Report card on ecosystem‐based fisheries management in ...
19
Fish and Fisheries. 2017;1–19. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/faf | 1 © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Received: 1 July 2016 | Accepted: 24 September 2017 DOI: 10.1111/faf.12256 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Report card on ecosystem-based fisheries management in tuna regional fisheries management organizations Maria José Juan-Jordá 1 | Hilario Murua 1 | Haritz Arrizabalaga 1 | Nicholas K Dulvy 2 | Victor Restrepo 3 1 AZTI, Herrera Kaia, Portualdea z/g, Pasaia, Gipuzkoa, Spain 2 Earth to Ocean Research Group, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada 3 International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, Washington, DC, USA Correspondence Maria José Juan-Jordá, AZTI, Herrera Kaia, Portualdea z/g, Pasaia, Gipuzkoa, Spain. Email: [email protected] Funding information EU People Marie Curie Actions, Grant/Award Number: FP7-PEOPLE-2013-IOF Abstract International instruments of fisheries governance have set the core principles for the management of highly migratory fishes. We evaluated the progress of tuna Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (tRFMOs) in implementing the ecological com- ponent of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM). We first developed a best case tRFMO for EBFM implementation. Second, we developed criteria to evaluate progress in applying EBFM against this best case tRFMO. We assessed progress of the following four ecological components: target species, bycatch species, ecosystem properties and trophic relationships, and habitats. We found that many of the ele- ments necessary for an operational EBFM are already present, yet they have been implemented in an ad hoc way, without a long-term vision and a formalized plan. Overall, tRFMOs have made considerable progress monitoring the impacts of fisheries on target species, moderate progress for bycatch species, and little progress for eco- system properties and trophic relationships and habitats. The tRFMOs appear to be halfway towards implementing the ecological component of EBFM, yet it is clear that the “low-hanging fruit” has been plucked and the more difficult, but surmountable, is- sues remain, notably the sustainable management of bycatch. All tRFMOs share the same challenge of developing a formal mechanism to better integrate ecosystem sci- ence and advice into management decisions. We hope to further discussion across the tRFMOs to inform the development of operational EBFM plans. KEYWORDS bycatch, ecosystem impacts, ecosystem-based fisheries management, RFMO, sharks, tunas 1 | INTRODUCTION Over the last three decades, the development of international pol- icy and instruments pertaining to the protection and management of highly migratory fish species, and their ecosystems, has evolved substantially. Multiple binding treaties and agreements have been adopted by member countries and have entered into force (Figure 1; Garcia, Zerbi, Aliaume, Do Chi, & Lasserre, 2003; Meltzer, 2009). Together, these binding pieces of international legislation estab- lish—for the first time—the core principles and minimum standards to implement an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM) or Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management (EBFM). These binding international laws are also supported by a series of non- legally binding international agreements, norms and guidelines, which were created to support and drive the implementation of the principles set in these laws (Figure 1). These international laws and agreements are slowly changing the expectations of fisheries management for highly migratory fish species such as tuna and tuna-like species and the roles of Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) in charge of their sustainable management
Transcript of Report card on ecosystem‐based fisheries management in ...
Fish and Fisheries. 2017;1–19. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/faf | 1© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Received:1July2016 | Accepted:24September2017DOI: 10.1111/faf.12256
O R I G I N A L A R T I C L E
Report card on ecosystem- based fisheries management in tuna regional fisheries management organizations
Maria José Juan-Jordá1 | Hilario Murua1 | Haritz Arrizabalaga1 | Nicholas K Dulvy2 | Victor Restrepo3
1AZTI,HerreraKaia,Portualdeaz/g,Pasaia,Gipuzkoa,Spain2EarthtoOceanResearchGroup,DepartmentofBiologicalSciences,SimonFraserUniversity,Burnaby,BC,Canada3InternationalSeafoodSustainabilityFoundation,Washington,DC,USA
CorrespondenceMariaJoséJuan-Jordá,AZTI,HerreraKaia,Portualdeaz/g,Pasaia,Gipuzkoa,Spain.Email:[email protected]
Funding informationEUPeopleMarieCurieActions,Grant/AwardNumber:FP7-PEOPLE-2013-IOF
AbstractInternationalinstrumentsoffisheriesgovernancehavesetthecoreprinciplesforthemanagementofhighlymigratoryfishes.WeevaluatedtheprogressoftunaRegionalFisheriesManagementOrganizations(tRFMOs)inimplementingtheecologicalcom-ponentofecosystem-basedfisheriesmanagement(EBFM).Wefirstdevelopedabestcase tRFMO for EBFM implementation. Second,wedeveloped criteria to evaluateprogressinapplyingEBFMagainstthisbestcasetRFMO.Weassessedprogressofthefollowing four ecological components: target species, bycatch species, ecosystemproperties and trophic relationships, andhabitats.We found thatmanyof theele-mentsnecessary foranoperationalEBFMarealreadypresent, yet theyhavebeenimplemented in an ad hoc way, without a long-term vision and a formalized plan.Overall,tRFMOshavemadeconsiderableprogressmonitoringtheimpactsoffisheriesontargetspecies,moderateprogressforbycatchspecies,andlittleprogressforeco-systempropertiesandtrophicrelationshipsandhabitats.ThetRFMOsappeartobehalfwaytowardsimplementingtheecologicalcomponentofEBFM,yetitisclearthatthe“low-hangingfruit”hasbeenpluckedandthemoredifficult,butsurmountable,is-suesremain,notablythesustainablemanagementofbycatch.AlltRFMOssharethesamechallengeofdevelopingaformalmechanismtobetterintegrateecosystemsci-enceandadviceintomanagementdecisions.WehopetofurtherdiscussionacrossthetRFMOstoinformthedevelopmentofoperationalEBFMplans.
K E Y W O R D S
bycatch,ecosystemimpacts,ecosystem-basedfisheriesmanagement,RFMO,sharks,tunas
1 | INTRODUCTION
Overthelastthreedecades,thedevelopmentof internationalpol-icy and instrumentspertaining to theprotectionandmanagementofhighlymigratoryfishspecies,andtheirecosystems,hasevolvedsubstantially.Multiple binding treaties and agreements have beenadoptedbymembercountriesandhaveenteredintoforce(Figure1;Garcia, Zerbi, Aliaume, Do Chi, & Lasserre, 2003;Meltzer, 2009).Together, these binding pieces of international legislation estab-lish—forthefirsttime—thecoreprinciplesandminimumstandards
to implement an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management(EAFM)orEcosystem-BasedFisheriesManagement (EBFM).Thesebinding international laws are also supported by a series of non-legally binding international agreements, norms and guidelines,which were created to support and drive the implementation oftheprinciplesset intheselaws(Figure1).Theseinternational lawsand agreements are slowly changing the expectations of fisheriesmanagement for highly migratory fish species such as tuna andtuna-like species and the roles of Regional FisheriesManagementOrganizations (RFMOs) inchargeof their sustainablemanagement
2 | JUAN- JORDÁ et Al.
(Lodgeetal.,2007).Thus,thereisincreasingrecognitionandfurtherexpectationsoftheneedfortunaRFMOs(tRFMOs)toexpandtheirmandatetoensuretheymanagetheir target fishspecieswhileac-countingforecosystemimpactsandensuringabalanceddeliveryofecosystemservices(Gilman,Passfield,&Nakamura,2014b;Rogers,Sumalia,Hussain,&Baulcomb,2014).
tRFMOs provide a framework formember countries to coop-erateon themanagement and conservationof tuna and tuna-likespecies.TherearecurrentlyfivetRFMOsincludingtheInternationalCommission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), theIndianOceanTunaCommission(IOTC),theInter-AmericanTropicalTunaCommission(IATTC),theWesternandCentralPacificFisheriesCommission(WCPFC)andtheCommissionfortheConservationofSouthernBluefinTuna(CCSBT;Figure2).Accordingtointernationallaws and their Convention Agreements or adopted managementmeasures,tRFMOshavemanagementandenforcementobligationstomaintainsustainablepopulationsandensuresustainablefishingoperations, taking into account, to varying degrees, the precau-tionary approach as well as ecosystem impacts in their manage-ment decisions (Anonymous, 2015a; de Bruyn,Murua, &Aranda,2013;Meltzer,2009).Traditionallyeachhasfocusedmostoftheirresourcesandcapacities tomanage themain target tunaandbill-fish species tomaximize theiryields,with limitedactions toman-ageandmitigatethewiderimpactsoftheirfisheriesonnon-targetspeciesandecosystemintegrity(Mauryetal.,2013;Mooney-Seus&Rosenberg,2007).PastevaluationsofEBFMperformanceintRF-MOsandinfisheriesacross33countriesworldwide(mostofthemmembersoftRFMOs)havealsoidentifiedmajorgapsandlimitationsintheirapplicationoftheprecautionaryapproachandinthegover-nanceof targetandbycatchspecies (deBruynetal.,2013;Cullis-Suzuki & Pauly, 2010; Gilman, 2011; Gilman etal., 2014b; Lodgeetal., 2007;Mooney-Seus & Rosenberg, 2007; Pitcher, Kalikoski,
Short,Varkey,&Pramod,2009;Small,2005).Furthermore,thetRF-MOsregularperformancereviewshavealsohighlightedtheneedtoeffectively implement the ecosystem approach (Garcia&Koehler,2014; ICCAT, 2009; IOTC, 2009;Moss-Adams LLP, 2016; ReviewTeam,2012).Hence,itistimelytoassesswhatelementsarefacili-tatingprogressandwhichonesarehinderingtRFMOstooperation-alizeanEBFMapproach.
Ourmain objectivewas to assess the current state of the im-plementationofEBFMineachtRFMOs,andspecificallyfocusedonassessingthestateof implementation intheecologicalcomponent(ratherthanthesocio-economicandgovernancecomponents)ofanEBFMapproach.To do so,we examinedhowmuchprogress eachtRFMOhasmade in implementing EBFMbetween the dates theywereestablisheduntil theendof2015andassessed their currentstateofimplementationagainstabestcasetRFMO.First,wedevel-opedaconceptualecologicalmodel(CEM)forEBFMimplementationandused it as a template todevelop abest case tRFMO.Second,wedevelopedcriteriatoassesscurrentstateofEBFMimplementa-tionineachtRFMOandevaluatedtheprogressagainstthebestcasetRFMOforfourecologicalcomponents:targetspecies,bycatchspe-cies,ecosystempropertiesandtrophicrelationships,andhabitats.Intotal,wereviewed20elementsthatwouldpotentiallymakeEBFMmoreoperational.Wesoughttoexaminewhetherandhowecosys-temscienceisbeingusedinfisheriesmanagementdecisionsandtoidentify researchactivitiesandongoingexamplesofbestpracticesthatarecurrentlyfacilitatingtheEBFMimplementationthatideallycouldbe sharedacross tRFMOs.Wealso identified themaingapsand elements that appear to be hindering progress. Last,we con-cludedwithaseriesofgrandchallengeswebelieveareslowingdowntheimplementationofEBFM,providedrecommendationsandhigh-lightedpotentialopportunitiesthatideallycouldexpeditetheimple-mentationofEBFM.
F IGURE 1 tRFMOsandinternationalpolicycontext.Majorinternationallegalinstrumentspertainingtotheconservationandmanagementofhighlymigratorymarinespeciesincludingtunasandtuna-likespeciesandtheconservationofmarinebiodiversityandecosystems.TheflagsshowthedatetheConventionAgreementsoftRFMOsenteredintoforce.ThefirstIATTCConventionAgreemententeredintoforcein1950(IATTC1),anditwasreplacedin2008bytheAntiguaConventionwhichenteredintoforcein2010(IATTC2).Inthelowerpartofthefigure,theboxesshowthedatewhenvarioushard(binding)agreementswereestablishedandthenenteredintoforce,andthetrianglesshowthedateswhenvarioussoft(non-binding)agreementswereadopted
50s 60s 70s 80s 90s 00s 10s
ICCAT1969
CCSBT1994
IOTC1996
WCPFC2004
UNCLOS 1982 – 1994
Convention of biological diversity 1992 – 1993
FAO compliance agreement 1993 – 2003
UN fish stocks agreement 1995 – 2001
FAO code of conduct for responsable fisheries 1995 - 2001
FAO technical guideline - precautionary approach
199 - 2001995
1995 - 2001- 2001991996
IPOA - seabirds, sharks, capacity 1995 - 2001- 2001991999
IPOA - IUU 1995 - 2001- 2001992001
FAO technical guideline - ecosystem approach 1995 - 2001199 - 2002003
HARD LAWSOFT LAW
IATTC1
1950IATTC2
2010
| 3JUAN- JORDÁ et Al.
2 | METHODS
2.1 | A conceptual ecological model for EBFM implementation
Wedevelopedaconceptualecologicalmodel(CEM)forEBFMimple-mentationandused itasatemplatetodevelopabestcasetRFMO(Figure3).TheCEMisbasedontheDriver-Pressure-State-Ecosystemservices-Response(DPSER)framework(Kelbleetal.,2013),whichisa derivation from the more familiar Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Responseframework.WeusedtheDPSERframeworkasaplanningtooltoidentifythemainelementsandinteractionsbetweenhumansandtheecosystemsof tunasandassociatedspecies.TheCEMfirstillustrates fishingas themainpressure,whichhasbeen identifiedasthemost significantpressure affecting the state of tunas and tuna-likespeciesandassociatedecosystemswhichinturnaffectstheeco-system servicesthatbenefitsociety(Colletteetal.,2011).Moreover,climatechange isnowemergingasanotherpotentialmajorpressure (Belletal.,2013).
TheCEMalsoshowsthemainecologicalcomponentsthatshouldbemonitoredtoassess thestateof tunasandtuna-likespeciesandassociatedecosystems(Figure3).Areviewofthebestpracticesacross20 different RFMOs implementing the precautionary approach andEBFM revealed that for practical reasons, these RFMOs have tra-ditionally addressed and made the EBFM approach operational bymanaging and assessing the state of the following four ecologicalcomponents:(i)targetspecies(ii)bycatchspecies,(iii)ecosystemprop-erties and trophic interactions and (iv) habitats (Lodge etal., 2007).
