Harvest Control Rules

The seemingly technical term of Harvest Control Rules or HCRs has been frequently thrown into tuna industry management talks in recent years, with increasing pressures put on decision makers within RFMOs to get these measures in place for all tuna stocks.

Not only is this promoted as vital to increase security for the species themselves, but also the businesses and livelihoods that depend on them, for the long term.

As the industry starts to hear the HCR term more and more, it’s important that its meaning is understood clearly, including the different forms the measure can take; and ultimately what it can mean for the industry.

In the simplest terms, a HCR:

• defines how much fishing can take place on a certain tuna stock, based on its stock status.
• is a pre-agreed emergency measure that is taken when a fish stock drops to a certain defined level.
• is a management action taken in response to changes in the status of a stock.

Once a HCR is in place, ultimately it determines the maximum amount of tuna that purse seiners or longliners can catch within a year.

But this is where it gets a little more complicated. A HCR is a component of a harvest strategy, which is a broader fisheries management procedure, based on the latest scientific advice, and designed to give stakeholders a clear idea of the best way forward for the fishery.

The HCR is therefore the operational component of a harvest strategy, a measure taken based on several indicators of the targeted stock status. A HCR can be adopted and never used, but it is seen as a safety net to stop tuna populations dropping to undesirable and potentially non-recoverable levels.

Amanda Nickson, Director of Global Tuna Conservation for The Pew Charitable Trusts, told Atuna that if developed correctly, HCRs can provide much greater benefit to both the fish and fishermen, compared to traditional management. “Instead of having to renegotiate a new plan of action and new catch limit every time a stock assessment is updated, a HCR prescribes a pre-agreed and consistent set of management responses based on stock status.”

She added that in doing so, HCRs increase the efficiency, transparency, predictability, and effectiveness of management, leading to marked stability and long-term, sustainable and profitable fisheries. “For these reasons, all five of the tuna RFMOs have developed, or are developing harvest control rules for the stocks under their purview.”

One example Nickson offers is the southern bluefin tuna fishery in the South Pacific. She states that representatives from the fishery have called a 2011-introduced HCR “the best thing to ever happen to their business.”

HCR action is often triggered when a population size of a fish species reaches a target reference point (TRP); another technical term. Most simply, a TRP is the lowest level that a stock can reach in order to still be defined “ideal”.

At the point the TRP is touched, the HCR comes into play; creating a buffer zone to ensure the “ideal” limit is not breached.

Nickson adds that as managers and stakeholders become familiar with the harvest strategies approach, there seems to be an increased acceptance of its potential to transform the way fisheries are managed and to provide a greater benefit to fish stocks and to fishermen.

HCRs range from a simple, constant catch strategy (catch levels don’t change) to complicated, multi-step rules (step rules or sliding rules) that set allowable catch based on certain triggers. To date, tuna RFMOs have focused on sliding or step rules as they develop HCRs.

Step HCRs are a little more precautionary. As the name suggests, they incorporate steps so that at certain pre-defined times, higher fishing levels can be permitted, if the stock status has improved.

This effectively means that the level of stock will be assessed in a timely manner, through the duration of the HCR. If the stock status is seen to improve, the current catch or effort levels permitted in the fishery can rise step by step, possibly until they are back to the previous levels before the rule came into action.

A sliding HCR gives more flexibility, and can range in type, but it basically sets a continuous adjustment in controls over the duration of the measure, depending on different criteria.

This means that instead of pre-defined times that the stock status will be reviewed, like with a step approach, the fishing and effort limits will constantly and automatically rise over time, based on expectation of continuous tuna stock improvement.

At this point, Nickson outlines that all international tuna management bodies are developing or implementing harvest strategies for their fisheries, and states that “complying with the timelines agreed by the RFMOs for harvest strategy development will be critical.

“Timely implementation is particularly important for key tuna stocks – such as bluefin and bigeye stocks – in order to ensure they return to and remain at healthy levels, benefitting both the fish and the fishing industry,” she states.

