Data Provision for Science-Based FAD Fishery Management: Spanish FAD Management Plan as a Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a useful paper and presents the data provision importance in FAD-fishery management. The title and abstract reflects the content. The keywords are appropriate given. Statement of its objectives is adequate and appropriate in view of the subject matter. The text is well organized and logically webbed together. The methods and analysis seems fine. The content justify its length.

Author Response

Dear Editor-in-Chief Sustainability,

I am sending the revised version of the Manuscript sustainability-1608947, entitled "Data provision for a science-based FAD fishery management: the Spanish FAD management Plan as Case Study". In the new improved version we attended al minor revision request per the Reviewers.

General comments

Overall this is a cohesive and generally well-written review.

The main improvements needed relate to further expanding the synthesis and transferable learning to be gained from the Spanish case. Section 5 goes some way towards the stated objective of the paper (i.e., line 150 “The ultimate goal is to provide concrete recommendations to streamline both the data collection and data management systems in place to achieve improved timelines and quality of the information submitted to t-RFMOs.”) but there is a wider context to the purpose of data collection above and beyond the consideration of the ‘error rate’. Indeed, most of the paper is concerned with this wider context e.g. explaining all of the various t-RFMO data collection requirements (for the purpose of management) and, in Section 2, introducing assessment & management challenges.

Therefore – the additional synthesis needed should ‘close the loop’ and consider how the Spanish approach might actually improve management. Otherwise the value of the entire case seems limited to an explanation of how one might go about ‘complying with the requirements of t-RFMOs’ which has limited value in itself. It would be particularly interesting to revisit the challenges outlined in Section 2 and identify how the contemporary (i.e. refined and improved) data collection system might help to tackle those challenges. See comments below regarding lines 531-533 and lines 539-546 which may help.

The text in section 3 (on t-RFMO requirements) is also a little long-winded and could do with some pruning if possible, but arguably provides useful context.

With these improvements I would have no hesitation in recommended the manuscript for publication in Sustainability.

I also include below a few minor edits the authors may like to consider.

Thank you very much for your comments, we have extended the Final Remarks section, reduced the text, and updated the resolutions from the t-RFMO.

Specific comments

Line 74: needs slight rewording (hard to follow), DONE

Line 89: associated with FAD fisheries, DONE

Figure 1 and related text: suggest defining the term ‘set’ in the text prior to presenting Figure 1 (e.g., giving some context to a typical deployment and perhaps noting the net size, typical area fished etc – all would provide useful context for a reader not familiar with this particular fishery), DONE

Figure 1 caption: state that the data are specific to Spanish tuna fleet in the caption. DONE

Lines 126-136: seems out of place here. Potentially move this info to line 86. DONE, We moved the paragraph to the end of the introduction.

Line 162: perhaps condense this sentence e.g., … due to technological improvements that impact on fishing efficiency. DONE

Line 172: why would the fishery become ‘more dynamic’? Perhaps qualify what is meant here in an extra sentence. DONE

Line 181: among others? DONE

Line 191: Reword this sentence e.g., ‘These impacts involve, among other things … and stranding events … DONE

Table 1: Title is a little misleading. Perhaps change to “Tuna Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (t-RFMO) resolutions and recommendations for data collection and reporting requirements on FAD fisheries. DONE

Line 343: do you mean ‘…include the provision of operational-level (by fishing event) reporting?. Yes, DONE

Line 384: do you mean ‘Two main data sources are generally sought for FAD fishery research’ DONE

Line 424: prune text at the start of the long sentence (not needed) e.g. ‘This included information on buoy ownership and buoy type … DONE

Line 455: user-manual DONE

Line 520: a little misleading. i.e., FAD data collection programs need to respond to … DONE

Line 521: knowledge of the FAD fishery. DONE

Line 527: this sentence is too long and clunky. DONE

Lines 531-533 and lines 539-546: the content of these sentence could be expanded to improve / add depth to your synthesis. E.g., how does the current Spanish approach help to address these aspects – and/or how could it be refined further to help address these aspects in the future? DONE

Line 534-539: the content of this sentence has been stated several times over in the manuscript – too much repetition. We want to highlight this at the end of the paper.

