Table 1: Selecting your performance indicators and reference points Tier Data stream Target Reference Limit Reference Assessment Performance Indicator Options Target Species Options Point Point Methods 3 2 1 DESTRUCTIVE FISHING GEAR Qualitative No destructive All fish and Pros: relatively easy metric to monitor assessment of fishing practices Destructive fishing invertebrates using local ecological knowledge TURF-Reserve being used practices being used Design Survey Cons: None FISHING SEASON Pros: relatively easy metric to monitor using local ecological knowledge Qualitative Increased variability No changes in the assessment of in fishing season, or All fish and Cons: Changes in fishing season do not fishing season TURF-Reserve decreased fishing invertebrates always indicate poor fisheries Design Survey season performance; this may also result from Design Survey changing environmental or market conditions Target SPECIES COMPOSITION Change in Pros: relatively easy metric to monitor composition of using local ecological knowledge caught species Qualitative No change in All fish and (fewer species, more assessment of composition of invertebrates Cons: Changes in target species pelagics) or loss of TURF-Reserve caught species composition do not always indicate poor major fishing Design Survey fisheries performance; this may also targets, predators result from changing environmental or and grazers market conditions SPECIES VULNERABILITY Low vulnerability High vulnerability estimate (< 2.0 estimate (> 2.0 PSA All fish and Pros: easy to interpret a species’ relative PSA score); low- score); high Productivity & invertebrates PSA vulnerability to overfishing relative to medium susceptibility and Susceptibility present in the other species in the area/ecosystem. This susceptibility and medium or low Analysis ecosystem relative vulnerability score can be used to high-medium productivity species prioritize species for management productivity should be high
Table 1: Selecting your performance indicators and reference points Tier Data stream Options Performance Indicator Options Target Reference Point Limit Reference Point Assessment Methods Target Species 3 2 1 Design Survey DESTRUCTIVE FISHING GEAR Pros: relatively easy metric to monitor using local ecological knowledge Cons: None No destructive fishing practices being used Destructive fishing practices being used Qualitative assessment of TURF-Reserve Design Survey All fish and invertebrates FISHING SEASON Pros: relatively easy metric to monitor using local ecological knowledge Cons: Changes in fishing season do not always indicate poor fisheries performance; this may also result from changing environmental or market conditions No changes in the fishing season Increased variability in fishing season, or decreased fishing season Qualitative assessment of TURF-Reserve Design Survey All fish and invertebrates Target SPECIES COMPOSITION Pros: relatively easy metric to monitor using local ecological knowledge Cons: Changes in target species composition do not always indicate poor fisheries performance; this may also result from changing environmental or market conditions No change in composition of caught species Change in composition of caught species (fewer species, more pelagics) or loss of major fishing targets, predators and grazers Qualitative assessment of TURF-Reserve Design Survey All fish and invertebrates PSA SPECIES VULNERABILITY Pros: easy to interpret a species’ relative vulnerability to overfishing relative to other species in the area/ecosystem. This relative vulnerability score can be used to prioritize species for management Low vulnerability estimate (< 2.0 PSA score); low- medium susceptibility and high-medium productivity High vulnerability estimate (> 2.0 PSA score); high susceptibility and medium or low productivity species should be high Productivity & Susceptibility Analysis All fish and invertebrates present in the ecosystem