Applying a sequential evidence hierarchy, with caveats, to support prudent fisheries bycatch policy

Abstract

Policy decisions should be guided by the relative degree of risk of error and bias and strength of evidence of the efficacy of alternative management interventions. This study describes the benefits and limitations of applying a sequential evidence hierarchy to evaluate alternative fisheries bycatch management strategies. Fisheries bycatch is an obstacle to global food and livelihood security and is a main anthropogenic threat to several threatened species. Independent synthesis of all accumulated information is a fundamental principle for developing transparent, evidence-informed regional conservation policy. Meta-analytic syntheses produce the most robust and generalizable findings that are optimal for guiding regional bycatch management. Otherwise, given too few studies to support robust meta-syntheses, decisions should rely on qualitative syntheses of accumulated studies. Bycatch mitigation methods with findings only available from studies with relatively weak forms of evidence, or lacking any evidence, should only be considered as a precautionary approach when more certain alternatives are unavailable. Strictly applying a hierarchical approach on study evidence to make policy decisions, however, risks ignoring potentially important findings derived from studies using methods low on an evidence hierarchy. Instead, in making bycatch management policies, authorities should account for all accumulated evidence and the implications of different approaches for testing different hypotheses. Fisheries bycatch policy guided, but not bounded, by a sequential evidence hierarchy promises to achieve ecological and socioeconomic objectives.