 was exceeded by 29% in 2018, and overages are expected to continue until the quota is allocated.
5Active Harvest Strategy
Australia (domestic)
2009
Biological
Socio-economic
Ecosystem
This fully specified, MSE-tested harvest strategy framework applies to the Southern and Eastern scalefish and shark fishery, with each stock applying one of four different HCRs included in the harvest strategy.
According to the most recent 2017 assessment, the stock is considered sustainable at 42% of unfished spawning stock biomass, above Bmsy but slightly below the TRP. The current level of fishing pressure under the HCR is unlikely to deplete the stock or impair recruitment.
6Active Harvest Strategy
South Africa (domestic)
1990; Updated in 2018
Target Reference Point: BMSY
A fully specified harvest strategy that has been tested via MSE. It has been successfully modified every four years to include recent data.
The 2018 assessment showed both hake stocks above the B-based target reference points. While the TAC trend has been downwards since 2014, the harvest strategy is responding properly to ensure the stocks are maintained at BMSY
7Active Harvest Strategy
Canada (domestic)
2010
A fully specified harvest strategy that has been tested via MSE. Operating models for the MSE continue to be updated, most recently in 2019, to account for new data.
A 2019 update found that sablefish have now recovered to or above 0.8BMSY with 50% probability, so are now outside of the Cautious Zone.
8Active Harvest Strategy
New Zealand (domestic)
1997
Per New Zealand’s Harvest Strategy Standard:
A fully specified harvest strategy that has been tested via MSE, with each updated intermittently.
All but one of the ten lobster stocks in New Zealand are above the target. The single stock considered overfished is still above both the soft and hard limits, according to a 2018 assessment.
9Active Harvest Strategy
United States Domestic Fisheries
2019
Upper biomass parameter (overfished threshold): 50%SSBMSY
Lower biomass parameter (closes fishery): 10%SSBMSY
Maximum fishing mortality: 80%FMSY
Type: Model-based
Management cycle: 3 years, but quota may be different each year
Data inputs: Recruitment estimates derived from 1995 VPA, mean weights at age, surplus production model
Management output: Quota
Harvest control rule: When biomass is greater than 50% of SSB/SSBMSY, the maximum
fishing mortality allowed is 80% of FMSY, so 20% of FMSY is left for herring predators. As biomass declines further, fishing mortality declines linearly, and if biomass falls below 10% of SSB/SSBMSY, the fishery closes.
N/A
The MSE-tested HCR was implemented for the first time in 2019.
10Harvest Strategy in development
WCPFC / IATTC
2022
WCPFC Interim Management Objective:
MSE Candidate Mangagement Objectives:
WCPFC:
Limit Reference Point: 20%SSBcurrent F=0
Target Reference Point: To be determined based upon socioeconomic factors
MSE evaluating numerous sliding, model-based harvest control rules that decrease F from Ftarget once the spawning stock biomass drops below SSBthreshold toward SSBlimit. The fishery is closed at SSBlimit.
N/A
Final MSE results presented in 2021.
11Harvest Strategy in development
WCPFC / IATTC
2024
WCPFC Interim Management Objective:
Model-based, sliding HCRs are being explored in the initial MSE work
N/A
Terms of reference for the MSE were agreed in 2019.
12Harvest Strategy in development
Indian Ocean Tuna Commission
2024
Tuning Objectives (for MSE purposes):
MSE evaluating model-based HCRs with these candidate constraints:
Australia has proposed terms for a comprehensive harvest strategy
Evaluation of candidate harvest strategies underway via MSE. Reference set of operating models were revised in 2021 due to concerns about uncertainty in the stock assessment on which the operating models are based, strengthening the MSE.
13Harvest Strategy in development
Indian Ocean Tuna Commission
2024
Tuning Objectives (for MSE purposes):
Interim Limit Reference Point: 40% BMSY and 140% FMSY
Interim Target Reference Point: BMSY and FMSY
MSE evaluating HCRs with these candidate constraints:
Both model-based and empirical, CPUE-based harvest strategies are being tested.
Evaluation of candidate harvest strategies underway via MSE. The results of the 2019 assessment fall outside of the range considered by the MSE so the operating models are being reconditioned.
14Harvest Strategy in development
Indian Ocean Tuna Commission
2024
Tuning Objectives (for MSE purposes):
MSE evaluating HCRs with these candidate constraints:
Both model-based and empirical, CPUE-based harvest strategies are being tested.
Evaluation of candidate harvest strategies underway via MSE.
15Harvest Strategy in development
Indian Ocean Tuna Commission
2022
Tuning Objectives (for MSE purposes):
Interim Limit Reference Point: 50% BMSY and 130% FMSY
Interim Target Reference Point: BMSY and FMSY
MSE evaluating model-based HCRs with these candidate constraints:
N/A
Evaluation of candidate harvest strategies underway via MSE. An external review of the MSE will be conducted in 2022 before adoption in 2023.
16Harvest Strategy in development
ICCAT
2023
Conceptual Management Objectives:
Using MSE to evaluate both constant and threshold model-based harvest control rules.
Using MSE to evaluate both constant and threshold model-based harvest strategies.
MSE process began in 2018, currently developing MSE framework and operating models
17Harvest Strategy in development
ICCAT
2022
Conceptual Management Objectives:
Interim Target Reference Point: B0.1 and F0.1
Using MSE to evaluate several empirical HCRs
Using MSE to evaluate several empirical harvest strategies
MSE process began in 2014; Currently finalizing MSE framework and evaluating candidate harvest strategies
18Harvest Strategy in development
WCPFC
2022
Interim Objective:
Draft performance indicators:
Using MSE to evaluate both constant and threshold model-based harvest control rules.
Using MSE to evaluate several model-based harvest strategies; HS must have <20% chance of breaching the limit reference point
Evaluation of candidate harvest strategies underway via MSE
19Harvest Strategy in development
WCPFC
2023
Interim Objective:
Draft performance indicators:
Using MSE to evaluate empirical harvest control rules using CPUE data.
Using MSE to evaluate several empirical harvest strategies; HS must have <20% chance of breaching the limit reference point
Evaluation of candidate harvest strategies underway via MSE
20Harvest Strategy in development
IATTC
2024
In development and not officially adopted, but often assumed to be BMSY based on Article VII(1)c of the Antigua Convention
Reference points being developed as part of current MSE process.
Candidate model-based HCRs to be developed as part of current MSE process.
Interim HCR developed without MSE testing:
N/A
21Active Harvest Strategy
IPHC
2022
Candidate Objectives:
Interim harvest control rule:
Using MSE to evaluate several model-based harvest strategies; HS must have >=50% chance of achieveing the target and <=10% chance of breaching the limit
22Harvest Strategy in development
NEAFC
2022-2023
The objective is to ensure harvest of the stock within safe biological limits
An HCR is being explored that sets a TAC when biomass is above/below biological reference points (Btrigger, Blim, Bpa, etc.)
Noted Constraints:
Using MSE to evaluate candidate harvest strategies
Different harvest control rules will continue to be evaluated by NEAFC in collaboration with ICES, with an HCR hopefully adopted by 2022/2023
23Harvest Strategy in development
NEAFC
2023
N/A
An HCR is being explored that sets a TAC when biomass is above/below biological reference points (Btrigger, Blim, Bpa, etc.)
Noted Constraints:
Using MSE to evaluate candidate harvest strategies
Different harvest control rules will continue to be evaluated by NEAFC in collaboration with ICES, with an HCR hopefully adopted by 2022/2024