international fisheries research paper

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Food for Thought
• Food for Thought: Luminaries
• Food for Thought: Rising Tides
• Quo Vadimus
• Stories from the Front Lines
• Symposium Issues
• Themed Sets
• Introductions
• Hidden Gems
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Why Publish with us?
• About ICES Journal of Marine Science
• About the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Terms and Conditions
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, review approach, key findings, category i: well-established science and advice topics in ices, category ii: less-established science and advice topics in ices, discussion: future perspectives, identifying operational fleet capacity targets and capacity adjustment strategies, informing policy on key interactions determining fisheries responses to management, acknowledgements, conflict of interest, author contributions, data availability, integrating economics into fisheries science and advice: progress, needs, and future opportunities.

Authorship equal for these lead authors .

Authorship equal for these topic coordinators and editors .

Authorship equal for these authors .

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

O Thébaud, J R Nielsen, A Motova, H Curtis, F Bastardie, G E Blomqvist, F Daurès, L Goti, J Holzer, J Innes, A Muench, A Murillas, R Nielsen, R Rosa, E Thunberg, S Villasante, J Virtanen, S Waldo, S Agnarsson, D Castilla Espino, R Curtin, G DePiper, R Doering, H Ellefsen, J J García del Hoyo1, S Gourguet, P Greene, K G Hamon, A Haynie, J B Kellner, S Kuikka, B Le Gallic, C Macher, R Prellezo, J Santiago Castro-Rial, K Sys, H van Oostenbrugge, B M J Vastenhoud, Integrating economics into fisheries science and advice: progress, needs, and future opportunities, ICES Journal of Marine Science , Volume 80, Issue 4, May 2023, Pages 647–663, https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsad005

• Permissions Icon Permissions

While the science supporting fisheries management has generally been dominated by the natural sciences, there has been a growing recognition that managing fisheries essentially means managing economic systems. Indeed, over the past seven decades, economic ideas and insights have increasingly come to play a role in fisheries management and policy. As an illustration of this, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) has been actively seeking to expand the scope of its scientific expertise beyond natural sciences [another inter-governmental marine science organization which has done this over the same period is the North Pacific Marine Science organization (PICES)]. In particular, the recently created ICES Working Group on Economics set out to review current work and key future needs relating to economic research and management advice on marine capture fisheries. This article presents the results of this review and addresses how economic research can be incorporated into the science of ICES to provide integrated perspectives on fisheries systems that can contribute to the provision of advice in support of policy development and management decision-making for sustainable uses of living marine resources.

Over the past seven decades, economic ideas and insights have increasingly come to play a role in fisheries management and policy. Central to the early development of this literature, Gordon ( 1954 ) and Scott ( 1955 ) laid the foundations of the economic rationale for fisheries management by contrasting resource extraction under open access with optimal management aimed at maximizing economic yield. Clark and Munro ( 1975 ) also studied fisheries management as a capital theory problem, allowing economists to use a diversity of well-developed analytical tools to evaluate the efficient intertemporal use of fishery resources. Extending the discrete choice random utility model developed by (McFadden, 1974 ), (Eales and Wilen, 1986 ) and later (Holland and Sutinen, 2000 ) demonstrated the capacity to predict location choices in commercial fisheries. Location choice models have also been applied to the study of recreational fisheries (Bockstael and Opaluch, 1983 ; Bockstael et al ., 1989 ; McConnell et al ., 1995 ). For an extensive review of applied location choice models, see Girardin et al . ( 2017 ). Key to these and other contributions has been the increasing availability of economic data and the ability of economics to grapple with the identification of incentives driving fisher behaviour, as well as the evaluation of the costs and benefits associated with policy interventions.

In many instances, economic analyses have actively informed policy design (Wilen, 2000 ; Anderson, 2015 ), although scholars have noted that the full potential for contributions of fisheries economics to policy has yet to be realized (Hanna, 2011 ; Knapp, 2012 ). Underlying fisheries economics contributions is the recognition that how different policy options interact with stakeholders’ incentives impacts the likelihood of achieving management objectives. For example, early economic studies of fisheries management under an industry-wide total allowable catch (TAC) provided an understanding of harvesters’ incentives to further engage in capital investment (so-called “capital stuffing”), with the resulting race to fish and dissipation of profit (Homans and Wilen, 1997 ). Other studies emphasized the incentives for input substitution in input-managed fisheries, questioning the usefulness of such controls in practice (Dupont, 1991 ). Many fisheries policy innovations were introduced in light of these economic insights, in particular the various approaches for allocating harvest rights to different user groups (Shotton, 2001 ; OECD, 2006 ). The work of (Christy, 1973 ) was instrumental to the introduction of Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs), which has become a widespread tool for fisheries management. In such management regimes, rather than setting industry-wide catch limits only, the regulator allocates individual catch shares with the intent that these will provide fishermen with more secure rights to fish, thereby limiting perverse incentives (Costello et al ., 2008 ).

Given that efficient allocation of scarce resources is central to economics (Samuelson et al ., 2019 ), assessing trade-offs is consubstantial to the discipline. Indeed, trade-off analysis is embedded in how economists quantify economic value. As a measure of value, economists typically use differences in net benefits from a policy intervention compared to no policy, or differences in net benefits with and without a shock to the system such as an ecological disturbance or an industrial accident (e.g. an oil spill). In supporting fisheries management, application of economic analysis has largely focused on informing decisions on how to best allocate limited resources such as time, capital, and fish stocks to attain the highest net benefits to society (see e.g. Dichmont et al ., 2010 ; Pereau et al ., 2012 ; Guillen et al ., 2013 ). Economic analysis has also paid attention to costs in fisheries, both fixed and variable, and how these can help understand the development of the industry and the influence of policy (e.g. Sala et al ., 2018 ).

In setting the general principles that allow understanding of incentives and trade-offs, early fisheries economics work was largely normative and theoretical (Wilen, 2000 ). Research over the past three decades has seen a strong development of empirical research, with increasing availability of empirical information and computing power (Andersen, 2013 ), as well as the recruitment of economists working in national marine laboratories. A number of complex bio-economic methods and models have also recently been developed and implemented for different fisheries around the world (see Nielsen et al ., 2018a for a review and Thébaud et al ., 2014 for a discussion of key challenges). In contrast to earlier economic literature focusing on stylized biological models, the population dynamics in these models are of similar complexity to stock assessment models currently used in fishery advice. As a result, this new literature has significantly contributed to bridging the gap between ecological and economic perspectives on fishery systems (Doyen et al ., 2013 ; Nielsen et al ., 2018a ). For example, in Australia, where the policy objective is set to achieve maximum economic yield (MEY) in commercial fisheries, bio-economic models are used on a regular basis to support management decisions (Dichmont et al ., 2010 ; Pascoe et al ., 2014 ; Pascoe et al ., 2016 ). In the northeast US Gulf of Maine, bio-economic models of recreational fisher behaviour are used to set annual management specifications for Atlantic cod ( Gadus morhua ) and Atlantic haddock ( Melanogrammus aeglefinus ) stocks (Lee et al ., 2017 ). Indeed, the application of fisheries economics has been able to rely on a growing diversity of economic models and data, including the collection of cost and earnings data for commercial fishing operations (Thunberg et al ., 2015 ; STECF, 2020 ; Werner et al ., 2020 ). Other techniques enable economists to assess the welfare changes associated with policy interventions on non-market ecosystem services (ES), such as surveys of willingness to pay for the conservation of marine protected species that interact with fisheries (Wallmo and Lew, 2012 ).

While the science supporting fisheries management has generally been dominated by the natural sciences, there has been a growing recognition among natural scientists (Hilborn, 2007 ) that managing fisheries means managing economic and social systems (Charles, 2005 ). Indeed, international guidelines have increasingly highlighted the need to account for ecological, economic, and social goals in managing fisheries for sustainability as part of ecosystem-based fisheries management (Pikitch et al ., 2004 ). This resulted in the explicit inclusion of socio-economic considerations in fisheries policies around the world as well as in scientific advice, leading, for example, to initial discussions on incorporating fisheries economics into the work of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) as far back as 1971 (ICES, 2003 ). It is only in recent years, however, that efforts by ICES have materialized to expand the scope of scientific expertise to incorporate contributions from the social sciences. According to its current strategic plan (ICES. 2021. Strategic Plan. 18 pp. http://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.7460 ), the vision of ICES is “to be a world-leading marine science organization, meeting societal needs for impartial evidence on the state and sustainable use of our seas and oceans”. Based on this vision, ICES defines its mission as advancing and sharing scientific understanding of marine ecosystems and the services they provide, and using this knowledge to generate state-of-the-art advice for meeting conservation, management, and sustainability goals. This has led ICES to broaden its scientific priorities (ICES, 2019: Strategic Plan, pp. 18–19, https://issuu.com/icesdk/docs/ices_stategic_plan_2019_web ), which now include elucidating the present and future states of not only natural but also social systems, placing the understanding of human behaviour, incentives, and values as central to the work of the organization.

These priorities have led to a move towards the broadening of the science-base of ICES to fully include social sciences, and to discussions on how to expand upon the conventional information basis largely centred on biological/ecological information to more explicit consideration of the social and economic dimensions associated with policy development and management choices. This inclusion of a marine socio-ecological systems perspective (Link et al ., 2017 ) has led to new initiatives within ICES, including the Strategic Initiative on Human Dimensions (SIHD: https://www.ices.dk/community/groups/Pages/SIHD.aspx ) and the initiation of new working groups, including the Working Group on Economics (WGECON). These efforts have been undertaken to promote progress in the integration of economics into ICES science and advice. As one of its first tasks, WGECON (see https://www.ices.dk/community/groups/Pages/WGECON.aspx ) set out to review the status and progress made in applying fisheries economics in ICES marine areas to policy topics and research of relevance to fisheries managers.

This article presents the results of this review. Through examination of a selection of key topics of current ICES and global relevance to fisheries science and policy, we illustrate how economic research can provide an improved understanding of the ways in which fisheries develop and respond to change and of the trade-offs associated with alternative scenarios and management strategies. As such, the article addresses the question of how contributions from economic research can be incorporated into the scientific advice of an organization such as ICES, eventually contributing to informing policy development and management decision-making for sustainable uses of living marine resources.

Section 2 presents the review approach, based on consultation with experts in the field and a systematic process of synthesizing and reviewing the state of the art in applied fisheries economics research. Section 3 presents a synthesis of the extent to which existing research is currently used in supporting fisheries policy. We show that a strong body of applied fisheries economics research exists, covering a broad range of topics at the core of fisheries management, but that only some of this work is incorporated in the advice supporting policy implementation. Section 4 identifies the potential for further developments of direct relevance to the science supporting management advice internationally. We conclude by highlighting the key steps that can be taken to support a stronger integration of economics into fisheries science and advice.

The review relied mainly on expert assessment drawn from the expertise of WGECON, a group composed of >50 economists and fisheries experts from 16 countries, including European and North American researchers specializing in marine living resource economics. The group met annually from 2018 to 2020 and established an initial list of 12 key contemporaneous commercial fishery management topics central to economic research and analyses that were perceived to be of high relevance to ICES scientific and advisory work.

For each of these topics, the members of the group reviewed both current and future research priorities. The group first considered the research currently conducted and advice provided as part of ICES work and more broadly in fisheries management, including the economic issues relating to the topic that economists have examined, the evaluation methods and tools available, as well as the data available and indicators used. Next, the group assessed key future needs for research and integration into ICES science, including issues and questions that could be documented, evaluation methods and tools that should be developed, data and indicators that needed to be made available, and the associated information flow from research to policy support.

The information collected from group members was first compiled in shorthand format for each topic. Based on these synthetic reports, sub-groups, typically consisting of two moderators and two reviewers, developed revised and elaborated report texts and summary sheets for each topic (see Supplementary Material Section B ). The reports and summary sheets were systematically reviewed by at least two other members of the group, leading to revised summary sheets and report text. A final round of revisions was carried out during a final meeting where both moderators and reviewers participated in the process, leading to the material presented in this article.

The identified topics were classified into two broad categories ( Table 1 ). The first category was commercial fisheries management topics, on which ICES science and advice are well established in disciplines other than economics. These topics were ordered from the older, standard topics to the more recent and complex ones. The second category was topics the group perceived to be important to consider for sustainable fisheries yet not commonly included in the standard science supporting advice. These topics were ranked by increasing level of complexity.  Table 1 summarizes the topics in both categories and the key research questions addressed under each.

Topics considered in the review.

The connections between these different topics were repeatedly and extensively discussed by the group, highlighting the importance of bringing the different topics under each category into integrated approaches in order to inform fisheries management.  Figure 1 summarizes the 12 topics considered in the review and illustrates the interconnectedness between them, which is also reflected in the key findings section hereafter.

Graphical representation of the topics for science and advice considered in the review. See  Table 1 for the identification of questions addressed under each of the topics illustrated.

To complement the work of the expert group, an international survey among fisheries economists was carried out in collaboration with the European Association of Fisheries Economists (EAFE) during 2019. Members of the North American Association of Fisheries Economists (NAAFE) were also invited to respond. The aim of the survey was to evaluate whether the key topics identified by the WGECON experts were indeed representative of the core contributions that fisheries economics can provide to support management advice, and to identify any other topics that should also be included. Survey respondents were asked about key fishery economic topics and were asked to rank the relative importance of each of these topics in terms of research and management advice. The survey was conducted through an online form that was circulated to the EAFE and NAAFE mailing lists. To increase the response rate and discuss preliminary results, a specific session was organized during the 2019 EAFE Conference in Santiago de Compostela, Spain. Additionally, a presentation of WGECON and the survey were given during the 2019 NAAFE Forum in Halifax, Canada. Additional paper questionnaires were also administered to survey participants during the two conferences.

In total, 36 responses to the survey were collected through fisheries economics networks. Responses confirmed the list of 12 topics but also identified the major additional, cross-cutting theme of climate change impacts that is mobilizing increasing research attention in the profession (other emerging topics such as pollution, regionalization of management, and coastal community studies were mentioned as important topics for future work). Because of its cross-cutting nature, this was not included as a separate topic in the review but rather considered in terms of how research on the 12 topics might assist in addressing the issues arising from climate-related impacts on ecosystems and the economy.

The results of the review for the 12 key topics are summarized in this section, highlighting the advances in applied fisheries economic research that are relevant to ICES work.  Table 2 provides a qualitative overview of the assessment by WGECON of the degree to which research on these topics has advanced to a stage where the key issues relating to each topic are being addressed, both in research as well as in management advice. This assessment includes the methods, tools, data, and indicators that have been developed and are being used in formal advisory processes at national and/or international levels. In what follows, we provide the main arguments for these assessments for each of the 12 topics, as well as selected key references to the relevant state-of-the-art literature in fisheries economics. For more detailed assessment information and additional references to literature published outside the economics journals on each topic, the reader is referred to Section A of the Supplementary Material .

Progress in the availability and use in advice of work on issues, methods, and tools, and data and indicators for each topic, within and outside ICES.

Colour scale indicates the extent to which the research is available and used/applied in the science supporting the advice, according to the views of the expert group. Dark green: used/applied; Medium green: fully available; light green: only partially available. “Within ICES” refers to research that is being conducted within ICES member countries. “Outside ICES” refers to research that is being conducted in countries outside ICES.

Topic I: TAC setting in output-based management systems

Early fisheries economics research largely centred on redirecting attention from the strictly biological focus of fisheries science to consideration of issues such as wealth dissipation, fleet misallocation, or the low income of fishers (Scott, 1989 ). Efforts thus focused on extending the biological production function and its response to alternative regulatory regimes (Clark and Munro, 1975 ; Clark, 1980 ; Scott, 1989 ). At the same time, output controls such as TAC limits were becoming a common instrument to help sustain fisheries harvests internationally, with strong developments in the science of population dynamics. Earlier economic work studied how TACs can interact with fleet incentives to result in overcapacity and reduced economic returns (Homans and Wilen, 1997 ). With the growing availability of economic data on fishing activities, a range of applied bio-economic models were developed and are being used to inform management. However, with some notable exceptions (Dichmont et al ., 2010 ; Pascoe et al ., 2016 ), these models have mainly focused on impact assessments, evaluating the economic consequences of alternative TACs set based on biological objectives, either achieving maximum sustainable yield or avoiding unwanted biological outcomes of fishing (see Supplementary Material for references to the large body of literature that has developed in this field in the ICES context). In parallel, significant steps have been made in the bio-economic modelling literature to build directly on the biological models routinely used to inform TAC setting, in particular age- or size-structured models of fish population dynamics (Pascoe and Mardle, 2001 ; Tahvonen, 2009 ; Macher et al ., 2018 ; Tahvonen et al ., 2018 ). Given that they largely capture the key dimensions considered in identifying fishing mortality targets in fisheries management advice, we argue that these models can be directly used to examine strategies that consider economic objectives, including MEY (Grafton et al ., 2010 ). With the increased availability of economic data on fishing fleets across ICES regions, these models constitute a strong set of tools for addressing many of the research questions identified under the different topics that follow.

Topic II: mixed species fisheries management

Models have been applied to the question of managing so-called mixed fisheries, where fleets targeting mixes of species interact through differing levels of contributions to the mortality of given fish stocks in given areas and seasons while also differing in their levels of economic dependency on these stocks (Holland and Sutinen, 2000 ). This has led to further empirical analysis of the structure of profit functions in fisheries and to a better understanding of observed industry structures and their evolution over time (Squires, 1988 ; Weninger, 2001 ). Research has also focused on aggregate fishery-level production relationships to determine the economic importance of bycatch species in a fishery and optimal bycatch rules (Larson et al ., 1998 ). Economic models of bycatch have included incentives that may exist in multi-species fisheries for fishermen to modify their fishing strategies (Birkenbach et al ., 2020 ), as well as responses to TAC and quota allocation decisions for target and bycatch species (Marchal et al ., 2011 ; Holzer and DePiper, 2019 ). A broad range of simulation methods have been developed for evaluating the sustainability and distributional effects of management strategies pursuing biological targets such as single stock MSY (and associated ranges) or multi-species MSY, as well as economic targets such as single- and multi-fleet MEY and/or social targets such as employment (Voss et al ., 2014 ; Ulrich et al ., 2016 ; Nielsen et al ., 2018a ). Multi-criteria assessment methods, such as viable control, have been developed to evaluate strategies satisfying a set of ecological, social, and economic constraints (Gourguet et al ., 2013 ; Doyen et al ., 2017 ; Briton et al ., 2020 ). Recent modelling efforts make use of the latest biological and economic knowledge to examine the benefits of strategies aimed at economic multispecies management objectives as well as dealing with variability and uncertainty (Lagarde et al ., 2018 ; Voss et al ., 2021 ). However, while these methods and tools are widely available and have been used to support management in other parts of the world, to date they have not generally been used in management advice at ICES.

Topic III: area-based and spatial management

As the importance of spatial structure in the distribution of fish populations and the need to account for this in designing spatially explicit management measures has become increasingly acknowledged, so has research focused on describing, explaining, and predicting the spatial allocation of fishing activities and their interactions with the spatial dynamics of fish resources (Eales and Wilen, 1986 ; Sanchirico and Wilen, 1999 ; Holland and Sutinen, 2000 ; Smith, 2000 ; Smith et al ., 2009 ; Dépalle et al ., 2021 ). The analyses have particularly been used to examine the potential bio-economic consequences of spatial management measures such as closed areas and marine protected areas (Hannesson, 1998 ), with more recent work highlighting the importance of considering economic behaviour in examining the potential benefits of such measures (Smith and Wilen, 2003 ; Haynie and Layton, 2010 ; Albers et al ., 2020 ).

In the context of ICES, recent ad hoc initiatives have examined balancing spatially resolved environmental and fisheries economics considerations; an example being the risks of habitat degradation and protective measures adopted as part of deep-sea access regulations. However, to date, ICES has not implemented any advice that incorporates economic or social considerations into spatial fisheries management. This contrasts with other regions where studies of the economic consequences of spatial management have been conducted and are being considered by advisory bodies (Bisack and Sutinen, 2006 ; Abbott and Haynie, 2012 ).

Topic IV: adjustment of capacity to resource potential

Rights-based fishery management approaches aimed at removing the race-to-fish incentives due to the common-pool nature of marine fish stocks should eliminate the need to manage fishing capacity (Homans and Wilen, 1997 ). However, the pervasiveness of policies focused on biological and social considerations has led to a need for capacity management and the development of research to support this endeavour (Pascoe, 2007a ). Economists have particularly focused on the short-term measurement of fishing capacity using output-based measures of observed production given the technical characteristics of fishing fleets and prevailing conditions in the fishery (Kirkley et al ., 2002 ). While robust methods are now available to carry out such measurements, their use to date to inform policy has remained limited. Instead, input-based definitions of fishing capacity have been predominantly used as part of multi-criteria evaluation approaches such as the EU capacity balance indicator guidelines. These guidelines require an annual evaluation of several bio-economic indicators of excess capacity of EU fleets ( https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/balance ), leading to mandatory national plans to address excess capacity. Concurrently, public buyback programmes have often been seen as a preferred capacity reduction instrument, as they are voluntary and compensate industry members for capacity reductions (Pascoe, 2007a ). This has led to a large body of work investigating the outcomes of alternative designs for such programmes (Campbell, 1989 ; Weninger and McConnell, 2000 ; OECD, 2009 ; Holzer et al ., 2017 ). Factors influencing capacity, such as capital investment (including fishing rights) ownership (Nostbakken et al ., 2011 ), entry and exit dynamics of fishing capacity in fisheries (Tidd et al ., 2011 ), or technical progress in fisheries (Squires, 1992 ), have been extensively considered. Underlying these endeavours is research into the implications of governmental support policies for the fishing sector on capacity, fish stocks, and fisher welfare (Clark et al ., 2005 ; Martini and Innes, 2018 ; Smith, 2019 ). The impacts on capacity of incentive-based approaches to regulating access to fisheries resources have also rapidly developed (see Topic VII below). Finally, the alternative approach of using bio-economic models to help identify long-term target capacity levels, both in input and output terms, has also made strong advances (see Topics I and II above). The extent to which these different lines of research and sets of analytical tools can effectively inform fisheries policy and management in the ICES area, however, remains limited.

Topic V: data-limited situations

For several species, stocks, fleets, and fisheries, a lack of data limits the ability to develop appropriate fisheries management advice on matters such as limitations on levels of total catch in single or multi-species fisheries, the spatial and seasonal management of fishing, or the designation of spatial restrictions on fishing. With the growing literature on applied economic analyses of fisheries, there has been increasing acknowledgement of the information limitations and uncertainty that need to be explicitly considered in developing tools that can effectively support policy. This led to an early recognition that, even under economic, biological, and implementation uncertainty, an understanding of the likely responses of fishers to regulations could provide useful information, alongside efforts to develop more complete bio-economic approaches (Bockstael and Opaluch, 1983 ). Related research has considered the implications of uncertainty for the determination of optimal management strategies (Andersen, 1982 ; Charles and Munro, 1985 ; Sethi et al ., 2005 ; Gourguet et al ., 2014 ; Tromeur et al ., 2021 ). Studies have also focused on methods to enable economic analyses while explicitly accounting for the limited information available (Pascoe, 2007b ; Sanchirico et al ., 2008 ; Pascoe et al ., 2014 ; Gacutan et al ., 2019 ). For user groups such as small-scale and recreational fishing activities, data limitations tend to be particularly acute. A growing body of economic research has been devoted to providing a better understanding of these sectors (Zeller et al ., 2006 ; Schuhbauer and Sumaila, 2016 ; Abbott et al ., 2022 ).

Topic VI: shared stocks management

A further extension of fisheries economics has dealt with the added complexity associated with managing fisheries that are shared by several states, with potentially conflicting management strategies due to diverging incentives for fish stock preservation, fishing effort costs, or consumer preferences (Munro, 1979 ). Building on game theory, approaches to eliciting the likely outcomes of international fisheries management have been proposed (Bailey et al ., 2010 ; Hannesson, 2011 ; Costello and Molina, 2021 ), with a growing number of empirical applications. Empirical analysis has also shown that the status of fisheries dependent on shared stocks is generally poorer than that of fisheries under single jurisdictions (McWhinnie, 2009 ). Despite the insights economic research provides into the determinants of international fisheries management, this research has remained largely academic with few actual applications to policy.

Topic VII: fishing rights allocation

Fishing rights, in particular quota allocation, are a key foundation of many fisheries and their management in ICES member countries. In many ways, rights-based management represents the interplay between traditional ICES biological advice and how management bodies implement that advice. Economics can play a key role in helping understand this interplay, especially in relation to the political economy of converting scientific advice into fishing opportunities (Bellanger et al ., 2016 ). Fisheries economic research on fishing rights has focused on both conceptual (Arnason, 1990 ; Boyce, 2004 ; Costello and Deacon, 2007 ) and empirical applications examining the rationalization of commercial fisheries using ITQs (Dupont et al ., 2002 ; Weninger and Waters, 2003 ; Grainger and Costello, 2016 ; Birkenbach et al ., 2017 ). Economic research has in fact investigated a broad range of rights-based management approaches (Shotton, 2001 ; Costello and Kaffine, 2008 ; Thébaud et al ., 2012 ), including territorial use rights (Wilen et al ., 2012 ). Further extensions of fishing rights research have included allocation between commercial and recreational fisheries in the presence of incompletely defined rights (Holzer and McConnell, 2014 ) and defining temporal fishing allocations taking into account the finer spatial and temporal scales at which the race to fish may occur (Huang and Smith, 2014 ). Despite this strong scientific expertise and active research efforts, which are being undertaken in ICES countries on the processes by which fishing rights are allocated among individual fishers, economic analysis of the biological, economic, and social impacts of fishing rights has typically not been included in the research undertaken by ICES or in the advice it produces.

Topic VIII: sustainability of small-scale fisheries (SSF)

With the global quest for sustainable fisheries, international interest has developed regarding the economic, social, and ecological impacts of small-scale fisheries. The reasons for this interest are manifold. First, while a large fraction of the fisheries management research has historically focused on large-scale fishing activities, relatively less attention has been granted to SSF, despite the fact that these have been shown to represent significant sources of food and employment, as well as important cultural services, in many regions of the world (Zeller et al ., 2006 ; Schuhbauer and Sumaila, 2016 ). Second, the observed impacts of fisheries management regimes on rural and remote coastal communities that depend on fisheries have also raised growing concerns (Copes and Charles, 2004 ; Sutherland and Edwards, 2022 ). Third, SSF tend to operate in areas in high demand for other sectors (e.g. recreational activities, aquaculture, renewable energy, coastal development), which often leads to spatial conflicts. Fourth, a branch of research has developed that emphasizes the potential role of institutional regimes that may help address the common-pool resource problem (Schlager and Ostrom, 1992 ; Copes and Charles, 2004 ). To date, research on the economics of SSF and their management has centred on gaining an understanding of their economic, social, and biological dimensions, as well as their interactions with other activities. Key interactions of interest include other industrial fishing fleets harvesting the same stocks, recreational fisheries pursuing the same stocks or operating on the same grounds, as well as other competing sectors. This line of research has led to an increase in the knowledge base as well as the quantity and quality of SSF data available, even extending to the cultural ecosystem services associated with these fisheries (Ropars-Collet et al ., 2017 ; Andersson et al ., 2021 ). However, this information has only recently begun to be considered in the work of some ICES working groups, with a focus on the presentation of information on these fisheries and the communities that depend on them in integrated assessments.

Topic IX: links between the catch sector and markets for fish

An important focus of fisheries economics has been concerned with markets for fish. Research has particularly centred on issues such as the expected long-term drop in fish production of open access fisheries with resulting increased prices of fish (Copes, 1970 ), and on the importance of taking into account the consequences of fisheries management on consumer and producer welfare (Hanemann and Strand, 1993 ; Lee and Thunberg, 2013 ; Costello et al ., 2020 ). Economic research on market price effects has included the relationship between complementary or substitute species in the markets for fish products (Gordon et al ., 1993 ), as well as the influence of price differences on choices of markets and product forms (Asche and Hannesson, 2002 ). The economic implications of interactions between ex-vessel prices and increasing levels of processing sector concentration (Clark and Munro, 1980 ) have also been studied. In addition, over the last 20 years, economic studies have considered consumers’ preferences for fisheries certification and willingness to pay for eco-labelled seafood (Blomquist et al ., 2015 ; Fonner and Sylvia, 2015 ; Ankamah-Yeboah et al ., 2020 ), as well as the effects these consumer-driven schemes have on production systems and/or fishers’ behaviour (Roheim et al ., 2018 ). However, despite the key role of market processes in understanding the economic responses of fisheries systems to management, this research is not commonly considered in fisheries management advice internationally.

Topic X: diversification of commercial fishing

Two economic drivers for diversification of a firm are lower production costs by diversifying to similar products (economies of scope; Panzar and Willig, 1981 ) and to reduce risk by focusing on multiple products with unrelated risk profiles in line with modern portfolio theory (Markowitz, 1952 ). In fisheries, this may involve multiple fishing operations (Bockstael and Opaluch, 1983 ), such as using multiple gears to target different species (Kasperski and Holland, 2013 ), as well as expanding the range of activities to other sectors, such as tourism or processing (Nostbakken et al ., 2011 ). Diversification has implications for fisheries management since it alters the incentives driving fishing choices or strategies, depending on the opportunity costs of fishing (i.e. earnings in alternative activities). For example, fishers might increase engagement in a specific fishery during periods with low earnings in other fisheries. The regulation of diversified fisheries can also be examined from the perspective of risk management strategies (Sanchirico et al ., 2008 ; Gourguet et al ., 2014 ). Economic research has used a wide range of mathematical and statistical methods to examine diversification strategies, their impacts on incentives, and the implications for fisheries management (see, e.g. Huang and Smith, 2014 ; Holland et al ., 2017 ). This has been possible due to the availability of data for within-fisheries analyses, regarding, e.g. fishing effort, gear use, catch composition, fish prices, and operating costs. Less analysis of diversification outside the fishing sector has been possible due to the more limited availability of data regarding alternative activities to fishing. To date, despite its importance in understanding the responses of fisheries to management, this research is not regularly incorporated into fisheries management advice internationally.

Topic XI: fisheries-aquaculture connections

The analysis of interactions between wild-capture fisheries and aquaculture has also attracted research interest with respect to the ways in which the development of aquaculture may affect the status of fisheries, both conceptually (Anderson, 1985 ) and empirically (Asche et al ., 2001 ). Control over the biological process and technical development (Anderson, 2002 ; Asche, 2008 ) have led to tremendous growth in the productivity of the aquaculture industry, improving its competitiveness relative to wild fisheries (Nielsen et al ., 2021 ), for input factors (Ankamah-Yeboah et al ., 2021 ), and in the supply chain (Asche and Smith, 2018 ). Fisheries and aquaculture compete in the same global markets with common price determination processes (Anderson et al ., 2018 ); consequently, fishers and fish farmers influence each other’s incentives and strategies (Valderrama and Anderson, 2010 ). Furthermore, the sectors compete for space, and there are biological interactions in the form of genetic contamination, disease, and environmental externalities (Asche et al ., 2022 ), which lead to novel management issues (Nielsen, 2012 ). Additional interactions relate to the fishing sector providing raw materials for aquaculture in the form of feed and seeds for capture-based aquaculture (Naylor et al ., 2000 ; Tveterås and Tveterås, 2010 ). Notably, while research on the social and economic dimensions of aquaculture has steadily developed over the past two decades, leading to the formation of ICES working groups ( https://www.ices.dk/community/groups/Pages/WGSEDA.aspx ), this work has not yet specifically considered the economic interactions between fisheries and aquaculture.

Topic XII: valuation of ecosystem services

With growing concern for the scale of human impacts on the biosphere, interest has developed in combining ecology and economics to understand the interactions between ecosystems and human systems giving rise to ES (Polasky and Segerson, 2009 ). Identifying and quantifying the market and non-market services supported by ecosystems that contribute to human well-being has indeed been the focus of growing research efforts over the last 50 years, including in the marine realm (Smith, 1993 ; Costanza et al ., 1997 ; Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007 ; Bateman et al ., 2011 ; Barbier, 2012 ; Pendleton et al ., 2016 ). In this literature, commercial fisheries have been considered both a provider of provisioning and cultural ecosystem services and a sector that may impact other supporting and regulating services provided by marine ecosystems. Economic assessment of ES is usually applied in the context of ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management (EBFM) and in support of the management of competing interests in the exploitation of marine resources. Approaches range from the measurement of the economic contribution of ecosystem functions and services through applied natural capital accounting to the integration of biological processes and functions into economic models to examine the consequences of alternative development and management patterns for fisheries. While wide-ranging internationally, comparable datasets of the monetary or non-monetary value of ES across countries do not currently exist, but initiatives to progress these data are under way as part of broader initiatives to establish reporting standards on the blue economy (Jolliffe et al ., 2021 ). Research on the understanding and valuation of ecosystem services is currently being pursued in several ICES working groups. However, to date, this work has not been incorporated into the fisheries science and advice of the organization.

Our review conveys that a large body of applied fisheries economics research has developed, especially over the past three decades, which provides information of direct relevance to various dimensions of fisheries management advice. Beyond this assessment of existing research in applied fisheries economics, the group also identified the potential for further developments of direct relevance to the science supporting management advice internationally. These are discussed below, keeping to the list of key topics that structured the review but reorganizing them into three key areas for future research and emphasizing their relevance to future developments in ICES work. These key areas are the provision of ecological-economic advice, assisting with the identification of fishing capacity targets and capacity adjustment strategies, and informing policy in relation to key interactions determining the responses of fisheries systems to management.

Providing ecological-economic advice

Models and data are now largely available to evaluate the socio-economic impacts of TAC setting by taking into account the possibilities for fishers to adjust to TAC constraints through changes in fishing strategies and fishing capacities at producer, industry, or country levels. Such an impact assessment can also address effects on markets (e.g. price responses to changed landings), uncertainties in the management system (e.g. the use of precautionary buffers), or issues of compliance. In addition to these impact assessments, we believe that existing models and data could be used to carry out ex-ante evaluations of TAC strategies to achieve bio-economic objectives such as MEY in single species fisheries, as is already routinely the case in Australia (Pascoe et al ., 2016 ). These assessments can also incorporate social goals associated with alternative management options, as has been demonstrated in applied co-viability analyses (Briton et al ., 2020 ).

Extending such analyses to the optimization of mixed-fisheries systems could also provide a broader perspective on the fishery-wide benefits associated with TAC strategies that may involve reducing single-species TACs below what would generate maximum single-species returns or yields. Standardized data, robust and validated economic methods, and integrated models allowing for the study of critical problems in mixed fisheries are available to evaluate mixed fisheries management options (Nielsen et al ., 2018a ). However, methods to track and assess the dynamic interactions that occur in mixed fisheries in response to management interventions require more research. Assessing the full impacts of mixed-fisheries management strategies requires better capturing fisher behaviour regarding the choices of gear, effort levels, and allocation of effort between areas and seasons (Hutton et al ., 2004 ; Dépalle et al ., 2021 ), as well as other vessel adaptations and resulting changes in fishing efficiency (van Putten et al ., 2012 ). Ex-post evaluations of management measures can also be used to complement ex-ante approaches and test realized outcomes against ex-ante predictions, thus helping better understand the actual industry responses to economic incentives and alternative regulatory obligations. This could inform the evaluation of alternative approaches to distributing catch across stocks and years as part of long-term management plans seeking to address issues of bycatch and discards (such as under the landing obligation in the EU). Developing methods and tools enabling stakeholder engagement in such evaluations (see, e.g. Macher et al ., 2018 ) is also likely to strengthen the uptake of evaluation results as part of adaptive management decision-making processes.

Support for the development, maintenance, and uptake of models and data seems essential to progress in this area of bio-economic advice. Standardized data collection protocols are required regarding fishing effort and landings, as well as economic data, using common dimensions regarding key fishery, fleet, and vessel characteristics. In general, the availability of information at the individual-vessel level will be preferable, as this allows data to be aggregated at any scale required. Indeed, individual-based models have been increasingly developed and applied in mixed fisheries management advice (Nielsen et al ., 2018a ), although this demands complex and very data demanding methods.

Contributing to the development of approaches to deal with data-limited situations

While bio-economic models have been developed and applied to a range of fisheries around the world, it seems unrealistic to expect that the data-rich approach of developing full analytical models for the many data-poor fish stocks will ever be possible (indeed, the cost of data collection and model development to achieve this may exceed the additional value derived from the information produced by these models). Hence, there is a need to explore new approaches that can both capture the total economic activity of the fleets (i.e. include information relating to the revenues and costs associated with the catch of all stocks) and link this to the best available understanding of the biological status of the stocks. Fisheries biologists have developed a range of data-poor methods for fisheries assessments, based on the life history characteristics of the fish caught or on catch and effort data. Similar approaches can be carried out with respect to bio-economic assessments, and initial efforts have shown that limited information on the revenues and costs associated with fishing may be used to identify reference points for the management of fisheries that take into account economic objectives (Pascoe et al ., 2014 ). With these first results in mind, economists could contribute to the efforts devoted to addressing data-limited fisheries assessments, which usually start with a meta-analysis aimed at integrating the knowledge from existing reports and data sets that may help decrease the uncertainty arising from limited data. Such knowledge can also be used to set priors in Bayesian statistical approaches, allowing to carry out value-of-information analysis and identifying the variables having an impact on the ranking of decision options and thus needing to be estimated more precisely. Further uncertainties due to data-limited situations can be described using risk assessment frameworks such as the pedigree matrix or probability-based harvest control rules (Goti-Aralucea, 2019 ). Lastly, research is also needed on how to deal with and effectively communicate uncertainty and stochasticity in assessments and advice, both in fisheries economics and in the broader field of fisheries science.

Analysing trade-offs associated with area-based and spatial management

Spatially resolved economic analysis of fisheries focuses on associating fishing stakeholders at the vessel, fleet, and community levels to chosen fishing areas and quantifying the importance of these areas in terms of catch rates and profitability. Based on behavioural change scenarios, the economic consequences of spatial restrictions on fishing on the re-allocation of effort in space and time and to métiers can be estimated (Blau and Green, 2015 ). Such preliminary analyses provide the economic information needed for trade-off analyses as well as reducing the potential for surprises in the outcomes (Wilen et al ., 2002 ). Research in ICES could incorporate existing models to assess the past performance of spatial management to project possible paths for alternative futures, as well as the fleets likely to be impacted by a proposal. This would enable impact assessment of changes in fishing pressure on the biological and ecosystem components with effects propagating to the economics of the fishery. While ICES hosts many data sets that could help condition such impact assessment models, a major obstacle would still be the limited data collection or resolution of data collected on certain variables (e.g. catch), which currently does not fit the spatial and time resolutions that matter to stakeholders and policymakers.

