LETTER

LETTER

REPLY TO SLOOTEN ET AL.:

Viewing fisheries management challenges in a
global context
Michael C. Melnychuka,1, Ray Hilborna, Matthew Elliottb, Emily Petersonb, Rosemary J. Hurstc, Pamela M. Maced,
and Paul J. Starre

Slooten et al. (1) claim the survey respondents from New
Zealand, one of 28 countries considered in our paper in
PNAS (2), were strongly biased toward the fishing industry. The six survey responses comprised a range of
background experience: three government/science respondents (added here as coauthors), including the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research’s
Chief Scientist–Fisheries, the government’s Principal
Advisor–Fisheries Science, and an independent consultant working with government and the fishing industry;
one (anonymous) university respondent; one (anonymous)
environmental-nongovernmental organization (NGO) respondent; and a pair of respondents who consult for industry and collectively have experience in the seafood
sector and community/environmental NGOs. We aimed
for such diversity in respondent experience in all countries, and, on average, had reasonable representation
across background categories (2). Those persons most
familiar with the fishing industry should certainly be part
of the sampling universe.
Despite the variety of background experience, survey
responses were strongly coherent across New Zealand
respondents. Coherency is expected, given that most of
the 46 survey questions related to specific management
attributes rather than calling for subjective opinion (dataset
S1 in ref. 2). We disaggregated overall responses by species and by respondent. For the six species with four or
more responses, coefficients of variation (CVs) across respondents ranged from 1.4 to 8.4% (mean of 3.8%), which
were similar to the CVs across species (ranging from 3.6 to
6.8%, mean of 5.1%) for the six respondents. This low
variability is consistent with our global analysis showing
that respondent background contributed to variation in
overall responses but had weaker influence than countrylevel factors, such as per capita gross domestic product (2).

The critique largely focuses on ecosystem impacts
of fishing. Although we recognize the importance
of ecosystem protections and broader management
objectives (3, 4), we primarily focused on target species, as evident from our survey questions and article
title (2). Regulating fishing pressure on target species
will also limit impacts on nontarget species through
effort restrictions and is considered a critical first step
toward managing adverse ecosystem effects (5).
New Zealand fisheries statistics cited by Slooten
et al. (1) appear incorrect. In 2016, assessed stocks
accounted for 72% of total landings by volume (79%
by value), representing the majority of commercial fish
species; 97% of assessed landings by volume were
identified as having no sustainability issues for target
species (6). The Quota Management System has generally been successful at reducing fleet overcapacity
and fishing effort, eliminating harmful subsidies, maintaining productive stocks, and rebuilding previously
depleted stocks (5–8).
In any fisheries management system, there are competing values, and there is always room for improvements (4–9). Slooten et al. (1) highlight several
challenges in New Zealand, which apply to many other
fisheries around the world. However, they fail to recognize the positioning of New Zealand systems within a
global context, as exemplified by comparative analyses
(2, 4). Our findings that New Zealand fisheries management systems are among the world’s most successful at
meeting objectives are consistent with previous findings (4, 5, 7, 8, 10). To improve fisheries management
globally, the greatest gains to be made are in the lower
performing countries, where there are currently insufficient resources and attention to achieving basic
management goals.

a

School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-5020; bCalifornia Environmental Associates, San Francisco,
CA 94111; cNational Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd., Newmarket, Auckland 1149, New Zealand; dMinistry for Primary Industries,
Wellington 6140, New Zealand; and eStarrfish, Island Bay, Wellington 6023, New Zealand
Author contributions: M.C.M. and R.H. designed research; M.C.M. performed research; M.C.M. analyzed data; and M.C.M., R.H., M.E., E.P., R.J.H.,
P.M.M., and P.J.S. wrote the paper.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
1
To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: mmel@u.washington.edu.

www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1706654114

PNAS Early Edition   1 of 2

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Slooten E, et al. (2017) Evidence of bias in assessment of fisheries management impacts. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 10.1073/pnas.1706544114.
Melnychuk MC, Peterson E, Elliott M, Hilborn R (2017) Fisheries management impacts on target species status. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114:178–183.
Hall SJ, Mainprize B (2004) Towards ecosystem-based fisheries management. Fish Fish 5:1–20.
Pitcher TJ, Kalikoski D, Short K, Varkey D, Pramod G (2009) An evaluation of progress in implementing ecosystem-based management of fisheries in 33 countries.
Mar Policy 33:223–232.
Cryer M, Mace PM, Sullivan KJ (2016) New Zealand’s ecosystem approach to fisheries management. Fish Oceanogr 25:57–70.
Ministry for Primary Industries (2017) The Status of New Zealand’s Fisheries 2016. Available at fs.fish.govt.nz/Page.aspx?pk=16&tk=345. Accessed May 2, 2017.
Mace PM, Sullivan KJ, Cryer M (2014) The evolution of New Zealand’s fisheries science and management systems under ITQs. ICES J Mar Sci 71:204–215.
Marchal P, et al. (2016) A comparative review of fisheries management experiences in the European Union and in other countries worldwide: Iceland, Australia,
and New Zealand. Fish Fish 17:803–824.
Eddy TD, Coll M, Fulton EA, Lotze HK (2015) Trade-offs between invertebrate fisheries catches and ecosystem impacts in coastal New Zealand. ICES J Mar Sci
72:1380–1388.
Worm B, et al. (2009) Rebuilding global fisheries. Science 325:578–585.

2 of 2   www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1706654114

Melnychuk et al.