Ecological data from observer programmes underpin ecosystem-based fisheries management

Abstract

Data required from fisheries monitoring programmes substantially expand as management authorities transition to implement elements of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM). EBFM extends conventional approaches of managing single fishery effects on individual stocks of target species by taking into account the effects, within a defined ecosystem, of local to regional fisheries on biodiversity, from genotypes to ecological communities. This includes accounting for fishery effects on evolutionary processes, associated and dependent species, habitats, trophic food web processes, and functionally linked systems. Despite seemingly insurmountable constraints, through examples, we demonstrate how data routinely collected in most observer programmes and how minor and inexpensive expansions of observer data fields and collection protocols supply ecological data underpinning EBFM. Observer data enable monitoring bycatch, including catch and mortality of endangered, threatened and protected species, and assessing the performance of bycatch management measures. They provide a subset of inputs for ecological risk assessments, including productivity-susceptibility analyses and multispecies and ecosystem models. Observer data are used to monitor fishery effects on habitat and to identify and protect benthic vulnerable marine ecosystems. They enable estimating collateral sources of fishing mortality. Data from observer programmes facilitate monitoring ecosystem pressure and state indicators. The examples demonstrate how even rudimentary fisheries management systems can meet the ecological data requirements of elements of EBFM.

Do static and dynamic marine protected areas that restrict pelagic fishing achieve ecological objectives?

“…Stock‐specific TRPs can be designed to be consistent with ecosystem‐level target and limit thresholds (Gilman et al. ).…”

“…Thus, TRPs can be seen as checks against market forces that could drive the biomass of an overexploited stock to a critical level or lead to Allee effects (Stephens andSutherland 1999, Gilman et al 2014). Stock-specific TRPs can be designed to be consistent with ecosystemlevel target and limit thresholds (Gilman et al 2017).…”

“…These outcomes, in turn, contribute to the intended ecological response of maintaining absolute stock biomass at a targeted level, or increasing biomass if it is below the target (e.g., Christie et al 2010). This contributes to maintaining the stock near its TRP, to recovering depleted stocks, and to implementing stock-specific as well as ecosystem-level harvest strategies (Sainsbury et al 2000, Link 2005, Gilman et al 2017.…”

“…The socioeconomic sustainability of marine capture fisheries and the quasi‐stable state of marine ecosystems are unequivocally linked (Link , FAO , Gilman et al. , ). Pressures from marine capture fisheries interact with the other main drivers of change and loss of marine biodiversity of climate change, marine pollution, habitat degradation, and the spread of invasive alien species (Kaiser and de Groot , Pauly et al.…”

Increasing the functionalities and accuracy of fisheries electronic monitoring systems

“…Fisheries monitoring programmes meet data requirements for fundamental scientific, compliance monitoring and sustainability assessment applications. Applications include conducting stock assessments, estimating bycatch and discards, assessing the performance of ecosystem‐based harvest strategies, monitoring compliance with management measures and licence agreements, and conducting assessments against fisheries ecological sustainability and labour standards (Davies & Reynolds, ; Gilman, Weijerman, & Suuronen, ; Marine Stewardship Council, ). Data collected by observer programmes provide more accurate and comprehensive information than data self‐reported in logbooks by fishers.…”