Increasingly, the above spatial fisheries management considerations need to be cast in the context of broader marine spatial planning aimed at allocating ocean space from an ecosystem-based management perspective (Katsanevakis et al ., 2011 ). This includes both conflicts between fisheries and other maritime activities and the potential for co-locating activities. The benefits of co-locating uses such as wind farms with fisheries have begun to be investigated (Stelzenmüller et al ., 2021 ), but very few practical examples exist. More scientific effort should be put into elucidating the possible ecological-economic effects of reserving space to windfarms, from local to overall effects on marine biodiversity and fishing opportunities (e.g. Bastardie et al ., 2014 ). While relative economic returns have only rarely been considered before introducing spatial management measures, integrating measures of economic benefits into existing ecological models would allow assessment of how these benefits may be distributed across ICES regions and among beneficiaries such as local communities, the tourism sector, or different fishing vessels. Such assessments should consider whether compensation should be considered in the course of implementing the measures as well as the timespan over which the benefits accrue and uncertainty regarding the outcomes of the spatial measures (e.g. including climate change effects). Such integrated understanding could provide new knowledge on hotly debated topics to inform policymakers’ decisions. Examples of this could include case studies documenting the possible fishing effort displacement in response to the implementation of conservation areas (e.g. in the EU, Natura 2000 designated areas) that might require costly short-run adaptation of fishing strategies balanced with possible long-term benefits from improved productivity of the exploited ecosystem (e.g. Bastardie et al ., 2020 ). Another example would be the evaluation of large-scale exclusion scenarios such as those associated with “Brexit” that would lead to excluding the EU fleet from the UK Economic Exclusive Zone (Dépalle et al ., 2020 ).

Having clearly stated long-term objectives that can guide the definition of operational targets in developing fisheries management measures is a necessary requirement for achieving sustainable fisheries. For example, the EU’s CFP aims to ensure the exploitation of living marine resources in sustainable economic, environmental, and social conditions by achieving MSY. Efforts to translate this overall objective into operational targets for fishing capacity and to design alternative approaches to achieving such targets could benefit from the accumulated knowledge we find on this issue in the fisheries economics literature. As an intergovernmental organization that brings together broad knowledge from its 20 member countries across the Atlantic, ICES is well suited to provide guidance regarding the approaches and methods that may be best applied to manage fishing capacity in local circumstances.

Development of guidance could include assessing whether the long-standing “balance” indicators in the EU ( https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/balance ) adequately address the challenges of adjusting fishing capacity to the production potential of fish stocks. These short-term assessments could be complemented with long-term analyses to help identify economically optimal objectives for fleet structure. Beyond EU countries, a similar assessment of the extent to which policy objectives strike a balance between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities would appear relevant across ICES countries.

Further advice could be provided through overviews of the role factors such as subsidies, nominal limitations on gross tonnage caps, market-based measures, or other factors play in influencing fishing capacity in each country. Additional insights could be gained from comparisons of national action plans for fleet capacity adjustments and assessments of alternative capacity adjustment approaches.

Informing the allocation of fishing rights: key issues and best-practice evaluation methods

In addition to informing capacity management, much more economic insights could be provided regarding the difficult but unavoidable question of how to allocate fishing possibilities to reduce the race-to-fish incentives driving the development of excess capacity. Involving ICES in the coordination of research efforts across its member countries to improve understanding of the alternative allocation approaches and their consequences in terms of management, equity, and sustainability objectives would seem particularly relevant. Such coordinated research efforts would enable providing independent guidelines that could be made available to a broad range of stakeholders within ICES countries on design considerations in fishing rights allocation. Such guidelines could include: (i) structured approaches to the key economic questions to consider; (ii) empirically tested methods and tools to address these questions, and (iii) key data sets and indicators required for the analyses of alternative designs of the allocation of fishing possibilities. A review of national administrative databases holding either quota, fishing rights, swaps, or actual fishing activity data to help build up an evidence base of how rights are effectively distributed could also be undertaken. Methods could then be developed to relate this evidence base to performance measures under alternative management approaches.

Accounting for SFF in sustainability assessments

In determining operational sustainability targets and examining trade-offs associated with alternative management strategies, it is important to account for the ecological impacts, cultural values, and economic significance of SSF. Having a better understanding of the structure of SSF and of their importance to household income alongside that from other sources would enable more comprehensive assessment of the economic consequences of fisheries management on coastal communities (Bueno and Basurto, 2009 ; Colburn et al ., 2016 ). Studying the synergies and competition between SSF and large-scale fishing along the supply chain would also help improve our understanding of the linkages between fisheries management, markets, and welfare effects.

While a harmonized definition of SSF might seem useful to establish, a “one size fits all” definition of SSF may not be suitable for local management purposes (García-Flórez et al ., 2014 ; Rousseau et al ., 2019 ; Smith and Basurto, 2019 ). Additionally, research is needed to set boundaries between recreational fishing and SSF. Current definitions may not adequately capture the socio-economic differences between these sectors, such as motivation for fishing. Hence, more research is needed to find the balance between a general definition of support fisheries management advice and the incorporation of the specific characteristics of local SSF.

Meeting these research needs has been hampered by important data gaps. Filling these gaps requires improvements in the information collected (e.g. the distribution of activities within fishing communities, ownership of fishing rights, and income from fishing and other businesses) and the accuracy of data collected by national and international data collection programmes. Higher resolution spatial data regarding SSF is also needed to allow a more robust economic spatial analysis of SSF fishing grounds (Breen et al ., 2014 ; Gacutan et al ., 2019 ). Here also, efforts to engage stakeholders in carrying out the research and developing management advice may facilitate progress.

Informing shared stocks management

A strength of ICES is its ability to coordinate research efforts across its member countries. In this endeavour, ICES can aim to improve the general level of understanding of shared stock management issues and coordinate research across countries to improve the science supporting policy and the development of relevant advice about the impacts of changing established allocation approaches. Our review shows that economics can provide an understanding of both the incentives and other factors at play in shared stock management and the likely outcomes and trade-offs associated with different TAC allocations. In addition, the process for developing TACs and other conservation measures itself warrants further research, as this is key to understanding why certain measures are adopted and others are not. More could also be learned with respect to allocation of fishing possibilities at multiple decision levels (e.g. individual companies, POs, regional authorities, nations) and non-fishing related interests (e.g. processing, fishing rights holders, broader community interests, other industry interests). Improving shared stock allocation processes calls for research in political science, political economics, and applications of public choice theory. The role of additional factors influencing incentives for cooperative management and compliance with management regulations, such as financial support policies for the fisheries sector, should also be taken into account in these analyses.

Including ecological processes in the assessment of shared stock harvest strategies offers promising developments to deal with current and future shifts in stock distributions and the ensuing need for adaptive approaches to allocate quotas (e.g. historic catch shares versus zonal distribution of stocks). Despite improved data availability in many countries, a lack of standardization, compatibility, and sometimes comparability in the types of data collected remains an impediment to better analyses. These difficulties may be related to the potential disincentives for negotiators and the industry in making economic information available when initiating negotiations on conservation objectives and/or access right allocations between parties. Economic analysis can also help assess the potential for long-term harvest strategies to minimize such disincentives, thereby leading to improved data quality.

We find that a large research effort in fisheries economics has been devoted to analysis of how interactions between specific fisheries and other components of fisheries social–ecological systems affect how these systems respond to management. Key interactions to consider include the connections between the catch sector and markets, the diversification of commercial fishing, fisheries-aquaculture interactions, as well as broader interactions between fisheries and the provision of ecosystem services.

Accounting for interactions between the catch sector and markets

Research on implications of different fisheries management options on value chain structure as well as understanding wider market issues and forces has grown rapidly, and must continue. The information produced by such research could be beneficial when considering the regional and global impacts of fisheries management strategies (Mullon et al ., 2009 ; Roheim et al ., 2018 ; Costello et al ., 2020 ; Chávez et al ., 2021 ). Some ICES countries currently estimate the expected economic outcomes associated with agreed quota allocations when these are announced. Economists could provide guidance on such an approach, as well as highlight price effects, supply chain tipping points, and the feedback loops with fishing effort and ensuing fishing mortality. Consumer preference and the effects of labelling schemes are still an active area of research in fisheries economics, and there is a further need to investigate the externalities generated by fisheries and how these effects can be related to markets and consumer demand. Above all, because management can be a driving force for fish prices or market outlets, this linkage should be better documented by fishery science and considered when defining management scenarios. The integration of markets into bio-economic modelling could help advance fishery science in this domain.

This research can rely on existing methods and tools, but researchers and experts from different research communities should be encouraged to share their methods, models, and experiences. Data collected for market and demand analysis must meet data formats that most often do not align with those needed for fisheries science. Therefore, future research in ICES with a focus on the linkages between ecosystem-based fisheries management on the one hand and markets and value chains on the other should contribute to and help design data formats (e.g. regarding ex-vessel production or processing) that enable both dimensions to be explored simultaneously, supported by a strong interaction between research groups and data collecting agencies.

Taking into account diversification of commercial fishing

A better understanding of the impacts of diversification on fishers, coastal communities, and the ecosystem would reduce the risks of biased assessments of the potential impacts of fisheries management in the ICES area. Yet, the economic incentives to diversify and how they affect the success of fisheries management are poorly documented in current research, despite the importance of such diversification strategies in determining the economic risks faced by fishers (Abbott et al ., 2023 ). Briton et al . ( 2021 ) highlighted the need to better understand the possibilities for fishers to change species mix and thus adjust to changed management or market conditions, taking the example of an Australian fishery. Holland et al . ( 2017 ) found that fisheries management might restrict individual fishers’ ability to reduce income risk through diversification, despite the importance of such diversification in the face of changing productivity and distribution of fish stocks. The role of income sources from outside the fishing sector is even less frequently analysed in economics, although it is well known to be important in many fisheries (Nielsen et al ., 2018b ; Hoff et al ., 2021 ). Our understanding of alternative sources of income or non-pecuniary aspects such as cultural and job satisfaction would benefit from interdisciplinary work (Holland et al ., 2020 ). Furthering, the economic analysis of diversification will also require the addition of socio-economic data at vessel level, on within-fisheries diversification (e.g. in mixed-fisheries), as well as regarding other sectors towards which fishers can diversify.

Evaluating the implications of fisheries-aquaculture connections

In the context of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), ICES could participate in the elaboration of scenarios for fisheries and aquaculture to achieve SDG goals 14 (life below water), 12 (sustainable consumption and production), and 3 (good health) as seafood is a major source of valuable nutrients for people. The continuous growth in aquaculture and the many links to catch-based fisheries call for more research on the interactions between the two sectors. Possible research questions include how these sectors compete at the fish market and in local communities, and how they can coexist and even potentially benefit from each other. Such studies require geographically disaggregated economic and employment data on fisheries and aquaculture production and mar-kets.

A possible way forward would be to develop an assessment of the competition and impacts of aquaculture development within the value chain as a whole, focusing on specific species as well as broader sets of products and integrating socio-economic as well as environmental management issues. Bio-economic modelling, value chains, and regulatory analyses could be used to address these issues, whereas time series econometrics can provide relevant information related to interactions on markets for wild and farmed fish (Jiménez-Toribio et al ., 2007 ; Bjørndal and Guillen, 2017 ).

Interactions with the provision of ecosystem services

The push for EBFM is leading to a need to better incorporate the broader interactions between fisheries and the provision of ES into management advice in the future. This includes considering ES when assessing the potential impacts of TACs on fisheries’ socio-ecological systems. Such assessments should include the existing understanding of tipping points or thresholds for maintaining ES. Moreover, economic ES assessment could help inform the evaluation of trade-offs associated with marine spatial planning, supporting policymakers in assessing the social welfare outcomes of marine spatial plans.

Providing such advice requires the collection of disaggregated economic data at finer spatial and temporal resolutions, as well as the ability to link this economic data with the other categories of data (e.g. regarding biodiversity, marine habitats, the impacts of fishing and other activities, etc.) used in multidisciplinary frameworks for full ES assessment. Such data gaps could be filled using surveys, which would require some standardization and generalization of the approaches on how to value marine ES.

There has been an increasing demand for fisheries science and management advice to address economic evaluations and analyses. Our review clearly shows that economic research can provide important contributions to ICES science and advice in line with the objectives highlighted in the organization’s strategic plan. Moreover, economic insights can contribute to scientific programmes and organizations working towards achieving the UN SDGs relating to the conservation and sustainable use of living marine resources. In many cases, we identify sets of methods and tools that can be used in a broad range of contexts, for which best practice recommendations can be provided as to how they should be used in applied research and management advice. The increased availability of cost and earnings data regarding fishing operations across ICES regions has helped make significant progress in this regard. Continuing efforts and support towards the collection of such data will be key. We also identify a range of other data that can support further applications of economic analyses to the different fisheries management topics considered in our review.

For some key topics, contributing to management advice may involve integrating economic analyses into current practice. For example, while steps have been taken to incorporate economic considerations in the assessment of mixed fishery management options in the European Union, methods and data are available that can directly inform trade-off analyses associated with managing these fisheries. Another example is the incorporation of economic analyses and indicators in the production of social-ecological status assessments such as the ICES Ecosystem, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Overviews. We feel that these overviews would more effectively inform policymakers, managers, and stakeholders by integrating many of the topics listed in our review. Such an endeavour should eventually lead the economic considerations identified in this review to become an integral part of marine science and scientific advice regarding the use and conservation of marine resources in ICES areas as well as other regions of the world.

Future work should focus on demonstrations of the ways in which relevant economic research, methods, tools, and data can be included in fisheries management advice. Applications of such analyses could also inform the ecosystem and fisheries overviews. This has already begun as part of a number of existing working groups in ICES dedicated to the analysis of economic and social dimensions, leading to the expansion of social sciences capabilities as these groups develop and interact with other disciplines on the different topics we identified in developing integrated assessment approaches. Such integrative support tools, knowledge, and advice could be an entry point for engaging stakeholders in holistic assessments of the impacts of fishing sustainably.

These economic analyses can rely on already well-structured research capacity, data, methods, and tools. However, the dedicated inclusion of economics and economists into the ICES strategic plan and its capacity to further grow in the network through the establishment of focused groups such as ICES WGECON is relatively new. Our survey of economists showed that economists have been only marginally involved in ICES activities. One-third of respondents had not participated in ICES conferences and/or symposia in the last five years, while another third had participated only once. Lack of economic topics and time were mentioned as main factors behind low participation levels, a limitation that should be progressively lifted as the presence of fisheries economics in ICES work increases. While the majority of respondents (75%) showed interest in the development of Integrated Ecosystem Assessments, many also said they would increase their participation in ICES activities if funding was available to support their participation. The growth potential is there, especially with the development of activities such as the MSEAS conference ( https://www.ices.dk/events/symposia/MSEAS/Pages/MSEAS.aspx ), training courses, and cross-cutting meetings such as those recently organized in relation to the interactions between windfarms and commercial fishing ( https://www.ices.dk/news-and-events/news-archive/news/Pages/WKSEIOWFC.aspx ). Hence, a key challenge for further developing economic contributions to fisheries science and advice remains the ability to support an effective engagement of economists, including early-career ones, in the regular research work of organizations such as ICES. In addition, the engagement of economists in collaborative groups supporting advisory and decision-making processes at multiple scales may also be a key feature that could help mainstream economics into such processes.

We would like to thank the ICES secretariat for its support in organizing face-to-face and online meetings of the ECON working group and in developing the online survey of fisheries economists. We also express our gratitude to the three reviewers for their thoughtful suggestions, which helped us improve the manuscript.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

OT, JRN, AM, and HC coordinated the review and the conception of the paper. All authors participated in the identification and development of the review topics. The authors identified as Topic Coordinators in section B of the supplementary material led the initial writing up of the review summaries for each topic. The authors identified as Topic Reviewers reviewed and edited these summaries. OT led the writing of the manuscript. FB, GEB, FD, LG, JH, JI, AM, AnM, ArM, JRN, RN, RR, OT, ET, SV, JV, and SW coordinated the writing up and revisions of sections of the paper relating to the different topics. All authors contributed to editing the manuscript and approved the final draft. OT and BLG led the survey of fisheries economists, and AM helped analyse the results.

The review data underlying this article are available in the article and in its online supplementary material . The survey data of fisheries economists will be shared upon reasonable request with the corresponding author.

Abbott J. K. , Haynie A. C . 2012 . What are we protecting? Fisher behavior and the unintended consequences of spatial closures as a fishery management tool . Ecological Applications , 22 : 762 – 777 .

Google Scholar

Abbott J. K. , Lew D. K. , Whitehead J. C. , Woodward R. T . 2022 . The future of fishing for fun: the economics and sustainable management of recreational fisheries . Review of Environmental Economics and Policy , 16 : 262 – 281 .

Abbott J. K. , Sakai Y. , Holland D. S . 2023 . Species, space and time: a quarter century of fishers’ diversification strategies on the US West Coast . Fish and Fisheries , 24 : 93 – 110 .

Albers H. J. , Preonas L. , Capitán T. , Robinson E. J. Z. , Madrigal-Ballestero R . 2020 . Optimal siting, sizing, and enforcement of marine protected areas . Environmental and Resource Economics , 77 : 229 – 269 .

Andersen P . 1982 . Commercial fisheries under price uncertainty . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 9 : 11 – 28 .

Andersen P . 2013 . Fisheries economics and fisheries management: a reflective note in honor of Rögnvaldur Hannesson . Marine Resource Economics , 28 : 351 – 359 .

Anderson J. L . 1985 . Market interactions between aquaculture and the common-property commercial fishery . Marine Resource Economics , 2 : 1 – 24 .

Anderson J. L . 2002 . Aquaculture and the future: why fisheries economists should care . Marine Resource Economics , 17 : 133 – 151 .

Anderson J. L. , Asche F. , Garlock T . 2018 . Globalization and commoditization: the transformation of the seafood market . Journal of Commodity Markets , 12 : 2 – 8 .

Anderson L. G . 2015 . The application of basic economic principles to real-world fisheries management and regulation . Marine Resource Economics , 30 : 235 – 249 .

Andersson A. , Blomquist J. , Waldo S . 2021 . Local fisheries and thriving harbors: is there a value for the tourism sector? . Marine Resource Economics , 36 : 111 – 131 .

Ankamah-Yeboah I. , Asche F. , Bronnmann J. , Nielsen M. , Nielsen R . 2020 . Consumer preference heterogeneity and preference segmentation: the case of ecolabeled salmon in Danish retail sales . Marine Resource Economics , 35 : 159 – 176 .

Ankamah-Yeboah I. , Nielsen R. , Llorente I . 2021 . Capital structure and firm performance: agency theory application to Mediterranean aquaculture firms . Aquaculture Economics & Management , 25 : 367 – 387 .

Arnason R . 1990 . Minimum information management in fisheries . The Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'Economique , 23 : 630 – 653 .

Asche F . 2008 . Farming the sea . Marine Resource Economics , 23 : 527 – 547 .

Asche F. , Bjørndal T. , Young J. A . 2001 . Market interactions for aquaculture products . Aquaculture Economics & Management , 5 : 303 – 318 .

Asche F. , Eggert H. , Oglend A. , Roheim C. A. , Smith M. D . 2022 . Aquaculture: externalities and policy options . Review of Environmental Economics and Policy , 16 : 282 – 305 .

Asche F. , Hannesson R . 2002 . Allocation of fish between markets and product forms . Marine Resource Economics , 17 : 225 – 238 .

Asche F. , Smith M. D . 2018 . Viewpoint: induced innovation in fisheries and aquaculture . Food Policy , 76 : 1 – 7 .

Bailey M. , Sumaila U. R. , Lindroos M . 2010 . Application of game theory to fisheries over three decades . Fisheries Research , 102 : 1 – 8 .

Barbier E. B . 2012 . Progress and challenges in valuing coastal and marine ecosystem services . Review of Environmental Economics and Policy , 6 : 1 – 19 .

Bastardie F. , Danto J. , Rufener M.-C. , van Denderen D. , Eigaard O. R. , Dinesen G. E. , Nielsen J. R . 2020 . Reducing fisheries impacts on the seafloor: a bio-economic evaluation of policy strategies for improving sustainability in the Baltic Sea . Fisheries Research , 230 : 105681 .

Bastardie F. , Nielsen J. R. , Miethe T . 2014 . DISPLACE: a dynamic, individual-based model for spatial fishing planning and effort displacement—integrating underlying fish population models . Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences , 71 : 366 – 386 .

Bateman I. J. , Mace G. M. , Fezzi C. , Atkinson G. , Turner K . 2011 . Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments . Environmental and Resource Economics , 48 : 177 – 218 .

Bellanger M. , Macher C. , Guyader O . 2016 . A new approach to determine the distributional effects of quota management in fisheries . Fisheries Research , 181 : 116 – 126 .

Birkenbach A. M. , Cojocaru A. L. , Asche F. , Guttormsen A. G. , Smith M. D . 2020 . Seasonal harvest patterns in multispecies fisheries . Environmental and Resource Economics , 75 : 631 – 655 .

Birkenbach A. M. , Kaczan D. J. , Smith M. D . 2017 . Catch shares slow the race to fish . Nature , 544 : 223 – 226 .

Bisack K. D. , Sutinen J. G . 2006 . Harbor porpoise bycatch: iTQs or time/area closures in the New England gillnet fishery . Land Economics , 82 : 85 – 102 .

Bjørndal T. , Guillen J . 2017 . Market integration between wild and farmed seabream and seabass in Spain . Applied Economics , 49 : 4567 – 4578 .

Blau J. , Green L . 2015 . Assessing the impact of a new approach to ocean management: evidence to date from five ocean plans . Marine Policy , 56 : 1 – 8 .

Blomquist J. , Bartolino V. , Waldo S . 2015 . Price premiums for providing eco-labelled seafood: evidence from MSC-certified cod in Sweden . Journal of Agricultural Economics , 66 : 690 – 704 .

Bockstael N. E. , McConnell K. E. , Strand I. E . 1989 . A random utility model for sportfishing: some preliminary results for Florida . Marine Resource Economics , 6 : 245 – 260 .

Bockstael N. E. , Opaluch J. J . 1983 . Discrete modelling of supply response under uncertainty: the case of the fishery . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 10 : 125 – 137 .

Boyce J. R . 2004 . Instrument choice in a fishery . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 47 : 183 – 206 .

Boyd J. , Banzhaf S . 2007 . What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units . Ecological Economics , 63 : 616 – 626 .

Breen P. , Vanstaen K. , Clark R. W. E . 2014 . Mapping inshore fishing activity using aerial, land, and vessel-based sighting information . ICES Journal of Marine Science , 72 : 467 – 479 .

Briton F. , Macher C. , Merzeréaud M. , Le Grand C. , Fifas S. , Thébaud O . 2020 . Providing integrated total catch advice for the management of mixed fisheries with an eco-viability approach . Environmental Modeling & Assessment , 25 : 307 – 325 .

Briton F. , Thébaud O. , Macher C. , Gardner C. , Little L. R . 2021 . Flexibility of joint production in mixed fisheries and implications for management . ICES Journal of Marine Science , 78 : 1599 – 1613 .

Bueno N. , Basurto X . 2009 . Resilience and collapse of artisanal fisheries: a system dynamics analysis of a shellfish fishery in the Gulf of California, Mexico . Sustainability Science , 4 : 139 .

Campbell H. F . 1989 . Fishery buy-back programmes and economic welfare . Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics , 33 : 20 – 31 .

Charles A . 2005 . Toward sustainable and resilient fisheries: a fishery-system approach to overcoming the factors of unsustainability . In Overcoming Factors of Unsustainability and Overexploitation in Fisheries: Selected Papers on Issues and Approaches , pp. 221 – 233 .. FAO , Rome .

Google Preview

Charles A. T. , Munro G. R . 1985 . Irreversible investment and optimal fisheries management: a stochastic analysis . Marine Resource Economics , 1 : 247 – 264 .

Chávez C. , Eggert H. , Reimer M . 2021 . Economics of marine resources in the Global South—meeting the challenge of agenda 2030 . Marine Resource Economics , 36 : 307 – 318 .

Christy T. F . 1973 . Fisherman quotas: a tentative suggestion for domestic management . Available from:  https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/43011 , (last accessed on 30 January 2023 ).

Clark C. W . 1980 . Towards a predictive model for the economic regulation of commercial fisheries . Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences , 37 : 1111 – 1129 .

Clark C. W. , Munro G. R . 1975 . The economics of fishing and modern capital theory: a simplified approach . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 2 : 92 – 106 .

Clark C. W. , Munro G. R . 1980 . Fisheries and the processing sector: some implications for management policy . The Bell Journal of Economics , 11 : 603 – 616 .

Clark C. W. , Munro G. R. , Sumaila U. R . 2005 . Subsidies, buybacks, and sustainable fisheries . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 50 : 47 – 58 .

Colburn L. L. , Jepson M. , Weng C. , Seara T. , Weiss J. , Hare J. A . 2016 . Indicators of climate change and social vulnerability in fishing dependent communities along the eastern and gulf coasts of the United States . Marine Policy , 74 : 323 – 333 .

Copes P . 1970 . The backward-bending supply curve of the fishing industry 1 . Scottish Journal of Political Economy , 17 : 69 – 77 .

Copes P. , Charles A . 2004 . Socioeconomics of individual transferable quotas and community-based fishery management . Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , 33 : 171 – 181 .

Costanza R. , d'Arge R. , de Groot R. , Farber S. , Grasso M. , Hannon B. , Limburg K. et al.  1997 . The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital . Nature , 387 : 253 – 260 .

Costello C. , Cao L. , Gelcich S. , Cisneros-Mata M. Á. , Free C. M. , Froehlich H. E. , Golden C. D. et al.  2020 . The future of food from the sea . Nature , 588 : 95 – 100 .

Costello C. , Deacon R . 2007 . The efficiency gains from fully delineating rights in an ITQ fishery . Marine Resource Economics , 22 : 347 – 361 .

Costello C. , Gaines S. , Lynham J . 2008 . Can catch shares prevent fisheries collapse? . Science , 321 : 1678 – 1681 .

Costello C. , Molina R . 2021 . Transboundary marine protected areas . Resource and Energy Economics , 65 : 101239 .

Costello C. J. , Kaffine D . 2008 . Natural resource use with limited-tenure property rights . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 55 : 20 – 36 .

Dépalle M. , Sanchirico J. N. , Thébaud O. , O'Farrell S. , Haynie A. C. , Perruso L . 2021 . Scale-dependency in discrete choice models: a fishery application . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 105 : 102388 .

Dépalle M. , Thébaud O. , Sanchirico J. N . 2020 . Accounting for fleet heterogeneity in estimating the impacts of large-scale fishery closures . Marine Resource Economics , 35 : 361 – 378 .

Dichmont C. M. , Pascoe S. , Kompas T. , Punt A. E. , Deng R . 2010 . On implementing maximum economic yield in commercial fisheries . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 107 : 16 – 21 .

Doyen L. , Béné C. , Bertignac M. , Blanchard F. , Cissé A. A. , Dichmont C. , Gourguet S. et al.  2017 . Ecoviability for ecosystem-based fisheries management . Fish and Fisheries , 18 : 1056 – 1072 .

Doyen L. , Cissé A. , Gourguet S. , Mouysset L. , Hardy P. Y. , Béné C. , Blanchard F. et al.  2013 . Ecological-economic modelling for the sustainable management of biodiversity . Computational Management Science , 10 : 353 – 364 .

Dupont D. P . 1991 . Testing for input substitution in a regulated fishery . American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 73 : 155 – 164 .

Dupont D. P. , Grafton R. Q. , Kirkley J. , Squires D . 2002 . Capacity utilization measures and excess capacity in multi-product privatized fisheries . Resource and energy economics , 24 : 193 – 210 .

Eales J. , Wilen J. E . 1986 . An examination of fishing location choice in the pink shrimp fishery . Marine Resource Economics , 2 : 331 – 351 .

Fonner R. , Sylvia G . 2015 . Willingness to pay for multiple seafood labels in a niche market . Marine Resource Economics , 30 : 51 – 70 .

Gacutan J. , Galparsoro I. , Murillas-Maza A . 2019 . Towards an understanding of the spatial relationships between natural capital and maritime activities: a Bayesian belief network approach . Ecosystem Services , 40 : 101034 .

García-Flórez L. , Morales J. , Gaspar M. B. , Castilla D. , Mugerza E. , Berthou P. , García de la Fuente L. et al.  2014 . A novel and simple approach to define artisanal fisheries in Europe . Marine Policy , 44 : 152 – 159 .

Girardin R. , Hamon K. G. , Pinnegar J. , Poos J. J. , Thébaud O. , Tidd A. , Vermard Y. et al.  2017 . Thirty years of fleet dynamics modelling using discrete-choice models: what have we learned? . Fish and Fisheries , 18 : 638 – 655 .

Gordon D. V. , Salvanes K. G. , Atkins F . 1993 . A fish is a fish is a fish? Testing for market linkages on the Paris fish market . Marine Resource Economics , 8 : 331 – 343 .

Gordon H. S . 1954 . The economic theory of a common-property resource: the fishery . Journal of Political Economy , 62 : 124 .

Goti-Aralucea L . 2019 . Assessing the social and economic impact of small scale fisheries management measures in a marine protected area with limited data . Marine Policy , 101 : 246 – 256 .

Gourguet S. , Macher C. , Doyen L. , Thébaud O. , Bertignac M. , Guyader O . 2013 . Managing mixed fisheries for bio-economic viability . Fisheries Research , 140 : 46 – 62 .

Gourguet S. , Thébaud O. , Dichmont C. , Jennings S. , Little L. R. , Pascoe S. , Deng R. A. et al.  2014 . Risk versus economic performance in a mixed fishery . Ecological Economics , 99 : 110 – 120 .

Grafton R. Q. , Kompas T. , Chu L. , Che N . 2010 . Maximum economic yield . Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics , 54 : 273 – 280 .

Grainger C. A. , Costello C . 2016 . Distributional effects of the transition to property rights for a common-pool resource . Marine Resource Economics , 31 : 1 – 26 .

Guillen J. , Macher C. , Merzéréaud M. , Bertignac M. , Fifas S. , Guyader O . 2013 . Estimating MSY and MEY in multi-species and multi-fleet fisheries, consequences and limits: an application to the Bay of Biscay mixed fishery . Marine Policy , 40 : 64 – 74 .

Hanemann W. M. , Strand I. E . 1993 . Natural resource damage assessment: economic implications for fisheries management . American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 75 : 1188 – 1193 .

Hanna S . 2011 . Economics in the service of fisheries policy and practice . Marine Resource Economics , 26 : 87 – 94 .

Hannesson R . 1998 . Marine reserves: what would they accomplish? . Marine Resource Economics , 13 : 159 – 170 .

Hannesson R . 2011 . Game theory and fisheries . Annual Review of Resource Economics , 3 : 181 – 202 .

Haynie A.C. , Layton D. F . 2010 . An expected profit model for monetizing fishing location choices . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 59 : 165 – 176 .

Hilborn R . 2007 . Managing fisheries is managing people: what has been learned? . Fish and Fisheries , 8 : 285 – 296 .

Hoff A. , Nielsen M. , Nielsen R . 2021 . Do efficient small-scale fishers stay active in eras of introducing individual transferable quotas? Evidence from Denmark . Aquatic Living Resources , 34 : 16 .

Holland D. S. , Abbott J. K. , Norman K. E . 2020 . Fishing to live or living to fish: job satisfaction and identity of west coast fishermen . Ambio , 49 : 628 – 639 .

Holland D. S. , Speir C. , Agar J. , Crosson S. , DePiper G. , Kasperski S. , Kitts A. W. et al.  2017 . Impact of catch shares on diversification of fishers; income and risk . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 114 : 9302 – 9307 .

Holland D. S. , Sutinen J. G . 2000 . Location choice in New England trawl fisheries: old habits die hard . Land Economics , 76 : 133 – 150 .

Holzer J. , DePiper G . 2019 . Intertemporal quota arbitrage in multispecies fisheries . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 93 : 185 – 207 .

Holzer J. , DePiper G. , Lipton D . 2017 . Buybacks with costly participation . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 85 : 130 – 145 .

Holzer J. , McConnell K . 2014 . Harvest allocation without property rights . Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists , 1 : 209 – 232 .

Homans F. R. , Wilen J. E . 1997 . A model of regulated open access resource use . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 32 : 1 – 21 .

Huang L. , Smith M. D . 2014 . The dynamic efficiency costs of common-pool resource exploitation . The American Economic Review , 104 : 4071 – 4103 .

Hutton T. , Mardle S. , Pascoe S. , Clark R. A . 2004 . Modelling fishing location choice within mixed fisheries: English North Sea beam trawlers in 2000 and 2001 . ICES Journal of Marine Science , 61 : 1443 – 1452 .

ICES . 2003 . Stockholm 1999 centenary lectures . ICES Cooperative Research Report , 260 : 55 .

Jiménez-Toribio R. , García-del-Hoyo J. J. , García-Ordaz F . 2007 . Market delineation of the Spanish clam market . Aquaculture Economics & Management , 11 : 133 – 150 .

Jolliffe J. , Jolly C. , Stevens B . 2021 . Blueprint for improved measurement of the international ocean economy: an exploration of satellite accounting for ocean economic activity . In OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2021 (4) . OECD Editions , Paris .

Kasperski S. , Holland D. S . 2013 . Income diversification and risk for fishermen . Proc Natl Acad Sci USA , 110 : 2076 – 2081 .

Katsanevakis S. , Stelzenmüller V. , South A. , Sørensen T. K. , Jones P. J. S. , Kerr S. , Badalamenti F. et al.  2011 . Ecosystem-based marine spatial management: review of concepts, policies, tools, and critical issues . Ocean & Coastal Management , 54 : 807 – 820 .

Kirkley J. , Morrison Paul C. J. , Squires D . 2002 . Capacity and capacity utilization in common-pool resource industries . Environmental and Resource Economics , 22 : 71 – 97 .

Knapp G . 2012 . Economics and fisheries policy: a survey of NAAFE members . Marine Resource Economics , 27 : 389 – 395 .

Lagarde A. , Doyen L. , Ahad-Cissé A. , Caill-Milly N. , Gourguet S. , Pape O. L. , Macher C. et al.  2018 . How does MMEY mitigate the bioeconomic effects of climate change for mixed fisheries . Ecological Economics , 154 : 317 – 332 .

Larson D. M. , House B. W. , Terry J. M . 1998 . Bycatch control in multispecies fisheries: a quasi-rent share approach to the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands midwater trawl pollock fishery . American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 80 : 778 – 792 .

Lee M.-Y. , Steinback S. , Wallmo K . 2017 . Applying a bioeconomic model to recreational fisheries management: groundfish in the northeast United States . Marine Resource Economics , 32 : 191 – 216 .

Lee M.-Y. A. , Thunberg E. M . 2013 . An inverse demand system for New England groundfish: welfare analysis of the transition to catch share management . American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 95 : 1178 – 1195 .

Link J. S. , Thébaud O. , Smith D. C. , Smith A. D. M. , Schmidt J. , Rice J. , Poos J. J. et al.  2017 . Keeping humans in the ecosystem . ICES Journal of Marine Science , 74 : 1947 – 1956 .

Macher C. , Bertignac Michel , Guyader Olivier , Frangoudes Katia , Fresard Marjolaine , Le Grand Christelle , Merzereaud Mathieu et al.  2018 . The role of technical protocols and partnership engagement in developing a decision support framework for fisheries management . Journal of Environmental Management , 223 : 503 – 516 .

McConnell K. E. , Strand I. E. , Blake-Hedges L . 1995 . Random utility models of recreational fishing: catching fish using a Poisson process . Marine Resource Economics , 10 : 247 – 261 .

McFadden D . 1974 . Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior . In Frontiers in Econometrics , pp. 105 – 142 .. Ed. by P   Zarembka . Academic Press , New York, NY .

McWhinnie S. F . 2009 . The tragedy of the commons in international fisheries: an empirical examination . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 57 : 321 – 333 .

Marchal P. , Little L. R. , Thébaud O . 2011 . Quota allocation in mixed fisheries: a bioeconomic modelling approach applied to the channel flatfish fisheries . ICES Journal of Marine Science , 68 : 1580 – 1591 .

Markowitz H . 1952 . Portfolio selection . The Journal of Finance , 7 : 77 – 91 .

Martini R. , Innes J . 2018 . Relative effects of fisheries support policies . In OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers No. 115 . OECD Editions , Paris .

Mullon C. , Mittaine J. F. , Thébaud O. , Peron G. , Merino G. , Barange M . 2009 . Modeling the global fishmeal and fish oil markets . Natural Resource Modeling , 22 : 564 – 609 .

Munro G. R . 1979 . The optimal management of transboundary renewable resources . The Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'Economique , 12 : 355 – 376 .

Naylor R. L. , Goldburg R. J. , Primavera J. H. , Kautsky N. , Beveridge M. C. M. , Clay J. , Folke C. et al.  2000 . Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies . Nature , 405 : 1017 – 1024 .

Nielsen J. R. , Thunberg E. , Holland D. S. , Schmidt J. O. , Fulton E. A. , Bastardie F. , Punt A. E. et al.  2018a . Integrated ecological–economic fisheries models—Evaluation, review and challenges for implementation . Fish and Fisheries , 19 : 1 – 29 .

Nielsen M. , Asche F. , Bergesen O. , Blomquist J. , Henriksen E. , Hoff A. , Nielsen R. et al.  2018b . The myth of the poor fisher: evidence from the Nordic countries . Marine Policy , 93 : 186 – 194 .

Nielsen R . 2012 . Introducing individual transferable quotas on nitrogen in Danish fresh water aquaculture: production and profitability gains . Ecological Economics , 75 : 83 – 90 .

Nielsen R. , Ankamah-Yeboah I. , Llorente I . 2021 . Technical efficiency and environmental impact of seabream and seabass farms . Aquaculture Economics & Management , 25 : 106 – 125 .

Nostbakken L. , Thébaud Olivier , Sorensen Lars-Christian . 2011 . Investment behaviour and capacity adjustment in fisheries: a survey of the literature . Marine Resource Economics , 26 : 95 – 117 .

OECD . 2006 . Using Market Mechanisms to Manage Fisheries, Smoothing the Path . OECD Editions , Paris . 325 pp.