Therefore,weusedthesefourecologicalcomponentstocharacterizethestateof tunasand tuna-likespeciesandassociatedecosystems.However,weacknowledgethatthereisstillalivelydiscussioninthegeneralliteratureonwhatmatterstofisheriessustainabilityandwhatcomponentsandattributesofanecosystemshouldbemonitoredtoassessthestateofmarineecosystems(Hilborn,2011;NOAAScienceAdvisoryBoard,2014).Forexample,ourCEMisnotconsideringtheeffectsof fishingongenetics,evolutionaryvalue, stockstructureorcommunitybiodiversity.ThelastelementoftheCEMistheresponse whichconsistsofa setof fisheriesmanagement responses tomini-mizetheimpactsoffishingandaccountforclimatechangetoensurethe state of tunas and tuna-like species and associated ecosystemsprovide healthy ecosystem services (Rogers etal., 2014).At the end,ourCEM illustrates themainelementsand interactions to take intoaccountforimplementingtheecologicalcomponentofEBFMinabestcasetRFMOs(Lodgeetal.,2007).Moreover,bydividingthestateoftheecosystemintofourpracticalecologicalcomponents,itfacilitatesthe identification of pre-establish operational objectives, associatedindicatorsandthresholdsforeachcomponent,andthedevelopmentofmanagementresponsesandstrategiesforeachofthem.
2.2 | Development of criteria to assess current state of EBFM implementation of tRFMOs against a base case tRFMO
WeassessedcurrentstateofimplementationofEBFMagainstasuiteof broad criteria and evaluated the progress against the base case
F IGURE 2 tRFMOsinchargeoftheconservationandmanagementoftunaandtuna-likespecies.AllthetRFMOshavespecificConventionAreasexceptCCSBT.TheCCSBTConventionappliestoonlyonespecies,theSouthernbluefintuna(Thunnus maccoyii)throughoutitsrangeintheSouthernOcean
4 | JUAN- JORDÁ et Al.
tRFMO(Figure4andTableS1).Thedesignofthecriteriawasstruc-turedaroundourCEM(Figure3)andalsoinformedbyrecommenda-tionsderivedfromtheKobeI, IIandIII jointtRFMOsmeetingsandtheChathamHouse reviewof best practices inRFMOs addressingEBFM(Anonymous,2007,2009,2011;Lodgeetal.,2007).Thecrite-riafirstfocusedonaddressingthecurrentstateofthebasictextsandmainstructureofthetRFMOsinsupportofEBFM(Figure4,evalu-ation field1).Second, it focusedonaddressing thecurrentstateofEBFMimplementationwithineachofthefourecologicalcomponentscharacterizingthestateoftunasandtuna-likespeciesandassociatedecosystems(Figure4,evaluationfield2).
Whenassessingthecurrentstateofimplementationwithineachecological component of EBFM, there might not always be clearboundariesamongthem.Forexample, intRMFOs,aspeciesmightsometimes be considered a target in one fishery but bycatch inanother.Therefore,forpracticalreasons,undertheecologicalcom-ponentof“TargetSpecies”weonlyassessedprogressofthesevenprincipal commercial tunas: Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis,Scombridae),Yellowfintuna(Thunnus albacares,Scombridae),Bigeyetuna(Thunnus obesus,Scombridae),Albacoretuna(Thunnus alalunga,Scombridae),Southernbluefintuna(Thunnus maccoyii,Scombridae),Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus, Scombridae) and Pacific
bluefintuna(Thunnus orientalis,Scombridae),andSwordfish(Xiphias gladius,Xiphiidae).Forpracticalreasons,undertheecologicalcom-ponentof“BycatchSpecies”weincludedallbillfishspecies(exceptSwordfish), sharks, seabirds, sea turtles,marinemammals and fin-fishesotherthantheprincipalcommercialtunasandbillfishes(here-after called “other finfishes”), although several species of sharks,billfishesandotherfinfishescanalsobetargetspeciesinsomefish-eries.Undertheecologicalcomponentof“EcosystemPropertiesandTrophicRelationships,”weassessedtheexistenceofecosystemmet-rics (empirically andmodel-based) and foodwebmodelsdepictingtrophic interactions and interdependencies involving relevant spe-ciesorcomponentsofecosystemsthatareaffectedbyfishing,andarerelevanttomaintainecosystemstructureandfunction,andhowthisinformationisbeingusedtoadvanceprogressinimplementingEBFMintRFMOs.Undertheecologicalcomponentof“Habitats”weassessedwhetherhabitatsofspecialconcern(e.g.reproduction,mi-gration,feeding,hotspots)and/orhabitatutilizationandpreferencesforrelevantspecieshavebeenformallyinvestigatedanddelineated,andhowthis information isbeingusedtoadvanceprogress in im-plementingEBFM.
Attheend,thecriteriaconsistedofasetof20elementsthatide-ally if addressedby tRFMOswould facilitate the implementationof
F IGURE 3 AconceptualecologicalmodelforabestcasetRFMObasedontheDriver-Pressure-State-Ecosystemservices-Response(DPSER)framework(Kelbleetal.,2013)
| 5JUAN- JORDÁ et Al.
EVALUATION FIELD 1: REVIEW OF BASIC TEXTS AND MAIN STRUCTURES OF tRFMOs IN SUPPORT OF EBFM
Element 1: Does the tRFMO refer to the principles of the precautionary approach and EBFM in accordance with relevant rules of international fisheries governance?Element 2: Has the tRFMO designated a lead entity to advance the progress and implementation of EBFM, advance progress on ecosystem science and provide advice on impacts of fishing on marine ecosystems?Element 3: Has the tRFMO developed and adopted an operational EBFM plan?Element 4: Does it exist a long-term data collection and monitoring program to support the implementation of EBFM? Does a database of high quality exist and is accessible to allow for EBFM analyses?
EVALUATION FIELD 2: REVIEW OF MAIN ECOLOGICAL COMPONENTS IN SUPPORT OF EBFMEcological component 1 Target species
Relevant to objectives:Element 5: Have conceptual and operational objectives been formally stated relevant to target species?
Relevant to indicators:Element 6: Have target species been assessed with full stock assessments, and have indicators of stock status been developed (associated to pre-established objectives) and are being monitored?
Relevant to reference points:Element 7: Have reference points, including target and limit reference points, been defined, developed and linked to pre-established objectives and indicators?
Relevant to management responses and measures:Element 8: Have management responses including harvest control rules or conservation and management measures been put in place and linked to pre-established management objectives, indicators, and reference points?
Ecological component 2 Bycatch speciesRelevant to objectives:
Element 9: Have conceptual and operational objectives been formally stated relevant to bycatch species?Relevant to indicators:
Element 10: Have bycatch species been assessed, and have indicators of stock status been developed (associated to pre-established objectives) and are being monitored?
Relevant to reference points:Element 11: Have reference points, including target and limit reference points, been defined, developed and linked to pre-established objectives and indicators relevant to bycatch species?
Relevant to management responses and measures:Element 12: Have management responses and measures been put in place and linked to pre-established management objectives, indicators, and reference points relevant to bycatch species?
Ecological component 3 Ecosystem properties and trophic relationshipsRelevant to objectives:
Element 13: Have conceptual and operational objectives been formally stated relevant to ecosystem properties and trophic relationships?
Relevant to indicators:Element 14: Have food web models with interactions of relevant species and components of the ecosystem been developed, and multispecies and ecosystem level indicators been developed (associated to pre-established objectives) and are being monitored?
Relevant to reference points:Element 15: Have ecosystem and/or multispecies management plans (including harvest strategies) been developed with pre-defined reference points and are being used for management advice?
Relevant to management responses and measures:Element 16: Have ecosystem and/or foodweb models and multispecies management plans been developed and their use evaluated in decision-making and incorporated in management measures to ensure pre-established objectives are met?
Ecological component 4 HabitatsRelevant to objectives:
Element 17: Have conceptual and operational objectives been formally stated relevant to habitats of special concern?
Relevant to indicators:Element 18: Have habitat of special concern and/or habitat utilization and preferences been investigated, and habitat indicators been developed (associated to pre-established objectives) and are being monitored?
Relevant to reference points:Element 19: Have minimum habitat needs and requirements (linked to pre-established indicators and objectives) been identified and adopted for relevant species with habitats of special concern?
Relevant to management responses and measures:Element 20: Have habitats of special concern and/or habitat utilization and preferences of relevant species been delineated and their use evaluated in decision-making to ensure pre-established objectives are met?
F IGURE 4 SummaryofthecriteriausedforassessingthecurrentstateofEBFMimplementationintRFMOs.Onlinesupportinginformationprovidesthefullcriteriaused(TableS1)
6 | JUAN- JORDÁ et Al.
EBFM(Figure4).EachelementalonedoesnotconstituteEBFMbutthecompositeofallelementsdetermineswhethertRFMOaremovingtowards incorporating ecosystem science and ecosystem consider-ationsintofisheriesmanagementdecisions.Ourassessmentofeachelementagainstthecriteriaalsoservedtoorganizeandsummarizein-formationfromthecurrentactionsandpractices,andsupportingeco-systemsciencebeingproducedandusedinfisheriesmanagementbyeachtRFMO(AppendixS1).Onlinesupporting informationprovidesthefullcriteriausedtoassesscurrentstateofEBFMimplementationandprogressagainstthebestcasetRFMO(TableS1).
We assessed qualitatively the current state of implementation ofeachelementagainstthecriteriauptotheendof2015.Theassessmentofeachelementwasbasedonasetofspecificactionsbyestablishingsixprogresscategories(TableS1).Withinthesixprogresscategories,wedif-ferentiatedbetweenprogressdonebytheCommissionandtheScientific CommitteesineachtRFMO.Furthermore,tofacilitatecomparisonwithinandacrosstRFMOs,aqualitativescorewasassignedtoeachofthesixprogresscategoriesinrankorderandtheirscoresareasfollows:
1. Slight or no Progress only by the Scientific Committee,2. Moderate Progress only by the Scientific Committee,3. Full Progress only by the Scientific Committee,4. Slight Progress by the Commission,5. Moderate Progress by the Commission,and6. Full Progress by the Commission(whichwebenchmarkedasourbestcasetRFMO).
Thus,thesixcategoriesrankprogressfromthehighestprogressdoneby theCommission (6—Full Progress by the Commission) to thelowestprogressdoneonlybytheScientificCommittee(1—Slight or no Progress only by the Scientific Committee),andarescoredandweightedaccordingly.Weassignedequalweights toallelementsandcompo-nentsofthereviewtofacilitatecomparisonsthusavoidingsubjectiveprioritizationofanyparticularecologicalcomponent.Althoughweas-sumethatprogresscanberankedlinearlyfromthehighesttothelow-estcategory,werecognizethatprogressmightnotbealwayslinear.InTableS2,welistedwhatwouldbethebestpracticesthatideallywouldconstituteabestcasetRFMO.
We differentiated between progress done at the CommissionlevelandprogressdoneonlybytheScientificCommittee.IfprogresswasonlyachievedwithintheScientificCommittee,butnotlatersup-portedinstatementsoradoptedbytheCommission,thiswasdeemedweaker than if formally recognizedandadoptedat theCommissionlevel.TheCommissionprogressgenerallyaccountsfor,anddependsupon, the progress done by the Scientific Committee, while theScientificCommitteecanmakeprogress independentlywithout fol-lowingaformalrequestormandatefromtheCommission.ToevaluateprogressdonebytheCommission,weevaluatedfivesourcesofinfor-mation:(i)theConventionAgreementText,(ii)adoptedmanagement
measures,(iii)adoptedstrategicresearchandmanagementplans,(iv)adoptedannualsummaryCommissionreports,aswellas(v)ScientificCommitteereportswhenrelevant.Weonlyevaluatedactions,prac-ticesandsupportingecosystemsciencethatwereformallyrequested,considered and adopted by the Commission and were performedby the Scientific Committee.To evaluate progress by the ScientificCommittee,wemainlyreviewedandevaluatedtheannualScientificCommittee reports and subsidiaryworkinggroup reportswhen rel-evant.We only evaluated actions, practices, supporting ecosystemscience and derived recommendations that were formally put for-wardbytheScientificCommittee.Wedistinguishedbetweenscienceproducts, best practices and recommendations that were formallyconsideredbytheScientificCommittee(e.g.firmrecommendations,strong strategic research planswith specific actions, deadlines andassignedbudgets,finishedscientificproducts)fromactionsandrec-ommendationsthatweremorevaguelyconsidered(vaguestatementsofrecommendationswithnospecificdeadlinesorassignedbudgets,unfinished,orstillunderdevelopingscientificproducts).
3 | RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Here,wesummarizedthecurrentstateof implementationofEBFMin tRFMOsagainst thebasecase tRFMO(Figure5).Detailsandfulljustificationofthecurrentstateofeachofthe20elementsreviewedinthefivetRFMOscanbefoundinAppendixS1,whereresultsarefirstpresentedforeachtRFMOseparatelyandthenbyelementssep-aratelywherewecomparedcurrentstateacrosstRFMOs.
