Lessons from long-term monitoring of tropical rock lobsters to support fisheries management

Résumé fourni par la source

Fishery-independent scientific surveys are highly valuable for monitoring lobsters and other fisheries. Yet, there are relatively few long-term monitoring surveys to support the provision of management advice. A number of challenges can prevent the continuity of long-term monitoring series. This paper uses the 35-year continuous annual dive surveys for Australia’s Torres Strait tropical rock lobster (TRL) to overview strengths and limitations of a long-term scientific survey, as well as lessons learnt from having overcome a range of challenges. Fishery-independent surveys are more reliable than fishery-dependent data and are more robust to external shocks such as market drivers and fuel prices. The primary purpose of the surveys is to provide a reliable index of stock abundance together with data to inform on size and age structure, plus model parameters and reference points. Here, we also highlight additional survey benefits including: yielding positive gains relative to cost, facilitating an adaptive management approach that serves as an early warning system, reducing and resolving inter-sector conflicts, reduced frequency of stock assessments, providing data from associated habitat monitoring, improved stakeholder buy-in, utility for development of Operating Models for Management Strategy Evaluation, contribution to achieving certification, contributing to biodiversity agreements and consistent cross-jurisdictional monitoring. We analyse lessons learnt from challenges such as changes in resource management, budget cuts, increased health and safety requirements, maintenance of capability and staff capacity, stakeholder buy-in, need to validate survey results, a pandemic and changing climate. Our experiences highlight why long-term scientific surveys are considered the gold standard for fisheries monitoring and we provide insights for building and maintaining key marine monitoring series.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.