OECD . 2009 . Reducing Fishing Capacity . OECD Editions , Paris .

Panzar J. C. , Willig R. D . 1981 . Economies of scope . The American Economic Review , 71 : 268 – 272 .

Pascoe S . 2007a . Capacity analysis and Fisheries policy: theory versus practice . Marine Resource Economics , 22 : 83 – 87 .

Pascoe S . 2007b . Estimation of cost functions in a data poor environment: the case of capacity estimation in fisheries . Applied Economics , 39 : 2643 – 2654 .

Pascoe S. , Kahui V. , Hutton T. , Dichmont C . 2016 . Experiences with the use of bioeconomic models in the management of Australian and New Zealand fisheries . Fisheries Research , 183 : 539 – 548 .

Pascoe S. , Mardle S . 2001 . Optimal fleet size in the English Channel: a multi-objective programming approach . European Review of Agricultural Economics , 28 : 161 – 185 .

Pascoe S. , Thébaud O. , Vieira S . 2014 . Estimating proxy economic target reference points in data-poor single-species fisheries . Marine and Coastal Fisheries , 6 : 247 – 259 .

Pendleton L. H. , Thébaud O. , Mongruel R. C. , Levrel H . 2016 . Has the value of global marine and coastal ecosystem services changed? . Marine Policy , 64 : 156 – 158 .

Pereau J.-C. , Doyen L. , Little L. R. , Thébaud O . 2012 . The triple bottom line: meeting ecological, economic and social goals with individual transferable quotas . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 63 : 419 – 434 .

Pikitch E. K. , Santora C. , Babcock E. A. , Bakun A. , Bonfil R. , Conover D. O. , Dayton P. et al.  2004 . Ecosystem-based fishery management . Science , 305 : 346 – 347 .

Polasky S. , Segerson K . 2009 . Integrating ecology and economics in the study of ecosystem services: some lessons learned . Annual Review of Resource Economics , 1 : 409 – 434 .

Roheim C. A. , Bush S. R. , Asche F. , Sanchirico J. N. , Uchida H . 2018 . Evolution and future of the sustainable seafood market . Nature Sustainability , 1 : 392 – 398 .

Ropars-Collet C. , Leplat M. , Goffe P. L . 2017 . Commercial fisheries as an asset for recreational demand on the coast: evidence from a choice experiment . Marine Resource Economics , 32 : 391 – 409 .

Rousseau Y. , Watson R. A. , Blanchard J. L. , Fulton E. A . 2019 . Defining global artisanal fisheries . Marine Policy , 108 : 103634 .

Sala E. , Mayorga J. , Costello C. , Kroodsma D. , Palomares M. L. D. , Pauly D. , Sumaila U. R. et al.  2018 . The economics of fishing the high seas . Science Advances , 4 : eaat2504 .

Samuelson P. , Nordhaus William . 2019 . Economics . McGraw-Hill Education , New York, NY .

Sanchirico J. N. , Smith M. D. , Lipton D. W . 2008 . An empirical approach to ecosystem-based fishery management . Ecological Economics , 64 : 586 – 596 .

Sanchirico J. N. , Wilen J. E . 1999 . Bioeconomics of spatial exploitation in a patchy environment . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 37 : 129 – 150 .

Schlager E. , Ostrom E . 1992 . Property-rights regimes and natural resources: a conceptual analysis . Land Economics , 68 : 249 – 262 .

Schuhbauer A. , Sumaila U. R . 2016 . Economic viability and small-scale fisheries—a review . Ecological Economics , 124 : 69 – 75 .

Scott A . 1955 . The fishery: the objectives of sole ownership . Journal of Political Economy , 63 : 116 .

Scott A. D . 1989 . Conceptual origins of rights based fishing . In Rights Based Fishing , pp. 11 – 38 .. Ed. by Neher P. A. , Arnason R. , and Mollett N. . Springer , Dordrecht .

Sethi G. , Costello C. , Fisher A. , Hanemann M. , Karp L . 2005 . Fishery management under multiple uncertainty . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 50 : 300 – 318 .

Shotton R. (Ed.) 2001 . Case studies on the allocation of transferable quota rights in fisheries . In FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 411 . FAO , Rome . 373 pp.

Smith H. , Basurto X . 2019 . Defining small-scale fisheries and examining the role of science in shaping perceptions of who and what counts: a systematic review . Frontiers in Marine Science , 6 . https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2019.00236 (last accessed on 3 February 2023) .

Smith M. D . 2000 . Spatial search and fishing location choice: methodological challenges of empirical modeling . American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 82 : 1198 – 1206 .

Smith M. D . 2019 . Subsidies, efficiency, and fairness in fisheries policy . Science , 364 : 34 – 35 .

Smith M. D. , Sanchirico J. N. , Wilen J. E . 2009 . The economics of spatial-dynamic processes: applications to renewable resources . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 57 : 104 – 121 .

Smith M. D. , Wilen J. E . 2003 . Economic impacts of marine reserves: the importance of spatial behavior . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 46 : 183 – 206 .

Smith V . 1993 . Nonmarket valuation of environmental resources: an interpretive appraisal . Land Economics , 69 : 1 – 26 .

Squires D . 1988 . Production technology, costs, and multiproduct industry structure: an application of the long-run profit function to the New England fishing industry . The Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'Economique , 21 : 359 – 378 .

Squires D . 1992 . Productivity measurement in common property resource industries: an application to the Pacific Coast trawl fishery . The RAND Journal of Economics , 23 : 221 – 236 .

STECF . 2020 . The 2020 annual economic report on the EU fishing fleet (STECF 20-06) . In Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) . European Commission , Brussels .

Stelzenmüller V. , Gimpel A. , Haslob H. , Letschert J. , Berkenhagen J. , Brüning S . 2021 . Sustainable co-location solutions for offshore wind farms and fisheries need to account for socio-ecological trade-offs . Science of The Total Environment , 776 : 145918 .

Sutherland S. A. , Edwards E. C . 2022 . The impact of property rights to fish on remote communities in Alaska . Land Economics , 98 : 239 – 253 .

Tahvonen O . 2009 . Economics of harvesting age-structured fish populations . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 58 : 281 – 299 .

Tahvonen O. , Quaas M. F. , Voss R . 2018 . Harvesting selectivity and stochastic recruitment in economic models of age-structured fisheries . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 92 : 659 – 676 .

Thébaud O. , Doyen L. , Innes J. , Lample M. , Macher C. , Mahévas S. , Mullon C. et al.  2014 . Building ecological-economic models and scenarios of marine resource systems: workshop report . Marine Policy , 43 : 382 – 386 .

Thébaud O. , Innes J. , Ellis N . 2012 . From anecdotes to scientific evidence? A review of recent literature on catch share systems in marine fisheries . Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment , 10 : 433 – 437 .

Thunberg E. , Agar Juan , Crosson Scott , Garber-Yonts Brian , Harley , Abigail K. , Andrew Lee et al.  2015 . A Snapshot of NOAA Fisheries Data collection . US Department of Commerce , Washington, DC . 331 pp .

Tidd A. N. , Hutton T. , Kell L. T. , Padda G . 2011 . Exit and entry of fishing vessels: an evaluation of factors affecting investment decisions in the North Sea English beam trawl fleet . ICES Journal of Marine Science , 68 : 961 – 971 .

Tromeur E. , Doyen L. , Tarizzo V. , Little L. R. , Jennings S. , Thébaud O . 2021 . Risk averse policies foster bio-economic sustainability in mixed fisheries . Ecological Economics , 190 : 107178 .

Tveterås S. , Tveterås R . 2010 . The global competition for wild fish resources between livestock and aquaculture . Journal of Agricultural Economics , 61 : 381 – 397 .

Ulrich C. , Vermard Y. , Dolder P. J. , Brunel T. , Jardim E. , Holmes S. J. , Kempf A. et al.  2016 . Achieving maximum sustainable yield in mixed fisheries: a management approach for the North Sea demersal fisheries . ICES Journal of Marine Science , 74 : 566 – 575 .

Valderrama D. , Anderson J. L . 2010 . Market interactions between aquaculture and common-property fisheries: recent evidence from the Bristol Bay sockeye salmon fishery in Alaska . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 59 : 115 – 128 .

van Putten I. E. , Kulmala S. , Thébaud O. , Dowling N. , Hamon K. G. , Hutton T. , Pascoe S . 2012 . Theories and behavioural drivers underlying fleet dynamics models . Fish and Fisheries , 13 : 216 – 235 .

Voss R. , Quaas M. , Neuenfeldt S . 2021 . Robust, ecological–economic multispecies management of Central Baltic fishery resources . ICES Journal of Marine Science , 79 : 169 – 181 .

Voss R. , Quaas M. F. , Schmidt J. O. , Tahvonen O. , Lindegren M. , Möllmann C . 2014 . Assessing social–ecological trade-offs to advance ecosystem-based fisheries management . PLoS One , 9 : e107811 .

Wallmo K. , Lew D. K . 2012 . Public willingness to pay for recovering and downlisting threatened and endangered marine species . Conservation Biology , 26 : 830 – 839 .

Weninger Q . 2001 . An analysis of the efficient production frontier in the fishery: implications for enhanced fisheries management . Applied Economics , 33 : 71 – 79 .

Weninger Q. , McConnell K. E . 2000 . Buyback programs in commercial fisheries: effciency versus transfers . Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique , 33 : 394 – 412 .

Weninger Q. , Waters J. R . 2003 . Economic benefits of management reform in the northern Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishery . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 46 : 207 – 230 .

Werner S. , DePiper G. , Jin D. , Kitts A . 2020 . Estimation of commercial fishing trip costs using sea sampling data . Marine Resource Economics , 35 : 379 – 410 .

Wilen J. E . 2000 . Renewable resource economists and policy: what differences have we made? . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management , 39 : 306 – 327 .

Wilen J. E. , Cancino J. , Uchida H . 2012 . The economics of territorial use rights fisheries, or turfs . Review of Environmental Economics and Policy , 6 : 237 – 257 .

Wilen J. E. , Smith M. D. , Lockwood D. , Botsford F. W . 2002 . Avoiding surprises: incorporating fisherman behavior into management models . Bulletin of Marine Science , 70 : 553 – 575 .

Zeller D. , Booth S. , Pauly D . 2006 . Fisheries contributions to the gross domestic product: underestimating small-scale fisheries in the Pacific . Marine Resource Economics , 21 : 355 – 374 .

Author notes

Supplementary data, email alerts, citing articles via.

• Contact ICES
• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1095-9289
• Print ISSN 1054-3139
• Copyright © 2024 ICES/CIEM
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. 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.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Data Descriptor
• Open access
• Published: 16 July 2021

A global dataset of inland fisheries expert knowledge

• Gretchen L. Stokes   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4202-6527 1 ,
• Abigail J. Lynch   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8449-8392 2 ,
• Simon Funge-Smith 3 ,
• John Valbo‐Jørgensen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1992-5682 4 ,
• T. Douglas Beard Jr. 2 ,
• Benjamin S. Lowe   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1879-254X 1 ,
• Jesse P. Wong   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5538-0061 5 &
• Samuel J. Smidt 6  

Scientific Data volume  8 , Article number:  182 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

2889 Accesses

2 Citations

7 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Environmental impact
• Freshwater ecology
• Ichthyology
• Sustainability

Inland fisheries and their freshwater habitats face intensifying effects from multiple natural and anthropogenic pressures. Fish harvest and biodiversity data remain largely disparate and severely deficient in many areas, which makes assessing and managing inland fisheries difficult. Expert knowledge is increasingly used to improve and inform biological or vulnerability assessments, especially in data-poor areas. Integrating expert knowledge on the distribution, intensity, and relative influence of human activities can guide natural resource management strategies and institutional resource allocation and prioritization. This paper introduces a dataset summarizing the expert-perceived state of inland fisheries at the basin (fishery) level. An electronic survey distributed to professional networks (June-September 2020) captured expert perceptions (n = 536) of threats, successes, and adaptive capacity to fisheries across 93 hydrological basins, 79 countries, and all major freshwater habitat types. This dataset can be used to address research questions with conservation relevance, including: demographic influences on perceptions of threat, adaptive capacities for climate change, external factors driving multi-stressor interactions, and geospatial threat assessments.

Machine-accessible metadata file describing the reported data: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14749161

Similar content being viewed by others

Diverse integrated ecosystem approach overcomes pandemic-related fisheries monitoring challenges

Jarrod A. Santora, Tanya L. Rogers, … John C. Field

FiCli, the Fish and Climate Change Database, informs climate adaptation and management for freshwater fishes

Trevor J. Krabbenhoft, Bonnie J. E. Myers, … Abigail J. Lynch

Novel data show expert wildlife agencies are important to endangered species protection

Michael J. Evans, Jacob W. Malcom & Ya-Wei Li

Background & Summary

Freshwater fish are important contributors to human livelihoods, food and nutrition, recreation, ecosystem services, and biological diversity. Yet, they inhabit some of the most threatened ecosystems globally 1 , face higher declines relative to marine and terrestrial species 2 , and are disproportionally understudied 3 , 4 . Inland fisheries are subjected to a suite of anthropogenic stressors across aquatic-terrestrial landscapes 5 , including flow alterations, dams, invasive species, sedimentation, drought, and pollution 6 , 7 , 8 . Evaluating stressors and their impacts on global inland fisheries is essential for effective management, monitoring, and conservation 6 , but unlike marine fisheries, there is no standardized method to assess inland fisheries 9 .

Data inputs for a fisheries threat assessment typically include baseline information, such as species-specific landings or in situ population data (volume and composition), size (population and landings), and biomass. In addition, multi-stressor interactions (e.g., synergistic, additive) across complex habitats often warrant cross-ecosystem and cross-sector evaluations at multiple scales 10 , 11 . However, in the case of inland fisheries, these data inputs are severely deficient and often disparate in many regions 12 , 13 , which challenges the development of a global assessment. Thus, evaluating stressors and their impacts on inland fisheries necessitates the use of additional data sources (e.g., expert knowledge) beyond those typically derived directly from fish or fish habitats 12 , 14 . Local and subject-matter expertise can provide contextualized insights where spatial data are limited or unattainable (e.g., emerging threats 15 ) and where empirical evidence is incomplete (e.g., multi-stressor interactions).

Expert elicitation (i.e., expert opinion synthesis, where opinion is the preliminary state of knowledge of an individual) is increasingly used to inform ecological evaluations and guide water infrastructure, development, food security, and conservation decision-making and assessments, especially in data-poor scenarios 14 , 16 . While spatial data can be integrated as a suite of individual stressors (i.e., input variables) within ranking systems for the development of vulnerability or habitat assessments for conservation purposes 14 , 17 , the utilization of spatial variables is limited by the method for determining relative impacts (i.e., value judgment) 18 . Cumulate impact scores and systematic weighted ranking of threats are often based on geographically biased, small sized, or non-representative subsets of experts’ opinions (e.g., global weight determination from eight experts 5 ). Thus, data collection for this study was motivated by the development of a global assessment of threats to major inland fisheries, and the overarching need for tractable freshwater indicators. The data generated contribute essential relative influence scores for the assessment and provide a timely snapshot of inland fisheries as perceived by fisheries professionals. Threat composition and influence have broader potential applications to inform vulnerability and adaptation components of freshwater conservation and management targets (e.g., United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals, UN International Decade “Water for Sustainable Development,” Convention on Biological Diversity, Ramsar Convention on Wetlands).

This paper introduces a dataset that can help address a knowledge gap in understanding natural and human influences on inland fisheries with local, contextualized fishery evaluations. Derived from an electronic survey, data comprise perceptions from fisheries professionals (n = 536) on the relative influence and spatial associations of fishery threats, recent successes, and adaptive capacity measures within the respondent’s fishery of expertise.

In the context of the survey, we use the term “threat” as a proximate human activity or process (“direct threat”) causing degradation or impairment (“stress”; e.g., reduced population size, fragmented riparian habitat) to ecological targets (e.g., species, communities, ecosystems; in this case, fishery) 19 . We considered only the threats most proximate and direct to the target (fishery) and excluded stresses (i.e., symptoms, degraded key attributes) and contributing factors (i.e., root causes, underlying factors). For example, we considered pollutants (direct threat) rather than the pollution source (contributing factor) or the resulting contaminated water (stress, effect). We addressed the ambiguity of the term ‘fishery’ 20 by allowing respondents to indicate a geographic location (specific point) within their fishery area. This allows for spatial attribution with an inclusive use of ‘fishery’ as it pertains to threats (e.g., threats to a fish population of fishery-targeted species, catch characteristics, or the habitat in which the fishery operates).

We structured survey questions about the occurrence and relative influence of threats to the production and health of inland fisheries using 29 specified individual threats derived from well-studied pressures to inland fisheries in addition to pressures emerging as threats to fisheries (e.g., climate change, plastics 15 ). We categorized individual threats into five well-established categories: habitat degradation, pollution, overexploitation, species invasion, and climate change 1 , 7 for organizational context in the survey. We also designed survey questions specifically to understand the social adaptive capacity of fishers using five major community-level domains: fisher access to assets (e.g., financial, technological, service), fisher and institutional flexibility to adapt to changing conditions (e.g., livelihood alternatives, adaptive management), social capital and organization to enable cooperation and collective action (e.g., co-management), learning and problem-solving for responding to threats, and fishers’ sense of agency to influence and shape actions and outcomes 21 .

This dataset can be useful as an overview assessment, on which future assessments may expand for specific temporal or spatial interests. Some data in this dataset (e.g., microplastics, invasive species disturbances) are otherwise unattainable at relevant scales from geospatial information and therefore provide novel information. Potential uses include demographic influences on threat perceptions, spatial distribution of adaptive capacity measures paired with climate change or other threats, external factors driving multi-stressor interactions, and paired geospatial and expert-derived threat analysis. These data can provide insights on fisheries as a coupled human-natural system and inform regional and global freshwater assessments.

Survey design

The questions and response choices in this survey were deliberately selected, designed, and tested using literature review and expert input (Fig.  1 ). We derived individual threats (i.e., proximate pressures, direct threats) from established, documented threats to inland fishery populations and habitats 7 plus additional documented emerging threats (e.g., climate change, microplastic pollution 15 ). We cross-referenced answer choices using peer-reviewed literature to ensure consistent word choice and adequate justification. We solicited additional input from fisheries experts on threat scoring mechanisms and fishery syntax during the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Second Advisory Roundtable on the Assessment of Inland Fisheries 22 . We used Roundtable feedback to create the survey. Prior to distribution, we made a few additional modifications to the survey design using beta test (i.e., pre-test) feedback from fisheries professionals not involved in the survey.

Workflow used to generate and analyse the data outputs, where the survey design (i.e., survey questions, answer choices, and content organization) came from literature review and expert input from the 2019 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Advisory Roundtable on the Assessment of Inland Fisheries 22 ; data collection came from responses based on two email distributions and snowball sampling; and data sharing resulted from data processing and analyses.

The survey used to generate this dataset comprised five sections pertaining to the respondent’s fishery of expertise: 1) geographic location, 2) threats, 3) successes, 4) adaptive capacity, and 5) demographics (Table  1 , Appendix  A ). Respondents could provide optional, additional comments. Respondents indicated the location of their self-identified fishery (basin) of expertise by one or both of the following: a) clicking a point (pin drop) inside their fishery’s water body using a Google Maps extension (recorded as geographic coordinates) and/or b) selecting their region, and/or subregion name from a list of provided choices. The threats section had three components: a) overall perceived threat of the respondent’s fishery, as indicated by moving a gauge (0 to 10; 0 = not threatened to 10 = highly threatened), b) types of threats present in the fishery (where respondents checked all threats that apply to their fishery from a given list with an option to add additional threats), and c) relative influence of each threat selected in the previous question to the total threat (must add up to 100%). Part “b” of the threats section also included a practice question prior to the threat gauge question, intended to help respondents learn how to use the gauge (see Technical Validation ). Respondents were asked to describe one recent success in their fishery for the successes section, which were recorded as open-ended text responses. The adaptive capacity section used a Likert scale (strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, neither disagree nor agree, somewhat agree, strongly agree) for five domains of adaptive capacity: access to assets, flexibility to adapt, social capital/organization, learning and problem solving, and sense of agency. Finally, the demographics section included the following components: current affiliation, primary area of expertise, years of fisheries experience, proportion of work time spent in a field-based setting, highest degree earned, birth year, and sex (each selected from a list of provided options). At the conclusion of the survey, respondents were thanked and given the survey link in the case they wanted to take the survey again for a different basin of expertise; respondents were allowed to take the survey more than once.

Survey distribution & data collection

We distributed a Qualtrics survey via anonymous link to ~1,900 inland fisheries professionals, including: ~1,250 American Fisheries Society members (Fish Habitat, Canadian Aquatic Resources, and International Fisheries Sections), ~500 FAO affiliates and collaborators, and ~150 InFish network members 23 . We sent an initial email (including survey link, instructions, project summary) on June 16, 2020 and a follow-up reminder email (above materials plus QR code and survey flier) on July 8, 2020. The initial distribution intentionally targeted three fisheries organizations where membership or affiliation reflects some level of fisheries experience or leadership (i.e., members can be considered fisheries professionals by way of affiliation or membership criteria). Distribution was not limited to fisheries professionals from any one type of inland fishery or fisheries sector. Snowball sampling was permitted to increase representation of fisheries professionals not affiliated with the targeted organizations. Survey respondents were encouraged to share the survey with their colleagues in corresponding organizations. Surveys were available in English, Spanish, Portuguese, French, Korean, and Chinese. Survey respondents could select their language of preference upon opening the survey. Data collection occurred June 16 - September 9, 2020, with 98% (n = 524) of the 536 total responses in the dataset (i.e., responses that met the criteria for inclusion (see Data Validation )) occurring in the first month (June 16 - July 15, 2020).

Institutional board review and informed consent

This study (#IRB202000533) was approved as ‘Exempt’ by the University of Florida Gainesville Campus (IRB-02) Institutional Review Board (UF IRB) on May 15, 2020 (Appendix  B ). As no identifying information was collected, UF IRB approved a waiver of documentation of informed consent for this study. Respondents were instead presented with a written informed consent statement immediately before beginning the survey, and their consent was implied by their participation in the survey. In accordance with IRB policies, all respondents were at least 18 years old. The purpose of the study, estimated time for completion, additional instructions for respondents who wanted to complete the survey for more than one area of expertise, potential risks, and contact information of the principal investigator (S. Smidt), co-investigator (G. Stokes), and UF IRB were provided to respondents before asking about their consent. The introductory text highlighted no potential risks to respondents: “There are no risks anticipated in participating in this survey nor any direct benefits or compensation. However, the results will be a valuable contribution to improving global inland fisheries assessment with local applications. All responses will remain completely anonymous and no identifying information will be collected. You may stop this survey at any time and you can decline to answer questions as you wish.” See Appendix  A for additional information provided to respondents.

Survey participation did not explicitly exclude anyone; however, respondents were likely to be self-selecting, where those who felt comfortable answering the questions and considered themselves eligible after reading the study description were more likely to take the survey. Emails sent to prospective respondents included the following information: rationale/study overview, purpose, importance, IRB approval number, and what to expect if they chose to take the survey (e.g., time estimate).

Data processing

We received 712 responses between June 16 and September 9, 2020. All provided language options were utilized by respondents: English (n = 565), Spanish (n = 81), French (n = 26), Korean (n = 2), Portuguese (n = 35), Chinese (n = 3; traditional = 2, simplified = 1). We exported data from Qualtrics using numeric values, with line breaks removed and multi-value fields split into columns. Data were imported using the package qualtRics in R (R Development Core Team 2018) 24 . We used the following dataset inclusion criteria for responses in the raw dataset: 1) submission date after the official start of the survey (“enddate” > 06/16/2020 00:00), 2) fishery location provided (one or more of the following: region, subregion, geographic coordinates), 3) at least 15% of the survey completed (“progress” ≥ 15), and 4) a response to the overall threat question (“overall_threat” ≠ “NA”) (see Data Validation ). The latter was an indicator of respondent completion, assuming that if the first question of the survey after location was incomplete, then the rest of the survey was not likely adequately considered. Responses flagged as potential spam or recorded as a survey preview were already removed with the above criteria. Responses that did not meet the inclusion criteria (n = 176) are not included in the dataset. We processed data into a formatted dataset file to enhance its interpretability and usability with the following steps: 1) renamed column names with descriptive properties, 2) recoded numeric values to character choice options where applicable, 3) extracted spatial coordinates (longitude, latitude) of fishery locations, and 4) added translations for non-English entries. We back-translated survey responses (i.e., “other” columns for affiliation and area of expertise) that were recorded in languages other than English using the Qualtrics Google Translate function. Additional processing for figures included geospatial visualization of responses (Fig.  2 ), and summation and averaging of threat data to generate threat counts by threat categories and total threat counts (Fig.  3a,b ). All R code used to generate the formatted data and figures is available for users in HydroShare 25 .

The global distribution of georeferenced responses (orange circles; n = 432) in the dataset, excluding those without geographic coordinates (n = 104; region or subregion only), where major basins (dark grey) represent hydrological basins accounting for 95% of inland fish catch; 32 and minor basins (light grey) represent all other hydrological basins (HydroBASINS level 3 33 ).

Survey responses summarized by ( a ) threat score counts by threat category and ( b ) adaptive capacity domains by response type. ( a ) shows the total response counts of the number of provided threats (n = 29) selected in respondents’ fisheries (range = 0–29), summed by major threat category (n = 5; fill colors) across overall fishery threat scores (1–10; x-axis). ( b ) depicts adaptive capacity domains in respondents’ fisheries (n = 467, except “assets” = 466), shown as the percent of responses in each adaptive capacity domain, and colored according to respondent answers (Likert scale; five categorical choices from strongly disagree to strongly agree).

Data Records

The inland fisheries expert knowledge dataset is provided as a CSV and Excel (.xlsx) file in two forms: raw and formatted. The raw dataset contains data as recorded by Qualtrics , intended as an original reference dataset. The formatted dataset, intended for reuse, contains the same data with organizational modifications (see Methods) . Each row in the data file represents one completed survey by an individual respondent and each column represents a question or component thereof. A full description of each column and its units or format is provided as an additional CSV and Excel (.xlsx) file, which is intended to extend the reuse potential of the dataset with full variable explanations. While the survey did not solicit identifying information, some optional text entries provided by respondents for “successes” and “comments” contain information that could potentially be used to trace to an individual respondent and thus are excluded from the main dataset in accordance with UF IRB protocol requirements to protect respondent confidentiality. An independent, compliant file of text entries disassociated from geographic information and with proper names removed is available upon request. The raw and formatted dataset and accompanying reference data are freely available to the public and can be accessed in the Consortium of Universities for the Advancement of Hydrologic Science, Inc. (CUAHSI) HydroShare data repository 25 . HydroShare access requires users to sign up for a free user account ( https://www.hydroshare.org/sign-up/ ) with organization name, user type, email, username, password, country, and state; once registered, users may log in for data access. Figures depict the spatial representation of responses (Fig.  2 ), response distribution of relative threat influences by threat category (Fig.  3a ), and adaptive capacity measures by domain type (Fig.  3b ). Tables provide data summaries of responses: survey structure and content (Table  1 ), response distribution by region and language (Table  2 ), relative influence of threats by category (Table  3 ), summary of individual threat influences and counts by category (Table  4 ), and respondent biographical information (Table  5 ).

Technical Validation

We evaluated sources of error within the Total Survey Error framework 26 , 27 by examining potential errors in the: 1) survey instrument and design (errors of observation), 2) sampling and coverage (errors of non-observation), and 3) data processing (errors of processing).

Survey instrument and design

We used the Qualtrics “quality control” tool (ExpertReview by iQ) to assess the survey for usability and accessibility. Most Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) issues were scored as “minor,” indicating minimal error introduced across various modes of survey access (e.g., computer, smartphone). No issues in the “survey error” metrics were identified. “Methodology” metrics were scored as “minor” for the use of more than one text entry box (necessary for “other” choice entry).

To the extent possible, we used wording for survey questions from well-established international or national protocols and assessments. Questions were based directly on peer-reviewed literature, and when possible in the English version, used exact wording as provided in the literature to minimize bias in survey results; wording may not align as precisely in translated versions (despite the four-step, two-way translation process, see below). Threat categories and names were derived from well-established sources 7 , 17 with minor additions based on evidence of emerging threats 15 , and adaptive capacity domains were derived from Cinner et al . 21 .

A possible source of error is the respondent’s interpretation of threat and their ability to correctly use the gauge tool to indicate the level of threat in their fishery (see Appendix  A , Question 3). Respondents were asked to move a needle on a gauge tool until the number on the dial matched the number of their perceived level of threat (i.e., gauge needle pointed far left = no threat (0), gauge needle pointed far right 180 degrees = high threat (10)). The functionality of the tool may have introduced a potential barrier for respondents in correctly indicating or interpreting the threat level of their fishery. We aimed to reduce these effects by including a practice question prior to the threat question, which asked the same question, but using a hypothetical fishery example. Respondents were instructed to move a gauge according to how they perceived threats in a hypothetical fishery; their answer to this question indicates the respondent’s understanding of directionality of the gauge. We expected respondents to score the hypothetical fishery on the left side of the gauge (0 to 5); over 75% of respondents did so. We recommend data users apply caution when utilizing threat scores for the remaining responses with hypothetical fishery scores greater than 5. Users may also choose to create a weight or a reliability score for the threat score based on the congruence between the response to the test question and the threat score.

Additionally, “threat” was intentionally used broadly (undefined in the survey itself) to allow for respondent consideration of a suite of pressures on their individual fishery. However, we recognize that what one person may consider “highly threatened” (e.g., threat score of 10) another person may consider only “moderately threatened” (e.g., threat score of 5). Similarly, the use of Likert-scale responses for adaptive capacity measures may introduce some variability, as one person’s “strongly agree” may be different from another person’s interpretation of the same phrase 28 . We expect these issues to dissipate (i.e., average out) across the large sample size and across same-scale measures (e.g., Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.839 for the five Likert-scale items). We recommend that data users apply the appropriate statistical tests for reliability and variability that fit their desired analyses and, if deemed appropriate, some users may wish to aggregate Likert-scale or threat rating scale responses into binary scales. We mitigated potential error in survey question translations using a four-step, two-way translation process: 1) preliminary translation to each designated language using Google Translate; 2) translations revised or rewritten by two independent, native (fluent) language speakers; 3) independent translations back-translated to English and compared for discretions; and, if further review was warranted, 4) review of final translations in survey formatting by a native speaker.

Qualtrics is generally accessible worldwide, but internet censorship in some countries may restrict access and thus, survey participation. To reduce access issues, UF IRB approved a method to obtain and record responses, while maintaining anonymity, from anyone who was unable to access the survey link directly. The respondent who elected this option (n = 1) typed answers on a PDF version of the survey and returned it to the approved survey team member via email. The team member removed all identifying information from the form and sent the anonymous version of the completed survey to a different approved team member, who entered the information into Qualtrics via anonymous survey link.

Sampling and coverage

The purpose of this study as a global snapshot of inland fisheries and the lack of a source location for all inland fisheries professionals warranted the use of snowball sampling to recruit professionals outside major membership or affiliation networks (i.e., hidden populations). However, snowball sampling inherently introduces sampling bias to the dataset. The initial target population has a strong impact on the representativeness of the snowballed sample. Sourcing the initial target population from three well-established inland fisheries networks (FAO, InFish, American Fisheries Society) with diverse spatial and demographic representation was the best defence against this potential bias 29 , 30 . Initial respondents (i.e., those receiving a direct email from the study team with the survey link) were encouraged to share the survey within their networks or to specific contacts, which they believed met the survey criteria. We improved spatial coverage of snowballing by indicating basins lacking responses in areas where fisheries professionals would be expected (i.e., in the major basins that capture 95% of global inland fish catch 31 ) in a follow-up email sent to initial respondents, with encouragement for snowball sampling in those areas. Responses included in this dataset comprise basins that capture 82.1% of reported global inland fish catch 32 . The initial respondents may share certain characteristics or affiliations with snowballed respondents, which could skew the total representation of respondents to be unrepresentative of the larger population of inland fisheries professionals. As such, contextualizing responses within this potentially skewed population sample is important for analysis. Responses should not be extrapolated as representative of an entire basin or region, or as an indicator of historical or future threats, but rather as a unique, discrete geographic snapshot.

Initial survey distribution intentionally targeted respondents whose membership or affiliation reflects some fisheries experience. Those who read the description of the target respondents for the survey and felt they did not fit the criteria were likely self-excluded from the sample population. However, we recommend that data users subsample the dataset using the demographic parameters fit for their study needs. For example, a user could define ‘expert’ using specific criteria (e.g., >15 years of experience in fisheries with a doctoral-level degree) and subsample accordingly.

A limitation of this dataset is that the global scope limits localized resolution. Given the global scope, we do not assess characteristics of the respondent’s fishery (i.e., no information collected about the types of fishes or type of fishery considered by the respondent while taking the survey). Although we do not specify temporal or spatial constraints for respondents to consider, consistent use of present tense in the survey implies current threat (as was the case in pre-testing). Follow-up studies may use the information from this dataset to expand upon temporal characteristics of pertinent threats, such as the onset, duration, severity, or spatial expanse. Potential biases from respondent interpretations of the questions over variable time scales and size of fishery areas may limit extrapolation of the data to geospatially derived attributes beyond the participant-selected geographic coordinates. The specificity of a single geographic point associated with each entry in the dataset, however, allows for precise attribution to that point, to which any extrapolation or generalization can be traced.

Specified inclusion criteria were applied for the dataset creation (see Methods section). Survey responses marked as survey preview or spam were discarded from the dataset (n = 6). Survey preview responses were incomplete test responses recorded by the study team. Qualtrics flags responses as potential ‘spam’ if two or more identical responses are received from the same IP address in a 12-hour period. We ensured that threat influence responses totalled to 100% using the “Custom Validation” function in Qualtrics , where we specified that the percent of total threat caused by each individual threat must add up to 100, and enabled grid lines and percent labels to improve accuracy of percent choices by respondents (Appendix  A ). Respondents were permitted to change the slider bars for all individual threats until they were satisfied with the percentage allotted to each and they totalled to 100. We confirmed this summation in the dataset by adding the columns associated with the relative influence of each individual threat (n = 30); we found no errors. Additionally, we performed quality checks of the percent influence of individual threats by aggregating responses by region and individual threats. Based on a less than 8% variation in standard deviation across regions and similar minimum and maximum values across all threat types, we do not see evidence of bias in the way the slider tool was used for different regions or for different threat types. Aside from accidental response selection by respondents, the electronic format of the survey and automated processing software restricted errors from coding or human entry error.

Usage Notes

This dataset can be used to answer a diverse array of scientific questions and provide valuable insights about the social-ecological dynamics of inland fisheries at a global scale. It may also enhance existing ecological or spatial datasets of similar metrics. Questions of interest may include:

What types of anthropogenic stressors pose the greatest direct threat to inland fisheries, as perceived by experts?

How are threat types, and the relative influence of each, distributed across space (e.g., basin, continent, habitat type)? Do threats trend together based on fishery characteristics of geography?

How do threats relate to fish catch, dependence on fisheries for food/income, and/or human development (e.g., Human Development Index, Multidimensional Poverty Index)?

How do perceived threats relate to remotely sensed data records of similar types (e.g., deforestation, dams, mining)? For example, do areas where dams were scored as having the highest relative influence relate to density of dams, dam size, or reservoir capacity?

Are fisheries perceived to be most threatened equipped with greater adaptive capacity measures (i.e., five adaptive capacity domains) (e.g., Cinner et al .) 21 ?

How is adaptive capacity linked to socioeconomic parameters (e.g., gross domestic product, governance)?

What key demographic attributes characterize areas of higher or lower threat (i.e., how do threat scores differ across demographic categories: affiliation, expertise, years of experience working in fisheries, field time, age, sex, and education level)?

How are threats related to each other (i.e., are any threats more likely to be present with the occurrence of other threats)?

What is the influence of threats for which no other global datasets exist (e.g., microplastics) and how might the data from this dataset fill data gaps?

Do the fisheries with highest perceived climate threats align with regions of documented climate change or projected substantial change?

This dataset contains geospatial information on the location of the fishery associated with each survey response. 81% of responses (n = 432) are associated with geographic coordinates (latitude and longitude) of a point inside the respondent’s fishery, 19% of responses (n = 102) are associated with both a region (basin) and subregion (sub-basin), and 2 responses have a region only (no subregion). As such, all responses can be linked to hydrological basins (HydroBASINS level 3) 33 and most responses can be spatially linked to data in other datasets by coordinate points. To obtain additional information about the location, such as water body type, country, or ecoregion, the user must project the data using the geographic reference system WGS 1984, then join attributes from features in additional datasets to this dataset based on their spatial relationship. The user may set join specifications (e.g., boundaries touching, closest to point) to best suit their questions of interest. To join non-georeferenced survey responses to hydrological basins, users may join basin and sub-basin names to HydroBASINS levels 3 and 4, respectively.

Code availability

Code used to format the dataset for reuse and generate manuscript figures (Fig.  3a,b ) is available for download in the Consortium of Universities for the Advancement of Hydrologic Science, Inc. (CUAHSI) HydroShare data repository at https://doi.org/10.4211/hs.de4190f0eff74b09a5e0844a0de482a5 25 . Note that, for Fig.  2 , this also requires downloading hydrological basin from HydroBASINS 33 and catch data from FAO 32 . Upon free registration in HydroShare, there are no restrictions to the access or use of this code. Code was implemented in R (version 4.0.2; https://r-project.org ) 24 .

Dudgeon, D. et al . Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol. Rev. 81 , 163–182 (2006).

Article   Google Scholar  

WWF. Living Planet Report 2018: Aiming Higher (eds. Grooten, M. & Almond, R. E. A.) (WWF, 2018).

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Report No. 2019-1 (IUCN, 2019).

Carrizo, S. F., Smith, K. G. & Darwall, W. R. T. Progress towards a global assessment of the status of freshwater fishes (Pisces) for the IUCN Red List: application to conservation programmes in zoos and aquariums. Int. Zoo Yearb. 47 , 46–64 (2013).

Vörösmarty, C. J. et al . Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467 , 555–561 (2010).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Cooke, S. J. et al . On the sustainability of inland fisheries: finding a future for the forgotten. Ambio. 45 , 753–764 (2016).

