Search

Rebuilding depleted fish populations is a priority of modern fisheries management. In the U.S., strong statutory mandates extend to both the goals and process by which stocks are to be rebuilt. However, the National Standard Guidelines that govern the implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act may change to increase flexibility in rebuilding requirements. In this study we evaluate performance of the status quo approach to fish stock rebuilding in the United States against 3 alternatives that have been proposed to improve rebuilding outcomes. These alternatives either simplify the analytical requirements of rebuilding analyses or apply ‘best practices’ in fisheries management, thereby avoiding the need for rebuilding analyses altogether. We use a Management Strategy Evaluation framework to evaluate rebuilding options across 6 fish life history types and 5 possible real-world fishery scenarios that include options for stock assessment quality, multiple fleets, and the degree to which the stocks are overfished at the start of the analysis. We show that the status quo rebuilding plan and a harvest control rule that reduces harvest rates at low stock size generally achieve the best rebuilding outcomes across all life-history types and fishery scenarios. Both approaches constrain fishing in the short term, but achieve high catches in the medium and long term as stocks rebuild to productive levels. These results support a growing body of literature that indicates that efforts to end overfishing early pay off in the medium- to long-term with higher cumulative catches than the alternative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biological reference points (BRPs) in fisheries policy are typically sensitive to stock assessment model assumptions, thus increasing uncertainty in harvest decision-making and potentially blocking adoption of precautionary harvest policies. A collaborative management strategy evaluation approach and closed-loop simulation modelling was used to evaluate expected fishery economic and conservation performance of the sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) fishery in British Columbia (Canada), in the presence of uncertainty about BRPs. Comparison of models derived using two precautionary harvest control rules, which each complied with biological conservation objectives and short-term economic objectives given by industry, suggested that both rules were likely to avert biomass decline below limit BRPs, even when stock biomass and production were persistently overestimated by stock assessment models. The slightly less conservative, industry-preferred harvest control rule also avoided short-term economic losses of c. CAN$ 2.7–10 million annually, or 10–50% of current landed value. Distinguishing between the role of BRPs in setting fishery conservation objectives and operational control points that define harvest control rules improved the flexibility of the sablefish management system, and has led to adoption of precautionary management procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

An interdisciplinary team of academics and representatives of fishing fleets and government collaborated to study the emerging requirements for sustainability in Canada's fisheries. Fisheries assessment and management has focused on biological productivity with insufficient consideration of social (including cultural), economic, and institutional (governance) aspects. Further, there has been little discussion or formal evaluation of the effectiveness of fisheries management. The team of over 50 people (i) identified a comprehensive set of management objectives for a sustainable fishery system based on Canadian policy statements, (ii) combined objectives into an operational framework with relevant performance indicators for use in management planning, and (iii) undertook case studies that investigated some social, economic, and governance aspects in greater detail. The resulting framework extends the suite of widely accepted ecological aspects (productivity and trophic structure, biodiversity, and habitat–ecosystem integrity) to include comparable economic (viability and prosperity, sustainable livelihoods, distribution of access and benefits, regional–community benefits), social (health and well-being, sustainable communities, ethical fisheries), and institutional (legal obligations, good governance structure, effective decision-making) aspects of sustainability. This work provides a practical framework for implementation of a comprehensive approach to sustainability in Canadian fisheries. The project also demonstrates the value of co-construction of collaborative research and co-production of knowledge that combines and builds on the strengths of academics, industry, and government. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Fisheries sustainability is recognized to have four pillars: ecological, economic, social (including cultural) and institutional (or governance). Although international agreements, and legislation in many jurisdictions, call for implementation of all four pillars of sustainability, the social, economic and institutional aspects (i.e., the “human dimensions”) have not been comprehensively and collectively addressed to date. This study describes a framework for comprehensive fisheries evaluation developed by the Canadian Fisheries Research Network (CFRN) that articulates the full spectrum of ecological, economic, social and institutional objectives required under international agreements, together with candidate performance indicators for sustainable fisheries. The CFRN framework is aimed at practical fisheries evaluation and management and has a relatively balanced distribution of elements across the four pillars of sustainability relative to 10 alternative management decision support tools and indicator scorecards, which are heavily focused on ecological and economic aspects. The CFRN framework has five immediate uses: (a) It can serve as a logic frame for defining management objectives; (b) it can be used to define alternate management options to achieve given objectives; (c) it can serve as a tool for comparing management scenarios/options in decision support frameworks; (d) it can be employed to create a report card for comprehensive fisheries management evaluation; and (e) it is a tool for practical implementation of an integrated social–ecological system approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]