3.1 | Basic texts and main structures of tRFMOs in support of EBFM
All tRFMOs have performed medium-high (mean 0.78, range 0.67–0.83) in the reviewof their basic texts and structures (Figure6).WefindtRFMOsmakereferenceintheirConventionAgreements(WCPFCand IATTC)or in theiradoptedconservationandmanagementmeas-ures(ICCAT,IOTCandCCSBT)toatleastsomeofthecoreprinciplesof the precautionary approach and EBFM in line with internationalstandardsof fisheriesgovernance (IATTC,2003; ICCAT,2007; IOTC,2009;ReviewTeam,2012;WCPFC,2000). International agreementshavecreatedan impetustochallengeall tRFMOstowardsexpandingtheiragendastobetterconsiderecosystemconsiderationsandimple-mentEBFM.WerecommendthosetRFMOswithoutdatedConventionAgreements (ICCAT, IOTCandCCSBT)shouldconsider revising theirmandatestoalignwithmodernstandardsofinternationalfisheriesgov-ernance(Garcia&Koehler,2014;ICCAT,2009;IOTC,2009).WhilethischallengemayseeminsurmountabletoCommissioners,thereisprece-dent.TheIATTCrepresentsagoodmodeltofollowasitmodernizeditsmandatebydevelopingtheAntiguaConventionin2003,whichentered
F IGURE 5 StateofEBFMimplementationintRFMOsacross20elementsthatwouldpotentiallymakeEBFMmoreoperational.SeveralmattersdifferentiateCCSBTfromtherestofthetRFMOswhichmadechallengingtoreviewitsbycatchcomponentagainstourcriteria(furtherdiscussedinthemaintext)
| 7JUAN- JORDÁ et Al.
8 | JUAN- JORDÁ et Al.
intoforcein2010.ICCAThasalsoestablishedrecentlyaworkinggroupthatiscurrentlydraftingamendmentstotheConvention,butitremainstobeseenwhetherICCATwillamenditsConventionAgreementandwhether itwill includewordingabout implementingEBFMinaccord-ancewiththemainglobalinstrumentsoffisheriesgovernance(ICCAT,2014).
All tRFMOshavealsoa leadentityorworkinggroupwhich is inchargeofreviewingecosystemscienceandintegratingecosystemcon-siderationsintothescientificadviceprovidedtotheirCommissions.InthecaseofICCAT,IOTCandCCSBT,theirworkinggroupsrelymostlyontheparticipationofscientistsfromtheirmembercountriestocarryoutandreviewecosystem-relatedresearchandgeneraterecommenda-tionsregardingbycatchandecosystemissues.InthecaseofWCPFC,most of the science regarding bycatch and ecosystem issues is pro-ducedby thecontractedcapabilitiesof theSecretariatof thePacificCommunity—Ocean Fisheries Program.The institutional structure oftheIATTCisdifferentfromtheothertRFMOs.IATTChasitsownin-housescientificstafftoconductresearchandprovidemanagementad-vicetotheCommission.Despitetheirdifferentstructurestoadvanceecosystemscience,we find these leadentitieshave limited capacityorpartialauthoritytoeffectivelyintegrateandcoordinateallrelevantecosystemresearchactivitiesneededtofullyimplementtheecologicalcomponentsofEBFM.Thereisnocleareffectivemechanismtointe-grateandcoordinateallrelevantecosystemresearchandactivities,andmostimportantensureecosystemadviceissuccessfullycommunicatedtotheCommission.Thislackofeffectivecoordinationandcommuni-cationlimitsafullassessmentoftheextentofimpactsoffisheriesontargetandbycatchspeciesandtheeffectsoftheirremovalsfromtheecosystem,limitingacomprehensiveimplementationofEBFM.
None of the tRFMOs have formally developed and adopted anoperationalEBFMplantoensurethatecosystemconsiderationsaretakenintoaccountinfisheriesmanagementadvice.Theformalizationofanoperationalplanto implementEBFMcouldbeusedasanop-portunity todefine anddevelopmore effectivemechanisms to for-malizeandstrengthen thedeliveryofecosystem information to theCommissions.ICCAT,WCPFC,IATTCandCCSBThaveadoptedtheirownscientificstrategicresearchplans,whichincludesomeactivitiesto advance towards EBFM (CCSBT, 2015b; IATTC, 2015a; ICCAT,2015a;WCPFC,2011).WhileweseethisinitiativeasastepforwardtowardspreparinganEBFMplan,weencourage furtherdiscussionsandactionstoformallydevelopoperationalEBFMplans.
Last, we also found that none of the tRFMOs have establishedlong-termdatacollectionandmonitoringprogramstoaddresscompre-hensively the impacts of fisheries on the ecosystem and support theimplementationofEBFM.Instead,theirdatacollectionandmonitoringprogramsinplacewereoriginallydesignedtosupportthemanagementofthemaintargetspecies,butinsomecaseshaveevolvedslowlytosup-portthemanagementandconservationofbycatchspecies.Nevertheless,thedatacollectedcouldpotentiallybeusedtosupportecosystemmodeldevelopmentandmonitoringtheimpactsoffishingwithsomeecosystemstateindicators.Forexample,observerdataonthespeciesandlengths/weightsofcatchesmightenableassessing temporal trends in the tro-phiclevelofthecatch—anecosystemstateindicatorsensitivetofisheries
selectivityandpressure(Essington,2006;Pauly,Christensen,Dalsgaard,Froese,&Torres,1998).Furthermore,wealsofoundthedatasetsderivedfromtheseexistingprogramsareoftennotstandardized,andifstandard-ized,thisislimitedonlytosomefisheries.Countriesoftenprovidedata-setstothetRFMOsinaggregatedformsresultinginthelossofspatialandtemporalresolutionfromtherawdataneededfordetailedanalysis.OnlytheSecretariatsofWCPFC,IATTCandCCSBTholdaregionalob-serverprogramdatabase,atleastfromsomefisheries,whicharemostlycomprised of records pooled directly from observer national fisheriesprogramsorsubmittedbymembercountriesinastandardizedformthatfacilitatesthepoolingacrossprograms.TherawobserverdataarealsonotavailableandopenaccessoutsidethetRFMOslimitingtheextentofEBFManalyses (Gilmanetal.,2014b;Mauryetal.,2013;Muruaetal.,2013).Despitetheimmensedistancetogotogetfullharmonizationandcoverage,wegivecredittorecenteffortsofharmonizingdatacollectionprotocolsanddatabaseformatsacrossthefivetRFMOsasastepforwardtosupporttheimplementationofEBFM(Anonymous,2012,2015b).
3.2 | Review of main ecological components in support of EBFM
3.2.1 | Ecological component 1—Target species
All tRFMOshaveperformedhighest (mean0.89, range0.88–0.92)withintheecologicalcomponentoftargetspeciescomparedtotheother ecological components (Figure6). Unsurprisingly, this is be-causetRFMOswerecreatedspecificallytoensurethemanagementandconservationoftunaandtuna-likespecies.EachofthetRFMOshassuccessfullybeenabletoroutinelyassesstheexploitationstatusoftheirtargetspecies(allprincipalcommercialtunasandswordfishstocks) using fishery stock assessments. Accordingly, indicators ofpopulation status including indicators of population size, fishingmortalityovertime(andassociatedreferencepoints)areestimatedandmonitoredregularlyfortheirtargetspeciesandstocksandusedto provide management advice. The stock status indicators andassociated reference points are also explicitly associatedwith theoperational objective ofmaintaining populations atmaximum sus-tainableyields.TheConventionAgreementsofICCAT,WCPFCandIATTChaveexplicitlydefinedagenerallong-termoperationalman-agementobjectiveofmaintainingpopulationsatmaximumsustain-ableyieldsthatapplytotunaandtuna-likespeciescoveredintheirConventions. While the Convention’s primary objective of IOTCand CCSBT refers to the conservation and “optimum utilization”of stocks,which is consideredavague,narrowandoutdatedcon-cept(Garcia&Koehler,2014;IOTC,2009).Nevertheless,IOTCandCCSBThaveatleastadoptedtheoperationalmanagementobjectiveofmaintainingpopulations atmaximumsustainable yields throughtheadoptionofamanagementmeasure(inIOTC)oramanagementprocedure(inCCSBT).
Thedevelopmentandadoptionoflimitandtargetreferencepoints,andespecially,harvestcontrolrules,intRFMOsforalloftheirtargetspeciesremainachallenge.IOTCistheonlytRFMOthathasdevelopedandadopted stock-specific interim limit and target referencepoints
| 9JUAN- JORDÁ et Al.
associatedwiththebiomassandfishingmortalityrate indicatorsforallitstargetspecies(IOTCResolution15/10).TherestofthetRFMOshasadoptedlimitand/ortargetreferencepointsandharvestcontrolrulesforsome,butnotall,oftheirtargetprincipalcommercialtunasand swordfish stocks or are under development by their ScientificCommitteesandbeingdiscussedbytheCommissions(IATTC,2016;ICCAT,2015a;WCPFC,2015b).CCSBT is theonly tRFMOthathasadoptedamanagementprocedure, inthiscasetomanageSouthernbluefin tuna,withanoperationalobjective inplace, associatedwithindicatorsofstatusandtargetreferencepoints(butnotlimitreferencepoints)andadoptionofaharvestcontrolrule.Forthecomponentoftargetspecies,CCSBTcouldbeseenasarolemodelasitcanprovidesomeleadershiponthedevelopmentandoperationalizationofman-agementstrategyevaluation(Garcia&Koehler,2014).Wealsofoundthat theWCPFC, ICCATand IOTChaverecentlycarriedoutseveralmanagementobjectiveworkshopsorhavecreatedspecializedwork-inggroupstoenhancethedialoguebetweenfisheriesscientistsandmanagersintheWCPFC,ICCATandIOTC(Cartwright,Ianelli,&Allen,2013;ICCAT,2015b;IOTC,2014).Theseareimportantinitiativestoassistintheprogressofdevelopingandadoptingtargetandlimitref-erencepointsandharvestcontrolrules.
Although for practical reasons, we only reviewed the princi-pal commercial tunas and swordfish under the ecological compo-nentof target species,we stress that tRFMOsare also increasingly
targeting some shark species such as Blue shark (Prionace glauca,Carcharhinidae)andShortfinmakoshark(Isurus oxyrinchus,Lamnidae)duetotheireconomicvalue,whichinthepastwereonlyconsideredasbycatchspecies(Davidson,Krawchuk,&Dulvy,2015;Simpfendorfer& Dulvy, 2017).We find that the tRFMOs management is undulybiasedtowardstheprincipalcommercialtunasattheexpenseoftheneed todevelopmanagement for the restof target species suchassomebillfishes,otherfinfishesandthemostrecentlytargetedsharks.
3.2.2 | Ecological component 2—By catch species
All tRFMOs havemademoderate progress (mean 0.46 range 0.30–0.55) within the ecological component of bycatch except CCSBT(Figure6). However, several matters differentiate CCSBT from therest of the tRFMOswhichmade challenging to review the bycatchcomponent of CCSBT against our criteria (further explained below).IATTCrankedfirstinthecomponentofbycatchspeciesbasedonthedistinguishing featuresofhavingadoptedobjectiveswithassociatedstate indicatorsand limits,andanestablishedmanagementresponseinplacewhen limitsareexceededfordolphins intheeasternPacificOcean(AIDCP,2014).IATTC,andalsoWCPFC,haveformallystatedin theirConventionAgreements theoperational objective of adopt-ingconservationandmanagementmeasuresonnon-targetandasso-ciatedordependent specieswithaview tomaintainingor restoring
F IGURE 6 ProgressoftRFMOsinimplementingeachoftheecologicalcomponentsofEBFMagainstthebestcasetRFMO
10 | JUAN- JORDÁ et Al.
populations above levels at which their reproduction may becomeseriouslythreatened(IATTC,2003;WCPFC,2000).ICCAT,IOTCandCCSBTConventionAgreementsdonotmakeexplicitprovisionscon-cerningtheimpactsoffisheriesonbycatchspeciesandhavenotfor-mallystatedoperationalobjectivestoaccountfortheimpactsoftheirfisheriesonbycatchspecies. Instead, ICCAT, IOTCandCCSBThavestatedvagueconceptualobjectivespertainingtonon-targetspeciesinseveraladoptedmanagementmeasures.
Broadly in the component of bycatch species, tRFMOs have fo-cusedtheireffortsonevaluatingtheimpactsoftheirfisheriesonsomebillfishesandsharksandassessingandmonitoringtheircurrentstatus,thenonassessingtheimpactsoftheirfisheriesonseabirds.However,therehasbeen lessprogresson assessing impactsonotherbycatchspecies, including sea turtles, marine mammals and other finfishes(Figure5). In the caseofbillfishes, indicatorsof stock statusor fish-eryimpactsareroutinelyestimatedandmonitoredforthoseassessedbillfishstocksinICCAT,IOTC,WCPFCandIATTC,andareusedtopro-vide management advice to the Commissions (IATTC, 2016; ICCAT,2015a;IOTC,2015;WCPFC,2015a).Forsharks,thecurrentstateofregion-wideassessmentsanddevelopmentofindicatorsofstocksta-tusorfisheryimpactsvariesacrosstRFMOs.OnlyICCATandWCPFCassess routinely some shark species (Blue shark, Porbeagle shark[Lamna nasus,Lamnidae]andShortfinmakosharkinICCAT,Blueshark,Oceanicwhitetipshark[Carcharhinus longimanus,Carcharhinidae]andSilky shark [Carcharhinus falciformis, Carcharhinidae] in theWCPFC)withfisherystockassessments,anddevelopindicatorsofstockstatus,whicharemonitoredovertimeandusedtoprovidemanagementadvicetotheCommissions(ICCAT,2015a;WCPFC,2015a).IATTCandIOTChave attempted to assess some shark species (Silky shark and Blueshark);however,theirassessmentswereconsideredunreliableduetomajoruncertaintiesinthefisheriesdata(IATTC,2014;IOTC–WPEB11,2015).InresponsetoarequestfromCCSBTin2015,theAreasBeyondNationalJurisdiction (ABNJ)CommonOceans—TunaProject and theWCPFCSecretariathaveagreedtocoordinateasouthernhemispherePorbeaglestockstatusassessmentwhich isnowunderdevelopment(Clarke&Nicol,2015).PorbeaglesharkisseenasahighprioritystocktoconductstockassessmentsinthePacificOceanandgloballyinthesouthern hemisphere (CCSBT, 2015a). Recent progress on stock as-sessmentsforsharksisapplaudedinalltRFMOs;however,indicatorsofstateorfisheryimpactsdonotexistforthemajorityofsharks,andtheir status inmost cases is unknownor relatively poorly known astheassessmentresultswereconsideredunreliable.ThereremainsnomanagementforsharkspeciessuchasBlueandShortfinmakostocksdespiteevidence that theyare increasingly targetedandcatchesarerisingrapidly(Davidsonetal.,2015;Simpfendorfer&Dulvy,2017).Wenote that the statusofoceanicpelagic sharks ishighlyunfavourableandindeedtherearesignsthatthestatusofsomemayberapidlywors-ening(Clarke,Harley,Hoyle,&Rice,2013;Dulvyetal.,2008;Gilman,Owens,&Kraft,2014a).One-quarterofchondrichthyansareassessedas threatenedbythe InternationalUnionforConservationofNature(IUCN)(Dulvyetal.,2014),andconsideringrisingcatches,urgentfish-eries management intervention is required (Simpfendorfer & Dulvy,2017), especially given the recent CITES listings of several oceanic
sharkspecies(Mundy-Taylor&Crook,2013;Vincent,Sadovy,Fowler,&Lieberman,2013).