Arthington, A. H., Dulvy, N. K., Gladstone, W. & Winfield, I. J. Fish conservation in freshwater and marine realms: status, threats and management. Aquat. Conserv.: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 26 , 838–857 (2016).

Welcomme, R. L. et al . Inland capture fisheries. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B, Biol. Sci. 365 , 2881–2896 (2010).

Bartley, D. M., de Graaf, G. J., Valbo‐Jørgensen, J. & Marmulla, M. Inland capture fisheries: status and data issues. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 22 , 71–77 (2015).

Venter, O. et al . Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nat. Commun. 7 , 12558 (2016).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Costello, M. J. Biodiversity: the known, unknown and rates of extinction. Curr. Biol. 25 , R368–R371 (2015).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016 (FAO, 2016).

Murray, D. N. et al . Trends in inland commercial fisheries in the United States. Fisheries 45 , 585–596 (2020).

Halpern, B. S., Selkoe, K. A., Micheli, F. & Kappel, C. V. Evaluating and ranking the vulnerability of global marine ecosystems to anthropogenic threats. Conserv. Biol. 21 , 1301–15 (2007).

Reid, A. J. et al . Emerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity. Biol. Rev. 94 , 849–873 (2018).

Martin, T. G., Kuhnert, P. M., Mengersen, K. & Possingham, H. P. The power of expert opinion in ecological models using Bayesian methods: impact of grazing on birds. Ecol. Appl. 15 , 266–280 (2005).

Kappel, C. V. Losing pieces of the puzzle: threats to marine, estuarine, and diadromous species. Front. Ecol. Evol. 3 , 275–282 (2005).

Donlan, C. J., Wilcox, C., Luque, G. M. & Gelcich, S. Estimating illegal fishing from enforcement officers. Sci. Rep. 10 , 1–9 (2020).

Salafsky, N. et al . A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: unified classifications for threats and actions. Conserv. Biol. 22 , 897–911 (2008).

Smith, H. & Basurto, X. Defining small-scale fisheries and examining the role of science in shaping perceptions of who and what counts: A systematic review. Front. Mar. Sci. 6 , 236 (2019).

Cinner, J. E. et al . Building adaptive capacity to climate change in tropical coastal communities. Nature Clim. Change. 8 , 117–123 (2018).

FAO. Report of the Second Advisory Roundtable on the Assessment of Inland Fisheries , Rome, 25–27 November 2019 (FAO, 2021).

Stokes, G. L. et al . COVID-19 pandemic impacts on global inland fisheries. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 47 , 29419–29421 (2020).

R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, version 4.0.2. R Foundation for Statistical Computing https://www.r-project.org/ (2018).

Stokes, G. L. & Smidt, S. J. Global Inland Fisheries Expert Survey. HydroShare , https://doi.org/10.4211/hs.de4190f0eff74b09a5e0844a0de482a5 (2021).

Biemer, P. P. Total survey error: design, implementation, and evaluation. Public Opin. Q. 74 , 817–848 (2010).

Groves, R. M. & Lyberg, L. Total survey error: past, present, and future. Public Opin. Q. 74 , 849–879 (2010).

Zaller, J. & Feldman, S. A simple theory of the survey response. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 36 , 579–616 (1992).

Schensul, J., LeCompte, M., Trotter, R., Cromley, E. & Singer. M. Mapping social networks, spatial data and hidden populations (AltaMira Press, 1999).

Patton. M. Q. Qualitative research and evaluation methods 3rd ed (Sage Publications, 2002).

Ainsworth, R., Cowx, I. G. & Funge-Smith, S. J. A review of major river basins and large lakes relevant to inland fisheries . FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1170 (FAO, 2021).

FAO. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2020. Sustainability in action (FAO, 2020).

Lehner, B. & Grill, G. Global river hydrography and network routing: baseline data and new approaches to study the world’s large river systems. Hydrol. Process. 27 , 2171–2186 (2013).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the survey respondents, including members of the American Fisheries Society, collaborators and staff with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and members of the InFish network ( http://infish.org/ ). We also thank Wei-en Wang, So-Jung Youn, and Moonhyuk Choi for their assistance translating surveys; and USGS reviewer Sarah Endyke for constructive feedback. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. DGE-1842473. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA

Gretchen L. Stokes & Benjamin S. Lowe

U.S. Geological Survey, National Climate Adaptation Science Center, Reston, VA, 20192, USA

Abigail J. Lynch & T. Douglas Beard Jr.

Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Bangkok, 10900, Thailand

Simon Funge-Smith

Fisheries Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 00153, Italy

John Valbo‐Jørgensen

Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, 22030, USA

Jesse P. Wong

Soil and Water Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA

Samuel J. Smidt

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the survey design and the writing of the manuscript. G.L.S. led the survey design, writing, and data processing. S.J.S. and A.J.L. supervised the research. S.J.S., G.L.S. and B.S.L. completed the research ethics and compliance training and obtained UF IRB board approval. S.J.S. served as the UF IRB Principal Investigator. S.F.-S. and J.V.-J. recruited respondents and led survey distributions. T.D.B. facilitated feedback on scope and beta testing. B.S.L. assisted with survey design. J.P.W. provided technical and coding assistance.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gretchen L. Stokes .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ applies to the metadata files associated with this article.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Stokes, G.L., Lynch, A.J., Funge-Smith, S. et al. A global dataset of inland fisheries expert knowledge. Sci Data 8 , 182 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00949-0

Download citation

Received : 23 November 2020

Accepted : 13 May 2021

Published : 16 July 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00949-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

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

Advertisement

Goals, challenges, and next steps in transdisciplinary fisheries research: perspectives and experiences from early-career researchers

• Point-of-View
• Published: 05 August 2022
• Volume 33 , pages 349–374, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Elizabeth A. Nyboer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3004-009X 1 ,
• Andrea J. Reid 2 ,
• Amanda L. Jeanson 1 ,
• Rachel Kelly 3 , 4 ,
• Mary Mackay 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ,
• Jenny House 7 ,
• Sarah M. Arnold 8 ,
• Paul W. Simonin 9 ,
• Mary Grace C. Sedanza 10 , 11 ,
• Emma D. Rice 12 ,
• T. E. Angela L. Quiros 13 ,
• Andrea Pierucci 14 ,
• Kelly Ortega-Cisneros 15 ,
• Julia N. Nakamura 16 ,
• Valentina Melli 17 ,
• Stella Mbabazi 18 ,
• Mariana S. L. Martins 19 ,
• Anne Brigette B. Ledesma 20 ,
• Clara Obregón 21 , 22 ,
• Chepkemboi K. Labatt 23 , 24 ,
• Andrew N. Kadykalo 1 ,
• Michael Heldsinger 25 , 26 ,
• Madeline E. Green 5 , 6 ,
• Jessica L. Fuller 27 ,
• Milagros Franco-Meléndez 28 , 29 ,
• Matthew J. Burnett 30 ,
• Jessica A. Bolin 31 ,
• Solange Andrade-Vera 32 &
• Steven J. Cooke 1  

6481 Accesses

9 Citations

21 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Fisheries are highly complex social-ecological systems that often face ‘wicked’ problems from unsustainable resource management to climate change. Addressing these challenges requires transdisciplinary approaches that integrate perspectives across scientific disciplines and knowledge systems. Despite widespread calls for transdisciplinary fisheries research (TFR), there are still limitations in personal and institutional capacity to conduct and support this work to the highest potential. The viewpoints of early career researchers (ECRs) in this field can illuminate challenges and promote systemic change within fisheries research. This paper presents the perspectives of ECRs from across the globe, gathered through a virtual workshop held during the 2021 World Fisheries Congress, on goals, challenges, and future potential for TFR. Big picture goals for TFR were guided by principles of co-production and included (i) integrating transdisciplinary thinking at all stages of the research process, (ii) ensuring that research is inclusive and equitable, (iii) co-creating knowledge that is credible, relevant, actionable, and impactful, and (iv) consistently communicating with partners. Institutional inertia, lack of recognition of the extra time and labour required for TFR, and lack of skill development opportunities were identified as three key barriers in conducting TFR. Several critical actions were identified to help ECRs, established researchers, and institutions reach these goals. We encourage ECRs to form peer-mentorship networks to guide each other along the way. We suggest that established researchers ensure consistent mentorship while also giving space to ECR voices. Actions for institutions include retooling education programs, developing and implementing new metrics of impact, and critically examining individualism and privilege in academia. We suggest that the opportunities and actions identified here, if widely embraced now, can enable research that addresses complex challenges facing fishery systems contributing to a healthier future for fish and humans alike.

Similar content being viewed by others

Using Transdisciplinary Research Solutions to Support Governance in Inland Fisheries

The principles of transdisciplinary research in small-scale fisheries, transdisciplinary science for small-scale fisheries.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Fisheries science as a research discipline has made important intellectual contributions to some of the world's most complex environmental and societal challenges. Western fisheries science was initially developed to support the management of economically valuable commercial fisheries in the global north, focusing primarily on biological factors that regulate fishery productivity, or on stock assessment models to establish maximum sustainable yield and high economic output (Beverton and Holt 1957 ; Halliday and Pinhorn 1996 ; Halliday and Fanning 2006 ). Fisheries research and management now span diverse ecosystems around the globe in the service of various fisheries sectors (e.g., small-scale, ceremonial, recreational).

More recently, fisheries have been characterized as social-ecological systems (Ommer and Perry 2011 ), which address the complex interactions and multi-way feedbacks that exist among diverse actors, target species, and ecosystems (Schlüter et al. 2012 ). The study and management of fisheries are thus characterized by high levels of uncertainty. Widespread and rapid changes in the world’s aquatic ecosystems alter social-ecological relationships and can have profound effects on the livelihoods and lifeways of local communities (Andrews et al. 2020 ). The challenges facing fisheries as an industry, livelihood, and research discipline span disparate yet interconnected topics including governance, economics, food security, poverty alleviation, biodiversity conservation, climate adaptation, and social justice (Chuenpagdee and Jentoft 2019 ). These complex challenges have been recognized in the fisheries literature as ‘wicked problems’ (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2009 ; Turgeon et al. 2018 ); i.e., problems characterized as multi-dimensional, difficult to define, evolving, having competing and intrinsically diverse interests and conflict types, and without a single or immediate solution (Rittel and Webber 1974 ).

It is widely accepted in current fisheries research that no single discipline, source of knowledge, sphere of experience, or area of expertise can independently address the ‘wicked problems’ faced by fisheries (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2009 ; Haapasaari et al. 2012 ; Glavovic et al. 2015 ). For example, finding equitable and sustainable solutions for communities coping with large-scale environmental change (e.g., climate change) may require integration of community-based knowledge (e.g., local knowledge of ecosystem function), and data from social sciences (e.g.,., decision making processes, social dynamics of adaptation), economics (e.g., impact on value chains), political science (e.g., policy creation, governance theory), and ecology (e.g., responses of the biological community to environmental stress). Indeed, such questions necessitate a broad integration of perspectives across academic disciplines and knowledge systems. In some cases, local ecological knowledge (e.g., experiences, perceptions, stories, anecdotal information) has improved governance of fisheries resources by providing otherwise elusive insights that add to our collective understanding of the social-ecological dynamics of fishery systems (examples in Johannes et al., 2000 ; Azzurro 2011; Eckert et al., 2018). Although some fisheries challenges may have straightforward solutions, the complexity of many of these  problems  demand that fisheries research ‘transcend science’ by drawing on diverse knowledges. In this way, the research process and outcomes can better attend to the needs and values of diverse rights holders, local communities, practitioners, resource managers, and decision-makers (Cvitanovic et al. 2015 ; Chuenpagdee and Jentoft 2019 ; Reid et al. 2020 ; Barnes et al. 2021 ; Kadykalo et al. 2021a ). The uptake and application of transdisciplinary methodologies are increasingly recognized as effective at finding solutions to complex and dynamic problems facing fisheries and developing equitable and legitimate management approaches (Turgeon et al. 2018 ). Transdisciplinarity extends beyond multi- and interdisciplinary methodologies that incorporate collaborative elements and integrate data across academic disciplines (Klein 1990 ) to support cooperative approaches and partnerships which enable knowledge exchange across science-policy-practice divides (Turgeon et al. 2018 ; Bennett 2019 ; Kelly et al. 2019 ; Barnes et al. 2021 ).

Transdisciplinary approaches have spurred the development of new frameworks for managing and studying fisheries, many of which have roots or direct parallels with long-standing approaches to looking after fisheries (e.g., Indigenous fisheries that commonly manage whole systems and are inherently adaptive; Berkes 2018 ). Two of these frameworks, i.e., ecosystem-based fishery management (Macher et al. 2021 ) and adaptive co-management (Armitage et al. 2010 ; Stöhr et al. 2014 ), emphasize the need for integrative approaches that move beyond just biological considerations and consider the social, ecological, economic, and institutional dimensions of fisheries (Turgeon et al. 2018 ). Within these frameworks, the roles of scientists have shifted. Researchers must become fluent in diverse disciplinary ‘languages’ (Andrews et al. 2020 ), learn complex communication skills (Macher et al. 2021 ), navigate when their voices are critical and when they are not as useful (Chuenpagdee and Jentoft 2019 ), and learn how to respectfully combine and uphold the validity of multiple knowledge types (Steelman et al. 2019 ; Reid et al. 2020 ; Barnes et al. 2021 ). In addition, researchers are taking on new responsibilities at the science-policy-practice interface (Cvitanovic et al. 2015 ; Fabian et al. 2019 ; Kadykalo et al. 2021b ) and must learn how to frame their findings in a way that is relevant to decision-makers. Engaging in transdisciplinary fisheries research (TFR) requires substantial investments in time and training to navigate the co-production of knowledge with diverse partners who may have different management goals, accessibility to information, and communication styles or needs (Mauser et al. 2013 ; Evans and Cvitanovic 2018 ; Kelly et al. 2019 ; Andrews et al. 2020 ).

These demands can be intense, particularly for early career researchers (ECRs) (Chapman et al. 2015 ; Turgeon et al. 2018 ; Kelly et al. 2019 ). Despite widespread calls for transdisciplinary research, there are still barriers in personal, financial, technical, and institutional capacity to carry out and support TFR. Proper training can be difficult to offer and access, and opportunities to discuss common goals and strategize best practices are limited. To provide a forum for such critical dialogue, we held a global collaborative workshop for ECRs who work or aim to work in TFR. The objective of the workshop was to gather the perspectives of ECRs to identify big picture goals for the field, characterize and understand the main barriers for conducting TFR, and identify actions for researchers and institutions that can enable TFR. The goal of this paper is to share reflections from that workshop to spark dialogue and prospective thinking on the goals, challenges, and future potential for this expanding field.

Our workshop took place on September 21, 2021, as part of the World Fisheries Congress (WFC) in Adelaide, Australia (held virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic). We assembled a diverse international team of fisheries researchers in early career stages who use or aspire to use transdisciplinary methodologies in their work. We define ‘early career’ to include graduate students in Master’s or PhD programs, as well as professionals in the first five years following their highest degree.

After registering for the WFC, participants could sign up for the workshop online on a first-come first-served basis (with a limit of 20 spots in the initial registry) if they qualified as an ECR and identified the ongoing or potential for transdisciplinary research in their field. Other participants were recruited via targeted invitation to offer spots to ECRs who missed the online sign-up window, and to fill gaps in global representation (although still drawn from within the WFC pool). Targeted recruitment (led by EAN) involved reading titles and abstracts of registered WFC participants and emailing invitations to individuals who fit the target demographic. In total there were 29 participants: four organizers (EAN, AJR, ALJ, SJC), 16 sign-ups, and nine recruits. Among the recruits were two individuals (RK, MM) who were asked to co-lead the workshop based on their expertise in the field. All participants who contributed to the activities before, during and after the workshop are co-authors on this manuscript, with representation from 26 countries across six continents (Fig.  1 a, Appendix A1). Most participants were in the academic system at the graduate student or postdoctoral level, although some participants hailed from the consulting, practitioner, government, and non-governmental (NGO) sectors (Fig.  1 b). The types of freshwater and marine fisheries represented were from the commercial, small-scale, Indigenous, subsistence, recreational, and aquaculture sectors (Fig.  1 c) as defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO 2012).

A Countries of residence and/or research location of the author team. Countries shaded blue (darker tones) are where members of the author team reside and/or carry out research. Countries shaded orange (lighter tones) are where members of the author team conduct research but do not reside. See Appendix A1 for full list. B Career stages and sectors of participants. C Types of fisheries represented by participants in the workshop (participants could choose more than one)

The organizers and workshop facilitators aimed to foster inclusivity, diversity, and equitability as much as possible. To reduce language barriers, we used online translation tools (e.g., Google Translate ) to translate all written documents and communications into requested languages and employed closed captioning during the Zoom session. Additionally, we provided live technical support during the Zoom meeting, and saved all video recordings, chat logs, and transcripts to share with participants after the meeting. Multiple models of participation outside of the live workshops were offered to participants to accommodate individuals with poor internet connections or time zone conflicts. For example, we used online forms, interactive ‘Mural’ boards ( https://www.mural.co/ ), and opportunities for post-workshop reflections (via e-mail).

The exercise of building the knowledge base for this article proceeded in three stages: (i) a pre-workshop individual brainstorming session, (ii) a three-hour live Zoom ( https://zoom.us/ ) event (i.e., the workshop), and (iii) post workshop reflections and writing. For the brainstorming session, each participant was asked to complete an online survey via Google Forms in the week prior to the workshop to provide details about research interests and thoughts on two key questions. These questions were:

Based on your experience as an ECR, what do you believe are key goals for TFR in the future? Think about intellectual challenges and important areas of future research to guide the field and to produce knowledge that is important for sustainable fishery systems.

What are some challenges faced by ECRs working in transdisciplinary settings? How can these barriers be overcome? For each challenge, please identify a possible solution

The brainstorming session provided time to contemplate discussion points and ensured that all voices were heard regardless of whether people could not attend the workshop or preferred to be less vocal in the workshop setting. Responses were submitted up to one day before the workshop. Responses were then read by two organizers (ALJ, EAN) and rapidly collated and categorized into four key themes for each discussion question before the workshop (Appendix A2).

For the workshop, we established an ethical and respectful community of practice by opening with a land acknowledgement (led by AJR) that invited participants to reflect on the place they were joining from, recognizing the unique and enduring relationship that exists between Indigenous Peoples and their traditional land and territories. We felt such acknowledgements were important steps to recognizing the need to reduce the harms of colonialism—especially in transdisciplinary fisheries research which is partially concerned with reconciling relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Peoples, and nature. Participants were then given time to introduce themselves and their personal research backgrounds to the group. One hour was allotted per question to consider and discuss thoughts on each topic. First, a summary of the online responses (led by ALJ) was presented, and then participants were assigned to three breakout groups. Workshop leaders guided the discussion and kept notes, and participants could provide input orally or by using interactive Mural boards to write down key points. A short plenary followed each breakout period to share highlights. The workshop closed with reflective words from a later career mentor and established TFR colleague (SJC).

After the workshop, a systematic analysis was conducted on all outputs. The Mural boards from each breakout group were first analyzed separately by categorizing ‘sticky notes’ into themes within each board (Appendix A3). Perspectives from the three Mural boards were then combined and grouped into larger categories including: goals , barriers, considerations for researchers , and actions for ECRs, established researchers, and institutions . To ensure all participants’ points and concerns were captured accurately, the Zoom video recordings were transcribed in full. A codebook was developed through inductive processes and refined over two rounds of coding (conducted by EAN, Appendix A4). The first round of coding was used to categorize and summarize the data into broad themes, and the second round was used to focus on specific sub-themes and categories that emerged from the Mural board analysis. Subsequently, the responses from the Google Form were cross-checked with themes and categories that emerged from the workshop.

The ECRs in the workshop (i.e., the authors, herein referred to as ‘we’) provide a synthesis of perspectives emerging from the Google Form , Zoom workshop, and post-workshop reflections. We outline big-picture goals for TFR as a field and match each goal with high-level considerations for researchers conducting TFR. Next we discuss key barriers to conducting TFR and identify several specific actions for ECRs, established researchers, and institutions that can enable this type of work (Fig.  2 ). We include three boxes with examples of extant strategies or new models of action for how changes to current norms can be made; boxes are based on participants’ experiences.

Diagram outlining key points in each of the part of the manuscript: goals and considerations, barriers, and actions that can enable TFR

Given the broad range of perspectives and contexts represented in our workshop, goals, considerations, barriers, and actions that we present are unsurprisingly generic. We acknowledge that variations in political situation, governance approach, industry standard, and economic capacity among fisheries, regions, countries, continents, and the global north vs. global south mean that translating our suggestions into achievable actions will look different across geographies and contexts. Barriers and challenges will be substantially higher in regions with less support and funding for TFR (i.e., much of the global south). We further acknowledge that despite our collaborative approach, the group of people whose views are presented here does not entirely represent the perspectives and experiences of all global ECRs. Our team was drawn from individuals able to attend an online international congress, and thus excludes those without access or resources to attend. Despite these limitations, we observed parallel experiences and congruity of responses among participants. This manuscript was developed collaboratively with all authors (i.e., workshop participants); the views presented below are thus broadly representative of the experiences of the ECRs who attended this workshop, and likely have relevance in the broader context of TFR.

Workshop outcomes

A first critical step to any fisheries research project will be to determine whether transdisciplinary approaches are indeed necessary to answer the question at hand. We suggest researchers should use a transdisciplinary approach any time there are diverse and competing ways of understanding the problem (cause, effect, and solution), and when outcomes carry high stakes for multiple actors (Pohl and Hadorn, 2007 ). The following goals, considerations, barriers, and actions assume that a transdisciplinary approach has already been determined to be appropriate for a given research agenda.

Big-picture goals and considerations for transdisciplinary fisheries research

We identified that crucial aims for TFR are to dismantle traditional disciplinary and institutional silos through processes of co-production, and to find innovative solutions to complex fishery problems by forming novel alliances and collaborations among interested partners. Below we outline four big-picture goals that fit under these aims along with considerations that can help researchers achieve those goals.

Goal 1: Embody transdisciplinary approaches during all stages of research

Consideration 1: be open-minded and adaptable, goal 2: ensure fisheries research is inclusive and equitable, consideration 2: critically evaluate the research process and our role within it, goal 3: design fisheries research so that it is credible, relevant, actionable, and impactful., consideration 3: be solutions-oriented, goal 4: consistently and clearly communicate with all partners throughout a project, consideration 4: communicate in ways that are sensitive to cultural and sectoral differences, barriers to conducting transdisciplinary fisheries research.

Although the big picture goals and considerations outlined above are useful for framing the direction of TFR, we also identified several barriers to conducting transdisciplinary work. Discussion of barriers was prominent during the workshop; however, we summarize them in three key points as details on barriers have been addressed in several recent works (Hein et al. 2018 ; Jarvis et al. 2020 ; Kelly et al. 2019 ; Österblom et al. 2020 ).

Barrier 1: Institutional inertia leads to lack of support for TFR

The incongruity between intention and action described above for academic institutions also emerged in the realm of funding opportunities (Sievanen et al. 2012 ; Said et al. 2019 ), a barrier that was especially relevant for those of us living in developing countries that are already limited in research funds. We discussed difficulties in finding grants tailored to transdisciplinary work as well as lack of financial support to conduct dissemination of findings and community engagement. Generally, the sentiment was that funding systems are stagnant despite a purported desire to change. Funding agencies claim to be advancing transdisciplinary research; however, review and evaluation committees tend to favour straight-forward, low-risk projects that can be easily evaluated and measured for success. This is an example of culture within a system (sensu Schein 2017 ) reinforcing institutional and disciplinary norms.

Barrier 2: Lack of recognition for the additional time and emotional labour involved with TFR

Barrier 3: lack of mentorship and few opportunities for development of skills required to be effective transdisciplinary fisheries researchers, actions for ecrs, established researchers, and institutions to enable transdisciplinary fisheries research.

In the following section we outline several key actions that can be taken by ECRs, established researchers, and institutions to help overcome barriers and enable TFR. We supplement these sections with three boxes outlining concrete strategies or new models for enacting change based on our experiences.

Actions for early career researchers

Ecr action 1: develop a peer mentorship and/or community mentorship network, box 1—development of peer mentorship networks.

Peer mentoring can provide a much-needed opportunity for ECRs to learn how to become more transdisciplinary researchers, providing training and support to move away from traditional academic working styles which are often highly hierarchical and centered on individual success. Peer mentoring can be done as groups or in pairs and provides academic, career, social and psychological benefits (Lorenzetti et al., 2019 ). The additional challenges faced by transdisciplinary researchers make peer mentorship particularly useful because it allows ECRs to cultivate long-term supportive professional relationships (Kensington-Miller, 2018 ), which are essential when traditional mentor/mentee relationships fall short. Peer mentorship also provides additional emotional support and encouragement (McGuire and Reger 2003 ), and assists ECRs with developing research skills and navigating academic institutions (Lorenzetti et al., 2019 ) ECRs at the Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods (RIEL) at Charles Darwin University established a reading group to learn together about intersectional feminist values and how to apply them within the context of academia and environmental research. The group combines Mac Namara et al.’s ( 2020 ) peer mentoring model with a book club structure. Members take turns choosing topics for discussion, enabling them to consider how to work as researchers and support one another. Topics have included power dynamics encountered as ECRs, how success is measured in academia, and how to improve representation of marginalized voices. Learning together about the structural and cultural barriers faced by ECRs reveals the shortcomings of traditional approaches to academia. The group functions as a place to build relationships, share anxieties and successes, and learn from others’ perspectives and approaches. The network also provides a safe space for voices to be heard and for critiques and self-reflection to occur. The lack of hierarchy in these relationships enables ECRs to learn together and construct their own work culture away from their own disciplines (Kensington-Miller, 2018 ).

ECR Action 2: Clearly describe and communicate processes and methods used in TFR

Actions for established researchers, established researcher action 1: be available for consistent and holistic mentorship, established researcher action 2: make space for ecr voices, actions for institutions.

Institutional changes are among the most difficult to enact due to institutional inertia and bureaucracy, but they are also perhaps the most transformative given the scale on which they occur. The ideas we present here are lofty, but sorely needed to realize the promise of TFR.

Institution Action 1: Be willing to critique and dismantle academic individualism and the academic “superiority complex”

Box 2—a case study on reimagining lab hierarchies.

The “Centre for Indigenous Fisheries” (CIF; launched in January 2021) at the University of British Columbia comprises a team of researchers who work together as just that – a team . The CIF’s research is not about any one person, it’s about all. As such, the group collectively decided against naming the lab after any one team member. Each student in the CIF belongs to a research project that is partnered with Indigenous communities and/or organizations. Most students work in paired contexts, where they can support one another on interrelated aspects of a larger project or program. Students develop independently as well as collectively, receiving context-specific training and research support through these interactions, and each week team meetings are led by a student coordinator to discuss project progress. It is through this multi­layered mentorship model, which will soon be bolstered by an Indigenous Advisory Council for the CIF (launching in 2022), that student training needs are fulfilled to become well-rounded, highly skilled, and independent yet deeply collaborative researchers that are needed to solve the problems we face today. By following this model, students receive extensive training and guidance from academics, their diverse advisory committees, the communities they engage with, specialized departmental courses that are co-developed with Indigenous partners, as well as one another (see Box 1 ). This nested approach is fluid and non­hierarchical, where students find mentors in their supervisor(s) and advisors, instructors, peers, practitioners, and partners to suit different stages of their research process and meet the needs that arise along their learning experience (Fouché and Lunt 2010 ). This both minimizes risk for students and can help alleviate mentor/mentee power imbalances that might exist or arise (Jones and Brown 2011 ).

Institution Action 2: Establish functional education and mentorship programs for ECRs in TFR

Institution action 3: build funding structures that support all parts of tfr.

Funders need to critically examine how they solicit and evaluate research funds and rethink who is represented on selection committees (e.g., include non-academics) (Nyboer et al. 2021 ). Finally, funding for TFR needs to be allocated more equitably and in ways that do not reinforce the usual reward schemes based on publications as the primary measure of impact. Having strategic funding opportunities for the global south or those from racialized or Indigenous communities is essential for realizing what TFR can offer. This is even more important to TFR in some developing countries where funding is limited and tends to adhere to more mainstream approaches. A good example of such funding is the Global Challenges Research Fund- UK Research and Innovation Network that focuses on marine cultural heritage and uses arts and humanities to produce less traditional yet impactful research outputs. Funded projects have produced crafts, music videos, children's books, 3D models, museums, expeditions, cultural festivals, and community boat building associations among other things that promoted their way of life.

BOX 3—ArcticNet as an institution looking to make chang e

ArcticNet is an example of an institution (although not specifically fisheries focused) that has evolved over time to promote transdisciplinary research and support ECRs in this field. ArcticNet is a research network established in 2003 that supports natural, social, and health science in the Canadian Arctic and stands out from similar networks by turning their transdisciplinary language around synergy, knowledge exchange, training, and communication into concrete actions. For instance, ECRs can access funding to attend training to develop their understanding of Indigenous perspectives and how to engage in ethical research. Inuit ECRs with non-academic backgrounds can apply for dedicated funding that supports community-led research and receive support from regional Inuit advisors who also review research proposals and promote community and Inuit perspectives across the Network. Results are shared with both northern residents who can receive support to attend the annual scientific meeting (ASM) for free, and policymakers through regional summary reports that include ECR results. Such steps from a large institution support and inspire ECRs, and the results of these changes are obvious and visible. For example, the ASM has shifted from a standard scientific conference to one where most posters rely on plain language and visuals to share results. There are line-ups to access the community-based presentation sessions, and a dedicated ‘Student Day’ features career development panels and research elevator pitches. Everyone from field assistants to Professors Emeritus dance the night away to an Inuk band after the conference banquet.

Institution Action 4: Critically rethink and implement new ways of measuring impact

In this paper, we synthesize the perspectives and experiences of ECRs from around the world who work (or aim to work) in TFR. Although we acknowledge that TFR is not the only effective  approach to fisheries research, it has been shown to be successful at finding solutions to complex and dynamic problems since it is adaptable and responsive to specific challenges in a wide variety of contexts. The findings of our workshop aligned well with outcomes of aseveral recent papers investigating this topic (e.g., Turgeon et al. 2018 ; Kelly et al. 2019 ; Andrews et al. 2020 ; Sellberg et al. 2021 ). Each of these pieces  addressed the common theme that, although TFR is widely acknowledged as critical to bridge science-policy-practice boundaries and to address the ‘wicked problems’ facing fisheries, support for this work is lacking. There is a disconnect between the expectations placed upon ECRs to be the generation that 'fixes the problem', and the actual support that is provided to do so; this can manifest in declines in mental health with ECRs making serious personal sacrifices in the face of demands to uphold scientific rigour, societal impact, community engagement, and self-care (Sellberg et al. 2021 ). Barriers to TFR revolve largely around current academic structures, cultures, and metrics of impact that do not uphold or recognize efforts required to support TFR (Singh et al. 2019 ). Here we suggest several avenues that can and should be enacted now to lower these barriers. A critical finding that bears further recognition is that barriers to achieving these actions are higher in low-to-middle income countries. Researchers already experiencing discrimination for other reasons (e.g., race, gender) will be further disadvantaged. Networks, academic / mentorship support, and funding are especially necessary in the global south where coastal populations are disproportionately more reliant on fisheries for food security and employment (Golden et al. 2016 ), where fewer research funds are available (Weyl et al. 2021 ), and where mentorship opportunities are lacking. It is critical that researchers from the high-income countries facilitate redistribution of funds via collaborations and partnerships in LMICs and ensure equitable sharing of benefits including access to resources. An noteworthy outcome of the COVID-19 pandemic is that the normalization of virtual conferences has allowed for increased inclusivity across various groups (e.g., different income brackets, global north vs. global south, ECR vs. established professional) (Davids et al. 2021 ). In our workshop this format was powerful. It highlighted that the day-to-day tasks of conducting TFR are profoundly different given various contexts,  and that best practices will vary based on the research question, location, groups involved, and team size. On the other hand, the striking similarity and congruence in perspectives highlight the common goals and considerations we share as transdisciplinaryECRs despite our widespread geopolitical experiences. Fisheries science as a discipline has evolved and grown from its historical quantitative and natural science origins toward a broader, holistic, systems-oriented view that embraces both ecological and human dimensions. Here we argue that it is time for all actors in fisheries research to take action to support and uphold the value of these approaches.

Andrews EJ, Harper S, Cashion T, Palacios-Abrantes J, Blythe J, Daly J, Eger S, Hoover C, Talloni-Alvarez N, Teh L, Bennett N, Epstein G, Knott C, Newell SL, Whitney CK (2020) Supporting early career researchers: insights from interdisciplinary marine scientists. ICES J Mar Sci 77:476–485

Article   Google Scholar  

Armitage D, Berkes F, Doubleday N (2010) Adaptive co-management: collaboration, learning, and multi-level governance. UBC Press, Vancouver

Google Scholar  

Azzurro E, Moschella P, Maynou F (2011) Tracking signals of change in Mediterranean fish diversity based on local ecological knowledge. PLoS ONE 69:e24885. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0024885

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Barnes HM, Harmsworth G, Tipa G, Henwood W, McCreanor T (2021) Indigenous-led environmental research in Aotearoa New Zealand: beyond a transdisciplinary model for best practice, empowerment, and action. AlterNative 17:306–316

Bennett NJ (2019) Marine social science for the peopled seas. Coast Manag 47:244–252

Berkes F (2018) Sacred ecology. Routledge, New York

Beverton RJH, Holt SJ (1957) On the dynamics of exploited fish populations. Fish Investig 19:1–533

Bobek E, Tversky B (2016) Creating visual explanations improves learning. Cogn Res Princ Implic 1(1):27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-016-0031-6

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Brandt P, Ernst A, Gralla F, Luederitz C, Lang DJ, Newig J, Von Wehrden H (2013) A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecol Econ 92:1–15

Brasier MJ, McCormack S, Bax N, Caccavo JA, Cavan E, Ericson JA, Weldrick CK (2020) Overcoming the obstacles faced by early career researchers in marine science: lessons from the marine ecosystem assessment for the Southern Ocean. Front Mar Sci 7:692

Britz PJ, Hara MM, Weyl OLF, Tapela BN, Rouhani QA (2015) Scoping study on the development and sustainable utilisation of inland fisheries in South Africa, Volume 1: Research Report. WRC Report No TT 615/1/14, South Africa

Chapman JM, Algera D, Dick M, Hawkins EE, Lawrence MJ, Lennox RJ et al (2015) Being relevant: practical guidance for early career researchers interested in solving conservation problems. Global Ecol Conser 4:334–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/jgecco201507013

Christian K, Johnstone C, Larkins JA, Wright W, Doran MR (2021) A survey of early-career researchers in Australia. Elife 10:1–19

Chuenpagdee R, Jentoft S (2019) Transdisciplinarity for small scale fisheries governance, analysis, and practice, vol 21. MARE Publication Series. Springer, New York, p 479

Book   Google Scholar  

Cooke SJ, Rytwinski T, Taylor JJ, Nyboer EA, Nguyen VM, Bennett JR, Smol JP (2020) On “success” in applied environmental research—What is it, how can it be achieved, and how does one know when it has been achieved? Environ Rev 28:357–372

Cooke SJ, Nguyen VM, Chapman JM, Reid AJ, Landsman SJ, Young N, Hinch SG, Schott S, Mandrak NE, Semeniuk CA (2021a) Knowledge co-production: a pathway to effective fisheries management, conservation, and governance. Fisheries 46:89–97

Cooke SJ, Nguyen VM, Young N, Reid AJ, Roche DG, Bennett NJ, Bennett JR (2021b) Contemporary authorship guidelines fail to recognize diverse contributions in conservation science research. Ecol Solut Evid 2:e12060

Cundill G, Roux DJ, Parker JN (2015) Nurturing communities of practice for transdisciplinary research. Ecol Soc 20:22

Cvitanovic C, Hobday AJ, van Kerkhoff L, Wilson SK, Dobbs KA, Marshall N (2015) Improving knowledge exchange among scientists and decision-makers to facilitate the adaptive governance of marine resources: a review of knowledge and research needs. Ocean Coast Manag 112:25–35

Cvitanovic C, Shellock RJ, Mackay M, van Putten EI, Karcher DB, Dickey-Collas M et al (2021a) Strategies for building and managing ‘trust’ to enable knowledge exchange at the interface of environmental science and policy. Environ Sci Policy 123:179–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/JENVSCI202105020

Cvitanovic C, Mackay M, Shellock RJ, van Putten EI, Karcher DB, Dickey-Collas M (2021b) Understanding and evidencing a broader range of ‘successes’ that can occur at the interface of marine science and policy. Mar Policy 134:104802

Davelaar D (2021) Transformation for sustainability: a deep leverage points approach. Sustain Sci 16:727–747

Davids R, Scheelbeek P, Sobratee N, Green R, Häesler B, Mabhaudhi T, Chatterjee S, Venkateshmurthy NS, Mace G, Dangour A, Slotow R (2021) Towards the three dimensions of sustainability for international research team collaboration: learnings from the sustainable and healthy food systems research programme. Sustainability 13(22):12427

Davies SW, Putnam HM, Ainsworth T, Baum JK, Bove CB, Crosby SC, Bates AE (2021) Promoting inclusive metrics of success and impact to dismantle a discriminatory reward system in science. PLoS Biol 19(6):e3001282

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Dlouhá J, Heras R, Mulà I, Salgado FP, Henderson L (2019) Competences to address SDGs in higher education—a reflection on the equilibrium between systemic and personal approaches to achieve transformative action. Sustainability 11(13):3664

Eigenbrode SD, O’Rourke M, Wulfhorst JD, Althoff DM, Goldberg CM, Merrill K, Morse W, Nielsen-Pincus M, Stephens J, Winowiecki J, Bosque-Pérez NA (2007) Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science. Bioscience 57:55–64. https://doi.org/10.1641/B570109

Evans MC, Cvitanovic C (2018) An introduction to achieving policy impact for early career researchers. Palgrave Commun 41:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0144-2

Fabian Y, Bollmann K, Brang P, Heiri C, Olschewski R, Rigling A, Stofer S, Holderegger R (2019) How to close the science-practice gap in nature conservation? information sources used by practitioners. Biol Cons 235:93–101

FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) (2012) Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries. FAO, Rome

Filyushkina A, Ryu H, Kadykalo AN, Murali R, Campagne CS, Washbourne CL, Peter S, Saidi N, Sarzynski T, Pisa PF, Ávila-Flores G, Amiar T (2022) Engaging at the science -policy interface as an early-career researcher: experiences and perceptions in the field of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Ecosyst People (In Press) 00:000–000

Fisher JR, Wood SA, Bradford MA, Kelsey TR (2020) Improving scientific impact: how to practice science that influences environmental policy and management. Conserv Sci Pract 2(7):e210

Fouché C, Lunt N (2010) Nested mentoring relationships: reflections on a practice project for mentoring research capacity amongst social work practitioners. J Soc Work 10(4):391–406

Frisk E, Larson KL (2011) Educating for sustainability: competencies & practices for transformative action. J Sustain Educ 2(1):1–20

Gale AP, Chapman JO, White DE, Ahluwalia P, Williamson AKJ, Peacock KR, Cooke SJ (2021) On embracing the concept of becoming environmental problem solvers: the trainee perspective on key elements of success, essential skills, and mindset. Environ Rev e-First. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2021-0040

Glavovic B, Limburg K, Liu KK, Emeis KC, Thomas H, Kremer H et al (2015) Living on the margin in the Anthropocene: engagement arenas for sustainability research and action at the ocean–land interface. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:232–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/jcosust201506003

Golden C, Allison EH, Cheung WWL, Dey MM, Halpern BS, McCauley DJ, Smith M, Vaitla B, Zeller D, Myers SS (2016) Fall in fish catch threatens human health. Nature 534:317–320

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Haapasaari P, Kulmala S, Kuikka S (2012) Growing into interdisciplinarity: how to converge biology, economics, and social science in fisheries research? Ecol Soc 17:6. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04503-170106

Halliday RG, Fanning LP (2006) A history of marine fisheries science in Atlantic Canada and its role in the management of fisheries. Proc Nova Scotian Inst Sci 43:159–183

Halliday RG, Pinhorn AT (1996) North Atlantic fishery management systems: a comparison of management methods and resource trends. J Northwest Atl Fish Sci 20:1–144

Hansson S, Polk M (2018) Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: the usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact. Res Eval 27(2):132–144

Hein CJ, Ten Hoeve JE, Gopalakrishnan S, Livneh B, Adams HD, Marino E, Weiler CS (2018) Overcoming early career barriers to interdisciplinary climate change research. Wires Clim Change 9:e530

Hernandez-Aguilera JN, Anderson W, Bridges AL, Fernandez MP, Hansen WD, Maurer ML, Ilboudo Nébié EK, Stock A (2021) Supporting interdisciplinary careers for sustainability. Nat Sustain 4:374–375. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00679-y

Hobday AJ, Spillman CM, Eveson P, Hartog JR (2016) Seasonal forecasting for decision support in marine fisheries and aquaculture. Fish Oceanogr 25:45–56

House J, Kleiber D, Steenbergen DJ, Stacey N (2022) Participatory monitoring in community-based fisheries management through a gender lens. Ambio. 00:000-000.

