Effective fisheries management instrumental in improving fish stock status

Marine fish stocks are an important part of the world food system and are particularly important for many of the poorest people of the world. Most existing analyses suggest overfishing is increasing, and there is widespread concern that fish stocks are decreasing throughout most of the world. We assembled trends in abundance and harvest rate of stocks that are scientifically assessed, constituting half of the reported globalmarine fish catch. For these stocks, on average, abundance is increasing and is at proposed target levels. Compared with regions that are intensively managed, regions with less-developed fisheries management have, on average, 3-fold greater harvest rates and half the abundance as assessed stocks. Available evidence suggests that the regions without assessments of abundance have little fisheries management, and stocks are in poor shape. Increased application of area-appropriate fisheries science recommendations and management tools are still needed for sustaining fisheries in places where they are lacking.Fil: Hilborn, Ray. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Amoroso, Ricardo Oscar. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Anderson, Christopher M.. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Baum, Julia K.. University of Victoria; CanadáFil: Branch, Trevor A.. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Costello, Christopher. University of California at Santa Barbara; Estados UnidosFil: de Moor, Carryn L.. University of Cape Town; SudáfricaFil: Faraj, Abdelmalek. Einstitut National de Recherche Halieutique; MarruecosFil: Hively, Daniel. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Jensen, Olaf P.. Rutgers University; Estados UnidosFil: Kurota, Hiroyuki. Japan Fisheries Research and Education Agency; JapónFil: Little, L. Richard. Csiro Oceans and Atmosphere; AustraliaFil: Mace, Pamela. Ministry for Primary Industries; Nueva ZelandaFil: McClanahan, Tim. Wildlife Conservation Society; Estados UnidosFil: Melnychuk, Michael C.. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Minto, Cóilín. Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology; IrlandaFil: Osio, Giacomo Chato. Joint Research Centre (JRC); Italia. DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission; BélgicaFil: Pons, Maite. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Parma, Ana María. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Centro Nacional Patagónico. Centro para el Estudio de Sistemas Marinos; ArgentinaFil: Segurado, Susana. Sustainable Fisheries Partnership; Estados UnidosFil: Szuwalski, Cody S.. University of California at Santa Barbara; Estados UnidosFil: Wilson, Jono R.. University of California at Santa Barbara; Estados Unidos. The Nature Conservancy; Estados UnidosFil: Ye, Yimin. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; Itali

Considerations for management strategy evaluation for small pelagic fishes

Management strategy evaluation (MSE) is the state-of-the-art approach for testing and comparing management strategies in a way that accounts for multiple sources of uncertainty (e.g. monitoring, estimation, and implementation). Management strategy evaluation can help identify management strategies that are robust to uncertainty about the life history of the target species and its relationship to other species in the food web. Small pelagic fish (e.g. anchovy, herring and sardine) fulfil an important ecological role in marine food webs and present challenges to the use of MSE and other simulation-based evaluation approaches. This is due to considerable stochastic variation in their ecology and life history, which leads to substantial observation and process uncertainty. Here, we summarize the current state of MSE for small pelagic fishes worldwide. We leverage expert input from ecologists and modellers to draw attention to sources of process and observation uncertainty for small pelagic species, providing examples from geographical regions where these species are ecologically, economically and culturally important. Temporal variation in recruitment and other life-history rates, spatial structure and movement, and species interactions are key considerations for small pelagic fishes. We discuss tools for building these into the MSE process, with examples from existing fisheries. We argue that model complexity should be informed by management priorities and whether ecosystem information will be used to generate dynamics or to inform reference points. We recommend that our list of considerations be used in the initial phases of the MSE process for small pelagic fishes or to build complexity on existing single-species models.publishedVersio