Lines 547-557: these points are good reflections to end on and will resonate further with an expanded synthesis on learnings and insights from the Spanish case (as above). DONE

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see attached pdf

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor-in-Chief Sustainability,

I am sending the revised version of the Manuscript sustainability-1608947, entitled "Data provision for a science-based FAD fishery management: the Spanish FAD management Plan as Case Study". In the new improved version we attended al minor revision request per the Reviewers.

General comments

Overall this is a cohesive and generally well-written review.

The main improvements needed relate to further expanding the synthesis and transferable learning to be gained from the Spanish case. Section 5 goes some way towards the stated objective of the paper (i.e., line 150 “The ultimate goal is to provide concrete recommendations to streamline both the data collection and data management systems in place to achieve improved timelines and quality of the information submitted to t-RFMOs.”) but there is a wider context to the purpose of data collection above and beyond the consideration of the ‘error rate’. Indeed, most of the paper is concerned with this wider context e.g. explaining all of the various t-RFMO data collection requirements (for the purpose of management) and, in Section 2, introducing assessment & management challenges.

Therefore – the additional synthesis needed should ‘close the loop’ and consider how the Spanish approach might actually improve management. Otherwise the value of the entire case seems limited to an explanation of how one might go about ‘complying with the requirements of t-RFMOs’ which has limited value in itself. It would be particularly interesting to revisit the challenges outlined in Section 2 and identify how the contemporary (i.e. refined and improved) data collection system might help to tackle those challenges. See comments below regarding lines 531-533 and lines 539-546 which may help.

The text in section 3 (on t-RFMO requirements) is also a little long-winded and could do with some pruning if possible, but arguably provides useful context.

With these improvements I would have no hesitation in recommended the manuscript for publication in Sustainability.

I also include below a few minor edits the authors may like to consider.

Thank you very much for your comments, we have extended the Final Remarks section, reduced the text, and updated the resolutions from the t-RFMO.

Specific comments

Line 74: needs slight rewording (hard to follow), DONE

Line 89: associated with FAD fisheries, DONE

Figure 1 and related text: suggest defining the term ‘set’ in the text prior to presenting Figure 1 (e.g., giving some context to a typical deployment and perhaps noting the net size, typical area fished etc – all would provide useful context for a reader not familiar with this particular fishery), DONE

Figure 1 caption: state that the data are specific to Spanish tuna fleet in the caption. DONE

Lines 126-136: seems out of place here. Potentially move this info to line 86. DONE, We moved the paragraph to the end of the introduction.

Line 162: perhaps condense this sentence e.g., … due to technological improvements that impact on fishing efficiency. DONE

Line 172: why would the fishery become ‘more dynamic’? Perhaps qualify what is meant here in an extra sentence. DONE

Line 181: among others? DONE

Line 191: Reword this sentence e.g., ‘These impacts involve, among other things … and stranding events … DONE

Table 1: Title is a little misleading. Perhaps change to “Tuna Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (t-RFMO) resolutions and recommendations for data collection and reporting requirements on FAD fisheries. DONE

Line 343: do you mean ‘…include the provision of operational-level (by fishing event) reporting?. Yes, DONE

Line 384: do you mean ‘Two main data sources are generally sought for FAD fishery research’ DONE

Line 424: prune text at the start of the long sentence (not needed) e.g. ‘This included information on buoy ownership and buoy type … DONE

Line 455: user-manual DONE

Line 520: a little misleading. i.e., FAD data collection programs need to respond to … DONE

Line 521: knowledge of the FAD fishery. DONE

Line 527: this sentence is too long and clunky. DONE

Lines 531-533 and lines 539-546: the content of these sentence could be expanded to improve / add depth to your synthesis. E.g., how does the current Spanish approach help to address these aspects – and/or how could it be refined further to help address these aspects in the future? DONE

Line 534-539: the content of this sentence has been stated several times over in the manuscript – too much repetition. We want to highlight this at the end of the paper.

Lines 547-557: these points are good reflections to end on and will resonate further with an expanded synthesis on learnings and insights from the Spanish case (as above). DONE