Jarvis RM, Borrelle SB, Forsdick NJ, Pérez-Hämmerle KV, Dubois NS, Griffin SR et al (2020) Navigating spaces between conservation research and practice: are we making progress? Ecol Sol Evi. https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-831912028

Jeanson AL, Soroye P, Kadykalo AN, Ward TD, Paquette E, Abrams AE, Cooke SJ (2020) Twenty actions for a “good Anthropocene”—perspectives from early-career conservation professionals. Environ Rev 28(1):99–108

Jentoft S, Chuenpagdee R (2009) Fisheries and coastal governance as a wicked problem. Mar Policy 33:553–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/jmarpol200812002

Johannes RE, Freeman MM, Hamilton RJ (2000) Ignore fishers’ knowledge and miss the boat. Fish Fish 1(3):257–271

Jones R, Brown D (2011) The mentoring relationship as a complex adaptive system: finding a model for our experience. Mentor Tutor Partnersh Learn 19(4):401–418

Kadykalo AN, Cooke SJ, Young N (2021a) The role of western-based scientific, indigenous and local knowledge in wildlife management and conservation. People Nat 3(3):610–626. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan310194

Kadykalo AN, Buxton RT, Morrison P, Anderson CM, Bickerton H, Francis CM et al (2021b) Bridging research and practice in conservation. Conserv Biol 35(6):1725–1737. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi13732

Karcher DB, Cvitanovic C, Colvin RM, van Putten IE, Reed MS (2021) Is this what success looks like? Mismatches between the aims, claims, and evidence used to demonstrate impact from knowledge exchange processes at the interface of environmental science and policy. Environ Sci Policy 125:202–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/JENVSCI202108012

Kelly R, Mackay M, Nash KL, Cvitanovic C, Allison EH, Armitage D et al (2019) Ten tips for developing interdisciplinary socio-ecological researchers. Socio-Ecol Pract Res 1:149–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-019-00018-2

Kemp A (2013) Collaboration vs individualism: what is better for the rising academic? Qualit Rep 18(100):1–8

Kensington-Miller B (2018) Surviving the first year: new academics flourishing in a multidisciplinary community of practice with peer mentoring. Prof Dev Educ 44(5):678–689

Klein JT (1990) Interdisciplinarity: history, theory, and practice. Wayne State University Press, Detroit, Michigan

Klein JT (2009) Creating interdisciplinary campus cultures: a model for strength and sustainability. Wiley, San Francisco

Lang DJ, Wiek A (2021) Structuring and advancing solution-oriented research for sustainability. Ambio 51:31–35

Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P et al (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7:25–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11625-011-0149-X/TABLES/3

Lewis JM, Ross S, Holden T (2012) The how and why of academic collaboration: disciplinary differences and policy implications. High Educ 64(5):693–708

Lorenzetti DL, Shipton L, Nowell L, Jacobsen M, Lorenzetti L, Clancy T, Paolucci EO (2019) A systematic review of graduate student peer mentorship in academia. Mentor Tutor Partnersh Learn 27(5):549–576

Mac Namara SC, Rauh AE, Blum MM, Russo N, Green MA, Nangia S (2020) Peer mentoring for women in STEM. In: ASEE virtual annual conference content access, June 2020

Macher C, Steins NA, Ballesteros M, Kraan M, Frangoudes K, Bailly D, Bertignac M, Colloca F, Fitzpatrick M, Garcia D, Little R, Mardle S, Murillas A, Pawlowski L, Philippe M, Prellezo R, Sabatella E, Thebaud O, Ulrich C (2021) Towards transdisciplinary decision-support processes in fisheries: experiences and recommendations from a multidisciplinary collective of researchers. Aquat Living Resour 34:13. https://doi.org/10.1051/alr/2021010

Mackinson S (2022) The fall and rise of industry participation in fisheries science – a European story. ICES J Mar Sci. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsac041

Mauser W, Klepper G, Rice M, Schmalzbauer BS, Hackmann H, Leemans R, Moore H (2013) Transdisciplinary global change research: the co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5:420–431

McGuire GM, Reger J (2003) Feminist co-mentoring: a model for academic professional development. NWSA J 15:54–72

McPhearson T, Raymond CM, Gulsrud N, Albert C, Coles N, Fagerholm N, Vierikko K (2021) Radical changes are needed for transformations to a good Anthropocene. Urban Sustain 1(1):1–13

Miller TR, Wiek A, Sarewitz D, Robinson J, Olsson L et al (2014) The future of sustainability science—a solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustain Sci 9:239–246

Monroe JB, Baxter CV, Olden JD, Angermeier PL (2009) Freshwaters in the public eye: understanding the role of images and media in aquatic conservation. Fisheries 34(12):581–585. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8446-3412581

Nash JM, Collins BN, Loughlin SE, Solbrig M, Harvey R, Krishnan-Sarin S, Spirito A (2003) Training the transdisciplinary scientist: a general framework applied to tobacco use behavior. Nicotine Tob Res 5:S41–S53

Nyboer EA, Nguyen VM, Young N, Rytwinski T, Taylor JJ, Lane JF, Cooke SJ (2021) Supporting actionable science for environmental policy: advice for funding agencies from decision makers. Front Cons Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2021.693129

Ommer RE, Perry RI (2011) Social-ecological systems in fisheries. In: Ommer RE, Perry RI, Cochrane K, Cury P (eds) World fisheries: a social-ecological analysis. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Österblom H, Cvitanovic C, van Putten I, Addison P, Blasiak R, Jouffray JB, Bebbington J, Hall J, Ison S, LeBris A, Mynott S, Reid D, Sugimoto A (2020) Science-industry collaboration: sideways or highways to ocean sustainability? One Earth 3:79–88

Pannell JL, Dencer-Brown AM, Greening SS, Hume EA, Jarvis RM, Mathieu C, Mugford J, Runghen R (2019) An early-career perspective on encouraging collaborative and interdisciplinary research in ecology. Ecosphere 10:e02899

Pohl C, Hadorn GH (2007) Principles for designing transdisciplinary research. Oekom Verlag, Zurich, Switzerland

Pooley SP, Mendelsohn JA, Milner-Gulland EJ (2014) Hunting down the chimera of multiple disciplinarity in conservation science. Conserv Biol 28(1):22–32

Ravenscroft J, Liakata M, Clare A, Duma D (2017) Measuring scientific impact beyond academia: an assessment of existing impact metrics and proposed improvements. PLoS ONE 12(3):e0173152

Reid AJ, Eckert LE, Lane J-F, Young N, Hinch SG, Darimont CT, Cooke SJ, Ban NC, Marshall A (2020) “Two-Eyed Seeing”: an indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management. Fish Fish 22:243–261

Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1974) Wicked problems in man-made futures: readings in society, technology, and design. Hutchinson Educational, London

Said A, Chuenpagdee R, Aguilar-Perera A, Arce-Ibarra A, Gurung T, Bishop B, Leopold M, Márquez-Pérez A, de Mattos SM, Pierce G, Nayak P, Jentoft S (2019) The principles of transdisciplinary research in small-scale fisheries: analysis and practice in transdisciplinarity for small-scale fisheries governance. Publication Series, New York

Schein EH (2017) Organizational culture and leadership, 5th edn. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken

Schlüter M, McAllister RRJ, Arlinghaus R, Bunnefeld N, Eisenack K, Hölker F, Milner-Gulland EJ, Müller B (2012) New horizons for managing the environment: a review of coupled social-ecological systems modeling. Nat Resour Model 25:219–273

Sellberg MM, Cockburn J, Holden PB, Lam DPM (2021) Toward a caring transdisciplinary research practice: navigating science, society, and self. Ecosystems and People 17:292–330

Sherman S (2011) Changing the world: the science of transformative action. Positive psychology as social change. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 329–345

Sievanen L, Campbell LM, Leslie HM (2012) Challenges to interdisciplinary research in ecosystem-based management. Conserv Biol 26:315–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01808.x

Singh GG, Farjalla VF, Chen B, Pelling AE, Ceyhan E, Dominik M et al (2019) Researcher engagement in policy deemed societally beneficial yet unrewarded. Front Ecol Environ 17(7):375–382

Smith LT (2021) Decolonizing methodologies: research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books Ltd, London

Steelman TA, Andrews E, Baines S, Bharadwaj L, Bjornson ER, Bradford L, Cardinal K, Carriere G et al (2019) Identifying transformational space for transdisciplinarity: using art to access the hidden third. Sustain Sci 14:771–790

Steiner G, Posch A (2006) Higher education for sustainability by means of transdisciplinary case studies: an innovative approach for solving complex real-world problems. J Clean Prod 14:877–890

Stöhr C, Lundhold C, Crona B, Chabay I (2014) Stakeholder participation and sustainable fisheries: an integrative framework for assessing adaptive co-management processes. Ecol Soc 19:14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06638-190314

Stokols D (2014) Training the next generation of transdisciplinarians. In: O’Rourke M, Crowley S, Eigenbrode S, Wulfhorst J (eds) Enhancing communication & collaboration in interdisciplinary research. Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA, pp 56–81

Strasser B, Baudry J, Mahr D, Sanchez G, Tancoigne E (2019) “Citizen science”? Rethinking science and public participation. Sci Technol Stud 32:52–76

Turgeon K, Hawkshaw SCF, Dinning KM, Quinn BK, Edwards DN, Wor C, Parlee CE et al (2018) Enhancing fisheries education and research through the Canadian fisheries research network: a student perspective on interdisciplinarity, collaboration, and inclusivity. FACETS 3:963–980

Weyl OLF, Barkhuizen L, Christison K, Dalu T, Hlungwani HA, Impson D, Sankar K, Mandrak NE, Marr M, Sara JR, Smit NM, Tweddle D, Vine NG, Wepener V, Zvavahera M, Cowx IG (2021) Ten research questions to support South Africa’s Inland fisheries policy. Afr J Aquat Sci 46:1–10. https://doi.org/10.2989/1608591420201822774

Whitmer A, Ogden L, Lawton J, Sturner P, Groffman PM, Schneider L et al. (2010) The engaged university: providing a platform for research that transforms society. Front Ecol Environ 8: 314–321

Wilson ME, Laufer AE, Howard EM, Wong-Ala JATK (2021) Lessons from the trenches: students’ perspectives of their own marine transdisciplinary education. Front Mar Sci 7: 592368

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Daniel Ten Veen for volunteering to provide live technical support during the Zoom event. We also thank the organizing board at the World Fisheries Congress (WFC) for supporting this workshop, and especially Jane Ham for all direct communication with WFC. We are grateful to our mentors who have encouraged and enabled our development as transdisciplinary researchers. Funding was provided to EAN by the Fonds de Recherche du Quebec – nature et technologie grant number 295667.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, Carleton Technology and Training Centre, Ottawa, ON, 4440KK1S 5B6, Canada

Elizabeth A. Nyboer, Amanda L. Jeanson, Andrew N. Kadykalo & Steven J. Cooke

Centre for Indigenous Fisheries, Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, The University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, Canada

Andrea J. Reid

Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, 7005, Australia

Rachel Kelly & Mary Mackay

Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, 7000, Australia

CSIRO Oceans & Atmosphere, Castray Esplanade, Battery Point, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia

Mary Mackay & Madeline E. Green

Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 49, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia

Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Ellengowan Dr, Casuarina, NT, 0810, Australia

Jenny House

Independent, Fort Simpson, NWT, Canada

Sarah M. Arnold

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University, 215 Tower Road, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA

Paul W. Simonin

Graduate School of Fisheries and Environmental Sciences, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, 852-8521, Japan

Mary Grace C. Sedanza

Institute of Aquaculture, College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of the Philippines Visayas, 5023, Miagao, Iloilo, Philippines

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA

Emma D. Rice

Field Science Center for Northern Biosphere, Akkeshi Marine Station, Hokkaido University, Hokkaidô, Japan

T. E. Angela L. Quiros

COISPA Tecnologia & Ricerca, Stazione Sperimentale Per Lo Studio Delle Risorse del Mare, Bari, Italy

Andrea Pierucci

Department of Biological Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

Kelly Ortega-Cisneros

Strathclyde Centre for Environmental Law and Governance (SCELG), University of Strathclyde Law School, Glasgow, UK

Julia N. Nakamura

DTU Aqua, National Institute of Aquatic Resources, North Sea Science Park, 9850, Hirtshals, Denmark

Valentina Melli

Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries, Entebbe, Uganda

Stella Mbabazi

Fisheries Ecosystems Laboratory (LabPesq), Oceanographic Institute, University of São Paulo (USP), Brazil - Praça do Oceanográfico, 11 - sala 107 - Cidade Universitária, São Paulo (SP), Brazil

Mariana S. L. Martins

Institute of Fisheries Policy and Development Studies, College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of the Philippines Visayas, 5023, Miagao, Iloilo, Philippines

Anne Brigette B. Ledesma

Environmental and Conservation Sciences, College of Science, Health, Engineering and Education, Murdoch University, 90 South St, Murdoch, WA, 6150, Australia

Clara Obregón

Harry Butler Institute, Murdoch University, 90 South St, Murdoch, WA, 6150, Australia

School of Geography and Environmental Sciences, Ulster University, Cromore Rd, Coleraine, BT52 1SA, UK

Chepkemboi K. Labatt

Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute-KMFRI, Ocean and Coastal Systems, PO Box 81651-80100, Mombasa, Kenya

Department of Marine Science, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, 9054, New Zealand

Michael Heldsinger

RPS Group, Oceans and Coastal Sector, Level 2/27-31 Troode St, West Perth, WA, 6005, Australia

Department of Biological Sciences, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

Jessica L. Fuller

Programa de Doctorado en Ciencias con mención en Manejo de Recursos Acuáticos Renovables, Departamento de Oceanografía, Universidad de Concepción, Concepción, Chile

Milagros Franco-Meléndez

Centro de Investigación Oceanográfica COPAS-Sur Austral, EPOMAR, Departamento de Oceanografía, Universidad de Concepción, Concepción, Chile

Centre for Functional Biodiversity, School of Life Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

Matthew J. Burnett

School of Science, Technology and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, QLD, Australia

Jessica A. Bolin

Charles Darwin Research Station, Charles Darwin Foundation, Puerto Ayora, Galápagos Islands, Ecuador

Solange Andrade-Vera

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth A. Nyboer .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests in the publication of this work.

Data availability

No new data were generated for this study.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

1. List of countries where workshop participants live and/or conduct research

2. summaries of participants' responses to the online google forms presented during the workshop..

Discussion Question 1: Based on your experience as an ECR, what do you believe are key goals for TFR in the future? Think about intellectual challenges and important areas of future research to guide the field and to produce knowledge that is important for sustainable fishery systems.

Include transdisciplinary perspectives during all stages of research

Engage with diverse stakeholders to understand non-academic needs, concerns, and requirements.

Co-design and co-produce studies with all relevant stakeholders, rights holders, and decision makers.

Engage with fisheries as socio-ecological systems for a holistic approach to finding solutions.

Ensure fisheries research is inclusive, relevant, and equitable

Consider social context and potential socio-environmental and/or intersectoral conflicts.

Addresses inequalities and empower marginalized and/or vulnerable groups.

Engage in bias recognition and reduction at both individual and institutional levels.

Ensure research itself is not part of the problem (i.e., research does not exclude marginalized voices).

Ensure fisheries research is impactful, solution oriented, and transformative

Implement transdisciplinary fisheries research within management (i.e., government agencies).

Build trust with stakeholders and rights holders (example: sign non-disclosure agreements).

Paying specific attention to the concrete on-the-ground research impacts; people on the ground should be assessing impact.

Improve and promote communication between researchers, policy makers, and fisheries managers

Include communication with policy/decision makers during postgraduate training.

Encourage alternative communication formats (i.e., policy briefs, infographics) that are more targeted for management, practitioners, and policy makers.

Discussion Question 2 : What are some challenges faced by ECRs working in transdisciplinary settings? How can these barriers be overcome? For each challenge, please identify a possible solution.

Institutional inertia and barriers lead to lack of support for transdisciplinary research

Facilitate access for ECRs to transdisciplinary mentors.

Provide more financial support for ECRs in transdisciplinary research.

Improve opportunities for interdisciplinary education at universities and in professional development settings.

Lack of opportunity for skill development to engage in transdisciplinary research

Create more mentoring programs for transdisciplinary research in universities and beyond.

Ensure opportunities for ECRs to engage with end-users, policy makers, stakeholders, and rights holders.

Provide ECRs training in facilitation and negotiation, interpersonal skills, stakeholder engagement, policy

Lack of funding opportunities and recognition for transdisciplinary research

Incentivize transdisciplinary fisheries research through grants, awards, recognition schemes, job opportunities; but exercise caution around attracting shallow attempts at these approaches.

De-emphasize disciplinary metrics of evaluation.

Ensure alternative metrics for measuring ‘success’ amongst ECRs.

Acknowledge the extra time required to understand multiple discipline and knowledge structures, and to engage in co-production.

Lack of transdisciplinary networks for ECRs

Encourage networking through transdisciplinary conferences and other activities.

Share transdisciplinary research opportunities more widely with ECRs.

Create regional/global collaborative networks that mobilize ECR research and outputs and amplify younger researcher voices.

Recognizing who can contribute in these settings vs. who doesn’t have access; how do we build the network out in equitable ways?

Link to categorized Mural board

https://app.mural.co/invitation/mural/wfc2021ecrworkshop0407/1631924266000?sender=uc9876a0592cbf094c3530448&key=afa22fdc-49d2-43bc-880a-91dfa8012031

1. Embody transdisciplinary approaches during all stages of research

dismantle traditional disciplinary and institutional silos

co-create new knowledge

novel alliances and collaborations

1.1 Engage with fisheries as socio-ecological systems for a holistic approach to finding solutions.

push to appreciate social science findings

ensure qualitative data is collected properly

understand the sociocultural contexts

1.2 Co-design and co-produce studies with all relevant stakeholders, rights holders, and decision makers.

include bottom-up communication

encourage new ways of listening

communication and collaboration

build trust

don’t make assumptions about what is important to stakeholder

2. Ensure fisheries research is inclusive (legitimate), relevant (salient), credible, and equitable

1.1 Understand non-academic concerns.

social context

socio-environmental and/or intersectoral conflicts

1.2 Address inequalities and empower marginalized and/or vulnerable groups

bias recognition and reduction

methods used do not exclude marginalized voices

non-tokenistic

3. Ensure fisheries research is impactful, solution oriented, and transformative

3.1 Define goals through co-development

collaborative problem identification

ensure knowledge translation

3.2 Build trust with stakeholders and rights holders

4. Consistently and clearly communicate with policy makers, fisheries managers, governing bodies, communities, and all other relevant stakeholder groups

4.1 Communicate science to the public, to policy makers, managers, stakeholders

4.2 Develop alternative communication formats

re-envision research outputs

encourage engagement

B. CHALLENGES/BARRIERS

1. Institutional inertia and barriers

1.1 Academic isolation – don’t fit in anywhere

Bullet Bullet no clear departmental home

1.2 Mismatch between institutional (university) ambition and support

universities don’t have structures in place

limits on advisory committee makeup

institutional incentives for fast, low-risk project

1.2 Individualism and individual glory promoted

PIs and authors on papers must be individuals and not community groups

difficult to come into community contexts and not seem self-serving

1.3 Disciplinary norms within fisheries

favours quantitative approaches

inherent condescension within the academy towards non-academics

academic innovation of TD approaches questioned

1.4 Lack of funding opportunities (ambition mismatch, like universities)

difficulties finding grants

lack of funding allocated for project scoping and communication

lack of equitable funding for global south vs. global north

1.5 Lack of transdisciplinary networks for ECRs

lack of support network

struggles to connect and collaborate

Lack of recognition for the time and emotional labour

2.1 Longer timescales required to allow for integration and trust relationships with communities

little support for low-campus-residency models

Acknowledging the extra time required for funding and degree requirements

2.2 Metrics for valuing TDFR are not oriented in a way that facilitates good process

2.3 Emotional labour and energy required

Bullet relationship building and conflicts with a community group stakeholder

2.4 Pressure of having to know all disciplines

Lack of mentorship and few opportunities for development of skills

3.1 Knowledge translation workshop facilitation, community engagement

communication issues

communication suggestions

3.2 How to do research with impact; ‘best practices’ guides not available.

buzzwords – how to enact them

3.3 Extra work / burden of having to unlearn institutional structures/norm

3.4 Need to self-advocate

4. Other struggles

4.1 Disconnect between expectations felt by ECRs and perceived support

4.2 Mental health in terms of security and job security

lack of space for ECR voices

wo rse for minority groups

C. HOW TO ACHIEVE GOALS

1. Be self-reflexive and honest in the research process

honest and transparent about our methods,

self reflexive

positionality

equity and humility

develop shared languages

2. Be open minded and adaptable

willing to evolve

accept that you might never reach consensus -

shift norms within academic systems to transition towards locally led research

continual feedback and communication at each point.

3. Be solution oriented

actionable change that can implemented on the ground

focus stakeholder needs and requirements

documenting and sharing how we do TDFR

align goals with longer term projects

4. Communicate in ways that are sensitive across culture and sector

ask partners how they would like the research to be communicated

D. ACTIONS TO LOWER BARRIERS

1. Build up mentorship network (ECR)

initiate co-mentorship or peer-mentorship

networking through conferences

community mentorship

develop a best practices guide.

communicate social processes and methods used in TFR

Reforming fisheries education

2. Be available for good mentorship (Senior)

facilitate access to transdisciplinary mentors

create opportunities for ECRs to engage with non-academic partners

training in facilitation and negotiation

stakeholder engagement skills

3. Allow junior voices to be heard (Senior)

we must be problem solvers

lack of opportunity to make those changes.

4. Be willing to critique academic superiority (institution)

critique individualism

not everything is there to be studied

deconstructing academia is innovation

5. Build functional education and mentorship programs (institution)

mentoring programs for transdisciplinary research

improve opportunities for transdisciplinary learning

reform fisheries education towards more practical frameworks.

incentivize TD projects

ensure adequate mentorship.

build institutional flexibility to amplify marginalized

6. Support all parts of TFR (institution)

formal recognition of the time it takes

financial support for ECRs in TFR

grants, awards, recognition schemes

financial support for knowledge exchange

strategic funding opportunities for the global south

7. New ways of measuring impact

promote, appreciate, value

de-emphasize disciplinary metrics

value engagement

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Nyboer, E.A., Reid, A.J., Jeanson, A.L. et al. Goals, challenges, and next steps in transdisciplinary fisheries research: perspectives and experiences from early-career researchers. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries 33 , 349–374 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-022-09719-6

Download citation

Received : 11 January 2022

Accepted : 08 July 2022

Published : 05 August 2022

Issue Date : June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-022-09719-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Social-ecological systems
• Sustainability
• Knowledge transformation
• Co-production
• Institutions
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Brill | Nijhoff

Brill | Wageningen Academic

Brill Germany / Austria

Böhlau

Brill | Fink

Brill | mentis

Brill | Schöningh

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

V&R unipress

Open Access

Open Access for Authors

Open Access and Research Funding

Open Access for Librarians

Open Access for Academic Societies

Discover Brill’s Open Access Content

Organization

Stay updated

Corporate Social Responsiblity

Investor Relations

Policies, rights & permissions

Review a Brill Book

Author Portal

How to publish with Brill: Files & Guides

Fonts, Scripts and Unicode

Publication Ethics & COPE Compliance

Data Sharing Policy

Brill MyBook

Ordering from Brill

Author Newsletter

Piracy Reporting Form

Sales Managers and Sales Contacts

Ordering From Brill

Titles No Longer Published by Brill

Catalogs, Flyers and Price Lists

E-Book Collections Title Lists and MARC Records

How to Manage your Online Holdings

LibLynx Access Management

Discovery Services

KBART Files

MARC Records

Online User and Order Help

Rights and Permissions

Latest Key Figures

Latest Financial Press Releases and Reports

Annual General Meeting of Shareholders

Share Information

Specialty Products

Press and Reviews

Share link with colleague or librarian

Stay informed about this journal!

• Get New Issue Alerts
• Get Advance Article alerts
• Get Citation Alerts

Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies

At the 12th Ministerial Conference in June 2022, Members of the World Trade Organization ( WTO ) reached a historic Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies that aims to contribute to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. This article provides the necessary background to the Agreement, tracing briefly the history to the negotiations. After a general overview of the Agreement, three key provisions of the Agreement are examined, namely, the prohibition of subsidies to (1) illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, (2) the fishing of overexploited stocks, and (3) fisheries on the high seas outside the competence of regional fisheries management organisations. The provisions of the Agreement on special and differential treatment in favour of developing and least developed countries, as well as notable procedural and institutional features, are also considered. The remaining issues still to be addressed at the WTO are highlighted in the conclusion.

Introduction 1

Certain forms of fisheries subsidy are considered harmful because they reduce the costs of fishing and artificially increase profits or revenue. 2 This inevitably increases fishing capacity in a fishery system, potentially leading to overfishing. 3 Fisheries subsidies can also promote illegal, unreported and unregulated ( IUU ) fishing. 4 Harmful fisheries subsidies may also threaten the livelihoods and food security of millions of people who rely upon fish as an important source of protein. 5 In addition, overexploitation reduces the resilience of fish stocks, their constituent ecosystems, and the ocean as a whole to the impacts of climate change. 6 Harmful subsidies include fuel subsidies which promote fuel inefficiency, wasteful fuel consumption and consequential greenhouse gas emissions. 7 Notably, the Glasgow Climate Pact 2021 called for a phase-out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. 8

Not all fisheries subsidies are harmful. As noted by Sumaila et al ., ‘“good” subsidies help to maintain or enhance the growth of fish stocks through conservation and monitoring of catch rates via control and surveillance measures’. 9 However, such categorisations of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ subsidies, which focus on the impact of a subsidy upon maximum and/or biologically sustainable yields, may ignore the wider impacts of a subsidy on, for example, human rights and other socioeconomic and labour-related interests. 10 Furthermore, fisheries subsidies are allocated inequitably by States across the industry. Of the estimated US$35.4 billion of public subsidies provided to the fishing industry in 2018, 11 US$22.2bn was in the form of capacity-enhancing subsidies. 12 Of total subsidies, 81 per cent (US$28.8 billion) were provided to large-scale industrial fishers, with 19 per cent (US$6.6 billion) provided to the small-scale fishing sector. 13 Fuel subsidies are the largest form of subsidy for the entire fishing sector. However, only 7 per cent of this goes to the small-scale sector. 14 This creates and perpetuates inequality ‘[b]y fueling unfair competition between large fleets and individual artisanal fishermen, [such subsidies] are also fostering inequality’. 15 As we have argued elsewhere, these environmentally, socially and economically destructive subsidies are primarily benefiting large, industrial-scale fishers. 16 As UNCTAD has stated, these monies could and should be reinvested, ‘in sustainable fisheries, aquaculture and coastal community livelihoods to reduce the pressure on fish stocks’. 17

The issue of fisheries subsidies has been on the formal negotiating agenda of the World Trade Organization ( WTO ) since 2001, but it was not until June 2022, at the WTO ’s 12th Ministerial Conference ( MC12 ), that an Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies ( AFS ) was reached. This was despite the consensus in the international community, as reflected in the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and Sustainable Development Goal ( SDG ) 14.6, directing that discussions on eliminating harmful fisheries subsidies should conclude by 2020. 18 Pressure to end harmful subsidies was also manifest at the resumed 2016 Review Conference of the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the UN 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, 19 and there has been continued pressure from civil society groups, among others, to address harmful fisheries subsidies. 20

The WTO ’s AFS joins the framework of international fisheries law, a suite of multilateral agreements, stemming from the 1982 United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea ( LOSC ). 21 The LOSC provisions on shared/international stocks are supplemented, clarified and modernised by the UN Fish Stocks Agreement ( UNFSA ), 22 as well as several binding and non-binding subject-specific instruments adopted under the auspices of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ( FAO ) 23 and components of UN General Assembly ( UNGA ) resolutions. Several regional trade agreements – the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership ( CPTPP ), the United States/Mexico/Canada Agreement ( USMCA ) and United Kingdom free trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand – also contain provisions on fisheries subsidies, 24 underlining the move to address subsidies within the international trade arena more generally.

This article provides the necessary background to the negotiations at the WTO , including how fisheries came to be a subject of negotiations within the WTO ; analyses the key provisions of the AFS and concludes with suggestions for research priorities moving forward, as well as signposting potential future legal developments.

• The WTO and Fisheries Subsidies

The WTO was established in 1995. It has 164 Members, consisting of both States and customs territories with full autonomy in their trade relations. The core functions of the WTO are (i) to administer the operation of the trade agreements which comprise the WTO legal framework, (ii) to provide a forum for negotiations between Members on both the existing agreements, (iii) and multilateral trade relations more generally, (iv) to provide a forum for the settlement of disputes between Members, (v) to provide a trade policy review mechanism for Members and (vi) to cooperate with relevant agencies to achieve coherence in global economic policy-making.

The WTO mandate to address subsidies in fisheries flows from the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ( ASCM ). The ASCM regulates two forms of specific subsidy granted by governments, namely, prohibited subsidies, which are those contingent upon export or the use of domestic over imported goods, and actionable subsidies. 25 Although fisheries subsidies are ‘subject to the disciplines of the ASCM Agreement’, 26 the ASCM does not directly address the issues caused by certain forms of fisheries subsidy. In essence, the ASCM focuses on the trade effects of a subsidy. Prohibited subsidies under the ASCM are per se illegal, but for a WTO Member to take action against another Member over an actionable subsidy depends upon the extent to which the subsidy in question causes ‘adverse’ trade effects to the interests of another Member. Fisheries subsidies may cause trade effects, but it is often their other effects, that is, adverse impacts on fish stocks, biodiversity, and food security, that are the focus of particular concern. 27 These types of effects are not considered by the ASCM .

Part of the attraction in using the WTO to address fisheries subsidies stemmed from the Organization’s dispute settlement mechanism, which possesses stronger powers of enforcement than other multilateral fora. 28 This is interesting because, despite the fact many contentious fisheries disputes have been brought under the LOSC Part XV dispute settlement regime, none have survived to the merits phase. 29

Shortly after the formation of the WTO , the pernicious impacts of certain forms of fisheries subsidies became the subject of discussion within the WTO ’s Committee on Trade and Environment. 30 Members agreed in 1996 that fisheries subsidies should ‘be included among the economic sectors that would be discussed by the Committee [on Trade and Environment] in the context of the environmental benefits of subsidy removal’. 31 Advocacy by a coalition of concerned WTO Members, the so-called Friends of Fish, ultimately led to pressure for inclusion of the issue within the formal negotiating agenda, as opposed to being confined within Committee discussions of the WTO .

With the launch of the so-called Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations in 2001, WTO Members committed to negotiations to ‘clarify and improve WTO disciplines on fisheries subsidies’, 32 recognising the need to ensure ‘the mutual supportiveness of trade and environment’. The 2005 WTO Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration expanded upon this by noting that ‘there is broad agreement that the Group should strengthen disciplines on subsidies in the fisheries sector, including through the prohibition of certain forms of fisheries subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and over-fishing’. 33 Under the Declaration, the mandate of the fisheries subsidies negotiations was extended and WTO Members were further called upon to

promptly … undertake further detailed work to, inter alia , establish the nature and extent of those disciplines, including transparency and enforceability. Appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing and least-developed Members should be an integral part of the fisheries subsidies negotiations, taking into account the importance of this sector to development priorities, poverty reduction, and livelihood and food security concerns. 34

Despite the direction under the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration that work be undertaken ‘promptly’, negotiations ultimately failed to secure an agreement. It was not until June 2022 that an Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies was reached.

The Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies

The AFS will enter into force and become legally binding on the WTO Members who have accepted it once a quorum of at least two-thirds of the 164 WTO Members accept the AFS . 35 Reservations are not permitted to the AFS . 36 Accordingly, once a Member has accepted the AFS , its terms cannot be unilaterally altered. To ensure coherence in the application of WTO law, the definition of a subsidy under the AFS draws directly from the ASCM . 37 This form of cross-referencing avoids disciplinary fragmentation, but it raises questions about whether this might stymie measures to account for broader socioeconomic, human rights and labour concerns. 38

The AFS applies exclusively ‘to marine wild capture fishing and fishing related activities at sea’. 39 It sets out several central disciplines in respect of subsidies granted in respect of IUU fishing, overfished stocks, and subsidies granted to fishing-related activities on the high seas. The AFS contains further provisions aimed specifically at the position of developing and least developed Members (special and differential treatment), as well as procedural and other related provisions designed to enhance, among other things, transparency in the sector. Each is dealt with in turn below.

• IUU Fishing

It is generally understood that IUU fishing undermines conservation and management measures taken by coastal States and regional fisheries management organisations or arrangements ( RFMO /As). 40 IUU fishing can deplete fish stocks and damage associated ecosystems, with implications for food security and human rights. 41 The AFS has the potential to support the fight against IUU fishing. To ensure coherence across legal regimes, the definition for IUU fishing adopted in the AFS is the same as that provided in paragraph 3.1 of the FAO International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing ( IPOA-IUU ). 42 The IPOA-IUU was adopted by FAO in 2001, with its object and purpose being to ‘prevent, deter and eliminate’ IUU fishing through a system of comprehensive, transparent, and effective measures. The IPOA-IUU is a voluntary instrument, so the incorporation of its definition of IUU fishing into the WTO AFS has the potential to significantly strengthen its normative impact.

Article 3.1 of the AFS prohibits the grant or maintenance of subsidies to vessels or operators engaged in IUU fishing or activities in support of IUU fishing. 43 However, it is unlikely that States would openly admit to providing subsidies in support of illicit activities. Under the AFS , determinations of IUU fishing or IUU supporting activities may be made by any Member in their capacity as coastal or flag State, as well as by RFMO /As. 44 Port State Members are not entitled to make determinations of IUU fishing/ IUU supporting activities. However, should the relevant port State notify another Member that it believes that a vessel in port has been engaged in such actions, the relevant subsidising Member ‘shall give due regard to the information received and take such actions in respect of its subsidies as it deems appropriate’.

A subsidising Member notified of an affirmative IUU fishing determination needs to ‘take into account the nature, gravity, and repetition of IUU fishing committed by a vessel or operator’ 45 when deciding on how long to prohibit the relevant vessel or operator from receiving further subsidies. The prohibition must last as long as any sanction applied by the determining State or RFMO / A . Actions taken by Members pursuant to the prohibition must be communicated to the Fisheries Subsidies Committee (discussed below). 46 All Members are required to have in place relevant laws, regulations and/or administrative procedures to ensure that the prohibition on subsidisation of IUU fishing and related activities are not granted or maintained. 47 Consideration was given during the negotiations to, among other things, granting the subsidising Member considerable discretion in the application of the prohibition, including, for example, granting Members the power not to impose any sort of sanction if the IUU infraction was minor. 48 This was rejected in the final text.

