Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Identifying management actions that promote sustainable fisheries


Which management actions work best to prevent or halt overfishing and to rebuild depleted populations? A comprehensive evaluation of multiple, co-occurring management actions on the sustainability status of marine populations has been lacking. Here we compiled detailed management histories for 288 assessed fisheries from around the world (accounting for 45% of those with formal stock assessments) and used hierarchical time-series analyses to estimate effects of different management interventions on trends in stock status. Rebuilding plans, applied less commonly than other management measures (implemented at some point historically for 43% of stocks), rapidly lowered fishing pressure towards target levels and emerged as the most important factor enabling overfished populations to recover. Additionally, the ratification of international fishing agreements, and harvest control rules specifying how catch limits should vary with population biomass, helped to reduce overfishing and rebuild biomass. Notably, we found that benefits of management actions are cumulative—as more are implemented, stock status improves and predicted long-term catches increase. Thus, a broad suite of management measures at local, national and international levels appears to be key to sustaining fish populations and food production.

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Implementation history of fisheries management measures for assessed stocks, showing steady increases globally over the past half century.
Fig. 2: Stock status history relative to the timing of fisheries management interventions.
Fig. 3: Effects of management, fishery and life-history attributes on annual changes in relative fishing pressure and relative biomass.
Fig. 4: Predicted effects of fisheries management interventions on stock status.
Fig. 5: Equilibrium predictions at different combinations of stock-level and national-level management intensity.

Data availability

Stock assessment data are compiled in RAMLDB (version 4.491-mdl-fits)22, which is publicly available at

Code availability

All data input files and code to reproduce analyses are publicly available at


  1. 1.

    Worm, B. et al. Rebuilding global fisheries. Science 325, 578–585 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Fernandes, P. G. & Cook, R. M. Reversal of fish stock decline in the northeast Atlantic. Curr. Biol. 23, 1432–1437 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Costello, C. et al. Global fishery prospects under contrasting management regimes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 5125–5129 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Hilborn, R. et al. Effective fisheries management instrumental in improving fish stock status. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 2218–2224 (2020).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Osio, G. C., Orio, A. & Millar, C. P. Assessing the vulnerability of Mediterranean demersal stocks and predicting exploitation status of un-assessed stocks. Fish. Res. 171, 110–121 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Pons, M. et al. Effects of biological, economic and management factors on tuna and billfish stock status. Fish. Fish. 18, 1–27 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Melnychuk, M. C., Peterson, E., Elliott, M. & Hilborn, R. Fisheries management impacts on target species status. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 178–183 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Essington, T. E. et al. Catch shares, fisheries, and ecological stewardship: a comparative analysis of resource responses to a rights-based policy instrument. Conserv. Lett. 5, 186–195 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Melnychuk, M. C., Banobi, J. A. & Hilborn, R. Effects of management tactics on meeting conservation objectives for western North American groundfish fisheries. PLoS ONE 8, 1–15 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Melnychuk, M. C. et al. Which design elements of individual quota fisheries help to achieve management objectives? Fish. Fish. 17, 126–142 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Pons, M., Melnychuk, M. C. & Hilborn, R. Management effectiveness of large pelagic fisheries in the high seas. Fish. Fish. 19, 260–270 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Neubauer, P., Jensen, O. P., Hutchings, J. A. & Baum, J. K. Resilience and recovery of overexploited marine populations. Science 340, 347–349 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Ye, Y. & Gutierrez, N. L. Ending fishery overexploitation by expanding from local successes to globalized solutions. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0179 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Costello, C. et al. The future of food from the sea. Nature (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Convention on the Law of the Sea (UN General Assembly, 1982).

  16. 16.

    Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1995).

  17. 17.

    Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1995).

  18. 18.

    Melnychuk, M. C. et al. Can catch share fisheries better track management targets? Fish. Fish. 13, 267–290 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Deroba, J. J. & Bence, J. R. A review of harvest policies: understanding relative performance of control rules. Fish. Res. 94, 210–223 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Murawski, S. A. Rebuilding depleted fish stocks: the good, the bad, and, mostly, the ugly. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 67, 1830–1840 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Ricard, D., Minto, C., Jensen, O. P. & Baum, J. K. Examining the knowledge base and status of commercially exploited marine species with the RAM Legacy Stock Assessment Database. Fish. Fish. 13, 380–398 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    RAM Legacy Stock Assessment Database, version 4.491-mdl-fits. Zenodo (2019).

  23. 23.