Similarly,region-wideindicatorsofstateorfisheryimpactsdonotexistforthemajorityofbycatchspeciesofseabirds,seaturtles,marinemammalsandotherfinfishes,andtheirstatusinmostcasesisunknownorunreliable(Figure5).Likewise,wealsonotethestatusofseabirdshasbeendeteriorating rapidlyover the last twodecades.Currently,28%ofseabirdsaregloballythreatenedandafurther10%arelistedasnearthreatenedbyIUCN(Croxalletal.,2012).Sixofthesevenspeciesofmarineturtlesarealsolistedasthreatened,andone-quarter(25%)ofmarinemammalsarelistedasthreatenedbyIUCN(Polidoroetal.,2008).OnlyICCAT,WCPFCandCCSBThaveconductedregion-widespatiallyexplicitassessmentsoftheimpactsoftheirlonglinefisheriesonseabirds(CCSBT,2015a;Filippi,Waugh,&Nicol,2010;Tucketal.,2011; Waugh, Filippi, Kirby, Abraham, & Walker, 2012). However,theseassessmentandderivedindicatorsarenotregularlyupdatedandmonitoredover timeby theScientificCommitteesandat this stagetheycannotbeusedtoproviderobustmanagementadvice(e.g.estab-lishlevelofexploitationstatus,setimpactorcatchlimitsorevaluatetheefficacyofcurrentadoptedmitigationmeasures).Forseaturtlesandmarinemammals,progressindevelopingassessmentsandindica-torsofstatusorfisheryimpactsinallthetRFMOshasbeenveryslow,sporadic intimeandspaceandlimitedtofewspecificfisheries.ThenotableexceptionisIATTC,inconjunctionwiththeAgreementontheInternationalDolphinConservationProgram (AIDCP), is responsibleforthemonitoringofinteractionsandincidentalmortalityofdolphinsbypurse-seinetunafisheries,andhastocomplywiththedolphinmor-talitylimitsestablishedunderAIDCP(AIDCP,2014).IATTChasexten-siveinformationonpopulationstatus,distributionandbycatchratesfor several species of dolphins in some fishing gears in the easternPacificOcean.Last, IOTCstandsoutovertheothertRFMOsinthatitsScientificCommitteeassessesroutinelytheexploitationstatusforseveralneriticspeciesoftunasandmackerelsasrequestedfromtheCommission(IOTC,2011).NeritictunasandmackerelshavebecomeasimportantasormoreimportantthantheprincipalcommercialtunaspeciesinsomeIOTCcoastalcountries.IntherestoftRFMOs,com-prehensiveregion-wideassessmentsandindicatorsofstockstatusorfisheryimpactsforfinfishspeciesimpactedbytheirfisherieshavenotbeendevelopedbytheScientificCommittees.
A common observation is the paucity of basic information infisheries statistics and on the biology of the bycatch species in alltRFMOs,whichhindersmanyoftheeffortstocomprehensivelyeval-uate the impactof fisherieson these speciesand thedevelopmentof region-wide indicators of stock status or fishery impacts (Dulvyetal.,2014;Gilmanetal.,2014b).Thedevelopmentofqualitativeandsemi-quantitativeecologicalriskassessmentsforincidentallycaughtspecies of billfishes, sharks, seabirds, sea turtles, marine mammalsandotherfinfisheshavebeenpivotal inalltRFMOstosetprioritiesandtakemanagementactionstomitigatetheimpactsoffisheriesonthese species following the precautionary approach in the absenceofquantitativestockassessments.Yet,theseassessmentandderivedindicatorsarenotenoughastheyarenotregularlyupdatedormon-itoredover timeby theScientificCommitteeandat thisstage they
| 11JUAN- JORDÁ et Al.
cannotbeusedtoproviderobustmanagementadvice(e.g.establishlevelofexploitationstatus,setimpactorcatchlimitsorevaluatetheefficacy of current adoptedmitigationmeasures). Furthermore, theestablishmentoflimitreferencepointsforvulnerableandthreatenedbycatch species and the incorporationof limits in thedevelopmentof harvest control rules for target species that account for bycatchissues remains a pressing task in all the tRFMOs (Simpfendorfer&Dulvy,2017).TheexceptionisformarinemammalsinIATTC,asIATTChasadoptedincidentalmortalitylimitsfordolphinstolevelsthatareinsignificantrelativetostocksizesintheeasternPacificOceanpurse-seinefisheryundertheAIDCP(AIDCP,2014).Asasignofprogress,wealsohighlighttheWCPFCScientificCommitteeeffortstodeveloplimit reference points for key shark species (Clarke&Hoyle, 2014;WCPFC,2014a).
AlltRFMOshaveadoptedanextensivelistofmanagementmea-sures (bindingandnon-binding)tomitigatetheeffectsoffishingonsomebycatchspeciesincludingbillfishes,sharks,seabirds,seaturtlesandmarinemammals (list and detailed information ofmanagementmeasures adopted by each tRFMO can be found in Appendix S1).Overall,theiradoptedmeasureshavethemainpurposeofmitigatingtheeffectsoffishing,asforexamplewiththemodificationofgearstoavoidbycatch,orintheformofsafehandlingandreleasepracticesorprohibitions, aswell as to establish requirements for data reportingandconductspecifictypeofresearch.However,todate,noneoftheseadoptedmeasureshavebeenlinkedtopre-agreedoperationalobjec-tivesandindicators,andmeasuresarenotactivatedwhenpre-definedlimits are exceeded (with the only exception of the IATTCmeasurethatlimitstheincidentalmortalityrateofdolphinsinlargepurse-seinetunafisheries).Thelackofpre-establishedreferencepointsandper-formancestandardssuchasexplicitlystatingbycatchlimits,togetherwiththeinefficientdatacollectionandstandardizationmethodsandlack of understanding of potential conflicts resulting from applyingmitigationmethodsacrossdifferenttaxonomicgroups,isalsohinder-ingeffortsforassessingtheefficacyofanybycatchmitigationmea-sure (Clarkeetal., 2014b;Gilman,Chaloupka, Swimmer,&Piovano,2016;Gilmanetal., 2014b).The failureofdelayingmitigationmea-suresforvulnerableandthreatenedspecies,aswellas indicatorstotracktheimpactsoffisheries,askeyelementsofEBFMiscontinuingthe deterioration of threatenedbycatch species of sharks, seabirds,seaturtlesandmarinemammals(Curtisetal.,2015).
3.2.3 | Ecological component 3—Ecosystem properties and trophic relationships
IATTCandWCPFChavemademoderateprogress(scoring0.42and0.46,respectively),andICCAT,IOTCandCCSBTlittleprogress(scor-ing0.29,0.17and0.17,respectively)withintheecologicalcomponentof ecosystem properties and trophic relationships (Figure6).Whileall tRFMOs recognize the value of research activities on foodwebinteractions,dietanalysis,ecosystemmodellinganddevelopmentofecosystemindicators,thecumulativeimpactsoffisheriesandtotalre-movalsoftargetandbycatchspeciesonthebroadercommunityandecosystemremainunknownorpoorlyknowninalltRFMOs.
OnlyIATTCandWCPFCcaptureintheirConventionAgreementstheimportanceofaddressingthebroaderimpactsoffishingonspeciesbelongingtothesameecosystemthatareaffectedbyfishing(IATTC,2003;WCPFC,2000),yettheydonotexplicitlysetclearoperationalobjectives or have a road map to address effectively the broadercommunity-based and ecosystem-level consequences of fishing.Furthermore,IATTCandtheWCPFChavemadeconsiderableprogressondevelopingseveralecosystemandfoodwebmodels,primarilyusingtheSpatialEcosystemandPopulationDynamicsModel(SEAPODYM),andtheEcopathandEcosim(EwE)model,anddevelopingecosystemindicatorstotracktheimpactsoffisheriesonthebroadercommuni-tiesandecosystems(Allain,2005;IATTC,2015b;Lehodeyetal.,2014;Olson&Watters,2003).InIATTC,ecosystemindicatorsoraggregatedecologicalindicatorshavebeendevelopedsince1993,suchasmeantrophic level of the catch, to describe changes in the communitiesandecosystempropertiesduetopurse-seinefishing(IATTC,2015b).Starting in the 1950s, several research programs in IATTChave fo-cusedonthedevelopmentofdietstudies,foodwebmodelsandmulti-speciesmodelstounderstandanddescribethetrophicstructuresandinteractionsthatinvolvethespeciesimpactedbyfishing,includingthelikelyeffectoffishingonotherdependentspecies,dependentpred-atorsorpreyspecies(IATTC,1963,2015b).IntheWCPFC,theeco-systemmodelSEAPODYMhasbecomeanimportanttooltofacilitatetheapplicationofEBFM(Lehodeyetal.,2013,2014)andrecentlyanEcopathecosystemmodelwasdevelopedtodeterminetheeffectsofpurse-seineandlonglinefishingintheWarmPoolprovinceinthewest-ernandcentralPacificOcean(Griffiths,2014a,2014b).Althoughweapplaudtheseresearchefforts,wefindthattheseecosystemmodelsandderivedindicatorshavenotbeenformallydiscussedandadoptedattheCommissionlevelbythesetRFMOs,andtherefore,ecosysteminformationisnotusedyettoprovidemanagementadviceorusedtoassistindecision-makingtoaccountfortheimpactoffisheriesonthestructureandfunctioningofmarineecosystems.Atthisstage,theeco-systemmodelsdevelopedcouldhavethepotentialtobeusedatleastforstrategicadvicebyprovidingaccessoryinformationascontexttoinformdecisions,forexampletoevaluateandranktheperformanceofbroadfisheriesmanagementstrategiessuchastime/areaclosuresorquotaandfishingregulations(Collieetal.,2016).Thedevelopmentanduseof tacticalecosystemmodels toprovideshort-termtacticalmanagementadvicestill requirefurtherdevelopment inalltRFMOs.Ecosystemmodelshavestartedtobeincreasinglyusedinotherareasoftheworldfortacticalmanagementbyproducingoutputsthatcanbeusedbymanagerstoguideharvestratesandquotastomeetstrategicobjectivesoratleasttoprovidecontextfortacticalmanagementdeci-sions(Collieetal.,2016;Plagányietal.,2012;Skern-Mauritzenetal.,2016;Watters,Hill,Hinke,Matthews,&Reid,2013).
Wealsofoundecosystemand/ormultispeciesmanagementplans(including harvest strategies) with pre-defined reference points forrelevantspeciesandcomponentsofecosystemshavenotbeendevel-opedandarenotunderdiscussioninanyofthetRFMOs.Potentially,thereferencepointswouldneedtoensuretheecologicalroleandsus-tainabilityoftherelevantspeciesandcomponentsofecosystemsaremaintained,andtoaccountfortheneedsofotherdependentspecies.
12 | JUAN- JORDÁ et Al.
Finally,managementmeasures have not been adopted to explicitlyaccountforfoodwebandmultispeciesinteractionsandmaintainthestructureandfunctioningofmarinefoodwebs,orhavebeen linkedto any pre-established ecosystem model, and associated indicatorsandoperationalobjectivesinanytRFMO.NoneofthetRFMOshaveamechanismtoaccommodatemultispeciesandfoodwebinteractionsandecosystemmodelling intotheircurrentmanagementor intothepotentialdevelopmentofnewmanagementmeasures(e.g.multispe-ciesharvestcontrolrulesandtime-areaclosures).
3.2.4 | Ecological component 4—Habitats
ICCATandWCPFChavemademoderateprogress(score~0.54and0.46,respectively)withintheecologicalcomponentofhabitats,whileIOTC,IATTCandCCSBTlittleprogress(score~0.17,0.21and0.17,respectively;Figure6).ICCAThasrankedfirstinpartbecauseithasrecentlyadoptedseveralmanagementmeasuresacknowledging theimportanceandencouragingmemberstoconducthabitatresearchtoidentifysharknurseryareas(Recommendations04-10,07-06,09-07,10-08),spawninggroundsforAtlanticbluefintuna(Recommendation14-04, Recommendation 08-04), as well as to investigate the eco-logicalimportanceoftheSargassoSeafortunaandtuna-likespecies(Resolutions05-11,12-12).TheWCPFChas ranked second inpartbecause it is also the only tRFMO that includes specific provisionsconcerningprotectionofhabitatsofspecialconcerninitsConventionAgreement (WCPFC, 2000).We also find theWCPFC has focusedits habitat research activities and practices on identifying habitatpreferencesandutilizationforspeciesofinteresttotheCommission,particularly for the principal commercial tunas, aswell as to assessthe impactsof climateand theenvironmenton theabundanceandpopulationdynamicsofthesespecies(WCPFC,2013,2014b).Despitethesehabitat researchefforts,we found littleevidence thathabitatconsiderationsarediscussedattheCommissionlevelandtakenintoaccounttoassistinmanagementdecisionsinICCATandtheWCPFC.