• Overfished Stocks

FAO has consistently reported that around a third of global fish stocks are overexploited. 49 Article 4 of the AFS prohibits Members from granting or maintaining subsidies, ‘for fishing or fishing related activities regarding an overfished stock’. This provision complements the relevant provisions of international fisheries law on managing and conserving fish stocks within biological limits. 50

Whether a fish stock is overfished is a decision for the Member ‘under whose jurisdiction the fishing is taking place or by a relevant RFMO / A in areas and for species under its competence, based on best scientific evidence available to it’. 51 One of the more contentious issues during the AFS negotiations was the lack of an agreed definition on when a fish stock will be deemed to be overfished. 52 Opting for an approach which grants national and regional agencies autonomy to determine whether a particular fish stock is overfished has the significant drawback of the prohibition being largely self-determining. 53 However, it may also promote cooperation between different national authorities; that is, those granting subsidies and those managing fish stocks. 54 The autonomy of Members and RFMO /As to make such a determination is also tempered by the requirement that any decision must be based on the best scientific evidence available to it. 55

Subsidies for overfished stocks to facilitate recovery to biologically sustainable levels are excluded from the scope of the AFS . 56 In respect of unassessed stocks, some Members had called for unassessed stocks to automatically be considered overfished. This was, however, rejected in favour of a ‘special care’ and ‘due restraint’ obligation in respect of such unassessed stocks. 57

• The High Seas

Article 5 of the AFS contains further disciplines under the broad phrase of ‘other subsidies’. Article 5.1 directs that ‘[n]o Member shall grant or maintain subsidies provided to fishing or fishing related activities outside of the jurisdiction of a coastal Member or a coastal non-Member and outside the competence of a relevant RFMO / A ’. No special and differential treatment for developing and least developed Members is provided in respect of this prohibition. Although certain Members had been of the view that this prohibition should only apply to the most harmful subsidies such as fuel subsidies, 58 ultimately a convergence of views was reached to allow the inclusion of this very far-reaching provision prohibiting subsidies for unregulated high seas fishing. However, as we have noted elsewhere, 59 without further regulation in the form of, for example, catch limits to exploitation, this prohibition can only go so far. Accordingly, this provision will not, on its own terms, prevent overexploitation on the high seas. Article 5 also contains special care and due restraint obligations in respect of foreign-flagged vessels and, as noted above, in respect of fish stocks whose status is unknown. 60

• Special and Differential Treatment

In line with the direction that special and differential treatment for developing and least developed countries should be an integral part of fisheries subsidies negotiations, the AFS contains numerous provisions to consider the special situation of such countries. In respect of the prohibition on subsidisation of IUU fishing, Article 3.8 provides that ‘for a period of 2 years from the date of entry into force of this Agreement, subsidies granted or maintained by developing country Members, including least-developed country ( LDC ) Members, up to and within the exclusive economic zone ( EEZ ) shall be exempt’ from actions related to this prohibition.

The AFS makes further provision for special and differential treatment in respect of overfished stocks whereby, ‘for a period of 2 years from the date of entry into force of this Agreement, subsidies granted or maintained by developing country Members, including LDC Members, up to and within the EEZ shall be exempt from actions based on Articles 4.1 and 10 of this Agreement’. 61 Article 6 of the AFS directs that, ‘[a] Member shall exercise due restraint in raising matters involving an LDC Member and solutions explored shall take into consideration the specific situation of the LDC Member involved, if any’. Article 7 further sets out that developing and LDC s ‘shall’ be provided with technical assistance and capacity building for the purposes of implementation of the AFS . To that end, the AFS mandates the establishment of a ‘voluntary WTO funding mechanism … in cooperation with relevant international organizations such as the [ FAO ] and International Fund for Agricultural Development’. 62

The above concerns reflect a more general issue within the negotiations about how to balance/reconcile a sufficient level of ambition with some countries’ development needs. A particular difficulty stems from the heterogeneity of Members eligible to claim special and differential treatment. The impacts of China’s distant water fleet, together with its position as the world’s largest subsidiser, are not comparable, for example, to the activities of subsistence and artisanal fishers in developing country coastal communities. 63 More generally, China did not start subsidising its fisheries until 2006; at that point, the provision of special and differential treatment for developing and least developed countries was firmly embedded in the WTO negotiating mandate. 64 How to deal with China as a developing country and its demands for special and differential treatment has led to major ructions in negotiations. 65 At the same time, the historical responsibility of the developed world for the degradation and in some cases destruction of fish stocks has led to calls for an approach to fisheries subsidies grounded in the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. 66 This also points to the wider concern of how to ensure equity in regulatory activity where clearly not every Member is equal, whether in terms of implementation capacity, historical responsibility for problems or in respect of the impact of changes upon certain Members.

• Procedural Obligations and Institutional Arrangements

The AFS also sets out a number of procedural obligations, and includes a range of provisions to improve the notification and transparency of fisheries subsidies. 67 The ASCM mandates that any specific subsidy as defined in the ASCM must be notified. 68 Notifications are then reviewed in special sessions of the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. This is an important means of enhancing the transparency, surveillance and compliance with subsidies disciplines. While notifications of fisheries subsidies have increased in recent years, concerns relating to compliance with notification requirements persist. 69 In addition, the ASCM lacks a specific framework for fisheries subsidies notification which has resulted in significant differences in the information provided by Members. 70 The AFS therefore includes informational requirements to address these shortcomings and complement the existing transparency provisions of the ASCM . Under Article 8 of the AFS , Members are required to provide information on the type or kind of fishing activity to which they provide subsidies and, to the extent possible, provide information on the following: (i) the status of the fish stocks in the fishery for which a subsidy falling under the ASCM / AFS is provided, for example, whether the stock is overfished, maximally sustainably fished, or underfished; (ii) whether that stock is shared or managed by an RFMO / A , as well as the reference points used; (iii) any conservation and management measures in place for the fish stock; (iv) fleet capacity in respect of which the subsidy is provided; (v) identifying details for the fishing vessel(s) receiving the subsidy; and (vi) catch data by species/group of species in relation to the fishery for which the subsidy is granted. Given that transparency has typically been lacking in this sector, the informational requirements imposed under the AFS have been hailed as vital to ‘increase the transparency of government support measures to a sector that is a crucial contributor to incomes and food security’. 71 Special and differential treatment is also provided for least developed Members and developing country Members with an annual share of the global volume of marine capture production not exceeding 0.8 per cent in the form of less regular notification obligations.

The AFS further mandates the establishment of a Committee on Fisheries Subsidies which will, among other things, review annually the implementation and operation of the Agreement, 72 and ‘review the operation of this Agreement with a view to identifying all necessary modifications to improve the operation of this Agreement, taking into account the objectives thereof’. 73

The AFS sets out numerous provisions on dispute settlement in respect of fisheries subsidies. The existing WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding will apply to disputes brought between Members in respect of disputes arising under the WTO AFS , except in respect of any matter under Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the AFS , where the provisions of Article 4 of the ASCM shall instead apply. It should, however, be noted that the WTO dispute settlement system is not currently working as intended, with its appellate function stalled due to political disagreements over its mandate and functioning. 74 To the extent that at least part of the rationale for the inclusion of fisheries subsides within the WTO framework was its dispute settlement system, it remains to be seen how disputes over such subsidies will play out once the AFS enters into force. A final point of note is that the AFS cannot be used to arbitrate territorial claims or delimitation of maritime boundaries. 75 Accordingly, ‘[a] [dispute settlement] panel established pursuant [to the AFS ] shall make no findings with respect to any claim that would require it to base its findings on any asserted territorial claims or delimitation of maritime boundaries’. 76

• The Missing Pieces

The AFS does not deal with all aspects of fisheries subsidies. SDG 14.6 requires States to ‘prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, and eliminate subsidies that contribute to IUU fishing’. Agreement on subsidies contributing to overcapacity and overfishing proved elusive at MC12 . 77 Accordingly, while the AFS text agreed to in June 2022 contains a prohibition on subsidies granted in respect of fish stocks which are overfished, there is still work to be done on the prohibition of subsidies which, in general terms, are likely to contribute to overfishing and/or overcapacity. Previous drafts of the AFS text had included provisions on this vital issue. For example, the November 2021 draft AFS text set out a general prohibition on the grant of subsidies liable to contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, together with an indicative list of the type of the sorts of payments which would fall within the scope of the prohibition. This list included, inter alia , subsidies for the purchase of machines and equipment for vessels, fuel subsidies as well as subsidies for ice and bait, subsidies for the costs of personnel, social charges or insurance. 78 As consensus on these issues could not be reached at MC12 , 79 it was agreed that negotiations would continue with a view to making recommendations for the 13th WTO Ministerial Conference,

for additional provisions that would achieve a comprehensive agreement on fisheries subsidies, including through further disciplines on certain forms of fisheries subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, recognizing that appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing country Members and least developed country Members should be an integral part of these negotiations. 80

Should negotiations fail, and assuming there is no consensus to keep the AFS , the Agreement will cease to apply. This is set out in Article 12 of the AFS which directs that ‘[i]f comprehensive disciplines are not adopted within four years of the entry into force of this Agreement, and unless otherwise decided by the General Council, this Agreement shall stand immediately terminated’.

The Agreement is far from comprehensive, and there are clear roadblocks ahead in securing an agreement on the ‘missing elements’ of the mandate. 81 However, the AFS is significant as the first WTO multilateral agreement established to tackle environmental issues. 82 The establishment of a Committee on Fisheries Subsidies has the potential to create new norms and shared understandings via a process of deliberation, learning and dialogue. 83 As the ‘workhorses of the system’, 84 the WTO committee structure can add ‘dynamism’ to WTO legal texts, ‘help[ing] the agreements keep pace with current realities and challenges’. 85 The notification and transparency provisions are also useful and indeed notable though that they are in part framed as best endeavour clauses – the obligation to provide certain aspects of the information listed being ‘to the extent possible’ – may pose difficulties for enforcement.

The establishment of a funding mechanism to provide developing and least developed countries with technical assistance and capacity building for the implementation of the AFS is a welcome step forward. However, this could have been enhanced by tying the acceptance of obligations to the receipt of assistance, 86 as was the case with the WTO Agreement on Trade Facilitation. Although this was unlikely to have been accepted, it would have focused attention upon the provision of appropriate assistance to secure successful implementation.

The failure to tackle the issue of subsidies promoting overfishing and overcapacity is of real concern. 87 Negotiators at MC12 traded a comprehensive agreement with disciplines on overcapacity and overfishing for an incomplete interim or ‘starter agreement’, 88 with the promise to return to these more contentious issues in due course. Whether such action is kicking the proverbial tuna can down the road, or a politically astute and sensible decision which provides Members with adequate time and space to reach an agreement on these contentious areas of the negotiating mandate, remains to be seen.

Finally, in cases where subsidies are withdrawn, how those saved monetary sums are then spent needs consideration. However, the AFS is (perhaps understandably) silent on this subject, and only time will tell how any such monies saved are redistributed. 89

This article has been prepared under the UKRI GCRF One Ocean Hub. The One Ocean Hub is a collaborative research for sustainable development project funded by United Kingdom Research and Innovation ( UKRI ) through the Global Challenges Research Fund ( GCRF ) (Grant Ref: NE /S008950/1). GCRF is a key component in delivering the UK AID strategy and puts UK-led research at the heart of efforts to tackle the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. For the purpose of open access, the authors have applied a Creative Commons Attribution ( CC BY ) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript ( AAM ) version arising from this submission. This article makes use of original material and ideas from the authors found in a blog post published immediately after the 12th Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization: S Switzer and M Lennan, ‘The WTO ’s Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies. “It’s good, but it’s not quite right”’ (One Ocean Hub, June 2022) available at https://oneoceanhub.org/the-wtos-agreement-on-fisheries-subsidies-its-good-but-its-not-quite-right/ . All websites were last accessed on 11 November 2022.

AM Cisneros-Montemayor et al ., ‘Changing the narrative on fisheries subsidies reform: Enabling transitions to achieve SDG 14.6 and beyond’ (2020) 117 Marine Policy 103970.

Y Sakai, N Yagi and UR Sumaila, ‘Fishery subsidies: The interaction between science and policy’ (2019) 85 Fisheries Science 439.

Defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ( FAO ) in the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing ( FAO , Rome, 2001), para 3.1 [ IPOA-IUU ]; further clarification of those definitions is provided in M Tsamenyi, B Kuemlangan and M Camilleri, ‘Defining illegal, unreported and unregulated ( IUU ) fishing’ in FAO , Report of the Expert Workshop to Estimate the Magnitude of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing Globally ( FAO , Rome, 2015) 24–37 available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5028e.pdf .

FAO , The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022 ( FAO , Rome, 2022) available at https://www.fao.org/publications/sofia/2022/en/ .

UR Sumaila and TC Tai, ‘End overfishing and increase the resilience of the ocean to climate change’ (2020) 7 Frontiers in Marine Science 10.3389/fmars.2020.00523.

A Schuhbauer et al ., ‘The global fisheries subsidies divide between small- and large-scale fisheries’ (2020) 7 Frontiers in Marine Science 10.3389/fmars.2020.539214.

See United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ( UNFCCC ), The Glasgow Climate Pact, Decision 1. CP /26 (13 November 2021), para 20; UNFCCC , The Glasgow Climate Pact, Decision 1. CMA /3 (13 November 2021), para 36; M Lennan and E Morgera, ‘The Glasgow Climate Conference ( COP26 )’ (2022) 37 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 137.

UR Sumaila et al ., ‘The World Trade Organization and global fisheries sustainability’ (2007) 88 Fisheries Research 1, at p. 2.

M Kermoade et al ., The Human Rights Impacts of Fisheries Subsidies (Danish Institute of Human Rights, 2022) available at https://www.humanrights.dk/publications . See also S Switzer, E Morgera and E Webster, ‘Casting the net wider? The transformative potential of integrating human rights into the implementation of the WTO Agreement on fisheries subsidies’ (2022) 31 Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law 360–373.

UR Sumaila et al ., ‘Updated estimates and analysis of global fisheries subsidies’ (2019) 109 Marine Policy 103695.

Schuhbauer et al . (n 7).

UNCTAD , ‘Regulating Fisheries Subsidies’ (no date) available at https://unctad.org/project/regulating-fisheries-subsidies .

Switzer and Lennan (n 1).

UNCTAD (n 15). See also Switzer, Morgera and Webster (n 10).

Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Decision X /2: The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, UN Doc UNEP / CBD / COP / DEC / X /2 (29 October 2010), Annex, Target 3; United Nations General Assembly ( UNGA ) Res 70/1 (21 October 2015) Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, UN Doc A / RES /70/1.

UNGA , Report of the resumed 2016 Review Conference of the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the UN 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, UN Doc A / CONF .210/2016/5 (1 August 2016), paras 54–56, 59–62, and Annex, para 8.

See, for example, Stop Funding Overfishing Coalition, ‘Policy Statement’ (no date) available at https://stopfundingoverfishing.com/statement/ .

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Montego Bay, 10 December 1982, in force 16 November 1994), 1833 UNTS 397 [ LOSC ].

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 (New York, 4 August 1995, in force 11 December 2001), 2167 UNTS 3 [ UNFSA ].

For example, the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries 1995 ( FAO , Rome, 1995) and IPOA-IUU (n 4).

For discussion, see B Hoekman, PC Mavroidis and S Sasmal, Managing Externalities in the WTO : The Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies , Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. RSC _76 (6 December 2022), pp. 14–15, available at SSRN : https://ssrn.com/abstract=4294984 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4294984 .

WTO , Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (15 April 1994, in force 1 January 1995) 1869 UNTS 14, Articles 1–3 [ ASCM ].

WTO Committee on Trade and Environment, GATT / WTO Rules on Subsidies and Aids Granted in the Fishing Industry, WT / CTE / W /80 (9 March 1998) available at https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=Q:/WT/CTE/w80.pdf&Open=True .

WTO Negotiating Group on Rules, The Doha Mandate to Address Fisheries Subsidies: Issues – Submission from Australia, Chile, Ecuador, Iceland, New Zealand, Peru, Philippines and The United States, TN / RL / W /324 (April 2002).

See, WE Schrank, Introducing Fisheries Subsidies , FAO Technical Series Paper 437 ( FAO , Rome, 2003) available at https://www.fao.org/3/Y4647E/y4647e00.htm#Contents .

On this point see A Serdy, ‘Managing transboundary fish stocks for sustainability’ in Ø Jensen (ed), The Development of the Law of the Sea Convention: The Role of International Courts and Tribunals (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2020) 104–138.

The WTO Committee on Trade and Environment was formed in 1994 with the ‘aim of making international trade and environmental policies mutually supportive’ and with the mandate to, inter alia , identify the relationship between both trade and environmental measures to promote sustainable development, making recommendations ‘on whether any modifications of the provisions of the multilateral trading system are required, compatible with the open, equitable and non-discriminatory nature of the system. See ‘Decision on Trade and Environment’ available at https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/56-dtenv.pdf quoting MTN.TNC /40 Annex 2, at p. 10, available at https://www.wto.org/gatt_docs/English/SULPDF/92150092.pdf .

United Nations Environment Programme, Fisheries Subsidies and Overfishing: Toward a Structure Discussion ( UNEP , Geneva, 2001) available at https://www.unep.org/resources/report/fisheries-subsidies-and-overfishing-towards-structured-discussion .

WTO , Doha Ministerial Declaration, WT / MIN (01)/ DEC /1 (20 November 2001), para 28; see also para 31.

WTO , Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration, WT / MIN (05)/ DEC (22 December 2005), Annex D, para 9.

WTO , ​​Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies – Ministerial Decision of 17 June 2022, WT / MIN (22)/33 WT / L /1144 (22 June 2022), Annex: Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies [ AFS ]. Further guidance on acceptance is provided at WTO , ‘How to Accept the Protocol of Amendment to Insert the Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies into Annex 1A of the WTO Agreement’ (no date) available at https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/rulesneg_e/fish_e/agreement_fisheries_subsidies_e.htm .

Of note is that reservations are also prohibited under the LOSC (n 21), Article 309.

Under Article 1.1 of the ASCM (n 25), a subsidy is defined as a financial contribution/income or price support by the government or a public body with the financial contribution/income or price support in question required to confer a benefit. Under Article 2 of the ASCM , the subsidy in question must be ‘specific’; in essence, this requires that it is targeted towards certain enterprises, industries or geographical areas. Accordingly, only fisheries subsidies that involve a financial contribution, income or price support, confer a benefit and also specifically fall within the scope of the AFS .

See Switzer, Morgera and Webster (n 10); Kermoade et al . (n 10).

Under Article 1 of the AFS (n 35), aquaculture and inland fisheries are not included within the scope of the AFS .

FAO , ‘Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated ( IUU ) fishing’ (no date) available at https://www.fao.org/iuu-fishing/en/ .

AFS (n 35), footnote 4.

Definitions for key terms such as vessel, operator and fishing related activities are set out in AFS , ibid ., Article 2.

Ibid ., Article 3.2.

Ibid ., Article 3.4.

Ibid ., Article 3.5; see also Article 8.3.

Ibid ., Article 3.7.

WTO , Fisheries Subsidies Revised Draft Consolidated Chair Text, TN / RL / W /276/Rev.1/Add.1 (30 June 2021), at p.6, available at https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/TN/RL/W276R1A1.pdf&Open=True .

FAO (n 5), at p. 109.

LOSC (n 21), Articles 61–64, 118–119; UNFSA (n 22), Articles 5, 7(d), Annex II .

AFS (n 35), Article 4.2.

International Institute for Sustainable Development ( IISD ), ‘ WTO Negotiations on Fisheries Subsidies: What’s the state of play?’ GSI Policy Brief (2020), at p. 9, available at https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/2020-07/wto-negotiations-fisheries-state-play.pdf?q=sites/default/files/publications/wto-negotiations-fisheries-state-play.pdf .

As noted in ibid ., this reflects similar language in Article 61 of the LOSC (n 21).

AFS (n 35), Article 4.3.

Ibid ., Article 5.3.

WTO (30 June 2021) (n 48), at p. 9.

AFS (n 35), Articles 5.2, 5.3.

Ibid ., Article 4.4.

Ibid ., Article 7. This has entered into force. See WTO , ‘ WTO Fisheries Funding Mechanism Now Operational to Assist Developing Countries and LDC s’ (8 November 2022) available at https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news22_e/fish_08nov22_e.htm .

See generally R Sengupta, Third World Network, ‘Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations towards the WTO ’s 12th Ministerial Conference: Considerations for developing countries and LDC s’ (27 May 2022) available at https://twn.my/title2/briefing_papers/MC12/briefings/Fisheries%20subsidies%20TWNBP%20MC12%20Sengupta.pdf .

See K Hopewell, ‘The Dragon in the World’s Oceans: Fisheries Subsidies’, in Clash of Powers: US-China Rivalry in Global Trade Governance (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2020) 94–132.

Sengupta (n 63).

AFS (n 35), Article 8.

Specifically, ASCM (n 25), Article 25.2. Furthermore, even if a subsidy is not ‘specific’ within the meaning of the ASCM, GATT Article XVI :1 directs that it must still be notified if it impacts trade.

WTO , ‘Members Welcome Progress in Notification of Fisheries Subsidies’ (19 November 2019) available at https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news19_e/scm_19nov19_e.htm .

UNCTAD , Transparency in Fisheries Subsidies: Notification-driven Analytics of Country Performance and Disclosure Requirements , UNCTAD Research Paper No. 36, UN Doc UNCTAD / SER.RP /2019/8, available at https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ser-rp-2019d8_en.pdf .

A Tipping, ‘ WTO Members Clinch a Deal on Fisheries Subsidies’ ( IISD , 17 June 2022) available at https://sdg.iisd.org/news/wto-members-clinch-a-deal-on-fisheries-subsidies/ .

AFS (n 35), Article 9.

This is without prejudice to AFS (n 35) Article 12, see discussion in text.

WTO , ‘Appellate Body’ (no date) available at https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/appellate_body_e.htm noting that ‘[c]urrently, the Appellate Body is unable to review appeals given its ongoing vacancies. The term of the last sitting Appellate Body member expired on 30 November 2020.’

AFS (n 35), Article 11.2 (a).

Ibid ., Article 11.2 (b).

See, WTO , Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies Draft Text, WT / MIN (21)/2/5 (24 November 2021), Article 5, available at https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/WT/MIN21/W5.pdf&Open=True .

Special and differential treatment in respect of subsidies for overcapacity and overfishing was a particular issue of contention in this regard. See WTO , ‘Statement by Ambassador Santiago Wills of Colombia, Negotiating Group on Rules Chair’, Press Briefing (10 June 2022), at p. 3, available at https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news22_e/fish_10jun22_e.pdf .

AFS (n 35), para 4.

See further, Switzer and Lennan (n 1).

Tipping (n 71).

In respect of the Committee system more generally, see A Lang and J Scott, ‘The hidden world of WTO governance’ (2009) 20 European Journal of International Law 575.

PC Mavroidis and EN Wijkström, ‘Moving out of the shadows: Bringing transparency to standards and regulations in the WTO ’s TBT Committee’ in T Epps and MJ Trebilcock (eds), Research Handbook on the WTO and Technical Barriers to Trade (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2013) 204–237.

D McDaniels, AC Molina and EN Wijkström, ‘A closer look at WTO ’s third pillar: How WTO committees influence regional trade agreements’ (2018) 21 Journal of International Economic Law 815, at p. 829.

As suggested by Sengupta (n 63), at p. 5.

See Switzer and Lennan (n 1); D Skerritt, ‘The WTO Agreement Saves Face, But Does It Save Fish?’ (Oceana blog, 17 June 2022) available at https://oceana.org/blog/the-wto-agreement-saves-face-but-does-it-save-fish/ .

The phrasing of the AFS as a ‘starter agreements’ comes from the Trade Talks podcast with Chad Bown, ‘162. Poor Countries Could Once Enforce WTO TRADE . That Is Now at Risk’ (Trade Talks, 4 July 2022) available at https://tradetalkspodcast.com/podcast/162-poor-countries-could-once-enforce-wto-trade-that-is-now-at-risk/ .

See generally, Switzer, Morgera and Webster (n 10).

Content Metrics

• Introduction1

Reference Works

Primary source collections

COVID-19 Collection

How to publish with Brill

Open Access Content

Contact & Info

Sales contacts

Publishing contacts

Stay Updated

Newsletters

Social Media Overview

Terms and Conditions  

Privacy Statement  

Cookie Settings  

Accessibility

Legal Notice

Terms and Conditions   |   Privacy Statement   |  Cookie Settings   |   Accessibility   |  Legal Notice

Copyright © 2016-2023

Copyright © 2016-2024

• [66.249.64.20|81.177.180.204]
• 81.177.180.204

Character limit 500 /500

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Towards vibrant fish populations and sustainable fisheries that benefit all: learning from the last 30 years to inform the next 30 years

Steven j. cooke.

1 Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Laboratory, Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6 Canada

Elizabeth A. Fulton

2 CSIRO Environment, Hobart, 7001 TAS Australia

3 Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, 7001 TAS Australia

Warwick H. H. Sauer

4 Department of Ichthyology and Fisheries Science, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa

Abigail J. Lynch

5 National Climate Adaptation Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA 20192 USA

Jason S. Link

6 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole, MA USA

Aaron A. Koning

7 Global Water Center, University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, NV USA

Joykrushna Jena

8 Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi Anusandhan Bhawan-II, Pusa, New Delhi, 110012 India

Luiz G. M. Silva

9 Institute of Environmental Engineering, ETH-Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

Alison J. King

10 Centre for Freshwater Ecosystems, La Trobe University, Wodonga, 3690 Vic Australia

Rachel Kelly

Matthew osborne.

11 Department of Industry, Tourism and Trade, Northern Territory Government, Darwin, 0800 NT Australia

Julia Nakamura

12 Strathclyde Centre for Environmental Law and Governance, University of Strathclyde Law School, Glasgow, UK

Ann L. Preece

Atsushi hagiwara.

13 Graduate School of Fisheries and Environmental Sciences, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, 852-8521 Japan

Kerstin Forsberg

14 Planeta Océano, Lima, Peru and Migramar, Olema, CA USA

Julie B. Kellner

15 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Falmouth, MA 02453 USA

16 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, 1553 Copenhagen, Denmark

Ilaria Coscia

17 School of Science, Engineering and Environment, University of Salford, Salford, M5 4WT UK

Sarah Helyar

18 School of Biological Sciences/Institute for Global Food Security, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, UK

Manuel Barange

19 Fisheries and Aquaculture Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Viale Delle Terme Di Caracalla S/N, 00153 Rome, Italy

Elizabeth Nyboer

Meryl j. williams.

20 Aspley, 4034 QLD Australia

Ratana Chuenpagdee

21 Department of Geography, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NFLD Canada

Gavin A. Begg

22 Department of Primary Industries and Regions, PO Box 120, Henley Beach, 5022 SA Australia

Bronwyn M. Gillanders

23 School of Biological Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, 5005 SA Australia

A common goal among fisheries science professionals, stakeholders, and rights holders is to ensure the persistence and resilience of vibrant fish populations and sustainable, equitable fisheries in diverse aquatic ecosystems, from small headwater streams to offshore pelagic waters. Achieving this goal requires a complex intersection of science and management, and a recognition of the interconnections among people, place, and fish that govern these tightly coupled socioecological and sociotechnical systems. The World Fisheries Congress (WFC) convenes every four years and provides a unique global forum to debate and discuss threats, issues, and opportunities facing fish populations and fisheries. The 2021 WFC meeting, hosted remotely in Adelaide, Australia, marked the 30th year since the first meeting was held in Athens, Greece, and provided an opportunity to reflect on progress made in the past 30 years and provide guidance for the future. We assembled a diverse team of individuals involved with the Adelaide WFC and reflected on the major challenges that faced fish and fisheries over the past 30 years, discussed progress toward overcoming those challenges, and then used themes that emerged during the Congress to identify issues and opportunities to improve sustainability in the world's fisheries for the next 30 years. Key future needs and opportunities identified include: rethinking fisheries management systems and modelling approaches, modernizing and integrating assessment and information systems, being responsive and flexible in addressing persistent and emerging threats to fish and fisheries, mainstreaming the human dimension of fisheries, rethinking governance, policy and compliance, and achieving equity and inclusion in fisheries. We also identified a number of cross-cutting themes including better understanding the role of fish as nutrition in a hungry world, adapting to climate change, embracing transdisciplinarity, respecting Indigenous knowledge systems, thinking ahead with foresight science, and working together across scales. By reflecting on the past and thinking about the future, we aim to provide guidance for achieving our mutual goal of sustaining vibrant fish populations and sustainable fisheries that benefit all. We hope that this prospective thinking can serve as a guide to (i) assess progress towards achieving this lofty goal and (ii) refine our path with input from new and emerging voices and approaches in fisheries science, management, and stewardship.

A space for ideas and dialogue

The first World Fisheries Congress (WFC) was held in 1992 in Athens. Since then, the WFC has been held roughly on a quadrennial basis in Brisbane, Beijing, Vancouver, Yokohama, Edinburgh, Busan, and Adelaide. The WFC brings together knowledge generators, knowledge users, stakeholders, and rights holders from around the globe with interests and expertise in fish and fisheries. The stated goal of the first WFC was to “bring together fisheries scientists and managers in a nongovernment, nonpolitical, academic setting devoted to the sharing of research findings and the application of collective knowledge in enhancing the scientific management of fisheries resources for sustained human benefits” (Nielsen and Wespestad 1993 ). Aside from emphasizing that the conference is truly inclusive of all actors and expertise (including Indigenous ways of knowing as well as fisher and community knowledge) whilst creating a space for welcoming and training the next generation of fisheries professionals, not much has changed. By all accounts, the WFC has become THE event for the global fisheries science and management community to assemble and both share with and learn from each other. To say that the WFC has become a space for ideas and dialogue understates the true impact of the WFC on the fisheries science and management professions and global fisheries research and management.

The WFC held in Adelaide in 2021 was no different, despite that a global pandemic led to a postponement (originally scheduled for September 2020) and eventually an online-only conference format where participants were limited to virtual interactions given public health restrictions on both domestic and international travel. This has been a challenging time for all, yet the organizing team used their creativity to craft a conference experience that further extended the reach and impact of the event. The theme of the WFC in Adelaide was “Sharing our oceans and rivers: a vision for the world’s fisheries.” The theme emerged given the challenges of fishing sustainably and maintaining prosperous fishing communities from marine and inland systems where functional integrity and conservation values are facing increasing pressure. Fisheries are just one user of oceans and rivers, and that these systems increasingly have many users who need to consider trade-offs and cumulative effects of everyone’s actions.

Reflecting on the past and providing guidance for the future

The 2021 WFC had a strong emphasis on documenting progress in the sustainable management of fisheries in the almost 30 years since the first WFC in Athens, while also projecting where we need and want to be in the next 30 years. A key outcome of the 2021 WFC was to identify actions needed over the next few decades to achieve the goal of ensuring that the world’s marine, estuarine and freshwater ecosystems and fishery resources are vibrant and managed sustainably for the benefit of current and future generations. In this paper, we reflect on the past and provide guidance for the future to achieve this lofty goal. To do so, we consider two key questions: (1) What were the major challenges facing fish/fisheries from the past 30 years and what progress has been made to address these challenges? (2) What needs to be done to achieve thriving fish populations and sustainable, equitable fisheries in the next 30 years?

To discuss these key questions, we provide a global perspective, spanning realms (e.g., marine, freshwater, estuarine), sectors (e.g., Indigenous, commercial ranging from small-scale to industrial, recreational, aquaculture, conservation), and disciplinary domains (e.g., oceanography, ecology/biology, sociology, governance, policy, legal, economics) with attention given to fish, ecosystems, people, and place. Our team of authors was drawn from the International Program Committee and plenary speakers from the 2021 WFC, as well as several early-career scholars. In sum, the 24 authors reside in 12 countries that span all continents (except Antarctica), with roughly equal gender balance, and are drawn from academia, industry, government (at various levels from regional to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations—FAO), and the nongovernmental sector. We acknowledge that our authorship team does not represent all perspectives, and that some voices, in particular Indigenous cultural perspectives, are not represented here. We recognize this as a major deficiency to this opinion piece, but have taken this as an opportunity to improve our perspectives. This paper is timely and given the diverse perspectives of authors (informed by participation in the WFC) we feel that these ideas are worth sharing with the broader fisheries science and management community.

All authors were asked to identify at least three topics for both the backward- and forward-looking perspectives with specific examples (including key references) based on their expertise, knowledge, and lived experiences. Contributions were then sorted into themes. These ideas were further informed by knowledge-sharing and lessons from the WFC, during which we conducted this exercise. Our ideas are shared in sequence, first presenting our reflections and then providing guidance for the future. For both questions, most themes had some level of disciplinary organization (e.g., human dimensions, governance, stock assessment) but, for the future, we also identified a number of cross-cutting themes that were less specific to a given discipline (e.g., climate change, fish and food systems, foresight science, Indigenous ways of knowing). We recognize that outputs from such types of exercises reflect the interests and expertise of those who participate so it is possible (if not even likely) that there are other examples or issues that have been overlooked. This is particularly evident for our reflections on the past 30 years (Question 1), where some of the examples are narrowly scoped. It is impossible to comprehensively review three decades of fisheries science and advancement here so we have focused on the major challenges and advancements in the field within the last 30 years and intentionally focused the majority of our effort on the prospective Question 2.

Q1 What were the major challenges facing fish and fisheries over the past 30 years and what progress has been made?

Over the past 30 years, fisheries have faced numerous challenges, six of the major ones and the progress to address them are discussed here.

Reconsidered how fisheries assessment and management are conducted

Over the past few decades, fisheries science has put increasing focus into managing fisheries and their associated ecosystems. Thirty years ago, conflicting stock assessments, and data analysis methods, as well as limited data or incomplete data resulted in a lack of management action, biomass decline, and stock collapses in many fisheries (Hilborn et al. 2020 ). Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) (Butterworth 2007 ; Punt et al. 2016 ), regarded as FAO best practice, is gradually being adopted (admittedly, mostly in developed nations) as a method for testing management decision-making rules in generalized operating models that capture a wider range of uncertainty than the single ‘best assessment model’ paradigm (Parma 2002 ; Kaplan et al. 2021 ). MSE can evaluate performance trade-offs between competing objectives (e.g., conservation and optimal utilisation) of alternative management procedures. It is increasingly employed by fisheries managers stakeholders, and rights holders to select new management strategies or examine effectiveness of existing strategies.

Market-based instruments, including the global certification and ratings systems (e.g. Marine Stewardship Council, Seafood Watch, the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, Global Seafood Ratings Alliance, and Friend of the Sea), have incentivised fisheries to improve their management and governance since commencing several decades ago. Now, nearly 30% of global wild production is certified, rated, or in a fisheries improvement project (Potts et al. 2017 ). Certification schemes have been seen as a particularly promising tool to address areas where traditional governance has been less impactful, such as global fisheries, by utilizing consumer power to affect market advantages and access. Certification has an impact on improving management processes through the requirement for implementation of management procedures that have been demonstrated to be robust and precautionary via MSE.

At the time of the first WFC, there was some awareness of the need for an ecosystem perspective, but no clear framework or even a definition in the context of fisheries existed. Since then, discussions were dominated by debates regarding the definitions and concepts of ecosystem-based management (EBM; Larkin 1996 ; Long et al. 2015 ) and then to sharpening them into more tangible management concepts [whether EBM across all users and components, or the more fisheries-focused ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM; Pikitch et al. 2004 ) or the ecosystem approach to fisheries management (EAF; FAO 2003 )]. Now, we have largely moved on from debates about the concept’s rationale, to actually implementing ecosystem-based approaches, which has included exploring the socio-political aspects beyond natural science considerations and learning from the longitudinal results of the earliest case studies where such more integrated management has been at least partially attempted (FAO 2009 ; Patrick and Link 2015a , b ; Long et al. 2015 ).

Similarly in freshwater systems, early studies of inland fisheries focused on simple population fluctuations through time as a function of either fishing effort or threats such as climate, alternative water uses, and diversions (Welcomme 2016 ). However, in recent years, there has been a substantial shift in thinking, and recognition of the major role environmental drivers (such as river flow, habitat and climate conditions) have in the production of freshwater fisheries biomass and sustaining the diversity of fish assemblages (Hoeinghaus et al. 2009 ; Arthington et al. 2016 ). Although overfishing can occur in inland waters (Allan et al. 2005 ), many of the declines to inland fisheries come from external factors (e.g., water extraction, pollution, habitat degradation), and the management of these threats are now featuring in the management of freshwater ecosystems and inland fisheries globally (Cooke et al. 2016 ; Tickner et al. 2020 ). At this point, many of these issues remain but at least the issue has been formally acknowledged including by FAO. In 2015, FAO convened the first ever inland fisheries conference resulting in the “Rome Declaration” which presents ten steps needed to achieve responsible and sustainable inland fisheries (Taylor and Bartley 2016 ).

Fisheries management is now recognized as being conducted in a multiple-use environment, which must consider fisheries along with other issues and sectors—such as aquaculture, conservation, shipping, energy generation, and tourism, to name but a few. To fully capture the range of responses to dynamic systems (whether rivers or oceans), whose changes are intensified by climate change, a broader suite of environmental, social, and political conditions needs to be routinely considered and adapted (Szuwalski and Hollowed 2016 ). All of these considerations—along with recognized limited and ineffective management of fisheries in many locations historically—has continually motivated a shift to more integrated systems (Link et al. 2018 ), though much more remains to be done.

Developed assessment and information systems

Assessment approaches and information systems (i.e., data gathering and information sharing) have also evolved substantially over the past 30 years, although they are still mainly focused on the biophysical systems and much less so on social and economic information. In the 1990s, the internet was in its earliest stages and assessment materials were available in paper reports with limited distribution. Today, bodies such as the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration follow transparency rules, attempting to share online not only the assessment processes but also the input data and outcomes (e.g., https://www.ices.dk/data/assessment-tools/Pages/transparent-assessment-framework.aspx ). These statistics are often reported publicly using simplified metrics in a timely manner via the internet, enabling local managers, stakeholders, and rights holders to review and consider recent data for decision making. However, not all countries and regions have yet established such transparent systems, many remain capacity-limited, continue to have sparsely available data, or are challenged by the complexity of highly diverse multi-species, multi-fleet fisheries, the scale and dispersed nature of small-scale fisheries, or disputed maritime borders.

The methods used have also evolved. Models of single-species based population dynamics still dominate in many jurisdictions, but their best practice use includes frameworks that explore uncertainties and connect to clear harvest control rules ( http://www.capamresearch.org/ ) and MSE options (Punt et al. 2016 ). They have also been complemented with an expanding diversity of tools for data poor situations (Dowling et al. 2016 ; Carruthers and Hordyk 2018 ) and clear guidance on the use of such tools (Harford et al 2021 ), as well as for multispecies fisheries and ecosystems (Plagányi et al. 2013 ). Nonetheless, failures of fisheries management in data (and capacity) poor regions of the world remains a critical area for fisheries throughout much of the world. New methods for direct estimates of abundance (e.g., close kin; Bravington et al. 2016 ) will hopefully reduce the over-reliance on fishery dependent data.

