Which management rules may work best?

New working comparison: narrowing the CMP set

The working paper, updated 10 September retains HS−20, HS−30 and PR−20 as a discussion set. The updated advice-reduction statistic counts reductions greater than 19% across all 25 projection years and all 500 iterations, including the saved HCR initial advice baseline. It changes four earlier screening classifications, so all eight CMPs should be reviewed before confirming the shortlist. It now focuses on recruitment-crash (OM11_2) and recruitment-cycle (OM11_3) robustness cases, with trade-off plots and 15 SSB/catch trajectories for each case. Fixed catch is included as a reference-OM benchmark tuned using dynamic BMSY (achieved long-term P(Green): 60.3%). The shortlist is proposed for discussion, and the paper retains the reasons and results for omitted CMPs.

The draft decision guide sets out proposed advice, decisions for managers and work needed before recommending adoption, drawing on the ICCAT and IOTC examples. It is a discussion draft for review by scientists, managers and Parties.

Try the all-CMP scorecard or the retained-CMP scorecard. Choose the reference OM, recruitment crash (OM11_2), or recruitment cycle (OM11_3). Fixed catch is available for the reference OM. Within each indicator, the best selected CMP scores 100 and others are scored relative to it. Raw values, zero-best exceptions and chosen weights remain visible.

Second working comparison: MP29, MP45 and MP43

The second CMP screening working document uses the same format with MP29 (HS+20), MP45 (HSsym), and MP43 (HS−20). It includes regenerated reference, recruitment-crash and recruitment-cycle figures, the same 15 matched simulation IDs, and the fixed-catch comparison. Both documents also include near-term (2026–2035) catch trade-offs and Kobe plots. Advice reductions greater than 19% are expressed as an occurrence probability over all 25 projection years and 500 iterations.

Open the three-CMP scorecard and fixed-catch comparison or all-CMP context scorecard. The first working document remains available above.

How can we choose rules that support catches while performing acceptably when the future is uncertain?

Management strategy evaluation (MSE) tests management procedures in simulated fisheries. A procedure specifies how information is used to make a decision, such as a catch recommendation. The simulation repeats the process over time so that the consequences of earlier decisions affect later ones.

What the research has examined

The working-group papers compare eight candidate management procedures. A complementary study presents another evaluation with different assumptions and methods. The workshop report, main studies and independent review provide the evidence for SC14’s discussion. Sources: JM03, JM04, JM06, JM07, JM12.

Why it matters for management

There is more to consider than average catch. Managers also need to understand biological performance, changes in catch from year to year, and how a rule behaves in plausible difficult conditions. A rule tuned to one target still requires evaluation against the full set of relevant criteria.

Comparing the two evaluations’ rankings requires comparable assumptions and performance measures. This guide highlights that interpretation question for readers; the Committee’s treatment belongs in its meeting record. Sources: JM06, JM07, JM12.

What has been agreed?

The papers and workshop recommendations are available for review. Any Scientific Committee recommendation or Commission adoption will require its respective authoritative decision record.

What remains to be discussed?

Which findings are sufficiently supported to inform advice? Which candidates merit further consideration? What must be completed before a procedure can be used each year?

That last question includes clear instructions for the calculation and for unusual circumstances: what to monitor, what triggers concern, who considers it and what happens next. Sources: JM06, JM08, JM09.