Overall, the development of practices and research activities toguidemanagement decisions relevant to habitats of special concernhavebeenrelativelyscarceinalltRFMOs.Infact,noneofthetRFMOshaveformally identified,mappedorprotectedanyhabitatsofspecialconcernforrelevantspecies.NoneofthetRFMOshaveadoptedman-agementmeasurestoexplicitlyrequesthabitatresearch(exceptICCAT)orprotecthabitatsofspecialconcernforrelevantspecies.AlltRFMOsneedtodefineclearoperationalobjectivestoaddresstheimportanceofhabitatsofspecialconcernsandhabitatutilizationandsetahabitatresearchagendainamultispeciescontexttoprogresstowardsEBFM.Newtechnologiessuchassatellitetrackingareshowinghowhighlymi-gratorypelagicspeciespredictablyusehabitathotspotsaswellashowthesehabitatshotspotsoverlapwithfishingfleets,whichcanbeusedtomaphabitatsofspecialconcernandtoinformocean-scalespatialanddynamicmanagementoffisheries(Dunn,Maxwell,Boustany,&Halpin,2016;Husseyetal.,2015;Queirozetal.,2016).Theidentificationofhabitatsofspecialconcernforspeciesisalsoincreasinglybecominganessentialtasktodesigneffectiveresponsestoclimatechangeaswellasothermarinethreats(Belletal.,2013;Brierley&Kingsford,2009).
3.3 | Overall state of EBFM implementation in tRFMOs
In the last fewdecades, therehasbeenprogress inall the tRFMOsin the integration of ecosystem considerations into the manage-mentoftunasandtuna-likespecies.WefindallthetRFMOsatbeststand halfway towards the best case tRFMO (Figure7).We inter-pretthesefindingsasempoweringasmanyoftheelementstomakeEBFMoperationalarealreadypresent,andovertimetheyhaveena-bledbuildingcapacityandmandateinthetRFMOs.However,wefindtheseelementshavebeenimplementedinanad hocmanner,withouta long-term vision ofwhat needs to be achieved and a formalizedimplementationplan.Clearly, thedifficult taskofmanagingbycatchspecieswithpre-establishedmanagementresponseslinkedtoopera-tionalobjectives,indicatorsandreferencepointsneedstobeurgentlyaddressed.DelayingtheadvancementofEBFMmaybeinpartduetothedifficultiesofdeviatingfromtraditionalmanagementapproachesinvolvingmulti-actor andmultiple conflictingobjectives, connectingmultipledisciplinesand theneed tohavepolicyguidanceandclearpre-established objectives on EBFM directed by the Commissions(deBruynetal.,2013;Tallisetal.,2010). Itmaybealsodueto thepervasiveperceptionthatoperationalizingEBFMistoocomplicatedandcostly,andthatthecollectionofvastamountsofdetailedinfor-mation of biological processes is needed (Murawski, 2007; Patrick&Link,2015).Visibly,therearealsofundamentalconstraintsoftheconsensus-basedapproachusuallyfollowedbythetRFMOs,withoutusingvotingtobreakdeadlock,whichmeansthatfewcountriescanblocktheprogresssupportedbythemajority.
WhiletheoverallprogressinimplementingEBFMissimilaracrosstRFMOs,weobservedWCPFCand IATTCperformedslightlyhigherandIOTCandCCSBTslightlyloweragainstthecriteria(Figure7).Adis-tinguishingfeatureoftheWCPFCandIATTCisthattheymadeprog-ressimplementing,atleastpartially,allecologicalcomponentsofEBFM
F IGURE 7 OverallprogressofEBFMimplementationintRFMOsagainstthebestcasetRFMO
| 13JUAN- JORDÁ et Al.
(Figure7),whilethedistinguishingfeatureofCCSBTisthatalltheeco-logicalcomponentsscored lowexceptthecomponentoftargetspe-ciesandthecomponentofbasictextsandstructure.Asstatedbefore,thereareseveralmattersthatdifferentiateCCSBTfromtherestofthetRFMOs,whichmadechallenging to review thebycatchcomponentofCCSBTagainstourcriteria.TheCCSBTConventionAgreementhasnospecificareaofjurisdictionliketherestofthetRFMOs(Figure2);instead, the CCSBT Convention applies to only one species, theSouthern bluefin tuna, throughout its range in the SouthernOcean(CCSBT,1994).AllfishingforSouthernbluefintunaoccurswithintheConventionAreasofIOTC,WCPFCorICCAT,and,therefore,bycatchspeciesinteractingwithSouthernbluefintunafisheriesarealsounderthepurviewoftheothertRFMOs.AsallCCSBTmembers(andcoop-erating non-members) are also members of those tRFMOs, CCSBTmemberswhenfishingforSouthernbluefintunahavetocomplywithmeasurespertainingtobycatchspeciesofIOTC,WCPFCandICCAT,which are in fact binding on CCSBTmembers regardless of CCSBTmanagementmeasures.ThesesingularitiesofCCSBThadimplicationswhenweevaluated itsperformanceon thebycatchcomponentandcalled into questionwhether CCSBT should be conducting its ownrisk-basedimpactassessmentsoftheeffectsoftheirfisheriesonby-catchspeciesandadoptingitsownmanagementmeasures,orwhetherthese responsibilities shouldbe trusted toother tRFMOs.Currently,CCSBTmembers have to submit data of their fisheries interactionswithbycatchspeciestotheothertRFMOs.Underthiscontextofover-lappingfishingareasandinteractionswiththesamebycatchspecies,itdoesnotseemappropriateforCCSBTtoconductitsownassessmentfor bycatch species interactingwith Southernbluefin tuna fisheries.However,itdoesnotexemptCCSBTfrommonitoringandquantifyingtheextentoftheinteractionsofitsownfisheriesaswellasadoptingmoreambitiousmanagementmeasurespertainingtobycatchspeciesthanthoseadoptedbytheothertRFMOs.WealsoobservedthatthemeasureofCCSBTformemberstoexchangedataonbycatchspeciesimpacted by Southern bluefin tuna fisheries only includes seabirds,sharksandsea turtles,anddoesnot includebillfishes,marinemam-mals and other finfishes. Therefore, data on captures, interactions,mortalitiesandlivereleasesforthesetaxonomicgroupsdonotneedtobereportedbyCCSBTmemberstotheSecretariat.AlthoughcurrentevidencesuggestsCCSBTfisheriesinteractlittlewithbillfishes,marinemammalsandotherfinfishes,theextentandlevelofinteractionsareunknownacrossallCCSBTfisheries(CCSBT,2008;Garcia&Koehler,2014).InorderforCCSBTtoeffectivelymonitor,minimizeandmanagethebycatchspecies interactingwithSouthernbluefin tuna fisheries,itneedstoexplicitly identifythescopeofitsConventionAgreementinregardtotheimpactsofitsfisheriesonbycatchspeciesaswellasaddressfishingareasandspeciesofpotentialoverlapwithothertRF-MOsasitsfisheriesoperatewithintheirareasofjurisdiction.
Unquestionably,manyecosystem-relatedresearcheffortsandini-tiativesundertakenbytheScientificCommitteesoftRFMOshavebeenhinderedbythelackofqualitydata.OftentRFMOmembersdonotcomplywiththeirresponsibilityofsubmittingqualitydataobtainedbytheirnationalobserverprogramsordonotcollectthenecessarydataneededtoquantifytheeffectsoffishingonthedifferentcomponents
ofecosystems(Clarkeetal.,2014a;Gilmanetal.,2014b;Muruaetal.,2013).Yet,thelackofqualitydatashouldnotbeusedasanexcusenottoadvanceEBFM,whichisalreadybeingimplementedinmanydata-poorsituationsandregionsoftheworld(Fogarty,2014;Patrick&Link,2015;Tallisetal.,2010),withouthavingtheresourcesandcapacitiesoftherelativelyresourcefuldata-richtRFMOs.However,werecognizethattheabilityto implementEBFMintRFMOswillundoubtedlyre-quireanincreaseintheircurrentscientificcapacitiesiftheywerepro-activeaboutoperationalizinganEBFMapproach.WhileweconsidertRFMOsareintheearlystagesofimplementingEBFM,webelieveitsimplementationshouldbeseenasastep-wiseadaptiveprocessthatshouldbesupportedwiththebestecosystemscienceandoperationalplanasatoolandpathwaytoadvancetowardsitsfullimplementation.
Toreiterate,wefocusonlyontheecologicalcomponentofEBFM;wedidnotreviewthesocio-economicorgovernancecomponentsofanEBFMapproach;mostly,because thesocio-economicandgover-nancecomponentsofEBFMhavebeenlessstudiedthoroughlyinthetRFMOs.Therefore,thisshouldbeconsideredapartialevaluationwithrespecttoEBFMimplementationintRFMOsandweencouragefutureeffort toreviewthesocio-economicandgovernancecomponentsofEBFMtofullyinformtheoperationalizationofanEBFMapproachintRFMOs.Wealsoacknowledgethatthelistof20elementsassessedagainstourcriteria(Figure4)isnotexhaustiveandmaybeexpandedin futurework. Nonetheless,we are confident that these elementsarecommonpracticesalreadybeing,orpartiallybeing,usedbymanyRFMOs (Lodgeetal.,2007).This reviewcouldhavealso focusedonreviewingandsummarizingtheoutcomesofeachoftheactionstakenbytRFMOstoimplementEBFM,includingwhethertheyarebeingef-fectiveandsuccessful,ratherthanjustevaluatingthecurrentstateofimplementingthoseactions.Althoughthiswouldhavebeenideal,thelackofclearecosystemobjectivesmadethistaskimpractical.
4 | CONCLUSIONS
AllthetRFMOs,atbest,standhalfwaytowardsdeliveringtheecologi-calelementsofEBFM.Wefindprogresshasbeenimplementedinanadhocmanner,intheabsenceofalong-termvisionandaformalizedimplementationplan.Whileoverallperformancevariedacrosstheeco-logicalcomponents,tRFMOshavemadeconsiderableprogresswithintheecologicalcomponentoftargetspecies,moderateprogressintheecologicalcomponentofbycatchspecies,butlittleprogressinboththecomponents of ecosystem properties and trophic relationships, andhabitats.AlltRFMOshaveadoptedamyriadofmanagementmeasurestomanagetargetspeciesandminimizetheeffectsoffishingonbycatchspecies,yetnomeasureshavebeenadoptedtoaccountforandmini-mizetheimpactsoffishingonthetrophicrelationshipsandfoodwebstructureofmarineecosystems,andprotectionofhabitatsofspecialconcern.Furthermore,noneofthemanagementmeasuresadoptedfortargetorbycatchspecieshavebeenlinkedtopre-establishedopera-tionalobjectives,associatedindicatorsandreferencepoints,precludingthemtobeactivatedwhenpre-definedreferencepointsareexceeded,withtheexceptionofSouthernbluefintunainCCSBTandfordolphin
14 | JUAN- JORDÁ et Al.
speciesinIATTC.Thesefindingsrevealedthatthehardbutimportanttasksofactuallymanagingbothtargetandbycatchspecieswithpre-establishedmanagementresponseslinkedtoclearoperationalobjec-tives,indicatorsandreferencepointsneedstobeurgentlyaddressed.AllthetRFMOsfacesimilarchallengesofcoordinatingallecosystemresearchactivities,developinganeffectivemechanismtobetterinte-grateecosystemresearchandadviceintomanagementdecisions,andcommunicatingthemtotheirrespectiveCommissions.IftRFMOswereambitiousaboutoperationalizingEBFM,weenvisageapracticalnextstepwouldbetodevelopEBFMplanstosetuparoadmaptoguideandadvancetowardsitsfull implementation.Furthermore,webelieveitsimplementationshouldbeseenasastep-wiseadaptiveprocesswhichshouldbesupportedbythebestecosystemscience.With thiscom-parativereviewofprogress,wehopetoencouragedialoguebetweentRFMOstosolvemanyofthecurrentchallengesfacingthemtofullyimplementandoperationalizeEBFM.Next,wepresentasetofgrandchallenges accompanied with primary recommendations that in ourjudgement,ifaddressed,couldacceleratetheimplementationofEBFMacross the tRFMOs.Wealso try to highlight ongoing initiatives andopportunitiesthatpotentiallycouldhelpovercomethesechallenges.
4.1 | Grand challenges, primary recommendations and opportunities
4.1.1 | Grand challenge 1—Break with misconceptions of what EBFM is and who should be the main drivers of change
SeveralmisconceptionsandmythsregardingEBFMstillpersistintRF-MOs,whichareessentiallyhinderingitsimplementation.Acommonobservation in the tRFMOs Scientific Committee and Commissionmeetings is the recurrent discussions on what EBFM really is andthatitmeansdifferentthingstodifferentpeople.Thegeneralperva-siveperceptionisthattheEBFMapproachhasnotbeenuniversallydefined, is indeed inaccuratetodayandhasbeenarguedagainstonnumerous occasions (Murawski, 2007; Patrick& Link, 2015).WhattheEBFMapproachentails iswellestablishedand thedefinitionofEBFMandrelatedterminologies,suchasEcosystemManagementandEcosystem Approach to FisheriesManagement, have now reachedconsensusinthescientificliterature(FAO,2003,Garcia&Cochrane,2005;Link,2010;Patrick&Link,2015).Moreover,anextensivelistoftools,guidelinesandframeworkshavealsobeendeveloped,testedand applied in different contexts that indeed show that EBFM canbeoperationalized(FAO,2003;Fletcher,Shaw,Metcalf,&Gaughan,2010;Fogarty,2014;Garcia&Cochrane,2005;Garciaetal.,2003;Levin,Fogarty,Murawski,&Fluharty,2009;Smith,Fulton,Hobday,Smith,&Shoulder,2007;Tallisetal.,2010).