Information handling has also advanced. While data remain a limiting factor, particularly in terms of coverage of multiple ecosystem components, the volume of available data has grown extensively over the last few decades (Farley et al. 2018 ). While biological surveys and fisheries dependent data remain the two most common forms of data available for stock assessment, significant advances have been made towards including data from different sources such as genetics and genomics (Bravington et al. 2016 ), including environmental DNA (Rourke et al. 2021 ), remote sensing (of habitats and fishing fleets, e.g., global fishing watch; Nugent 2019 ), supply chain tracking, and acoustics. Handling these data presents a significant challenge for operators, researchers, and management bodies. Transparency and knowledge sharing also means that interactive and updating online information systems (such as FAO GlobeFish https://www.fao.org/in-action/globefish/globefish-home/en/ ), which are accessible by the public or at the very least stakeholders and rights holders, have become an increasingly expected norm, especially among developed nations. Developments in assessment methodology and information systems have put fisheries management on a path towards success although more work is needed to incorporate diverse data streams in a more timely manner.

Documented threats for fish and fisheries

Over the past 30 years, much effort has focused on documenting threats facing fisheries and aquatic ecosystems. From pollution to illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, to habitat alteration and loss, bycatch, climate change, and recently Covid-19, the negative impacts are common and extensive. There have also been many successes in the marine realm (e.g., bycatch reduction; Squires et al. 2018 ; Komoroske and Lewison 2015 ), though there is insufficient space to explore all of these topics in detail here. Notably, however, we are now beginning to realize that these (and other issues) are also problematic in inland waters (Reid et al. 2019 ). Indeed, recognizing that freshwater fish populations are in decline because of a myriad of threats (Dudgeon et al. 2006 ; Reid et al. 2019 ) has been an important development, but we have yet to successfully reverse that trend (Harrison et al. 2018 ; Tickner et al. 2020 ). The effects of dams on fish, for example, have now been well documented with much effort focused on identifying environmental flows (Poff and Zimmerman 2010 ) and development of effective fish passage (Schilt 2007 ; Silva et al. 2018 ) and even, in a few countries, some dam removal (Bednarek 2001 ; Magilligan et al. 2016 ). Yet dam construction has continued if not escalated throughout the world (Zarfl et al. 2015 ), with more dams being developed and planned, particularly in mega-diverse regions, where there can be dire consequences for biodiversity, local livelihoods, and nutritional security (Winemiller et al. 2016 ). Invasive species are also now well recognized for their threats to freshwaters (and increasingly in marine systems) yet introductions (intentional and accidental) continue (Havel et al. 2015 ).

A threat that became apparent during the last few decades was the effect of natural disasters on fishing communities, which was exemplified by the 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunami, devastating to coastal fishing communities (De Silva and Yamao 2007 ). Extreme flood and drought events in freshwater ecosystems have impacted the recreational fishing sector (e.g., reduced fishing opportunities, loss of income for fishing guides that depend on fishing for their livelihoods; Schneckenburger, and Aukerman 2002 ) and small-scale commercial and subsistence fishing communities (e.g., impacts on nutritional security and livelihoods; Adeoti et al. 2010 ; Lennox et al. 2019 ). The frequency of some of these kinds of shocks appears to be growing (Cottrell et al 2019 ) and is likely to continue to do so under climate change (Oliver et al 2019 ).

The growing demand for food and nutritional security has driven a fresh perspective on fisheries, including the introduction of the concept of nutritional Maximum Sustainable Yield (Robinson et al. 2022 ). Changing market forces have also seen an accelerating interest in increasing aquaculture production (Naylor et al. 2009 ; Bostock et al. 2010 ), with parallel interest in doing so in ways that minimize harm to aquatic ecosystems (Pillay 2008 ) and improve fish welfare (Rasco et al. 2015 ). We recognize the important competitive and synergistic linkages between aquaculture and other fisheries sectors (e.g., drawing from a common pool of science and technology, market demand for fish and market competition, fishmeal demand, aquatic space competition, competition for policy maker attention and resources for innovation investment).

Acknowledged the role of human dimensions in fisheries management

Over the past 30 years, fisheries science has increasingly recognized the importance of understanding and incorporating the human dimensions into fisheries management and conservation measures, policy, and legal frameworks. An ecosystem approach to fisheries should not only be about ensuring the ecological integrity of fisheries, but also about creating an enabling regulatory framework and environment for fisheries sustainability by strengthening social, economic, and institutional aspects in fisheries (De Young et al. 2018 ; FAO 2009 ). The human dimensions in fisheries management can be perceived through, for instance, integrated ecosystem assessments (e.g., environmental, socio-cultural impact assessments), participatory arrangements (e.g., co-management, community-based management), through the specific lenses of certain groups such as women (Williams 2008 ; FAO 2009 ), and by following a human rights-based approach to small-scale fisheries management and governance (FAO 2015 ).

Early human dimension efforts had four primary foci: (1) fisheries economics, (2) aspects of social science focused on characterizing fisher behaviours and perspectives, (3) the importance of all nodes of the fish value chains, not just fishing, and (4) the importance of specific social groups. Early fisheries economics efforts tended to focus on important fishing management problems, emphasizing creation of a solid foundation for further development of models relevant to policy makers and managers (Bjørndal and Munro 2012 ). Yet, there have also been criticisms that fisheries economics has been too focused on theoretical debates rather than trying to solve pressing management problems (Wilen 2000 ). Fisheries economists are credited with the widespread development and use of bioeconomic models (often simulation-based) for investigating and implementing different management plans (Clark 1985). These bioeconomic approaches have also supported a shift to Maximum Economic Yield as the dictate of fisheries reference points (as opposed to Maximum Sustainable Yield based rules) in some jurisdictions (e.g., Australia).

For social scientists, a fishery has long been regarded as a social system (or what we now refer to as a social-ecological system) which includes fish as well as resource users and the rest of the support infrastructure and industry (Ditton 1996 ). For the last 30 years, most human dimensions research on fishing in developed countries has used mail survey and telephone (or intercept) interview techniques but in the last decade there has been more focus on using electronic methods (e.g., email surveys, social media distribution). In inland systems, much work has focused on the recreational angling sector to understand motivations, behaviours, management preferences, and how these vary among different segments (e.g., specialized anglers vs generalist anglers; Arlinghaus et al. 2013 ). In the marine realm, there has been more focus on the commercial sector with particular emphasis on conflicts (Pomeroy et al. 2007 ), but there are growing efforts to categorize the scale and scope of recreational fisheries as well (MRIP 2017). There has also been a recognition that fisheries social science has much to offer in terms of social struggles and justice (Bavinck et al. 2018 ; see section on equity below). Some natural resource management agencies have developed internal capacity for human dimensions research to support management.

Social groups that have been gradually recognized as critical but overlooked actors in fisheries include small-scale fishers (World Bank/FAO/WorldFish 2012 ; FAO 2015 ), women (Gopal et al. 2020 ), and Indigenous peoples (Jentoft et al. 2019 ). In the past decades, more efforts have been made, especially in developing countries, to better understand these groups, recognize and protect their rights, and enhance their agency and capacity to participate in fisheries management and decision-making process of their concern. The development, adoption and implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries (SSF Guidelines; FAO 2015 ) is the most comprehensive case of a participatory process to secure the rights of the majority of fishers, based on the human rights-based approach (Nakamura 2022 ). Continued exploration and integration of the human dimensions of fisheries will be critical for informing sustainable management and supporting the people and communities who depend on fisheries.

Enhanced understanding of weaknesses in fisheries governance, policy, and compliance

During the past 30 years, there were several advances in understanding and even overcoming some of the weaknesses in fisheries governance, policy, and compliance. A great part of this progress in the marine realm stemmed from the 1992 United Nations (UN) Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), which strongly endorsed the precautionary principle, biodiversity protection, climate change concerns, and the need to manage and conserve high seas fisheries (Boyle and Freestone 1999 ). Following the UNCED, its recommendations saw major advances in implementation, notably the adoption of key international legal instruments (e.g., FAO Compliance Agreement 1993, UN Fish Stocks Agreement 1995, FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries 1995 (CCRF)), the establishment of new regional fisheries management organizations (e.g., Indian Ocean Tuna Commission in 1996, Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission in 2004), the formal adoption of the ecosystem approach to fisheries management (Reykjavik Declaration 2001 ), and the increased concern with conservation of deep-sea fisheries, habitats, and vulnerable marine ecosystems. Additionally, the international agenda expanded as part of the Millennium Development Goals of 2000 and later the Sustainable Development Goals of 2015, broadening efforts to integrate various goals to the fisheries context (Said and Chuenpagdee 2019 ). In freshwater systems, the Rome Declaration (see https://www.fao.org/inland-fisheries/topics/detail/en/c/1142047/ ) includes ten steps to responsible inland fisheries with explicit calls for improvements in governance (see Cooke et al. 2016 ). Yet, challenges remain with little evidence of widespread improvements (Lynch et al. 2020 ; Cooke et al. 2021 ), and certain of these key instruments being technically narrow in their approaches, especially with respect to the human dimensions.

Despite the increased awareness about the need to shift from fisheries management to fisheries governance (Chuenpagdee and Jentoft 2018 ), the transition has not been easy. Fisheries problems are complex and require insights from interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research, and nuanced approaches like collaborative and interactive governance frameworks (see for instance Bavinck and Kooiman et al. 2005 ; Ostrom 2010 ). Fisheries research has certainly grown and expanded to incorporate a broad array of knowledge, including those of local and Indigenous fishers—though rarely women fishers (e.g., Short et al. 2020 )—which has helped improve governance. Yet, more needs to be done considering the additional demands on the governance systems at all levels and scales, as the aquatic ecosystems continue to face pressures and stressors affecting their productivity and health.

The last 30 years of legal and policy developments were largely focused on the environmental component of fisheries sustainability, resulting in a limited coverage of social dimensions, human rights, and protection of vulnerable groups (Papanicolopulu 2018 ; Nakamura 2022 ). Most of the existing international instruments addressing social aspects in fisheries are non-binding, including those adopted under the auspices of the FAO (Tenure Guidelines 2012, Small-Scale Fisheries Guidelines 2014) and the UN Human Rights Council (UN Declaration on Peasant’s Rights 2018). These instruments, nevertheless, enshrine the human rights-based approach to fisheries whilst fostering the protection and empowerment of small-scale fisheries holistically, covering issues of social development, gender, indigenous peoples, migrants, and other vulnerable groups. Efforts to elevate fisheries governance, policy and compliance are beginning to yield benefits, but more work is certainly needed.

Acknowledged need for gender equity and inclusion

While social equity is related to many factors, gender equity serves as a suitable case study because gender researchers have made significant conceptual contributions relevant to all human dimensions. A major theoretical contribution has been the intersectional nature of identity underlying social inequalities (Crenshaw 1989 ). Biological, social, and cultural categories, including gender, race, income, caste, and class interact, creating systemic inequalities. In fisheries, different groups of women experience resource access and the impacts of resource appropriation in different ways (e.g., Ferguson 2021a , b ). Gender scholars have also developed the field of feminist political ecology that favours diagnosis of conditions at multiple scales, takes into account gendered rights and responsibilities, economic growth, and structural and political situations encountered (Resurreccion, 2017 ). It has been applied to complex fisheries management conflicts such as the social inequities across gender, race, and class relations of the Newfoundland and Labrador cod stocks of Canada (Bavington, et al. 2004 ) and the legal schemes applied in wetlands protection in Tonle Sap, Cambodia (Gillespie and Perry 2019 ).

After a promising start arising out of the 1984 FAO Strategy for Fisheries Management and Development, and the inclusion of women in some early fisheries development programs such as the first two phases of the Bay of Bengal Programme, the inclusion of women dropped off the fisheries agendas in the early 1990s. The disconnect between international human rights and fisheries law evinced the need to make clear and explicit linkages between fisheries and gender in international fisheries instruments. Nevertheless, the adoption of the SSF Guidelines, which follows the principles of gender equality and equity, non-discrimination, and contains a chapter entirely dedicated to gender equality (FAO 2015 ) is coupled with some national and regional impetus to address the roles and needs of women and social inclusion in fisheries. Some progress has been made, although still in its early stages, to include gender in fisheries research and development programs, recognize the important role women play in fisheries, and ensure special attention to them in fisheries value chains (e.g., Graham and D’Andrea 2021 ). From an assessment of the implementation of policy intentions in three Pacific countries, however, Lawless et al. ( 2021 ) caution that the commitments often are diluted or ignored in practice. Similar conclusions would be drawn if such studies were made in other regions and globally.

A significant gap in knowledge to guide gender equity and inclusion policies is the great dearth of gender-disaggregated data. In 2012, the Hidden Harvests report (World Bank/FAO/WorldFish 2012 ) provided a first rough estimate of the number of women in small scale fisheries value chains (estimated to be 47% of the workers), and this is being updated in the forthcoming Illuminating Hidden Harvests study (due 2022). The FAO State of Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016 biennial report was the first to produce a table of gender-disaggregated statistics of labor in the fishing/fish farming. Over the past 30 years, there have been early efforts that acknowledge the need for gender equity and inclusion within the sector. More work is urgently needed but there have been some recent developments that show great promise. Similar conclusions would be drawn for other social equity dimensions.

Q2. What needs to be done to achieve sustainable and vibrant fish populations and fisheries in the next 30 years?

Over the next 30 years, we need to invest effort in addressing additional challenges to achieve thriving fish populations and sustainable, equitable fisheries. Here, we discuss each in turn and consider specific actions needed for each (See Fig.  1 ).

Achieving sustainable and vibrant fish populations and fisheries

Rethinking fisheries resources and ecosystem management systems

The inertia of history means it is exceptionally unlikely that the historical form of fisheries institutions and decision-making processes will radically change (Fulton 2021 ). Nevertheless, the growing appreciation is that even with the best of intentions historical fisheries management has not delivered sustainable ecosystem-level exploitation (e.g., Link 2021 ). New challenges of global change (Tittensor et al. 2021 ) and ecosystem-based management (EBM) perspectives demand both a more inclusive and agile approach. Inclusion extends to the scope of the system implications considered in management decision making processes and in the people whose interests must be considered. This does not mean there will be a wholesale abandonment of current core fisheries resource and ecosystem management concepts. Instead, concepts like Maximum Sustainable Yield will continue to evolve to encompass multispecies sustainability and entire system–level dynamics as they have begun to do (Mace 2001 ; Thorpe 2019 ).

Management decision making processes will incorporate ancillary information. This can be either informally, as is the case in Alaska (where ecosystem indicators are reported alongside formal stock assessments; Dorn and Zador 2020 ), or more formally in explicitly multispecies and ecosystem-oriented harvest strategies. This could begin by supplementing existing single-species management methods with additional checks and indicators derived from environmental data streams or ecosystem models (e.g., Howell et al. 2021 ). However, we anticipate widespread use of harvest strategies that intentionally manage large numbers of species together, as has been done in Western Australia for some time now using indicator species concepts and leveraging life history characteristics (Newman et al. 2018 ).

Moreover, management systems are already looking beyond simple stock management to the broader human dimensions of fisheries and the many drivers of fisheries. More explicitly recognizing how trade-offs between economic, social, and environmental objectives constrain sustainable harvesting options (e.g., Briton et al. 2020 ) and considering climate change influence on reference points (e.g., Holsman et al. 2020 ) are early steps along that path. Significant challenges remain in finding tangible means of doing this in jurisdictions with low fisheries science and management capacity. In these systems, the social dimensions are most critical. Improvements in communication of the processes and advice will be key to change and adoption. There are opportunities to rethink fisheries resources and management systems such that they are placed within a broader context.

Modernizing and integrating assessment and information systems

The heterogeneity in data availability and assessment capacity globally remains a challenge and one that needs to be addressed urgently if the health of fish stocks and ecosystems are to be universally assessed. The need for social and economic data needs critical review. Development of highly informative monitoring and data collection programs is essential, and their cost-effectiveness can be measured via MSE in terms of reduced uncertainty and management procedure performance (Punt et al. 2016 ). However, the lack of inclusive social dimensions of current MSE approaches means they are unlikely to be suitable beyond their current fisheries resource and ecosystems focus. While many new assessment methods and data streams exist, understanding how to best utilize them takes time—as evidenced by the lively discussions surrounding the most appropriate use of integrated population models (Arnold et al. 2018 ), trait-based approaches (Barnett et al. 2019), ecosystem models (Fulton 2010 ; Perryman et al 2021 ), environmental DNA methods (Jeunen et al. 2019 ; Sigsgaard et al. 2020 ; Gilbey et al. 2021 ), data-limited assessment methods (Smith et al. 2009 ; Carruthers and Hordyk 2018 ) and the like.

Experience will help this evolution, as the transfer of expertise is assisted by training programs and capacity building—supported by initiatives such as the Data-Limited Methods Toolkit (Carruthers and Hordyk 2018 ) and FishPath ( https://www.fishpath.org/ ; Dowling et al 2016 ). More will be needed though, as well laid out by Punt et al. ( 2020 ). As a start, solid advances can be made by implementing software engineering practices, such as human-centred design and broader use of code versioning and repositories, which are shareable through platforms such as GitHub ( https://github.com/ ). In addition, there is opportunity for strategic use of online (cloud) computing power and collaborating with experts in software engineering, visualisation platforms, and human information processing (such as specialists in gamification and serious gaming; Diniz dos Santos et al. 2019 ).

Increasing familiarity with the tools and having broader system perspectives will also help fisheries address broader questions more easily—such as risk assessment tools, for example, Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing (Hobday et al. 2011 ) or Integrated Ecosystem Assessments (Harvey et al. 2021 ), ecosystem scale models that can be rapidly applied to fished systems (e.g., Mizer; Scott et al 2014 ), or multispecies models tailored to deliver information in formats that management processes are familiar with [e.g., the Model of Intermediate Complexity for Ecosystem assessments applied by Angelini et al. ( 2016 ) and Thorson et al. ( 2019 )]. The collation and transmission of information (both raw data and processed products tailored to decision maker needs) is also foreseen to be a growing need into the future, with the ambition to deliver updated information in near real time in a format and on platforms that are widely accessible (e.g., on mobile devices) but also fit for purpose. This can already be seen in near real time sharing of effort distributions and bycatch to assist with targeting (e.g., Hazen et al. 2018 ) and compliance (Kurekin et al. 2019 ; Nugent 2019 ) and the increasing use of operational and seasonal forecasts to improve fisheries efficiency or as a basis for dynamic oceans management (Maxwell et al. 2015 ).

Transparent knowledge sharing, in its truest sense—a multi-way flow of information, that actively engages with stakeholder/manager/rightsholder interests and perspectives—will also require incorporation of specialist knowledge brokers into fisheries science teams (Cvitanovic et al. 2015 ). The field would also benefit from collaboration with communications specialists who understand how people receive and interpret information—this will be important as increasingly large audiences need to be engaged or in contentious circumstances (Condie and Condie 2021 ), such as when there is a clash between sectors, whether that is two commercial sectors or between conservation and fisheries or between cultural and economic objectives (Coulthard et al. 2011 ; Lester et al. 2017 ; Crona et al. 2021 ). Evidence syntheses such as systematic reviews also hold great promise for ensuring that decision makers are provided with rigorous and comprehensive assessments of the best available evidence on a given topic—something that has yet to be fully embraced in fisheries assessment and management (Cooke et al. 2017 ).

Ensuring equitable access to information also means that solutions (whether technological or facilitated by communicators) need to come in a form that can be shared more broadly and are not only available to a subset of those interested in the fisheries. Avoiding the marginalisation of those groups which are also at the low ends of power imbalances is important (Crona et al. 2021 ; Tigchelaar et al. 2021 ; Farmery et al. 2022 ). Similarly, there will need to be an expansion of assessment and reporting of a wider range of indicators as the values aspects of blue foods expand (e.g., nutritional value, carbon footprint, ecosystem footprint, inclusivity, and respect for people in value chain; Parker et al. 2018 ; Golden et al. 2021 ).

Modernization and access to technologies (e.g., smartphones and applications) have enhanced the ability to integrate the society into fisheries assessments through the development of citizen science platforms. These platforms have the potential to supplement existing data sets whilst contributing to improved relations between scientists, the public and government agencies (Bonney et al. 2021 ). Yet, the integration and translation of the results of citizen science projects into effective fisheries management is still in its infancy (Fulton et al. 2019 ). This integrated assessment has great potential to be explored and developed for both marine and inland, as well as small-scale and recreational fisheries (Gundelund et al. 2021 ). Access to technology, even mobile phones, is not equal in most societies and this needs to be considered. Data science approaches such as data feminism are needed. These take account of the political and social activism needed to collect, analyse, and project to decision-makers and the public the importance of data outside formal data collections but critical to targeting action and making decisions (D'ignazio and Klein 2020 ). For example, this approach could help bridge the results of numerous small-scale projects in many countries documenting the extent of work that women undertake in fisheries while formal national fisheries data will report that no women are engaged in fisheries. Modernizing fisheries assessment and information systems is necessary and would help to enable science-based management of aquatic resources.

Addressing persistent and emerging threats to fish and fisheries

Some persistent and emerging threats are common to fish and fisheries regardless of system type. Increasing fish trade and climate change, for example, have global ramifications across aquatic systems. These global processes often have unexpected interactions and the resulting consequences for fish and fisheries are difficult to predict (Staudinger et al. 2021 ). For example, emerging aquatic diseases can be driven by multiple intersecting stressors that threaten fish and fisheries. Coordinated global aquatic disease surveillance programs can help identify conditions that lead to emergence or transmission and develop interventions that can be used to treat diseases in wild fish at a grand scale (Peeler and Ernst 2019 ). Likewise, intensifying global climate change is propelling aquatic ecosystems toward irreversible transformations. While transformations have occurred in the past, the current rate of change and synergistic effects are unprecedented and unpredictable (Thompson et al. 2021 ). For example, extreme climate events, including fires, droughts, floods, are increasing in frequency with documented severe impacts to freshwater fish (Silva et al. 2020 ; Stocks et al. 2021 ).

Freshwater ecosystems are notable systems at extreme risk, and action within the next decades will be critical to conserve them and conserve inland fisheries. Tickner et al. ( 2020 ) present an “Emergency Recovery Plan” to address the following priority actions: accelerating implementation of environmental flows; improving water quality; protecting and restoring critical habitats; managing the exploitation of freshwater ecosystem resources, especially species and riverine aggregates; preventing and controlling non-native species invasions; and safeguarding and restoring river connectivity. This plan is gaining traction within the global conservation community (Twardek et al. 2021 ) and its priority actions will be particularly critical for resolving transboundary river issues and conflicts between diverse freshwater users. As the frontier of hydropower and river damming moves towards large, tropical, transboundary rivers (e.g., Amazon, Mekong), integrated and coordinated international management will become fundamental to halt fisheries declines (Van Damme et al. 2019 ). Likewise, as demand on irrigated agriculture to feed the world increases, improved regulated flow management measures (Stuart et al. 2019 ) and devices to reduce fisheries losses to irrigation systems (Boys et al. 2021 ) will be essential to avoid scenarios where increasing food production in one sector decreases it in another (Lynch et al. 2019 ). Importantly, management tools that have helped improve sustainability of marine fisheries, such as protected areas and reserve systems, can help address species declines and long-term fisheries sustainability in inland systems (Hermoso et al. 2016 ; Koning et al. 2020 ).

Estuarine and marine systems also face substantial threats. Development and damming of freshwater systems also impact the downstream estuarine systems by reducing freshwater input subsequently impacting the water quality and geomorphological processes within estuaries (Gillanders et al. 2022 ) and impacting fisheries where connectivity between aquatic realms is critical (Crook et al. In Press). Major cities are also often situated on estuaries adding additional threats associated with urbanization and coastal reconstruction. In marine systems, the increasing range of activities including fisheries and aquaculture, shipping, land reclamation, and renewable energy (e.g., wind and wave energy) means that these systems are now highly contested with potential for conflict among users. These intensive anthropogenic activities also lead to cumulative impacts on marine systems, reducing available ecosystem spaces, impacting the health of the systems and their dependent organisms. Increasingly spatial cumulative impact assessments are undertaken but rarely have they been validated with empirical data and the range of stressors are often viewed as having additive effects. Many threats, including emerging ones, continue to plague fisheries and aquatic systems. Efforts that attempt to understand and mitigate those threats are essential if we are to ensure the future viability of fish populations and fisheries.

Integrating the conceptual frameworks of biological and social scientists

Although the last thirty years have seen greater appreciation of the human dimension of fisheries, including through discussions emanating from previous WFCs (see Liguori et al. 2005 ), collaborative effort is still needed to integrate the conceptual frameworks and understandings of natural and social scientists (Hall-Arber et al. 2009 ). Indeed, although there are persistent information needs on biological (and environmental) aspects of fisheries, it is often people and human behaviour that dictates the ultimate success of any fisheries management actions (Hilborn 2007 ). Efforts to understand the perceived barriers to integrating human dimensions knowledge and concepts into fisheries science and management have been informative (e.g., Fox et al. 2006 ; Hall-Arber et al. 2009 ). Fox et al. ( 2006 ) identified barriers including the lack of common vocabulary between biologists and social scientists, the lack of funding for collaborative work, and limited opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration. Hall-Arber et al. ( 2009 ) addressed models and means for integrating quantitative and qualitative data. Fortunately, efforts to address these issues are expanding, and much can be learned from existing and emerging examples. For example, Bennett et al. ( 2017 ) outlined a roadmap for mainstreaming human dimensions more broadly in environmental management and conservation sectors. Importantly, recognition of the critical value of Indigenous knowledge in fisheries management and conservation is increasing—particularly in the context of bridging these knowledges to better inform existing science-based decision-making (Crook et al. 2016 ; Reid et al. 2021 ; McKinley et al. 2022 ).

Notable to fisheries is the need to build personal and institutional capacity for human dimensions work and ensure that it is fully integrated into both knowledge generating and application processes. This involves reflexivity, that is, the researchers and their institutional approaches need to understand that their work and approaches are both cause and effect in the fisheries systems they seek to improve, and their social relations within it are important elements (e.g., their positioning in research institutes of governments managing the fisheries, or as experts working for the fishing industry or NGOs). What is apparent from our analysis is that the human dimension intersects with all of the topics and themes explored here such that this separate section on the human dimensions is somewhat redundant. That is telling and emphasizes how human dimensions are increasingly viewed as fundamental to contemporary fisheries research and management. We therefore conclude that the human dimensions will indeed be considered as an integral element of fisheries in the near future, providing insights and benefits for fisheries science more broadly (see McKinley et al. 2022 ). Yet, it also needs to be treated as a unique cross-cutting issue in its own right that needs to be addressed. We submit that better integration of biological and social science theories and practices is needed to manage fisheries in an holistic manner.

Rethinking governance, policy, and compliance

Ensuring the protection of fishers and fish value chain workers (e.g., through safety at sea and on land, social security, social development, and secured human rights) has been and continues to be one of the greatest challenges for the fisheries governance and policy framework (Papanicolopulu 2018 ; Nakamura 2022 ). For at-sea work, only 20 States have ratified the International Labour Organization Work in Fishing Convention 2007, hindering a stronger support for the international protection of decent working conditions in fisheries. While there have been some important international legal developments, as outlined above, through the adoption of non-binding instruments embedded on an ecosystem approach to fisheries management and, more recently following the human rights-based approach, there remain challenges in ensuring implementation of these instruments at the national level. Fisheries, especially small-scale fisheries, are not a priority to most governments' agenda. Fisheries is a marginalized sector (Purcell and Pomeroy 2015 ; Chuenpagdee and Jentoft 2011 ). As such, relying on political will and action to effectively implement policies and legislation should not be the only alternative.

Rethinking governance can begin through a more proactive work of non-state actors and broader inclusion of value chain activities, taking due account of a broader interest in implementing fisheries and fisheries-related policy and laws for the benefit of the wider fisheries community. These initiatives can support tracking the progress on the implementation of international instruments (Lynch et al. 2020 ). Through transdisciplinary research, for instance, fisheries scientists and legal researchers can work together to identify key issues in international instruments relevant to fisheries in countries’ legislation and policies, highlight the gaps and needs for review and update (Nakamura et al. 2021 ). In certain countries, the recognition of customary fishing rights may not be spelled out in legislation or policy, but may be granted by national judicial courts, performing judicial activism (e.g., South Africa, Sowman and Sunde 2021 ; New Zealand, Cantzler 2022 ). It is also crucial to clarify opportunities for mutual supportive interpretation and application of human rights law and fisheries law to support the recognition and protection of rights of fishers working in rural and coastal areas (Morgera and Nakamura 2022 ).

All these approaches, however, take for granted the centrality of the fishing node of the value chain, which is only part of the fisheries sector. Indeed, the post-harvest node employs more than twice as many people (World Bank/FAO/WorldFish 2012 ), but their needs are not considered in governance (see Barclay et al. 2022 for an example in tuna fisheries). New approaches must find ways to include value chain impacts and consequences in the governance systems. The impacts and influences are already acting, but in hidden and non-transparent ways, such as through market demand, private sector company policies, and social and political hierarchies.

A recent important development for the global fisheries was the adoption of the Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies by the members of the World Trade Organization, after decades of negotiation, but, as commentators note, some unfinished business (e.g., prohibition of subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, and the differentiated treatment and permanent exemptions for small-scale fishing) were left for future negotiations (Tipping and Irschlinger 2022 ; Switzer and Lennan 2022 ).

Innovative ways to govern fishing have been largely pushed forward through the adoption of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management or ecosystem-based fisheries management. This approach has also been developed in international instruments (e.g., Reykjavik Declaration 2001 ) and technical guidance provided by FAO to supplement the CCRF (FAO 2003 ) and on legislating for an ecosystem approach to fisheries management (FAO 2016 , 2021 ). Several national bodies are adopting ecosystem-based fisheries management as a major policy shift in how fisheries are governed. The need for holistic ways of managing and governing fisheries stem from many reasons, but internationally from growing evidence of the ecological connectivity between transboundary fisheries resources and impact diverse ecosystems, biodiversity, and habitats, and which are impacted by multiple stressors, including climate change (Pinsky et al. 2018 ; Popova et al. 2019 ; Palacios-Abrantes et al. 2020 ).

The emphasis on the ecosystem approach continues to broaden the scope of fisheries and other sectors included in national and international fisheries policies and sustainable development agendas. Transitioning to these modes of governance, which seek to sustainably develop, require participatory decision-making that takes special account of affected and marginalized groups (Cohen et al. 2019 ). In this process, local communities can also contribute to improve the knowledge-base informing fisheries management measures and monitoring (Dias et al. 2020 ). However, the implementation of national fisheries policies, aside from those that enable trade, continues to substantially lag behind the drafting and adoption process, yielding well-intentioned fisheries management plans that are not fully executed and leading to unsustainable fisheries policies (e.g., Pelicice et al. 2017 ). This expansion has also included greater consideration of the contributions and potential impacts of various measures on small-scale fisheries, recreational fisheries, coastal and inland communities, and tropical regions (particularly in developing countries), with variable success. The representation of non-state actor participation in global fisheries institutions, such as regional fisheries management organizations, also continues to be selective (Petersson 2019 ).

Additionally, transboundary fisheries management continues to have ongoing and emerging challenges that will require enhancements to multi-national co-management and multi-sectoral coordination to promote sustainability and greater consideration of cumulative impacts in a changing climate (Popova et al. 2019 ). Efforts are required on multiple levels of national and international government cooperation to improve the legal frameworks and arrangements for strengthening monitoring, surveillance, and compliance (MCS) that address fishing in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction and enhance Biological Diversity Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction negotiations, reduce IUU fishing, and further tackle the governance challenges for highly migratory species (Le Gallic and Cox 2006 ; Ardron et al. 2014 ; Petrossian 2015 ; Doumbouya et al. 2017 ; Popova et al. 2019 ). Improvements may include (a) developing economically viable monitoring, surveillance, and compliance plans and monitoring systems that are fully incorporated into fisheries management planning, (b) improving monitoring compliance by supporting the capacity of authorized officers to perform their monitoring, surveillance, and compliance and enforcement functions, and establishing higher fines for non-compliance with applicable rules (Doumbouya et al. 2017 ), (c) adopting management measures with greater participatory monitoring and technological developments of more cost-effective systems that leverage AI and electronic monitoring systems, and (d) greater open access to fisheries data (e.g., Global Fishing Watch). Lastly, adaptive transboundary governance for a changing global ocean ecosystem is critical, particularly where shifts in target species distribution due to climate change are impacting fisheries, livelihoods, societies, and economies (Ojea et al. 2020 ). We submit that rethinking governance, policy, and compliance is necessary to achieve fisheries that benefit people while also protecting aquatic systems such that sustainable fisheries harvest is possible.

Achieving inclusion in fisheries, using the example of gender equity

A major thrust is needed to put equity and inclusion broadly on the fisheries agenda. In the preceding section, we used gender equity as an example of new approaches and issues but acknowledge that these issues extend to race, religion, caste, socio-economic status, Indigeneity, and beyond. Each one deserves more attention than we can provide here. The increasing commoditization of fisheries presents great challenges to sustainability and inclusion. Whereas sustainability has received some attention through action by environmental NGOs, and even the large private sector interests, social inclusion has received little attention to date, with the exception of action to prevent the worst maltreatment of male crew in certain fisheries (HRAS 2019; ILO 2007). Even the attention given to social issues for male crew typically does not address the additional impacts and needs of the women in the affected fisheries households (Barclay et al. 2022 ). Furthermore, extending social inclusion to women throughout fish value chains would reveal an even wider set of social equity issues. Women make up about half of the workforce in fish value chains (FAO 2022 ), but they are neglected in fisheries policy and action. Gender issues cannot be solved until issues in the political economy of fisheries are investigated and addressed (e.g., the extent of labour exploitation in processing and trading as well as fishing, the allocation of resource rights, investment and finances for women entrepreneurs, gendered trade impacts, and the political rights of different groups). Seen through a gender lens, these issues provide better understanding of the asymmetry of power occurring and the motivations and drivers of the value chain actors (Williams 2019 ).

Furthermore, women are not a homogeneous group with a single set of characteristics, needs, and interests. Gender research needs to take intersectional approaches to comprehend the complexities. Ferguson ( 2021a , b ), for example, used an intersectional approach in studying the beche de mer trade in Palau. Marital status and nationality (local and immigrant women and men) affected who benefited or was harmed. Men benefited most from international trade which affected the local stocks, from which local women and immigrant women benefited more than unmarried women and immigrant men.

The basic building blocks of achieving greater gender equality in fisheries are gender research carried out across appropriate scales and key intersectional factors, well-informed policies that are built on supporting and including gender and fisheries representatives in policy development, and sound gender-disaggregated data. As noted in answer to Question 1, gender-disaggregated data are scarce in fisheries. This problem hides the numbers of women involved, and their contributions and rights (or lack of); contributes to women’s interests and knowledge being overlooked in fisheries management decision-making; and allows policy makers to ignore gendered differences in participation, needs and opportunities. Thus, as a basis for women’s rights, fisheries lacks adequate data collections, and has few time series showing trends. Correcting this data gap is a major need for supporting gender equity.

Two gender issues in fisheries are often conflated, namely the professional presence of women in fisheries science, fisheries management and private sector positions, and the position of women workers in fish value chain nodes and research to illuminate it. Although the two are related in some respects, in others they share little in common.

Compared to 30 years ago, women are more numerous in professional positions in fisheries, such as fisheries scientists and management agencies, thus giving an impression of progress in gender equality in fisheries. The rise of women in the fisheries professional ranks, however, results from the gains in women’s education and does not equate to progress more broadly in gender equality in fisheries value chains (Barclay et al. 2022 ). Professional women typically have to accept the workplace performance requirements and cultures that have prevailed from earlier times, although, in some situations, social media groups and professional associations are becoming active in overcoming gender discrimination in fisheries professional workplaces. The American Fisheries Society, for example, has a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee that focuses on professional concerns of recruiting and nurturing a diverse workforce more representative of the population with respect to women, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and abilities (Penaluna et al. 2017 ).

On the question of women’s positions in fish value chains, and research on these, complex and different issues arise. Gender and fisheries research has grown slowly over the last 30 years (see Williams ( 2019 ) for a timeline of the efforts by researchers in the Asian Fisheries Society). In the last few years, serious gender research papers have started to appear in the top fisheries research journals when once most gender and fisheries scholarship was found in social science journals. The field is still small, however, and research funds are meagre and scattered. Few fisheries research agencies employ gender researchers, and fisheries management agencies likewise rarely hire experts with specialist gender knowledge. A survey of 65 countries found that only 25% of fisheries ministries had gender focal points responsible for coordinating responses to policies and mandates (and not necessarily gender experts) (Environment and Gender Index 2015 ). Among environment ministries, only water ministries were less likely to have a gender focal point. Most gender research is undertaken in universities, and experts (researchers and technical experts) are contracted for specific tasks by mainstream fisheries agencies. Only the Asian Fisheries Society, among all the professional fisheries societies, has a formal gender section (the Gender in Aquaculture and Fisheries Section), focusing on research on women and gender equality in value chains (Williams 2019 ).

A small but growing number of networks have been formed supporting collective action by women working in fish value chains (Alonso-Población and Siar 2018 ), and also some activist groups working to sensitize the seafood industry to gender equality issues. Researchers often collaborate or are also members of these organizations, but the overall number is still modest. A few of the large international environment NGOs are taking a strong stand for gender equality in fisheries and we expect this trend to continue (e.g., Finkbeiner et al. 2021 ). Equity applies in many ways to fisheries yet has rarely been considered. Using gender equality as an example to indicate the needs for progress reveals a large set of tasks. Revising governance, management, and data systems to explicitly acknowledge, embrace, and celebrate equity, diversity, inclusion, and justice is sorely needed.

Understanding the role of fish as nutrition in a hungry world

Fish are clearly a source of food, although this is not always reflected in national policies. For example, only one in two public health nutrition strategies examined by Koehn et al. ( 2022 ) identified the importance of fish and shellfish consumption as a key objective. This is partially because the contribution of fish is often reduced to their protein provision, when in fact their role in addressing micronutrient deficiencies makes fish products a crucial part of a healthy diet (UN Nutrition 2021). There are also diverse perceptions between marine and inland fisheries in relation to their contribution to food security. While much more is known about the role of marine fisheries products in supporting food security (Golden et al. 2016 ), similar data are lacking for freshwater systems (Funge-Smith and Bennett 2019 ), even though the latter is particularly important in many food-deficit regions. For a long time, the disaggregated nature of fisheries data and their contribution to human diets made it very difficult to understand and properly value the role of fish in addressing food security challenges. Recently, Golden et al. ( 2021 ) modelled the nutritional properties of terrestrial foods and nearly 3,000 taxa of aquatic foods, and concluded that the top 7 categories of nutrient-rich animal-source foods are all aquatic foods, based on the benefits in terms of reducing micronutrient deficiencies, provision of omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids, and capacity to displace the consumption of less-healthy red and processed meats.

