Here at www.HarvestStrategies.org, the New Year’s resolution is always to catalyze the development and adoption of robust management procedures (MPs) for fisheries around the world. 2024 saw impressive progress, with MP adoption for North Atlantic swordfish, Indian Ocean swordfish and skipjack, North Pacific saury, and Adriatic Sea anchovy and sardine. Notably, these are the first MPs for swordfish and forage fishes adopted by regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs), marking a significant step forward in applying a broader ecosystem approach. These 5 adoptions brought the total number of MPs for internationally managed stocks to 15. If we make that kind of progress again this year, adding 5 more adoptions, we’ll have 20×25 – 20 total international MPs by 2025.
There are 11 stocks slated for MP adoption this year, so securing 5 is a realistic goal, regardless of the challenges of consensus-based management at the RFMOs. Here are the stocks we’re tracking this year in chronological order.
If we hit the 20×25 target, the number of international MPs will have doubled in two years — evidence of the tremendous progress in MP development. With even more internationally managed stocks slated for MP adoption in 2026, the tide is turning toward a future where MSE-tested MPs will bring a more transparent, predictable, and science-based approach to achieving long-term abundant and sustainable fisheries.
Needless to say, there’s a lot of work to be done this year. Please check back here regularly to see how 20×25 unfolds!
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.
The ICCAT annual meeting wrapped up on Monday in Limassol, Cyprus. Management procedures (MPs) were the big winners of the meeting, with progress made on eight different stocks. This remarkable advancement affirmed ICCAT’s commitment to transitioning its management to MPs as a more science-based and transparent approach to achieving long-term sustainability for its $5.4 billion fisheries.
North Atlantic Swordfish: A Landmark Success
An MP was adopted for North Atlantic swordfish, marking ICCAT’s first MP for a non-tuna species. Twenty-five years ago, there was a boycott of North Atlantic swordfish, given its dire status. Today, the stock is fully recovered, and the new MP will lock in this abundance and ensure a vibrant fishery for years to come. The MP was also evaluated to ensure that it can be responsive to any negative impacts of climate change on swordfish abundance, ensuring a sustainable system even in a changing ocean.
The northern swordfish catch limit will increase by 12% next year, the first catch increase for swordfish since 2002. Importantly, the adopted MP is called “MCC,” which stands for “Mostly Constant Catch,” as it is designed to secure long-term stability in the fishery, which is good for business, both on fishing vessels and in seafood markets.
West Atlantic Skipjack: Significant Progress Despite Delay
While we had hoped an MP would be adopted for West Atlantic skipjack, ICCAT members decided that they needed a bit more information before selecting a specific MP. They, therefore, stopped just short of MP adoption, finalizing operational management objectives and giving clear guidance on how to put the finishing touches on the management strategy evaluation (MSE), the results of which will determine the MP to be adopted next November. This still remarks tremendous progress and is cause for celebration.
Forward Momentum for Other Important Stocks
ICCAT also agreed to interim management objectives for the other three tropical tunas – bigeye, yellowfin, and East Atlantic skipjack. The new measure contains important information to guide and reinvigorate the multispecies MSE underway for those stocks, calling for MP adoption in 2026. We note that the 50% probability of having each of the stocks not overfished and not subject to overfishing is a minimum standard for MP development, and we will work with ICCAT members to ensure that the likelihood is raised to at least 60% for the final MP. A coin flip’s chance of success is insufficient, especially given the number of livelihoods and coastal communities that depend on these stocks.
South Atlantic albacore and North and South Atlantic blue sharks round out the list of MP actions, with objectives agreed upon for the former and all three stocks added to ICCAT’s MSE workplan.
Charting a Sustainable Future
The outcomes of the Cyprus meeting reaffirm ICCAT’s leadership in global fisheries management. By adopting a new MP and providing guidance on MP development for 7 other stocks, ICCAT is charting a path toward more sustainable and resilient big fish fisheries. The Commission is well-positioned to secure the long-term health of these key resources and the communities that depend on them. The coming year will be pivotal as these initiatives take shape, and we at www.HarvestStrategies.org look forward to continuing to engage as a stakeholder in the process.
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.
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
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.
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.