A second observation is the recurrent discussions at the ScientificCommittee level on the need to have policy guidance and clear pre-establishedobjectivesonEBFMbytheCommissiontoproduceandprovidescienceadvicethatistailoredtotheirrequests.ThisplacestheCommissionsasthetop-downdriversofchangeratherthantheScientificCommittees.Weargue thatwhilehavinghigher level policies and clearobjectives in
placeestablishedattheCommissionlevellegitimizesthesubsequentpro-cessofimplementingEBFM,inmostcaseswhatweobserveisadiscon-nectbetweenthehigherlevelpoliciesandwhathappensattheScientificCommitteelevel.WebelieveboththetRFMOsScientificCommitteesandtheirCommissionsneedtobemorepragmaticandadaptiveandacceptbothbottom-upprocessesbydedicatedscientistsaswellastop-downpro-cessesbyCommissionersasthedriversofEBFMimplementation.
4.1.2 | Grand challenge 2—Commit to operationalize EBFM
All tRFMOshavealreadypartly committedorexpresseddesired topromote ecosystem-based approaches. While we applaud thosecommitments,webelievealltRFMOsneedtoinstitutionalizetheap-plication of the EBFM approach through explicit recognition of itsadoption,througheitheramendmentoftheirConventionAgreementsoradoptionofformalmeasures.Yet,itneedstobeaccompaniedwithfocused,concreteandmeasurablecommitmentsundertheumbrellaofacommonvisionlinkedtoaprogramofactions,anduseittotrackprogress in the operationalization of EBFM. For tRFMOs to imple-mentEBFM,apracticalnextstepwouldbetodevelopanEBFMplan(nextgrandchallenge) tosetupthestepsandthepath toguide itsimplementation,whichcouldbeusedasanumbrellaplanfortheircur-rentsingle-speciesmanagementplans.
4.1.3 | Grand challenge 3—Develop operational EBFM plans
WeobservemanyoftheelementstomakeEBFMoperationalarepre-sent,yetnoneof thetRFMOshavedevelopedoradoptedaplantoguidetheimplementationofEBFM.Asahighpriority,weconsiderthedevelopmentofanEBFMplanineachtRFMOasamechanismtolinkEBFMobjectivestothe implementationofEBFMprinciplesandele-mentsintheircurrentfisheriesmanagementstructure,aswellaspre-scribehowfisherieswillbemanagedfromanecosystemperspective.ThedevelopmentandadoptionofanEBFMplanhavemanyadvan-tages.ItwouldintroduceintothecurrentmanagementframeworkoftRFMOstheadaptiveEBFMcycleofplanning,doing,checkingandim-proving,totrackprogressofimplementation(Staplesetal.,2014).ThepracticaldevelopmentoftheEBFMplanshouldbedonewiththecon-sultation, involvementandparticipationof thekeystakeholders inastep-wiseprocess(Fletcheretal.,2010;Fogarty,2014;Hilborn,2011).Awell-developed,time-limitedplanalsohasthepotentialtoencourageparticipatoryinputfromkeystakeholderswhowouldgainownershipsoftheplan,facilitateresourcemobilizationwithintRFMOsandattractfundingfromoutside(Fletcheretal.,2010;Staplesetal.,2014).
4.1.4 | Grand challenge 4—Conduct a prioritization assessment to guide research to advance towards becoming a best case tRFMO
ToinstitutionalizeandmakeoperationalEBFM,tRFMOswouldneedtoreconsiderandrevisetheircurrentprioritiesandadapttheircurrent
| 15JUAN- JORDÁ et Al.
researchactivitiesandmanagementactionswithinanEBFMperspec-tive.WerecommendeachRFMOshouldundertakeaprioritizationas-sessmenttoidentifyandrankecosystemscienceproductsandneedsthatwouldcontributetoimprovetheirperformanceinapplyingEBFM.Theprioritizationassessmentshouldbedonewiththeconsultation,involvementandparticipationofthekeystakeholders.Weareawarethat a full quantitative prioritization assessmentwould be costly intermsofexpertise,resourcesandtime.Therefore,intheshortterm,werecommendusingtheshortcomingsidentifiedinthisreviewtoguidethecurrentstrategicresearchandmanagementplansintRFMOs,aswell as guide their short-termmanagement decisions to fulfil theircommitmentsofanEBFMapproach.Basedonourreviewofprogressofthe20elementsthatwouldmakeEBFMmoreoperational,wecon-siderthatdevelopingandimplementingthefollowingelementsshouldbeprioritizedintheshort-termwithintRFMOs:(i)Thedevelopmentandadoptionofharvestcontrolrulesincludingtargetandlimitrefer-encepointsfortargetspeciestoensurethemanagementobjectivesaremetwithinspecifictimeframes.(ii)Thedevelopmentofindicators(assessment)andestablishmentoflimitreferencepointsforbycatchspecies prioritizing those that are threatened. The bycatch limitsestablishedshouldbelinkedtoapre-establishedobjective,associatedindicatorsandamanagementresponsethatwouldbeactivatedwhenthelimitsarereachedandexceeded.(iii)Thedevelopmentofecosys-tem indicatorsandassessments toquantifyandtracktheeffectoftotal removals (of targetandbycatch) fromecosystems,and (iv) theestablishmentofaresearchagendatoidentifyanddesignatehabitatofspecialconcernforrelevantspecies (targetandbycatch),andusethisinformationtodevelopspatialmanagementplansasanadditionalmanagementtooltomanagetargetspeciesandminimizetheimpactsoftheirfisheriesonbycatchspeciesandassociatedecosystems.
4.1.5 | Grand challenge 5—Establish mechanisms to coordinate and integrate ecosystem research and to communicate ecosystem advice to the Commissions
Indisputablyovertheyears,theScientificCommitteesoftRFMOshavesuccessfullyundertakenmanyecosystem-related researcheffortsandinitiatives.AllthetRFMOshaveestablishedaleadentityorgrouptodealwithecosystemandbycatch issues,yetwefindtheseecosystemandbycatchleadentitieshavelimitedcapacitytocoordinateeffectivelyallrelevantecosystemresearchactivitiesneededtofullyimplementEBFM.Thisisinpartduetothefactthatsomeecosystem-relatedresearchac-tivitiesarealsoconductedindependentlybyotherspecializedworkinggroups.Asfaraswecantell,therearenoteffectivemechanismsinplacetocoordinateandcommunicateallrelevantecosystemresearchamongallthespecializedleadentitiesorgroupswithintheScientificCommitteeandtotheirrespectiveCommission.Thislackofcoordinationandcom-municationlimitsafullassessmentofthecumulativeimpactoffisheriesontargetandbycatchspeciesandtheeffectsoftheirremovalsfromtheecosystem, limitingacomprehensive implementationofEBFM.ThereistheneedtoformallyincorporatetheEBFMapproachintothemodus operandioftheScientificCommittee,itsworkinggroupsandprogramsandtheadvisorystructuresofthetRFMOs.Therefore,werecommend
establishing more effective mechanisms to coordinate, integrate andbettercommunicateallrelevantecosystemresearchacrossthediffer-ententitiesandgroupsandwithintheScientificCommitteestructure,aswellastoensurethatthebestavailableecosystemscienceandadvicearecommunicated fromtheScientificCommittee to theCommission.OnewaytodothiscouldbethecreationofaspecificsubcommitteeonEBFMdirectlyundertheScientificCommitteesbutabovethedifferentspecializedentitiesorgroups (e.g. targetspecies,sharksandbycatch).ThesubcommitteeonEBFMwouldhavethetaskofcoordinatingtheworkofthedifferententitiesorgroupsinrelationtoecosystem-relatedactivitiesandadvise,andreportbacktotheScientificCommittee.
4.1.6 | Grand challenge 6—Establish mechanisms to facilitate collaboration across tRFMOs
Withthelimitedresourcestoconductecosystemresearchandgener-atequalityEBFMadvice,thereisanurgentneedtosharebestprac-tices and share common issues among the tRFMOs. Furthermore,someissuessuchasthebycatchofspeciesofseaturtlesandseabirdsthatmigrateacrosstRFMOsboundaries,willrequiresharingofdata,analysesandbestpractices,aswellasajointmanagementresponseamongthetRFMOsinvolved.WerecommendtRFMOsshouldestab-lishaseriesofmechanismstofacilitatecollaborativeresearch,sharingexperiencesandtransferringbestpracticestoassistintheimplemen-tationofEBFM.
WeenvisageSecretariatsoftRFMOstobethevehiclesofchangetofacilitatecollaboration,althoughthiswouldrequiretheCommissionendorsementandallocationofsufficientauthorityandresources(deBruynetal.,2013).tRFMOshaveprovenexperiencecollaboratingandsharing best practices acrossvarious issues.The five tRFMOshavealready convened in three global Kobe process joint-tRFMOmeet-ings(in2007,2009and2010)andaseriesof jointworkshops,withthe primary objective of seeking to harmonize a series of activities(Anonymous, 2007, 2009, 2011). The joint-tRFMO meetings wereseenasanopportunitytoinstitutionalizeaformalmechanismtofos-terclosecollaborationamongthem.Yet,itremainstobeseenwhetherthe Kobe processwill be consolidated as the instrument for cross-fertilizationamongthefivetRFMOsastherehasnotbeenajoint-tunameeting since2010.Nevertheless, the three joint-tRFMOmeetingsresultedinanagreedcourseofactionaswellthecreationoftwospe-cializedworking groups,which are still producing fruitful collabora-tionsandproducts.AjointBycatchWorkingGroupwascreatedafterthesecondKobemeetingwithaworkplantoharmonizebycatchdatacollected by tRFMOs, and a jointManagement Strategy EvaluationTechnicalWorkingGroupwas createdafter the thirdKobemeetingto advance the implementation ofmanagement strategy evaluationacrosstRFMOs.Alongtheselines,werecommendtheestablishmentofasimilarjointEBFMWorkingGrouptofacilitatecross-tRFMOin-teractionsonEBFMscienceandmanagementtoadvancetheimple-mentationofanEBFMapproachanddevelopmentofEBFMplans.
Furthermore, the recent establishment the ABNJ CommonOceans–TunaProject(www.commonoceans.org),whichisco-fundedby theGlobal Environmental Fund and coordinated by FAO, is also
16 | JUAN- JORDÁ et Al.
seenasanopportunity to improveglobal tuna fisheriesgovernancethroughaneffectiveimplementationofanecosystemapproach.ThisprojectisgatheringforthefirsttimeallfivetRFMOs,civilsocietyorga-nization,supportinggovernments,subregionalorganizationsandtheprivatesector intoauniquepartnershipwhich isalreadypresentinguniqueopportunitiestobuildglobalcollaborationamongalltheinter-estingpartiesaimingtoprogresstowardsrobustandsustainabletunafisheriesmanagedwithinanecosystemapproach.
4.1.7 | Grand challenge 7—Increase external collaboration to increase capacity and bring new expertise within tRFMOs
Withthelimitedresourcestoconductecosystemresearchandgen-eratequalityEBFMadvice,thereisalsoanurgentneedtofindwaystoimproveandincreasethecollaborationwithotherorganizationsthatcanbringnewexpertise,increaseworkcapacityandcontributetothereductionincosts.Organizationssuchasintergovernmentalorganization,non-governmentalorganizationaswellastheprivatesectorcanallprovidenewexpertise,dataandcapacitytodevelopand improve ecosystem science products and ecosystem advice.Wefindthattheparticipationofsomeinternationalgovernmentalorganizations(IGOs)andnon-governmentalorganizations(NGOs)intheScientificCommitteeandspecializedWorkingGroupmeetingsoftRFMOshaveplayedakeyrole inthedevelopmentofbycatchandecosystemscienceandadvice.Forexample,BirdLife interna-tional or TheAgreement on theConservation ofAlbatrosses andPetrels (ACAP)haveahistory inprovidingrelevantdata, informa-tionandknowledgeinrelationtofisheriesandseabirdinteractions,whichhasbeenpivotal in understanding the impactsofmanagedfisheriesonthesespecies(Tucketal.,2011).Wethereforeencour-ageincreasingthescientificparticipationofotherIGOsandNGOstobringnewdataandexpertiseintotheScientificCommitteeandspecializedWorkingGroupmeetings in order to increase the ca-pacityoftRFMOstoprovideecosystemscienceandadvicetotheCommissions.
4.1.8 | Grand challenge 8—Strength decision- making and dispute settlement processes for more effective implementation of EBFM and adoption of conservation and management measures
In tRFMOs, thedecision-makingprocessmostly relies on consen-susamongallmembercountries.Althoughsome tRFMOs (ICCAT,IOTCandWCPFC)havetheoptionofreachingdecisionsusinga2/3majorityrule,itisrarelyused.Visiblytheconsensus-baseddecisionprocessallowsasinglecountrytodelayandevenblockprogressifitconsidersthataproposalsupportedbymajoritywould interferewithitsinterests.Webelievetheconsensus-baseddecision-makingisattheoriginsofthefunctioningoftRFMOsasmultilateralorgani-zationsandshouldberespectedassuch,andusedresponsiblyandfairlybymembersoftRFMOs.Atitscore,consensusbringscountriestocooperateandreachcompromisesonmattersofdifference(Ceo,
Fagnani,Swan,Tamada,&Watanabe,2012).However,asstatedbe-fore,itcanalsodelayandobstructmeasuresthatarewellsubstanti-atedandsupportedbythemajority.Manyrecommendationshavebeen put forward to address the drawback of consensus-makingdecisions. For example, tRFMOscoulddifferentiatebetween sub-stantive issuesand issuesof implementation,whiledecisionswithregulatory implicationscancontinue tobeaddressedon thebasisofconsensus,determininghowsuchdecisionbecomeimplementedcould follow different procedures (Ceo etal., 2012; Lodge etal.,2007). It is also important that the tRFMOs rules includemecha-nisms todealwithconflictbefore itemergesandeventually, if allefforts at achieving consensus are exhausted, a voting procedurecouldbeadoptedmoreassiduously (Ceoetal.,2012;Lodgeetal.,2007). A voting procedure is already a current practice in otherRFMOs such as the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization.Wealsobelievethatconsensus-baseddecision-makingshouldnotpreventthosecountrieswhowanttogofurtherthanthemeasuresagreed at the tRFMOs, especially if there are clear and objectiveindicatorsthatjustifytomovefurtherwithaspecificissue.