Global fishery prospects under contrasting management regimes

Data from 4,713 fisheries worldwide, representing 78% of global reported fish catch, are analyzed to estimate the status, trends, and benefits of alternative approaches to recovering depleted fisheries. For each fishery, we estimate current biological status and forecast the impacts of contrasting management regimes on catch, profit, and biomass of fish in the sea. We estimate unique recovery targets and trajectories for each fishery, calculate the year-by-year effects of alternative recovery approaches, and model how alternative institutional reforms affect recovery outcomes. Current status is highly heterogeneous—the median fishery is in poor health (overfished, with further overfishing occurring), although 32% of fisheries are in good biological, although not necessarily economic, condition. Our business-as-usual scenario projects further divergence and continued collapse for many of the world's fisheries. Applying sound management reforms to global fisheries in our dataset could generate annual increases exceeding 16 million metric tons (MMT) in catch, $53 billion in profit, and 619 MMT in biomass relative to business as usual. We also find that, with appropriate reforms, recovery can happen quickly, with the median fishery taking under 10 y to reach recovery targets. The results show that commonsense reforms to fishery management would dramatically improve overall fish abundance while increasing food security and profits

Identifying management actions that promote sustainable fisheries

Which management actions work best to prevent or halt overfishing and to rebuild depleted populations? A comprehensive evaluation of multiple, co-occurring management actions on the sustainability status of marine populations has been lacking. Here we compiled detailed management histories for 288 assessed fisheries from around the world (accounting for 45% of those with formal stock assessments) and used hierarchical time-series analyses to estimate effects of different management interventions on trends in stock status. Rebuilding plans, applied less commonly than other management measures (implemented at some point historically for 43% of stocks), rapidly lowered fishing pressure towards target levels and emerged as the most important factor enabling overfished populations to recover. Additionally, the ratification of international fishing agreements, and harvest control rules specifying how catch limits should vary with population biomass, helped to reduce overfishing and rebuild biomass. Notably, we found that benefits of management actions are cumulative—as more are implemented, stock status improves and predicted long-term catches increase. Thus, a broad suite of management measures at local, national and international levels appears to be key to sustaining fish populations and food production.Fil: Melnychuk, Michael C.. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Kurota, Hiroyuki. Japan Fisheries Research and Education Agency; JapónFil: Mace, Pamela M.. No especifíca;Fil: Pons, Maite. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Minto, Cóilín. Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology; IrlandaFil: Osio, Giacomo Chato. No especifíca;Fil: Jensen, Olaf P.. Rutgers University; Estados Unidos. University of Wisconsin; Estados UnidosFil: de Moor, Carryn L.. University of Cape Town; SudáfricaFil: Parma, Ana María. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Centro Nacional Patagónico. Centro para el Estudio de Sistemas Marinos; ArgentinaFil: Richard Little, L.. Csiro Oceans and Atmosphere; AustraliaFil: Hively, Daniel. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Ashbrook, Charmane E.. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Baker, Nicole. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Amoroso, Ricardo Oscar. University of Washington; Estados Unidos. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Branch, Trevor A.. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Anderson, Christopher M.. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Szuwalski, Cody S.. National Marine Fisheries Service; Estados UnidosFil: Baum, Julia K.. University of Victoria; CanadáFil: McClanahan, Tim R.. Wildlife Conservation Society; Estados UnidosFil: Ye, Yimin. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; ItaliaFil: Ligas, Alessandro. Consorzio per il Centro Interuniversitario di Biologia Marina ed Ecologia Applicata; ItaliaFil: Bensbai, Jilali. Institut National de Recheche Halieutique; MarruecosFil: Thompson, Grant G.. National Marine Fisheries Service; Estados UnidosFil: DeVore, John. Pacific Fishery Management Council; Estados UnidosFil: Magnusson, Arni. No especifíca;Fil: Bogstad, Bjarte. Institute of Marine Research ; NoruegaFil: Wort, Edward. University of Plymouth; Reino UnidoFil: Rice, Jake. Fisheries and Oceans Canada; CanadáFil: Hilborn, Ray. University of Washington; Estados Unido