    Sethi, S. A., Branch, T. A. & Watson, R. Global fishery development patterns are driven by profit but not trophic level. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 12163–12167 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Benson, A. J., Cooper, A. B. & Carruthers, T. R. An evaluation of rebuilding policies for US fisheries. PLoS ONE 11, e0146278 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Cardinale, M. et al. Rebuilding EU fish stocks and fisheries, a process under way? Mar. Policy 39, 43–52 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Bell, R. J. et al. Rebuilding in the face of climate change. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 75, 1405–1414 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Britten, G. L., Dowd, M., Kanary, L. & Worm, B. Extended fisheries recovery timelines in a changing environment. Nat. Commun. 8, 15325 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Hillary, R. M. et al. A scientific alternative to moratoria for rebuilding depleted international tuna stocks. Fish. Fish. 17, 469–482 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Gutierrez, N. L., Hilborn, R. & Defeo, O. Leadership, social capital and incentives promote successful fisheries. Nature 470, 386–389 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Hilborn, R. Pretty good yield and exploited fishes. Mar. Policy 34, 193–196 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Neubauer, P., Thorson, J. T., Melnychuk, M. C., Methot, R. & Blackhart, K. Drivers and rates of stock assessments in the United States. PLoS ONE 13, e0196483 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Lloret, J., Lleonart, J. & Solé, I. Time series modelling of landings in northwest Mediterranean Sea. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57, 171–184 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Gutiérrez-Estrada, J. C., Sanz-Fernández, V., Pulido-Calvo, I. & Gil-Herrera, J. Improving the interpretability of the effects of environmental factors on abundance of fish stocks. Ecol. Indic. 117, 106533 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Methot, R. D., Tromble, G. R., Lambert, D. M. & Greene, K. E. Implementing a science-based system for preventing overfishing and guiding sustainable fisheries in the United States. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 71, 183–194 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Pascoe, S. et al. Developing harvest strategies to achieve ecological, economic and social sustainability in multi-sector fisheries. Sustainability 11, 644 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Hyndman, R. J. & Athanasopoulos, G. Forecasting: Principles and Practice (OTexts, 2018).

  37. 37.

    Pinheiro, J. C. & Bates, D. M. Mixed-effects Models in S and S-PLUS (Springer, 2000).

  38. 38.

    Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N. & Elphick, C. S. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1, 3–14 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D. & R Core Team nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-149 (2019).

  40. 40.

    Szuwalski, C. S. & Thorson, J. T. Global fishery dynamics are poorly predicted by classical models. Fish Fish. 18, 1085–1095 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


Fisheries experts who graciously provided management-related information are listed in Supplementary Note 3. Many other scientists generously contributed data to RAMLDB. C. Costello provided helpful comments on the manuscript. J. Sanders, D. Ovando, H. Bassett, A. Faraj, S. Segurado and J. Wilson provided valuable feedback. Fisheries and Oceans Canada granted permission to reproduce the flounder illustration in the Fig. 2 inset. This work was supported by the Science for Nature and People Partnership programme (working group ‘Fisheries Measures’) from the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, which was funded by the Nature Conservancy and the Wildlife Conservation Society. RAMLDB has been supported by funding from the Walton Family Foundation and a consortium of Seattle fishing companies. T.A.B. was funded in part by the Richard C. and Lois M. Worthington Endowed Professorship in Fisheries Management. The scientific results and conclusions, as well as any views or opinions expressed herein, are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of NOAA or the US Department of Commerce.

Author information




Specific contributions made by each author are listed by role, following the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) model. Conceptualization: M.C.M., H.K., P.M.M., C.M., O.P.J., C.L.d.M., A.M.P., T.A.B., C.M.A., C.S.S., J.K.B., T.R.M., Y.Y., R.H. Data curation: M.C.M., D.H. Formal analysis: M.C.M., C.M., D.H. Funding acquisition: R.H. Investigation: M.C.M., H.K., P.M.M., M.P., C.M., G.C.O., O.P.J., C.L.d.M., A.M.P., L.R.L., D.H., C.E.A., N.B., R.O.A., J.K.B., T.R.M., A.L., J.B., G.G.T., J.D., A.M., B.B., E.W., J.R. Methodology: M.C.M., C.M., O.P.J., A.M.P., T.A.B., C.S.S., R.H. Project administration: M.C.M., R.H. Resources: R.H. Software: M.C.M., C.M., D.H. Supervision: M.C.M., R.H. Validation: M.C.M., H.K., P.M.M., M.P., C.M., G.C.O., O.P.J., C.L.d.M., A.M.P., L.R.L., D.H., R.O.A., C.M.A., Y.Y., J.R. Visualization: M.C.M., C.M., T.A.B. Writing (original draft): M.C.M. Writing (review and editing): M.C.M., H.K., P.M.M., M.P., C.M., G.C.O., O.P.J., C.L.d.M., A.M.P., L.R.L., D.H., C.E.A., N.B., T.A.B., C.M.A., C.S.S., J.K.B., T.R.M., Y.Y., A.L., G.G.T., J.D., B.B., J.R., R.H.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael C. Melnychuk.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

Most authors are involved in fisheries management or provide fisheries advice in ways that can be viewed by some as competing interests. Many are employed by national fisheries agencies or non-governmental organizations that advocate for specific fisheries policies. The academic scientists have received funding from sources that include government fisheries agencies, fishing companies and environmental non-governmental organizations.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Sustainability thanks J. C. Gutierrez-Estrada, A. Tsikliras and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods, Discussion, Notes 1–3, references, Tables 3–7 and Figs. 2–10.

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Table 1

Management measures considered as predictor variables potentially affecting stock status.

Supplementary Table 2

National/international-level fisheries management measures treated as interventions potentially affecting stock status.

Supplementary Table 8

Summary of comparisons between sensitivity analyses and main run of results.

Supplementary Fig. 1

Stock status history relative to the timing of fisheries management interventions for 288 individual stocks included in analyses.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Melnychuk, M.C., Kurota, H., Mace, P.M. et al. Identifying management actions that promote sustainable fisheries. Nat Sustain 4, 440–449 (2021).

Download citation


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing