Management Strategy Evaluation: Allowing the Light on the Hill to Illuminate More Than One Species

Management strategy evaluation (MSE) is a simulation approach that serves as a “light on the hill” (Smith, 1994) to test options for marine management, monitoring, and assessment against simulated ecosystem and fishery dynamics, including uncertainty in ecological and fishery processes and observations. MSE has become a key method to evaluate trade-offs between management objectives and to communicate with decision makers. Here we describe how and why MSE is continuing to grow from a single species approach to one relevant to multi-species and ecosystem-based management. In particular, different ecosystem modeling approaches can fit within the MSE process to meet particular natural resource management needs. We present four case studies that illustrate how MSE is expanding to include ecosystem considerations and ecosystem models as ‘operating models’ (i.e., virtual test worlds), to simulate monitoring, assessment, and harvest control rules, and to evaluate tradeoffs via performance metrics. We highlight United States case studies related to fisheries regulations and climate, which support NOAA’s policy goals related to the Ecosystem Based Fishery Roadmap and Climate Science Strategy but vary in the complexity of population, ecosystem, and assessment representation. We emphasize methods, tool development, and lessons learned that are relevant beyond the United States, and the additional benefits relative to single-species MSE approaches.

Comparing Dynamic and Static Time-Area Closures for Bycatch Mitigation: A Management Strategy Evaluation of a Swordfish Fishery

Time-area closures are a valuable tool for mitigating fisheries bycatch. There is increasing recognition that dynamic closures, which have boundaries that vary across space and time, can be more effective than static closures at protecting mobile species in dynamic environments. We created a management strategy evaluation to compare static and dynamic closures in a simulated fishery based on the California drift gillnet swordfish fishery, with closures aimed at reducing bycatch of leatherback turtles. We tested eight operating models that varied swordfish and leatherback distributions, and within each evaluated the performance of three static and five dynamic closure strategies. We repeated this under 20 and 50% simulated observer coverage to alter the data available for closure creation. We found that static closures can be effective for reducing bycatch of species with more geographically associated distributions, but to avoid redistributing bycatch the static areas closed should be based on potential (not just observed) bycatch. Only dynamic closures were effective at reducing bycatch for more dynamic leatherback distributions, and they generally reduced bycatch risk more than they reduced target catch. Dynamic closures were less likely to redistribute fishing into rarely fished areas, by leaving open pockets of lower risk habitat, but these closures were often fragmented which would create practical challenges for fishers and managers and require a mobile fleet. Given our simulation’s catch rates, 20% observer coverage was sufficient to create useful closures and increasing coverage to 50% added only minor improvement in closure performance. Even strict static or dynamic closures reduced leatherback bycatch by only 30–50% per season, because the simulated leatherback distributions were broad and open areas contained considerable bycatch risk. Perfect knowledge of the leatherback distribution provided an additional 5–15% bycatch reduction over a dynamic closure with realistic predictive accuracy. This moderate level of bycatch reduction highlights the limitations of redistributing fishing effort to reduce bycatch of broadly distributed and rarely encountered species, and indicates that, for these species, spatial management may work best when used with other bycatch mitigation approaches. We recommend future research explores methods for considering model uncertainty in the spatial and temporal resolution of dynamic closures.

Recent advances in management strategy evaluation: introduction to the special issue “Under pressure: addressing fisheries challenges with Management Strategy Evaluation”

Management strategy evaluation (MSE) is an increasingly popular tool for developing, testing, and implementing fisheries management regimes, oftentimes utilizing participatory modeling. This special issue, “Under pressure: addressing fisheries challenges with Management Strategy Evaluation”, includes eleven articles highlighting cutting edge MSE approaches and perspectives on improving stakeholder engagement. The special issue is the culmination of a two-session MSE symposium held during the 147th American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting in Tampa, Florida. We summarize the themes from the symposium and special issue articles. Contributions demonstrated that important strides have been made in quantifying and exploring risk (by including more sophisticated multispecies and socioeconomic components), developing and testing data-limited harvest control rules, acknowledging and diagnosing limitations of MSE (e.g., identifying exceptional circumstances), and dealing with issues of stakeholder engagement and dimensionality (e.g., determining appropriate representation, communication techniques, and participation levels). Although MSE is a not a panacea for marine policy and resource utilization issues, it is a useful tool for implementing co-management regimes that should become increasingly robust as the multidisciplinary nature of MSE processes continues to expand.