Full length articleBest practices for providing scientific recommendations in regional fisheries management organizations: Lessons from bluefin tunas

- Transparency in producing scientific advice about bluefin tunas is compared.
- Additional factors affecting the quality of scientific advice are considered.
- The relationship between the process and quality of scientific advice is discussed.
- The transparency in the process is comparable for all three bluefin tunas.
- Transparency does not influence the quality of scientific advice.

Bluefin tunas are iconic trans-ocean species; both their management and their science attract much attention. While outside input to the management of these species can advance international fisheries discussions, misleading criticism of management process can confuse already complex discussions. The focus lately has been on Pacific bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis, PBF) as stocks of the other two bluefin tunas are apparently recovering. Recently, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) cast doubts on the scientific process behind scientific advice concerning PBF. In response, this study was designed to evaluate and compare factors contributing to the quality of scientific recommendations by international bodies conducting stock assessments of bluefin tunas, including the transparency issue highlighted by the IUCN. The relationship between the underlying factors and the indicators of the quality of scientific recommendations was also investigated. The results show comparable transparency in the scientific processes for the three bluefin tunas, whereas other factors vary. Overall, the scientific processes for all the three bluefin tunas are not problematic, but can be improved. In addition, transparency appears unrelated to the indicators of the quality of scientific recommendations studied here. The issue of transparency of scientific processes in tuna regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) and their scientific recommendations should therefore be discussed separately, although transparency is important for ensuring outside confidence in the management process. The objective comparisons presented here will hopefully improve scientific processes in tuna RFMOs by promoting further transparency.