While Pew appears to be generally satisfied with the development of HCRs in tuna RFMOs so far, a list of 83 global companies and organizations recently signed a call-to-action letter addressed to these RFMOs, urging the adoption of a number of key sustainability policies, including HCRs.

They requested the IATTC, ICCAT, IOTC and WCPFC to develop specific timelines to implement HCRs and target reference points, which should form part of a more general “precautionary” approach to harvest strategies.

But proposed measures within RFMOs have to gain consensus from all member nations for them to be adopted. Slow progress within RFMO meetings and criticism that measures often get watered down in order for all to agree on them, may go some way to explain why companies involved in tuna buying are giving a stronger push to RFMOs and the member nations within them.

Several sources have stated that Asian distant water fishing nations (DWFNs) in the WCPFC for example, have been unwilling to make sacrifices to protect tuna stock. Pacific island countries in particular have been critical of these nations for being the main objecting members of the RFMO on fishing limits and Harvest Control Rules.

An Atuna poll late last year revealed that the majority of industry readers believed that Asian DWFNs, like Korea, Taiwan, Japan and China will always block the development of HCRs in the WCPFC, stating that they are largely responsible for slow progress within this particular RFMO.

While some member nations may not be pro-HCR just yet, a source from the tuna fishing industry explained to Atuna that it is positive for the entire industry to have a ceiling like HCRs to protect it. “The measures limit the amount of tuna that can be caught dependent on the most recent stock assessments.” He added that they can automatically come into action when needed, and in an era of overcapacity, overproduction and oversupply, this is a necessary measure.

The International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF), which claims through its participating companies to represent around 75 percent of the global tuna industry, recognizes that HCRs are vital in creating a more sustainable tuna industry, and focused on the topic in a recent review of the progress seen in global tuna management in 2016. Although many of its members are represented in RFMO meetings, the ISSF calls not directly on those participating companies, but on the regional bodies as a whole to move closer to adopting HCRs during this year.

ISSF was also a signatory of the recent letter sent by over 80 tuna-related firms and organizations, urging RFMOs to develop specific timelines to implement Harvest Control Rules.

One major concern related to a lack of defined HCRs, which has cropped up in the tuna industry most recently, is that this could threaten MSC certifications for tuna fisheries. The MSC, for this reason, has been encouraging fisheries, NGOs and retailers to work together to influence RFMOs to adopt the necessary measures.

Whether broad regional agreement can actually be achieved is one of great concern however, and has led resource owners, like the eight PNA nations in the WCPO to suggest taking their own initiative to get strong conservation measures in place.

The PNA free-school skipjack and yellowfin tuna fishery’s future as an MSC certified fishery could depend on the adoption of HCRs in the region, highlighting the importance of the PNA to potentially take its own move, if the wider region can’t make more concrete progress.

The MSC has proved before, in the case of Spanish fishing firm, Echebastar, and its initial pursuit of the sustainability certification, that a lack of HCRs in an ocean region, this time the Indian Ocean, can result in MSC assessment failure. As the largest MSC certified tuna fishery in the world, the PNA will be keen to avoid any similar situation.

Where real progress has been seen on the HCR front is within the IOTC, having adopted a landmark Harvest Control Rule last year for skipjack tuna caught in the Indian Ocean. This marked the RFMO as the first to adopt a HCR before a stock is officially in trouble. The MSC applauded the decision, and commended the work of the Maldives and the International Pole and Line Foundation (IPNLF), which led efforts to ensure the HCR framework was put in place.

This HCR will see HCRs put to test for the first time in a purse seine fishery, and within an RFMO, which according to the industry, has continuously lacked behind the others. It may be that the IOTC has now shown the other major tuna RFMOs what they must also do in order to protect vital commercial tuna stocks in the Atlantic, Western and Eastern Pacific too.