Theobjectionprocedure,usedbysomecountriesasaninstrumenttosafeguardtheirinterests,hasalsobeenquotedasaconceptofthepast(Small,2005).tRFMOsshouldreviseandcreatemechanismsforminimizingobjections,ensureobjectionproceduresaremorerigorousandlimited,andreviewthemonacase-by-casebasisthroughanexpertbody toensure theydonot compromise the sustainabilityof stocksandsupportingecosystems(Ceoetal.,2012;Lodgeetal.,2007).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Wegratefully acknowledge the substantive andhighly constructivecomments of Shelley Clarke, Alejandro Anganuzzi, Leanne Duffy,ShaneGriffithsandSandyMorisononearlydrafts.WealsothanktheICCATSub-CommitteeonEcosystemsandtheIOTCWorkingPartyonBycatchandEcosystemsfortheirconstructivecommentsonearlydrafts. The authors acknowledge that the views expressed in thisstudyaretheirownandarenotnecessarilysharedbythosewhohaveprovidedcommentsonearlydrafts.Last,wethanktheEarthtoOceanResearchGroupfromSimonFraserUniversity,Canadaforhelpalongtheway.ThisresearchwassupportedbyaMarieCurieInternationalOutgoingFellowshipwithinthe7thEuropeanCommunityFrameworkProgramme (FP7-PEOPLE-2013-IOF). This is contribution number831fromAZTI,MarineResearchDivision.
ORCID
Maria José Juan-Jordá http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4586-2400
REFERENCES
AIDCP. (2014). Agreement on the International Dolphin ConservationProgram.AmendedJuly2014.AIDCPSecretariat,LaJolla,USA.
Allain,V.(2005).EcopathModelofthePelagicEcosystemofWesternandCentralPacificOcean.FirstregularsessionoftheScientificCommittee
| 17JUAN- JORDÁ et Al.
oftheWesternandCentralPacificFisheriesCommission,8–19Aug.2005, Noumea, New Caledonia. WCPFC-SC1 – EB WP-10: 1-19.WesternandCentralPacificFisheriesCommission,Palikir,FederatedStatesofMicronesia.
Anonymous.(2007).ReportoftheJointMeetingofTunaRegionalFisheriesManagementOrganizations,January22–26,2007,Kobe,Japan.
Anonymous.(2009).ReportoftheSecondJointMeetingofTunaRegionalFisheries Management Organizations, June 29–July 3, 2009, SanSebastian,Spain.
Anonymous.(2011).Chair’sReportoftheThirdJointMeetingoftheTunaRegionalFisheriesManagementOrganizations (kobe III),July12–14,2011,LaJolla,California,USA.
Anonymous. (2012). KOBE III Bycatch Joint Technical Working Group:Harmonisation of Purse-seine Data Collected by Tuna RFMOsObserverProgrammes. ISSFTechnicalReport 2012-12. InternationalSeafoodSustainabilityFoundation,Washington,D.C.,USA.
Anonymous. (2015a). Report of the 2015 ISSF Stock AssessmentWorkshop: Characterizing Uncertainty in Stock Assessment andManagement Advice. ISSF Technical Report 2015-06. InternationalSeafoodSustainabilityFoundation,Washington,DC,USA.
Anonymous.(2015b).TunaRFMOExpertWorkingGroup:Harmonisationof Longline Data Collected by Tuna RFMOs. ISSF Technical Report2015-08.InternationalSeafoodSustainabilityFoundation,Washington,D.C.,USA.
Bell,J.D.,Ganachaud,A.,Gehrke,P.C.,Griffiths,S.P.,Hobday,A.J.,Hoegh-guldberg,O.,…Senina, I. (2013).Mixed responsesof tropicalPacificfisheriesandaquaculturetoclimatechange.Nature Climate Change,3,591–599.
Brierley,A.S.,&Kingsford,M.J.(2009).Impactsofclimatechangeonma-rineorganismsandecosystems.Current Biology,19,602–614.
deBruyn,P.,Murua,H.,&Aranda,M.(2013).ThePrecautionaryapproachtofisheriesmanagement:Howthis istaken intoaccountbyTunare-gionalfisheriesmanagementorganisations(RFMOs).Marine Policy,38,397–406.
Cartwright,I., Ianelli,J.,&Allen,R.(2013).ReportoftheExpertWorkingGroup.ManagementObjectives,PerformanceIndicatorsandReferencePoints. Scientific Committee Ninth Regular Session, 6–14 August2013, Pohnpei, Federated States ofMicronesia.WCPFC-SC9-2013/MI-WP-05.WesternandCentralPacificFisheriesCommission,Palikir,FederatedStatesofMicronesia.
CCSBT.(1994).TextoftheConventionfortheConservationofSouthernBluefinTuna(enteredintoforceon20May1994).CommissionfortheConservationofSouthernBluefinTuna,DeakinWest,Australia.
CCSBT. (2008). Part One. Self Assessment. Report of the PerformanceReviewWorkingGroup.CommissionfortheConservationofSouthernBluefinTuna,DeakinWest,Australia.
CCSBT. (2015a). Report of the Eleventh Meeting of the EcologicallyRelated Species Working Group, 3–6 March 2015, Tokyo, Japan.Commission for theConservationofSouthernBluefinTuna,DeakinWest,Australia.
CCSBT.(2015b).ReportoftheTwentySecondAnnualMeetingoftheCommission, 12–15 October, Yeosu, South Korea. Commissionfor the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna, Deakin West,Australia.
Ceo, M., Fagnani, S., Swan, J., Tamada, K., & Watanabe, H. (2012).Performancereviewsbyregionalfisherybodies:Introduction,summa-ries,synthesisandbestpractices,VolumeI:CCAMLR,CCSBT,ICCAT,IOTC,NAFO,NASCO,NEAFC.FAOFisheriesandAquacultureCircular.No.1072.Rome,FAO.92pp.
Clarke, S., Harley, S., Hoyle, S., & Rice, J. (2013). Population trends inPacificoceanicsharksandtheutilityof regulationsonshark finning.Conservation Biology,27,197–209.
Clarke, S., & Hoyle, S. (2014). Development of limit reference pointsfor elasmobrnchs. Scientific Committee Tenth Regular Session,Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands, 6–14 August 2014.
WCPFC-SC10-2014/EB-IP-04.WesternandCentralPacificFisheriesCommission,Palikir,FederatedStatesofMicronesia.
Clarke,S.,&Nicol,S.(2015).UpdateoftheABNJ(CommonOceans)TunaProject’sSahrkandBycatchComponents.WCPFC-SC11-2015/EB-IP-06. Scientific Committee. Eleventh Regular Session, Pohnpei,Federated States of Micronesia, 5-13 August 2015,Western andCentral Pacific Fisheries Commission, Palikir, Federated States ofMicronesia.
Clarke, S., Sato,M., Small, C., Sullivan, B., Inoue,Y.,&Ochi,D. (2014a).BycatchinLonglinefisheriesfortunaandtuna-likespecies:Aglobalre-viewofstatusandmitigationmeasures.FAOFisheriesandAquacultureTechnical Paper No. 588. Food andAgriculture Organization of theUnitedNations,Rome.
Clarke,S.,Sato,M.,Small,C.,Sullivan,B.,Inoue,Y.,&Ochi,D.(2014b).BycatchinLonglinefisheriesfortunaandtuna-likespecies:Aglobalreview of status and mitigation measures. Scientific CommitteeTenth Regular Session, Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands,6-14 August 2014. WCPFC-SC10-2014/EB-IP-04. Western andCentral Pacific Fisheries Commission, Palikir, Federated States ofMicronesia.
Collette,B.B.,Carpenter,K.E.,Polidoro,B.A.,Juan-Jordá,M.J.,Boustany,A.,Die,D.J.,…Yáñez,E.(2011).Highvalueandlonglife-doublejeop-ardyfortunasandbillfishes.Science,333,291–292.
Collie,J.S.,Botsford,L.W.,Hastings,A.,Kaplan,I.C.,Largier,J.L.,Livingston,P.A.,…Werner,F.W.(2016).Ecosystemmodelsforfisheriesmanage-ment:Findingthesweetspot.Fish and Fisheries,17,101–125.
Croxall,J.P.,Butchardt,S.H.M.,Lascelles,B.,Stattersfield,A.J.,Sullivan,B.,Symes,A.,&Taylor,P.(2012).Seabirdconservationstatus,threatsandpriority actions:A global assessment.Bird Conservation International,22,1–34.
Cullis-Suzuki,S.,&Pauly,D.(2010).Failingthehighseas:Aglobalevalua-tionofregionalfisheriesmanagementorganizations.Marine Policy,34,1036–1042.
Curtis, K. A., Moore, J. E., Boyd, C., Dillingham, P. W., Lewison, R. L.,Taylor,B.L.,&James,K.C. (2015).Managingcatchofmarinemega-fauna:Guidelinesforsetting limitreferencepoints.Marine Policy,61,249–263.
Davidson,L.N.K.,Krawchuk,M.A.,&Dulvy,N.K.(2015).Whyhaveglobalsharkandraylandingsdeclined:Improvedmanagementoroverfishing?Fish and Fisheries,17,438–458.
Dulvy,N.K.,Baum,J.K.,Clarke, S.,Compagno, L.,Cortés,E.,Domingo,A.,…Gibson,C. (2008).Youcanswimbutyoucan’thide:Theglobalstatus and conservation of oceanic pelagic sharks and rays.Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems,482,459–482.
Dulvy, N. K., Fowler, S. L., Musick, J. A., Cavanagh, R. D., Kyne, P. M.,Harrison,L.R.,…White,W.T.(2014).Extinctionriskandconservationoftheworld’ssharksandrays.eLife,3,e00590.
Dunn, D. C., Maxwell, S. M., Boustany, A. M., & Halpin, P. N. (2016).Dynamicoceanmanagement increasestheefficiencyandefficacyoffisheriesmanagement.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,113,668–673.
Essington,T.E. (2006).Fishingthroughmarinefoodwebs.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,103,3171–3175.
FAO. (2003). The ecosystem approach to fisheries. FAO TechnicalGuidelinesforResponsibleFisheries4,Supplement2.Rome.
Filippi,D.P.,Waugh,S.M.,&Nicol,S.(2010).RevisedSpatialRiskIndicatorsforSeabirds InteractionswithLonglineFisheries in theWesternandCentral Pacific. WCPFC-SC6-2010/EB- IP 01. Scientific CommitteeSixthRegularSession.Nukualofa,Tonga,10-19August2010.WesternandCentralPacificFisheriesCommission,Palikir,FederatedStatesofMicronesia.
Fletcher,W.J.,Shaw,J.,Metcalf,S.J.,&Gaughan,D.J.(2010).Anecosys-tembased fisheriesmanagement framework:Theefficient, regional-level planning tools for management agencies. Marine Policy, 34,1226–1238.
18 | JUAN- JORDÁ et Al.
Fogarty,M. J. (2014). The art of ecosystem-based fisherymanagement.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences,71,479–490.
Garcia,S.M.,&Cochrane,K.L. (2005).Ecosystemapproachtofisheries:Areviewofimplementationguidelines.ICES Journal of Marine Science,62,311–318.
Garcia,S.M.,&Koehler,H.R. (2014).PerformanceoftheCCSBT2009-2013.IndependentReview.
Garcia,S.M.,Zerbi,A.,Aliaume,C.,DoChi,T.,&Lasserre,G.(2003).Theecosystem approach to fisheries. Issues, Terminology, Principles,InstitutionalFoundations,ImplementationandOutlook.FAOFisheriesTechnicalPaper.No443,FAO,Rome.
Gilman,E.(2011).Bycatchgovernanceandbestpracticemitigationtech-nologyinglobaltunafisheries.Marine Policy,35,590–609.
Gilman,E.,Chaloupka,M.,Swimmer,Y.,&Piovano,S.(2016).Across-taxaas-sessmentofpelagiclonglinebycatchmitigationmeasures:Conflictsandmutualbenefitstoelasmobranchs.Fish and Fisheries,17,748–784.
Gilman,E.,Owens,M.,&Kraft,T. (2014a).Ecological riskassessmentoftheMarshallIslandslonglinetunafishery.Marine Policy,44,239–255.
Gilman,E.,Passfield,K.,&Nakamura,K.(2014b).Performanceofregionalfisheriesmanagementorganizations:Ecosystem-basedgovernanceofbycatchanddiscards.Fish and Fisheries,15,327–351.
Griffiths,S.P.(2014a).Simulated ecological effects of longline fishing on the Pacific Warm Pool ecosystem.FinalReportpreparedfortheSecretariatforthePacificCommunity.Australia:CSIRO.
Griffiths, S. P. (2014b). Simulated ecological effects of purse seine fisher-ies on the Pacific Warm Pool ecosystem.FinalReportprepared for theSecretariatforthePacificCommunity.Australia:CSIRO.
Hilborn,R.(2011).Futuredirectionsinecosystembasedfisheriesmanage-ment:Apersonalperspective.Fisheries Research,108,235–239.
Hussey,N.E.,Kessel,S.T.,Aarestrup,K.,Cooke,S.J.,Cowley,P.D.,Fisk,A.T.,…Whoriskey,F.G.(2015).Aquaticanimaltelemetry:Apanoramicwindowintotheunderwaterworld.Science,348,1255642.
IATTC. (1963). The food of yellowfin and skipjack tunas in the EasternTropicalPacificOcean.BulletinVol.VII,No.5.Inter-AmericanTropicalTunaCommission,LaJolla,California,UnitedStates.
IATTC. (2003). Inter-AmericanTropicalTunaCommissionConvention forthe Strengthening of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.Established by the 1949 Convention between the United States ofAmericaandtheRepublicofCostaRica(“AntiguaConvention”).Inter-AmericanTropicalTunaCommission,LaJolla,USA.
