Evaluating adaptive management frameworks for data-limited crustacean fisheries

Abstract

Crustacean fisheries represent an increasingly important contribution to global landings, food security and economic growth, especially in developing countries. However, many productive and valuable crustacean fisheries in Asian countries are characterized by limited data availability, scientific capacity, and fisheries management. Adaptive management frameworks, which use past and emerging information to provide stock status information and management advice, have been touted as particularly applicable for managing capacity- and data-limited fisheries because they employ methods that can improve data collection and result in evaluations of stock and ecosystem status with varying levels of data and capacity. Here, we examined the application of three adaptive fisheries management frameworks (FISHE, FishPath, and DLMtool) to three typical Asian crustacean fisheries that offered contrasting data types and availability, governance, and management and socio-economic contexts. Our aim was to evaluate their suitability for crustacean fisheries and identify particular data and modeling needs and management gaps in these fisheries. We found that while each of the frameworks could effectively recommend suitable monitoring, assessment, and management options given particular contextual factors, there were also limitations with each approach. For example, FISHE took a more wholistic view of ecosystem and fisheries heath, while the other frameworks were more focused on particular aspects of management such as stock assessment (FishPath) and management strategy evaluation (MSE; DLMtool). Applications of each approach also highlighted particular challenges in collecting commercial catch data due to limited monetary investment and poorly designed monitoring programs, which further hindered the implementation of catch and effort limits. The three frameworks also shared common challenges when applied to crustacean species, mainly associated with misalignment with the unique life-histories of crustaceans compared to finfish. By comparing the outputs of the three frameworks, we highlighted their respective strengths and weaknesses and propose an integrated framework that incorporates elements of each of the three frameworks. This integration offers a more comprehensive adaptive roadmap tailored to crustacean fisheries, which involves a mix of qualitative and quantitative approaches that could be applied depending on contextual factors and capacities. To further improve the applicability of adaptive frameworks to crustacean fisheries, we suggest considering crustacean's unique life history and the effects of climate change and other environmental factors, strengthening participatory processes, and balancing socio-economic and ecological objectives.