IATTC. (2014). Stock Status Indicators for Silky Sharks in the EasternPacificOcean.ScientificAdvisoryCommittee,FifthMeeting,LaJolla,California, USA, 12–16 May, 2014. Document Sac-05-11a. Inter-AmericanTropicalTunaCommission,LaJolla,USA.
IATTC.(2015a).CurrentandPlannedActivitiesoftheIATTCStaff.ScientificAdvisoryCommittee, Sixthmeeting, LaJolla,California,USA,11–15May 2015. Document SAC-06-10a. Inter-American Tropical TunaCommission,LaJolla,USA.
IATTC.(2015b).Ecosystemconsiderations.ScientificAdvisoryCommittee,SixthMeeting,LaJolla,California,USA,11–15May2015.DocumentSac-06-09.Inter-AmericanTropicalTunaCommission,LaJolla,USA.
IATTC. (2016).Tunas, billfishes and other pelagic species in the EasternPacificOcean in2015.FisheryStatusReportNo.14. Inter-AmericanTropicalTunaCommission,LaJolla,California,UnitedStates.
ICCAT. (2007). Basic texts, 5th revision. Madrid, Spain: InternationalCommissionfortheConservationofAtlanticTunas.
ICCAT. (2009). Report of the independent performance review of ICCAT. Madrid, Spain: International Commission for the Conservation ofAtlanticTunas.
ICCAT.(2014).Secondmeetingoftheworkinggrouponconventionamend-ment.Barcelona, Spain, 19–21May2014. InternationalCommissionfortheConservationofAtlanticTunas,Madrid,Spain.
ICCAT. (2015a).Report forbiennialperiod,2014–15.Part I (2014)-Vol.2 - SCRS, InternationalCommission for theConservationofAtlanticTunas,Madrid,Spain.
ICCAT.(2015b).Secondmeetingofthestandingworkinggrouptoenhancedialogue between fisheries scientists and managers. Bilbao, Spain,22–24June2015. InternationalCommissionfortheConservationofAtlanticTunas,Madrid,Spain.
IOTC. (2009). Report of the IOTC Performance Review Panel: January2009.IndianOceanTunaCommission,Mahé,Seychelles.
IOTC. (2011).Reportof theFifteenthSessionof the IndianOceanTunaCommission. Colombo, Sri Lanka, 18–22March 2011. IOTC–2011–S15–R[E].IndianOceanTunaCommission,Mahé,Seychelles.
IOTC.(2014).ReportoftheEighteenthSessionoftheIndianOceanTunaCommission.Colombo,SriLanka,1–5June2014. IOTC–2014–S18–R[E].IndianOceanTunaCommission,Mahé,Seychelles.
IOTC.(2015).Reportofthe18thSessionoftheIOTCScientificCommittee.Bali, Indonesia, 23-27 November 2015. IOTC–2015–SC18–R[E].IndianOceanTunaCommission,Mahé,Seychelles.
IOTC–WPEB11. (2015).Reportofthe11thsessionoftheIOTCworkingpartyonecosystemsandBycatch.Olhao,Portugal,7–11September,2015. IOTC– 2015–WPEB11–R[E]. IndianOceanTuna Commission,Mahé,Seychelles.
Kelble, C. R., Loomis, D. K., Lovelace, S., Nuttle, W. K., Ortner, P. B.,Fletcher,P.,…Boyer,J.N.(2013).TheEBM-DPSERconceptualmodel:IntegratingecosystemservicesintotheDPSIRframework.PLoS ONE,8,e70766.
Lehodey,P.,Senina,I.,Titaud,O.,Calmettes,B.,Conchon,A.,Dragon,A.,…Williams,P.(2013).Project62:SEAPODYMapplicationsinWCPO.ScientificCommitteeNinthRegularSession,Pohnpei,FederatedStatesofMicronesia,6–14August2013.WCPFC-SC9-2012/EB-WP-03Rev1.WesternandCentralPacificFisheriesCommission,Palikir,FederatedStatesofMicronesia.
Lehodey,P.,Senina, I.,Titaud,O.,Calmettes,B.,Nicol,S.,Hampton,J.,…Williams, P. (2014). Project 62: SEAPODYMApplications inWCPO.ScientificCommitteeTenthRegular Session,Majuro,Republicof theMarshallIslands,6–14August2014.WCPFC-SC10-2014/EB-WP-02.WesternandCentralPacificFisheriesCommission,Palikir,FederatedStatesofMicronesia.
Levin,P.S.,Fogarty,M.J.,Murawski,S.,&Fluharty,D.L.(2009).Integratedecosystemassessments:Developingthescientificbasisforecosystem-basedmanagement.PLoS Biology,7,23–28.
Link, J. S. (2010). Ecosystem-based fisheries management confronting tradeoffs.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Lodge,M.W.,Anderson,D.,Lobach,T.,Munro,G.,Sainsbury,K.,&Willock,A. (2007). Recommended best practices for regional fisheries man-agementorganizations.ReportofanIndependentPaneltoDevelopaModel for ImprovedGovernancebyRegional FisheriesManagementOrganizations. The Royal Institute of International Affairs, ChathamHouse,London.
Maury, O., Miller, K., Campling, L., Arrizabalaga, H., Aumont, O., Bodin,T., … Murtugudde, R. (2013). A global science-policy partner-ship for progress toward sustainability of oceanic ecosystemsand fisheries. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5, 314–319.
Meltzer,E.(2009).The quest for sustainable international fisheries: Regional efforts to implement the 1995 United Nations Fish Stock Agreement: An Overview for the May 2006 Review Conference.Ottawa:NRCResearchPress.
Mooney-Seus,M.L.,&Rosenberg,A.A.(2007).Best practices for high seas fisheries management: Lessons learned.London:ChathamHouse.
Moss-Adams LLP. (2016). Inter-American Tropical Tuna CommissionandAgreement of the International Dolphin Conservation Program.PerformanceReview.June20,2016,Seattle,Wa,USA.
Mundy-Taylor, V., & Crook,V. (2013). Into the deep: Implementing CITES measures for commercially-valuable sharks and manta rays.Cambridge:TRAFFIC.
Murawski,S.(2007).Tenmythsconcerningecosystemapproachestoma-rineresourcemanagement.Marine Policy,31,681–690.
| 19JUAN- JORDÁ et Al.
Murua, H., Abascal, F. J., Amande, J., Ariz, J., Bach, P., Chavance, P., …Seret, B. (2013). Provision of Scientific Advice for the Purpose ofthe Implementation of the EUPOA sharks. Final Report. EuropeanCommission, Studies for Carrying out the Common Fisheries Policy(MARE/2010/11-LOT2).
NOAAScienceAdvisoryBoard. (2014). Exploration of EcosystemBasedFisheryManagementintheUnitedStates.
Olson,R.J.,&Watters,G.M. (2003).Amodelof thepelagicecosystemin the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. Inter- American Tropical Tuna Commission, Bulletin,22,133–218.
Patrick,W.S.,&Link,J.S.(2015).Mythsthatcontinuetoimpedeprogressinecosystem-basedfisheriesmanagement.Fisheries,40,155–160.
Pauly,D.,Christensen,V.,Dalsgaard,J.,Froese,R.,&Torres,F.J. (1998).Fishingdownmarinefoodwebs.Science,279,860–863.
Pitcher,T.J.,Kalikoski,D.,Short,K.,Varkey,D.,&Pramod,G. (2009).Anevaluationofprogressinimplementingecosystem-basedmanagementoffisheriesin33countries.Marine Policy,33,223–232.
Plagányi,E.E.,Punt,A.E.,Hillary,R.,Morello,E.B.,Thébaud,O.,Hutton,T.,…Rothlisberg,P.C.(2012).Multispeciesfisheriesmanagementandconservation:Tacticalapplicationsusingmodelsofintermediatecom-plexity.Fish and Fisheries,15,1–22.
Polidoro,B.A.,Livingstone,S.R.,Carpenter,K.E.,Hutchinson,B.,Mast,R.B.,Pilcher,N.,…Valenti,S.(2008).Statusoftheworld’smarinespecies.InC.Hilton-Taylor,&S.N.Stuart(Eds.),Wildlife in a changing world—an analysis of the 2008 IUCN red list of threatened species (p.55).Gland,Switzerland:IUCN.
Queiroz, N., Humphries, N. E., Mucientes, G., Hammerschlag, N., Lima,F.P.,Scales,K.L.,…Sims,D.W. (2016).Ocean-widetrackingofpe-lagic sharks reveals extent of overlapwith longline fishing hotspots.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,113,1582–1587.
Review Team. (2012). Review of the Performance of the WCPFC.CommissionEighthRegularSession,Tumon,Guam,USA,26–30March2012. WCPFC8- 2011/12. Western and Central Pacific FisheriesCommission,Palikir,FederatedStatesofMicronesia.
Rogers,A.D.,Sumalia,U.R.,Hussain,S.S.,&Baulcomb,C.(2014).Thehighseaandus.Understandingthevalueofhigh-seasecosystems.GlobalOceanCommission.
Simpfendorfer, C., &Dulvy,N. (2017). Bright spots of sustainable sharkfishing.Current Biology,27,R97–R98.
Skern-Mauritzen,M.,Ottersen,G.,Handegard,N.O.,Huse,G.,Dingsør,G.E.,Stenseth,N.C.,&Kjesbu,O.S.(2016).Ecosystemprocessesarerarelyincludedintacticalfisheriesmanagement.Fish and Fisheries,17,165–175.
Small,C.J.(2005).Regional fisheries management organizations: Their duties and performance in reducing bycatch of albatrosses and other species. Cambridge,UK:BirdLifeInternational.
Smith,A.D.M., Fulton, E. J.,Hobday,A. J., Smith,D.C.,& Shoulder, P.(2007). Scientific tools to support the practical implementation ofecosystem-basedfisheriesmanagement.ICES Journal of Marine Science,64,633–639.
Staples,D.,Brainard,R.,Capezzuoli,S.,Funge-Smith,S.,Grose,C.,Heenan,A., … Pomeroy, R. (2014). Essential EAFM. Ecosystem approach tofisheriesmanagement training course.Volume1– for trainees.FAORegional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand, RAPPublication2014/13.
Tallis,H.,Levin,P.S.,Ruckelshaus,M.,Lester,S.E.,McLeod,K.L.,Fluharty,D.L.,&Halpern,B.J.(2010).Themanyfacesofecosystem-basedman-agement:Makingtheprocessworktodayinrealplaces.Marine Policy,34,340–348.
Tuck,G.N.,Phillips,R.A.,Small,C.,Thomson,R.B.,Klaer,N.L.,Taylor,F.,…Arrizabalaga,H.(2011).Anassessmentofseabird–fisheryinteractionsintheAtlanticOcean.ICES Journal of Marine Science,68,1628–1637.
Vincent,A.C.J.,Sadovy,Y.,Fowler,S.L.,&Lieberman,S.(2013).TheroleofCITESintheconservationofmarinefishessubjecttointernationaltrade.Fish and Fisheries,15,563–592.
Watters, G.M., Hill, S. L., Hinke, J. T., Matthews, J., & Reid, K. (2013).Decision making for ecosystem based management: Evaluating op-tionsforakrillfisherywithanecosystemdynamicsmodel.Ecological Applications,23,710–725.
Waugh,S.M.,Filippi,D.P.,Kirby,D.S.,Abraham,E.,&Walker,N.(2012).Ecological risk assessment for seabird interactions in Western andCentralPacificlonglinefisheries.Marine Policy,36,933–946.
WCPFC. (2000). Convention on the Conservation and Management ofHighlyMigratoryFishStocksintheWesternandCentralPacificOcean.WesternandCentralPacificFisheriesCommission,Palikir,FederatedStatesofMicronesia.
WCPFC. (2011). Strategic Research Plan of the Scientific Committee2012–2016(AdoptedbySC7).ScientificCommitteeSeventhRegularSession.Pohnpei,FederatedStatesofMicronesia,9–17August2011.WesternandCentralPacificFisheriesCommission,Palikir,FederatedStatesofMicronesia.
WCPFC. (2013). Commission for the Conservation and Management ofHighlyMigratoryFishStocksintheWesternandCentralPacificOcean.ScientificCommittee.Ninthregularsession,Pohnpei,FederatedStatesofMicronesia,6–14August2013.Summaryreport.WesternandCentralPacificFisheriesCommission,Palikir,FederatedStatesofMicronesia.
WCPFC. (2014a).Commission for theConservationandManagementofHighlyMigratoryFishStocksintheWesternandCentralPacificOcean,EleventhRegularSession,Apia,Samoa,1–5December2014.SummaryReport. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Palikir,FederatedStatesofMicronesia.
WCPFC. (2014b).Commissionfor theConservationandManagementofHighlyMigratoryFishStocksintheWesternandCentralPacificOcean.ScientificCommittee.RegularSession,Tenthregularsession,Majuro,Marshall Islands, 6–14August 2014. SummaryReport.Western andCentral Pacific Fisheries Commission, Palikir, Federated States ofMicronesia.
WCPFC. (2015a).Commission for theConservationandManagementofHighlyMigratoryFishStocksintheWesternandCentralPacificOcean.Scientific Committee. Regular Session, Eleventh regular session,Pohnpei,FederatedStatesofMicronesia,5–13August2015.SummaryReport. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Palikir,FederatedStatesofMicronesia.
WCPFC. (2015b). Commission for the Conservation and Managementof HighlyMigratory Fish Stocks in theWestern and Central PacificOcean.TwelfthRegularSession,Bali,Indonesia,3–8December2015.SummaryReport.WesternandCentralPacificFisheriesCommission,Palikir,FederatedStatesofMicronesia.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional Supporting Informationmay be found online in the sup-portinginformationtabforthisarticle.
How to cite this article:Juan-JordáMJ,MuruaH,ArrizabalagaH,DulvyNK,RestrepoV.Reportcardonecosystem-basedfisheriesmanagementintunaregionalfisheriesmanagementorganizations.Fish Fish. 2017;00: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12256