The tide is turning, and in food security circles there is a growing interest in “aquatic foods,” as evidenced by the UN Blue Food Assessment (see theme section in the journal Nature https://www.nature.com/collections/fijabaiach/ ) and the outcomes of the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit. There are obvious reasons for this interest: aquatic foods are some of the more environmentally friendly food systems, and one that has significant potential for growth. After all, Africa produces only 2.5% of global aquaculture, and if protein and micronutrients must come from somewhere, fish will be a big part of the solution. However, present food systems still fail to recognize the diversity of aquatic foods, their potential to contribute to sustainable healthy diets, and their potential as a solution to address the “triple burden of malnutrition” (i.e., micronutrient deficiencies, undernutrition, and overweight and obesity) (FAO 2020 ).

But promoting aquatic foods will require the engagement of many inside and outside the fisheries sectors, including interdisciplinary experts (e.g., supply chain, nutrition, processing, sustainability), realms (inland and marine), and diverse actors (from fishers to culturists to processors to consumers) from across the globe to realize their potential in a more sustainable, healthy, safe, and equitable manner, and in the face of external threats such as climate change (Nash et al. 2021a , b ; Tigchelaar et al. 2021 ). With almost 10% of the world’s population suffering from undernourishment, there is no time to lose if we are to end hunger. Fish products benefit some of the most impoverished and food insecure peoples on the planet with much of that catch and consumption occurring within communities outside of any import/export systems. We are just now beginning to understand the many ways in which fisheries products from all realms contribute to nutritional security and thus benefit people around the globe.

Adapting to climate change

Climate change is modifying fish habitat and impacting fish populations and aquatic communities with effects observed from the cell to the ecosystem, this in turn is influencing human communities dependent on this ecosystem (Barange et al. 2018 ). Common stressors include changes in water temperature and ice conditions, changes in precipitation, alterations in river flows, sea-level rise, and ocean acidification. Among other things, climate change had led to shifts in species distributions, with species moving to cooler areas by increasing latitude, moving offshore or occupying deeper waters (Cheung et al. 2013 ; Hobday and Pecl 2014 ). Climate driven shifts are not just associated with temperature but may also be influenced by changes in salinity, dissolved oxygen and pH, especially in estuarine and upwelling areas (Lauchlan and Nagelkerken 2020 ).

There is increasing need to consider these multi-stressor interactions which may impact physiological processes at the individual level subsequently impacting the population or species level through changes to recruitment, growth, size at maturity, and fecundity (Busch et al. 2016 ; Lauchlan and Nagelkerken 2020 ). Ecosystem effects through habitat change and food web dynamics also mean individual species cannot be considered in isolation. Understanding these broader potential impacts provides a means to select adaptation approaches, especially as the degree of environmental change and the formation of novel ecosystems (i.e., configurations not previously recorded) mean that historical observations are no longer always a reliable guide. Global ecosystem models are predicting a 5–15% drop in zooplankton and a 5–25% drop in global marine fish biomass even in the absence of fishing (Tittensor et al. 2021 ). Changed freshwater flows are likely to impact inland fisheries, too (van Vliet et al. 2013 ).

Under those circumstances, fisheries production would be likely to drop. Indeed, fisheries production has already declined, albeit not just attributed to climate change. Estimates have suggested global catch could reduce 6% by 2050 associated with ocean warming and changes in primary productivity (Cheung et al. 2016a , b ; Golden et al. 2016 ; Boyce et al. 2020 ). Further, such reductions are likely greater in tropical areas with predictions catches will decrease by 30% (Cheung et al. 2016a , b ). To ensure climate effects on fisheries production are not realised, it would be helpful for fisheries management to incorporate climate-resilient policies.

All of these environmental and production changes are associated with effects on the human communities using those resources (Colburn et al. 2016 ), but also challenge fisheries management processes. Traditional fisheries assessment and management approaches are based on an assumption of stationarity and climate change associated changes in productivity are creating issues around how to be suitably precautionary in years where extreme environmental conditions are influencing stock state (Dorn and Zador 2020 ) or where environmentally influenced tipping points exist (Möllmann et al. 2021 ), how to transparently handle regime shifts in productivity (Wayte 2013 ), how to deal with growing numbers of non-recovering stocks (Britten et al. 2017 ; Knuckey et al. 2018 ) and how to adjust reference points (Travers-Trolet et al. 2020 ). While some regions have sufficient data to undertake climate versus fisheries attribution exercises (Litzow et al 2021 ), this is not typical of many locations. Moreover, institutional inertia or past management decisions (such as the allocation of individual quota rights) can make agile switches in management approaches difficult, if not infeasible. Bryndum-Buchholz et al. ( 2021 ) review of fisheries management legislation and policy in 11 countries found that while most countries considered climate change in the decision-making process, no country had at that point incorporated climate change into stock assessments or mentioned it in policy/legislation.

While fisheries management policies, legislation, and approaches do not generally consider climate change as of yet, they can be modified or enhanced to be adaptive to climate change (Bryndum-Buchholz et al. 2021 ; Link et al. 2021 ). Ecosystem-based fisheries management, for example, can incorporate impacts associated with climate change through ecological risk assessments, ecosystem indicators (Link 2010 ; Hobday et al. 2011 ; Tam et al. 2017 ) and improved forecasting methods (Årthunet al. 2018 ). Stock assessment methods will require modification to account for and incorporate climate change (Plagányi et al. 2011 ; Punt et al. 2021 ) and governance systems should consider potential distributional shifts in fish stocks (Bryndum-Buchholz et al. 2021 ; Link et al. 2021 ). The governance and management parts of the entire fisheries system also need to and can insert this climate-related information (Link et al. 2021 ).

It is also not simply a matter of stock-based effects on fisheries, physical changes—such as lost infrastructure and reduced safety at sea (Sainsbury et al. 2018 )—can result from climate change and are only just beginning to be addressed more openly in fisheries planning (e.g., vessel design, new port construction etc.). Similar issues will arise around changed waterflow and environmental profiles for inland fisheries—e.g., extreme flooding can wash away any fixed infrastructure (Hoa et al. 2008 ) or directly affect fish stocks (Rytwinski et al. 2020 ).

One factor not widely considered is how climate change may impact nutrient supplies to freshwater, coastal, and marine systems. If extreme weather events become more common leading to increased runoff, then nutrients may be exported from land to rivers, estuaries and the sea thereby increasing nutrients in food webs (Hicks et al. 2019 ). For example, two critical micronutrients, zinc and calcium, are exported from soils during heavy rainfall in tropical areas. Food and nutrient policies will need to consider how climate change may alter nutrients, along with fisheries yield, as fisheries clearly have a role to play in providing the recommended dietary allowances for coastal populations, particularly in countries where nutrient intakes are inadequate (Golden et al. 2016 ; Hicks et al. 2019 ).

Increasing political awareness for healthy waters is a start. Nature-based solutions are being incorporated into climate change programs to protect and/or restore ecosystems mostly in coastal systems (Cohen-Shacham et al. 2016 ). Fisheries emit atmospheric CO 2 through landings, processing, and consumption (Mariani et al. 2020 ). Government subsidies also contribute to CO 2 production (among other issues; Sumaila et al. 2021 ) by allowing fisheries vessels to fish on the high seas. While a transition to renewable energy may occur in coming years and decades, it will take a considerable time to transition the global fleet. Moreover, it is important to consider the carbon stocks within fish themselves and the contributions they make to global cycles. Mariani et al. ( 2020 ) have recently investigated the ability of fish to sequester carbon after natural death demonstrating that fisheries have released 0.73 billion metric tons of CO 2 since the 1950s (albeit a rather small number relative to other sinks and sources). Removing fishing from unprofitable areas would lower CO 2 emissions as less fuel would be required. Rebuilding and maintaining productivity of fish stocks would increase biomass through increased numbers of fish including fish of larger size leading to increased carbon sequestration in both the short and long term (Mariani et al. 2020 ).

Climate mitigation and adaptation would therefore be expected through elimination of overfishing and setting up of protected areas. The latter has long been promoted as part of a global effort to address biodiversity loss, in addition to help deal with climate change. While many aspects of marine protected areas are much debated (such as in terms of size, location, effectiveness), and there is no doubt the form will need to be modified to allow for changing species distributions and ecosystem structures, there is a general consensus that communities will also need to be part of such a response, as protected areas have a higher rate of success when they are supported, and better yet initiated, by communities. Climate change and our response to it will in many ways define the future of fisheries and the communities that depend upon fish and healthy aquatic systems.

Embracing transdisciplinarity

Fisheries are tightly coupled social-ecological systems (Ommer et al. 2012 ) with complex interactions among ecosystems, human communities, and target species. The challenges facing fisheries thus span several academic disciplines, research topics, and sectors, and finding viable solutions requires integration across diverse disciplines and knowledge systems, and incorporation of perspectives from all interested user groups (i.e., rights holders, stakeholders, practitioners, managers, and decision-makers) (Turgeon et al. 2018 ; Chuenpagdee and Jentoft 2019 ; Moewaka Barnes et al. 2021 ). As progress has been made toward centering the human dimensions in fisheries research, multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary methodologies have also evolved (see McKinley et al. 2022 ). Although these approaches all have merit, transdisciplinary frameworks extend beyond multi- and inter-disciplinary approaches to include and collaborate with non-academic actors, and thus require inclusive and cooperative practices that typically involve partnerships and knowledge exchange across science, policy, practitioner, stakeholder, and governance boundaries (Turgeon et al. 2018 ; Kelly et al. 2019 ; Moewaka Barnes et al. 2021 ).

Transdisciplinary approaches can enable researchers and managers to understand a broader range of complex problems facing fisheries, as well as solutions to these challenges (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2009 ). For example, understanding compliance behaviours in relation to management (Fulton 2021 ) or preparing fishing societies to adapt to climate change and other anthropogenic perturbations (Bennett et al. 2016; Bryndum-Buchholz et al. 2021 ; Syddall, et al. 2021 ) would be fruitful. Moreover, there is scope for improving communication between disparate but interconnected groups including the users of new technologies, fisheries modelers, fisheries managers (Degnbol et al. 2006 ), and/or economists, ecologists, and social scientists (Bennett 2019). Transdisciplinarity often necessitates co-production, which can inform more integrated and human-centered approaches to unite ecological concerns with management, community perspectives and preferences, as well as human behaviours.

Integrating diverse sectoral representation on a research team from beginning (i.e., question development) to end (i.e., communicating findings) can help ensure that the knowledge produced is inclusive, salient, credible, and practical (Cash et al. 2002 ). For example, co-producing policy-oriented research with community representatives increases the likelihood that communities will be willing to abide by fishery regulations (Karr et al. 2017 ). Input from fisheries managers or practitioners can help to create appropriate fisheries protections and implement climate adaptation programs (Bennett et al. 2016). Including government decision makers on the team improves knowledge transfer at the science policy interface and ensures that the knowledge produced will be useful in practice (Cvitanovic et al. 2015 ).

Transdisciplinary work is challenging and time-consuming. For example, researchers must become more open to working across diverse disciplinary ‘languages’ (Andrews et al. 2020 ) and learn to communicate with diverse partners (Evans and Cvitanovic 2018 ; Kelly et al. 2019 ). Despite widespread acceptance of transdisciplinary approaches to fisheries research and management there are still barriers in personal and institutional capacity to carry out ‘good’ transdisciplinary research (Nyboer et al. this issue). The need for support in inter- and transdisciplinary science is especially critical at early-career levels (Kelly et al. 2019 ), where limited training opportunities in transdisciplinary skills, institutional inertia, as well as competitive funding pools, and limited access to partners all constitute barriers to engaging in transdisciplinary approaches (Kelly et al. 2019 , Nyboer et al. this issue). Moreover, while expanding the capacity of individual researchers helps, engaging dedicated specialists (such as knowledge brokers) is also important because the skill sets required; doing the science, communicating well across audiences, and understanding the different cultural forms of communication can be beyond what an individual alone can achieve. Wise creation of cross-supporting teams is an effective means of gaining depth and breadth (Kelly et al. 2019 ). Efforts to achieve transdisciplinarity have the potential to transform how we understand and manage fisheries for the benefit of all, now and into the future.

Respecting Indigenous knowledge systems

For millennia, Indigenous peoples used and managed aquatic resources around the globe in a sustainable manner (e.g., Gadgil et al. 1993 ; Atlas et al. 2021 ). Underpinning these efforts were deep relationships between people, place, water, and animal life and a recognition of their interconnectedness (Reid et al. 2021 ). Over the past few centuries Indigenous Peoples and rights holders have been marginalized or even been subjected to genocide. The great wisdom and knowledge that was developed through spending time on the land and water and shared (i.e., passed along) by elders and other knowledge holders through teachings, stories, art, and cultural practices (e.g., ceremony, spirituality) was co-opted, ignored or destroyed by colonial governments (e.g., to enable exploitation). Only in the last decade or so has attention been paid to the immense value of Indigenous knowledge systems and recognition that such knowledge can be used in tandem with western knowledge systems (i.e., science). This does not require abandoning western science but rather adopting a two-eyed seeing approach. Two-eyed seeing is “learning to see from one eye with the strengths of Indigenous knowledges and ways of knowing, and from the other eye with the strengths of mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing, and to use both these eyes together, for the benefit of all” (Bartlett et al. 2012 ; Reid et al. 2021 ).

Rethinking relationships with Indigenous communities and developing co-management systems that empower Indigenous communities and governments and give them sovereignty over fisheries resources are sorely needed (Wong et al. 2020 ). Moreover, there is a need to train western scientists and managers on how to respectfully engage with Indigenous communities, respect their knowledge and bridge knowledge systems given current reliance on western science (Kadykalo et al. 2021 ). There are a growing number of examples of co-production and co-assessment that involve Indigenous community members in fisheries monitoring and management which is promising (Crook et al. 2016 ; Chapman and Schott 2020 ). Recognizing some of the ongoing failures of current fisheries management systems combined with the need for reconciliation, there is opportunity and need to bridge knowledge systems (Plagányi et al. 2013 ; Fache and Pauwels 2020 ; Alexander et al. 2021 ) and empower and enable Indigenous communities to resume their role as guardians of aquatic resources (Fischer et al. 2022 ). Embracing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ( https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html ) and developing meaningful and respectful partnerships with Indigenous rights holders is not only a legal and ethical imperative, but one that will benefit aquatic resources. Time and effort must be given to develop meaningful partnerships and relationships with Indigenous knowledge holders and rights holders—and to support Indigenous groups to identify shared fisheries and aquatic ecosystem goals and to envision and achieve sustainable management systems that are just.

Thinking ahead with foresight science

Conceiving and achieving sustainable fisheries into the future demands the use of forward-looking thinking, tools, and approaches that can enable diverse stakeholders (including researchers and managers) to proactively prepare for and respond to dynamic fisheries futures (Nash et al. 2021a , b ). Such approaches are sorely needed given the already crowded inshore and inland waters and the new and expanding uses of offshore aquatic ecosystems related to energy development, shipping, tourism, offshore port facilities, cables, pipelines, mining and so on that need to be balanced with fisheries activities. Foresighting—a process of creatively identifying possible, plausible, alternative futures in the medium to long term—is one approach that is potentially useful for fisheries management and planning (e.g., Martin 1995 ; Magness et al. 2021 ; Kelly et al. 2022 ) as well as broader management of aquatic systems. Most typically, foresighting exercises combine different methods and tools (e.g., horizon scanning, scenario development, model simulations) to create scenarios or visions that describe and/or compare possible futures (Popper 2008 ).

As outlined above, transformative changes are needed to address key fisheries challenges now and into the future. Foresighting presents a means to envision multiple fisheries futures, which can be used to inform efforts and alternative pathways to sustainability (Kelly et al. 2022 ). For example, by engaging stakeholders in imagining potential alternative futures, and proactively thinking and acting in preparation for these futures (McDonald et al. 2019 ). Thus, foresighting can foster and enable innovation—that emerges through dialogue, collaboration, and interaction between different preferences, perspectives, and ways of thinking about the future. Critical to this, will be identifying and recognising a wider range of knowledge (e.g., Fischer et al. 2022 ) and extending opportunities to participate to enable diverse stakeholders to engage and contribute. Foresighting exercises that involve diverse teams of stakeholders encourage inclusivity, transparency, and the resulting legitimacy of the possible fisheries futures imagined and conceived (Amanatidou 2014 ; Tatar et al. 2020 ). It is time to embrace foresight science to envision and potentially shape fisheries futures, including reducing uncertainty and preparing for managing fisheries in a dynamic world and as part of integrated multi-sector management.

Working together across scales

The issues discussed above are relevant from the smallest scales of relevance to fisheries (e.g., the genome of individual fish) through to considerations at the levels of entire stocks, ecosystems, national fisheries, and interconnected systems that span jurisdictions either regionally (e.g., those under the auspices of a regional fisheries management organization) or even globally (in the context of climate change of global trade systems). Looking forward requires science and knowledge sharing that can connect across scales. This does not necessarily mean all fisheries science must intentionally span multiple scales. However, it does mean that fisheries scientists should expect to find collaborators or other interested parties may want to connect their science into larger knowledge networks. In addition, there will be the expectation of more transparent knowledge sharing and potentially the expectation of more rapid acquisition and dissemination of information. These linkages and expectations will require technological advancements not only to facilitate it in the first instance but also to make sure such advancements can draw on and benefit the lived experience of fisheries of all backgrounds (FAO 2019 ). Technology and the ability to rapidly aggregate and integrate complex data and information sources to inform fisheries assessment and management has the potential to make fisheries management more responsive and dynamic (Cooke et al. 2022 ). Attitudinal openness to collaborations and information sources not typically associated with formal fisheries management will also be necessary (Fulton 2021 ). Fisheries management is complex and demands assessment schemes and management strategies that extend across diverse scales.

Here, we provide a retrospective perspective on our successes and failures in fisheries from the past 30 years coinciding with the timeline since the first WFC was held (1992). We also provide a prospective perspective on what is needed to achieve and sustain vibrant fish populations and sustainable fisheries in the coming 30 years that benefit current and future generations (Fig.  1 ). The importance of the WFC in helping to shape research agendas and identify innovative management opportunities cannot be understated. Previous syntheses and proceedings have served as guideposts for our community as we work collaboratively to address challenges that connect people, places, and fish. For example, Chuenpagdee and Bundy ( 2005 , 2006 ) provided a thought-provoking synthesis of ideas emerging from the fourth WFC held in Vancouver, Canada in 2004 that highlighted the intersection of different knowledge domains.

Much has changed since the first WFC in Athens in 1992. We have certainly made progress on key issues—including bycatch, ecosystem-based management, and governance (and less so on others like the social dimensions of fisheries and equity). Yet, our human population continues to expand along with increasing inequitable consumption of resources. The continued use of unsustainable practices and a growing number of additive/synergistic effects arising from various threats make the future of fish populations and fisheries uncertain. Moreover, we sit in a period of reconciliation where we attempt to ensure that fisheries are just, equitable, and inclusive with benefits shared amongst all. It is our hope that the ideas shared here, particularly those focused on what is needed for the next 30 years, will help to empower existing fisheries professionals and inspire the next generation of fisheries professionals (see Nyboer et al. 2022 ) and, frankly, anyone associated and interested in fisheries from fishers to managers to scientists to act. At future WFC meetings, we will be able to assess progress towards the goal of sustaining vibrant fish populations and sustainable fisheries that benefit all while refining our path based on input from those with interest and expertise in fisheries science, management, and stewardship. Doing so will not only ensure a future for fish but also for those who depend on them for nutrition, livelihoods, and culture.

Acknowledgements

We thank Jessica Desforges for formatting the references and several anonymous referees for providing thoughtful comments. WS was supported by the GRCF funded project One Ocean Hub. We thank the World Fisheries Congress community for creating a space for discussing fish and fisheries. Authors from all organizations, excepting the U.S. Geological Survey, acknowledge the conference upon which this work is based was hosted in Australia in the city of Adelaide which is the traditional Country of the Kaurna people of the Adelaide Plains. And, we are all grateful to the Indigenous peoples for sharing their lands, waters and knowledges with us. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Publisher's Note

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

• About the Marine Recreational Information Program | NOAA Fisheries. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/recreational-fishing-data/about-marine-recreational-information-program . Accessed 4 Jan 2022
• Adeoti AI, Olayide OE, Coster AS. Flooding and welfare of fishers’ households in Lagos state, Nigeria. J Hum Ecol. 2010; 32 :161–167. doi: 10.1080/09709274.2010.11906335. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aggarwal RM. Strategic bundling of development policies with adaptation: an examination of Delhi’s climate change action plan. Int J Urban Reg Res. 2013; 37 :1902–1915. doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.12032. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (New York, 4 December 1995, in force 11 December 2001) 2167 UNTS 3 (UNFSA)
• Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas (Rome, 24 November 1993, in force 24 April 2003) 2221 UNTS 91 (Compliance Agreement)
• Alexander SM, Provencher JF, Henri DA, et al. Bridging Indigenous and Western sciences in freshwater research, monitoring, and management in Canada. Ecol Sol Evid. 2021; 2 :e12085. doi: 10.1002/2688-8319.12085. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan JD, Abell R, Hogan ZEB, et al. Overfishing of inland waters. Bioscience. 2005; 55 :1041–1051. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[1041:OOIW]2.0.CO;2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alonso-Población E, Siar SV (2018) Women’s participation and leadership in fisherfolk organizations and collective action in fisheries: a review of evidence on enablers, drivers and barriers. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular I–48
• Amanatidou E. Beyond the veil—The real value of Foresight. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 2014; 87 :274–291. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.12.030. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Andrews EJ, Harper S, Cashion T, et al. Supporting early career researchers: insights from interdisciplinary marine scientists. ICES J Mar Sci. 2020; 77 :476–485. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsz247. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Angelini S, Hillary R, Morello EB, et al. An ecosystem model of intermediate complexity to test management options for fisheries: a case study. Ecol Model. 2016; 319 :218–232. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.07.031. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anon (2018) Report of the 2018 Joint tuna RFMO Management Strategy Evaluation Working Group Meeting, Seattle, USA – 13–15 June 2018. https://www.tuna-org.org/Documents/tRFMO_MSE_2018_TEXT_final.pdf
• Ardron JA, Rayfuse R, Gjerde K, Warner R. The sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity in ABNJ: what can be achieved using existing international agreements? Mar Policy. 2014; 49 :98–108. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.02.011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arlinghaus R, Cooke SJ, Potts W. Towards resilient recreational fisheries on a global scale through improved understanding of fish and fisher behaviour. Fish Manage Ecol. 2013; 20 :91–98. doi: 10.1111/fme.12027. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arnold TW, Clark RG, Koons DN, Schaub M. Integrated population models facilitate ecological understanding and improved management decisions. J Wildl Manag. 2018; 82 :266–274. doi: 10.1002/jwmg.21404. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arthington AH, Dulvy NK, Gladstone W, Winfield IJ. Fish conservation in freshwater and marine realms: status, threats and management. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst. 2016; 26 :838–857. doi: 10.1002/aqc.2712. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Årthun M, Bogstad B, Daewel U, Keenlyside NS, Sandø AB, et al. Climate based multi-year predictions of the Barents Sea cod stock. PLoS ONE. 2018; 13 (10):e0206319. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206319. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Atlas WI, Ban NC, Moore JW, et al. Indigenous systems of management for culturally and ecologically resilient Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) fisheries. Bioscience. 2021; 71 :186–204. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biaa144. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barange M, Bahri T, Beveridge MCM, Cochrane KL, Funge-Smith S, Poulain F (2018) Impacts of climate change on fisheries and aquaculture: Synthesis of current knowledge, adaptation and mitigation options. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 627. FAO, Rome. 628pgs
• Barclay KM, Satapornvanit AN, Syddall VM, Williams MJ. Tuna is women's business too: applying a gender lens to four cases in the Western and Central Pacific. Fish Fish. 2022; 23 (3):584–600. doi: 10.1111/faf.12634. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnett LA, Jacobsen NS, Thorson JT, Cope JM. Realizing the potential of trait-based approaches to advance fisheries science. Fish Fish. 2019; 20 :1034–1050. doi: 10.1111/faf.12395. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bartlett C, Marshall M, Marshall A. Two-eyed seeing and other lessons learned within a co-learning journey of bringing together Indigenous and mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing. J Environ Stud Sci. 2012; 2 (4):331–340. doi: 10.1007/s13412-012-0086-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bavinck M, Chuenpagdee R, Diallo M, van der Heijden P, Kooiman J, Mahon R, Delft WS. Interactive Fisheries governance: a guide to better practice. Oxford: Eburon Academic Publishers; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bavinck M, Jentoft S, Scholtens J. Fisheries as social struggle: a reinvigorated social science research agenda. Mar Policy. 2018; 94 :46–52. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.04.026. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bavington D, Grzetic B, Neis B. The feminist political ecology of fishing down: reflections from Newfoundland and Labrador. Stud Polit Econ. 2004; 73 (1):159–182. doi: 10.1080/19187033.2004.11675156. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bednarek AT. Undamming rivers: a review of the ecological impacts of dam removal. Environ Manage. 2001; 27 :803–814. doi: 10.1007/s002670010189. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bennett NJ, Roth R, Klain SC, Chan KM, Clark DA, Cullman G, Epstein G, Nelson MP, Stedman R, Teel TL, Thomas REW, Wyborn C, Curran D, Greenberg A, Sandlos J, Veríssimo D. Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation. Conserv Biol. 2001; 31 (1):56–66. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12788. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bjørndal T, Munro G. The economics and management of world fisheries. Oxford: OUP Oxford; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bonney R, Byrd J, Carmichael JT, et al. Sea change: using citizen science to inform fisheries management. Bioscience. 2021; 71 :519–530. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biab016. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bostock J, McAndrew B, Richards R, et al. Aquaculture: global status and trends. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2010; 365 :2897–2912. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0170. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyce DG, Lotze HK, Tittensor DP, et al. Future ocean biomass losses may widen socioeconomic equity gaps. Nat Commun. 2020; 11 :1–11. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-15708-9. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyle AE, Freestone D. International law and sustainable development: past achievements and future challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boys CA, Rayner TS, Baumgartner LJ, Doyle KE. Native fish losses due to water extraction in Australian rivers: evidence, impacts and a solution in modern fish-and farm-friendly screens. Ecol Manag Restor. 2021; 22 :134–144. doi: 10.1111/emr.12483. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bravington MV, Grewe PM, Davies CR. Absolute abundance of southern bluefin tuna estimated by close-kin mark-recapture. Nat Commun. 2016; 7 :13162. doi: 10.1038/ncomms13162. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Briton F, Macher C, Merzeréaud M, et al. Providing integrated total catch advice for the management of mixed fisheries with an eco-viability approach. Environ Model Assess. 2020; 25 :307–325. doi: 10.1007/s10666-019-09685-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Britten GL, Dowd M, Kanary L, Worm B. Extended fisheries recovery timelines in a changing environment. Nat Commun. 2017; 8 (1):1–7. doi: 10.1038/ncomms15325. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bryndum-Buchholz A, Tittensor DP, Lotze HK. The status of climate change adaptation in fisheries management: policy, legislation and implementation. Fish Fish. 2021; 22 :1248–1273. doi: 10.1111/faf.12586. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Busch DS, Griffis R, Link J, et al. Climate science strategy of the US national marine fisheries service. Mar Policy. 2016; 74 :58–67. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2016.09.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Butterworth DS. Why a management procedure approach? Some positives and negatives. ICES J Mar Sci. 2007; 64 :613–617. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsm003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cantlzer JM (2022) Environmental Justice as Decolonization, Political Contention, Innovation and Resistance over Indigenous Fishing Rights in Australia, New Zealand, and the United States (Routledge)
• Carruthers TR, Hordyk AR. The data-limited methods toolkit (DLM tool): an R package for informing management of data-limited populations. Methods Ecol Evol. 2018; 9 :2388–2395. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.13081. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cash D, Clark WC, Alcock F, et al. Salience, credibility, legitimacy and boundaries: linking research, assessment and decision making. Assess Decis M. 2002 doi: 10.2139/ssrn.372280. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chapman JM, Schott S. Knowledge coevolution: generating new understanding through bridging and strengthening distinct knowledge systems and empowering local knowledge holders. Sustain Sci. 2020; 15 :931–943. doi: 10.1007/s11625-020-00781-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Charles A, Garcia SM, Rice J. Governance of marine fisheries and biodiversity conservation: interaction and coevolution. Heidelberg: Wiley; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheung WW, Watson R, Pauly D. Signature of ocean warming in global fisheries catch. Nature. 2013; 497 :365–368. doi: 10.1038/nature12156. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheung WW, Frölicher TL, Asch RG, et al. Building confidence in projections of the responses of living marine resources to climate change. ICES J Mar Sci. 2016; 73 :1283–1296. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsv250. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheung WW, Jones MC, Reygondeau G, et al. Structural uncertainty in projecting global fisheries catches under climate change. Ecol Model. 2016; 325 :57–66. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.12.018. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chuenpagdee R, Bundy A (2005) Innovation and outlook in fisheries: an assessment of research presented at the 4th World Fisheries Congress. Fisheries Centre research reports, Vol. 13, no. 2, UBC, Vancouver, BC
• Chuenpagdee R, Bundy A. What was hot at the fourth World Fisheries Congress? Fish Fish. 2006; 7 :147–150. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2006.00211.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chuenpagdee R, Jentoft S. Poverty mosaics: realities and prospects in small-scale fisheries. Netherlands: Springer; 2011. Situating poverty: a chain analysis of small-scale fisheries; pp. 27–42. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chuenpagdee R, Jentoft S. Transforming the governance of small-scale fisheries. Maritime Stud. 2018; 17 :101–115. doi: 10.1007/s40152-018-0087-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chuenpagdee R, Jentoft S. Transdisciplinarity for small-scale fisheries governance. Cham: Springer; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (Rome, Resolution 4/95 FAO Conference, 31 October 1995)
• Cohen PJ, Allison EH, Andrew NL, et al. Securing a just space for small-scale fisheries in the blue economy. Front Mar Sci. 2019; 6 :171. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2019.00171. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen-Shacham E, Walters G, Janzen C, Maginnis S. Nature-based solutions to address global societal challenges. Gland: IUCN; 2016. p. 97. [ Google Scholar ]
• Colburn LL, Jepson M, Weng C, Seara T, Weiss J, Hare JA. Indicators of climate change and social vulnerability in fishing dependent communities along the Eastern and Gulf Coasts of the United States. Mar Policy. 2016; 74 :323–333. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2016.04.030. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Condie SA, Condie CM. Stochastic events can explain sustained clustering and polarisation of opinions in social networks. Sci Rep. 2021; 11 :1355–1355. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-80353-7. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Convention concerning Work in the Fisheries Sector (ILO Convention 188) (Geneva, 14 June 2007, in force 16 November 2017) 54755 UNTS 1
• Cooke SJ, Allison EH, Beard TD, et al. On the sustainability of inland fisheries: finding a future for the forgotten. Ambio. 2016; 45 :753–764. doi: 10.1007/s13280-016-0787-4. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooke SJ, Wesch S, Donaldson LA, et al. A call for evidence-based conservation and management of fisheries and aquatic resources. Fisheries. 2017; 42 :143–149. doi: 10.1080/03632415.2017.1276343. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooke SJ, Twardek WM, Lennox RJ, et al. The nexus of fun and nutrition: recreational fishing is also about food. Fish and Fish (oxford, England) 2018; 19 :201–224. doi: 10.1111/faf.12246. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooke SJ, Nyboer E, Bennett A, et al. The ten steps to responsible Inland fisheries in practice: reflections from diverse regional case studies around the globe. Rev Fish Biol Fish. 2021; 31 :843–877. doi: 10.1007/s11160-021-09664-w. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooke SJ, Docker MF, Mandrak NE, Young N, Heath DD, Jeffries KM, Howarth A, Brownscombe JW, Livernois J, Semeniuk CAD, et al. Technoscience and the modernization of freshwater fisheries assessment and management. Environ Technol Innov. 2022; 00 :000–000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cottrell RS, Nash KL, Halpern BS, Remenyi TA, Corney SP, Fleming A, et al. Food production shocks across land and sea. Nat Sustain. 2019; 2 (2):130–137. doi: 10.1038/s41893-018-0210-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coulthard S, Johnson D, McGregor JA. Poverty, sustainability and human wellbeing: a social wellbeing approach to the global fisheries crisis. Glob Environ Chang. 2011; 21 :453–463. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crenshaw K. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. Univ Chic Leg Forum. 1989; 1989 :139–167. [ Google Scholar ]
• Crona B, Wassénius E, Lillepold K, et al. Sharing the seas: a review and analysis of ocean sector interactions. Environ Res Lett. 2021; 16 :63005. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac02ed. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crook DA, Douglas MM, King AJ, Schnierer S. Towards deeper collaboration: stories of Indigenous interests, aspirations, partnerships and leadership in aquatic research and management. Rev Fish Biol Fish. 2016; 26 :611–615. doi: 10.1007/s11160-016-9449-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crook DA, Adair BJ, Grubert MA, et al. Muddy waters: an assessment of the suitability of zygocardiac ossicles for direct age estimation in the Giant mud crab Scylla serrata. Limnol Oceanogr Methods. 2018; 16 :895–905. doi: 10.1002/lom3.10291. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cvitanovic C, Hobday AJ, van Kerkhoff L, et al. Improving knowledge exchange among scientists and decision-makers to facilitate the adaptive governance of marine resources: a review of knowledge and research needs. Ocean Coast Manag. 2015; 112 :25–35. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.05.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Silva DAM, Yamao M. Effects of the tsunami on fisheries and coastal livelihood: a case study of tsunami-ravaged southern Sri Lanka. Disasters. 2007; 31 :386–404. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7717.2007.01015.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Young C, Charles A, Hjort A (2018) Human dimensions of the ecosystem approach to fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 489. Rome, FAO. 2008. 152p
• Declaration R (2001) Reykjavik Declaration on responsible fisheries in the marine ecosystem. In: Conference on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem, Reykjavik, Iceland
• Degnbol P, Gislason H, Hanna S, et al. Painting the floor with a hammer: technical fixes in fisheries management. Mar Policy. 2006; 30 :534–543. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2005.07.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dias ACE, Cinti A, Parma AM, Seixas CS. Participatory monitoring of small-scale coastal fisheries in South America: use of fishers’ knowledge and factors affecting participation. Rev Fish Biol Fish. 2020; 30 :313–333. doi: 10.1007/s11160-020-09602-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dignazio C, Klein LF. Data feminism. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Diniz dos Santos A, Strada F, Bottino A. Approaching sustainability learning via digital serious games. IEEE Trans Learn Technol. 2019; 12 :303–320. doi: 10.1109/TLT.2018.2858770. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ditton RB (1996) Human dimensions in fisheries. In: Natural Resource Management. Routledge, pp 73–90
• Dorn MW, Zador SG. A risk table to address concerns external to stock assessments when developing fisheries harvest recommendations. Ecosyst Health Sustain. 2020; 6 :1813634. doi: 10.1080/20964129.2020.1813634. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Doumbouya A, Camara OT, Mamie J, et al. Assessing the effectiveness of monitoring control and surveillance of illegal fishing: the case of West Africa. Front Mar Sci. 2017; 4 :50. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2017.00050. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dowling N, Wilson J, Rudd M, et al (2016) FishPath: A Decision Support System for Assessing and Managing Data- and Capacity- Limited Fisheries. In Assessing and Managing Data-Limited Fish Stocks, edited by TJ Quinn, JL Armstrong, MR Baker, J Heifetz, and D Witherell. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska Sea Grant
• Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO, et al. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2006; 81 :163–182. doi: 10.1017/S1464793105006950. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Environment and Gender Index (2015) Gender Focal Points and Policies in National Environmental Ministries. IUCN, UN Women, genderandenvironment.org/egi
• Evans MC, Cvitanovic C. An introduction to achieving policy impact for early career researchers. Palgrave Commun. 2018; 4 (1):1–12. doi: 10.1057/s41599-018-0144-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fache E, Pauwels S. Tackling coastal “overfishing” in Fiji: advocating for indigenous worldview, knowledge, and values to be the backbone of fisheries management strategies. Maritime Stud. 2020; 19 :41–52. doi: 10.1007/s40152-020-00162-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• FAO . Voluntary guidelines for securing sustainable small-scale fisheries in the context of food security and poverty eradication. Rome: FAO; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• FAO A diagnostic tool for implementing an ecosystem approach to fisheries through policy and legal frameworks. Rome. 2021 doi: 10.4060/cb2945en. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• FAO (2003) Fisheries Management. 2. The ecosystem approach to fisheries. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries 4 (suppl. 2). FAO, Rome
• FAO (2009) The human dimensions of the ecosystem approach to fisheries. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries 4 (suppl. 2, add. 2). FAO, Rome
• FAO (2016) A How-to Guide on legislating for an ecosystem approach to fisheries. FAO EAF‐Nansen Project Report No 27. Rome
• FAO (2019) Westlund, L. and Zelasney, J. eds. Securing sustainable small-scale fisheries: sharing good practices from around the world. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 644. Rome. 184 pp. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO
• FAO (2020) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020: Sustainability in action. Rome. (also available at http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca9229en )
• FAO (2022) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022. Towards Blue Transformation. Rome, FAO. 10.4060/cc0461en
• Farley SS, Dawson A, Goring SJ, Williams JW. Situating ecology as a big-data science: current advances, challenges, and solutions. Bioscience. 2018; 68 :563–576. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biy068. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Farmery AK, Alexander K, Anderson K, et al. Food for all: designing sustainable and secure future seafood systems. Rev Fish Biol Fish. 2022; 32 (1):101–121. doi: 10.1007/s11160-021-09663-x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferguson CE. A rising tide does not lift all boats: intersectional analysis reveals inequitable impacts of the seafood trade in fishing communities. Front Mar Sci. 2021; 8 :246. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.625389. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferguson CE. A rising tide does not lift all boats: intersectional analysis reveals inequitable impacts of the seafood trade in fishing communities. Front Mar Sci. 2021 doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.625389/full. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Finkbeiner EM, Fitzpatrick J, Yadao-Evans W. A call for protection of women’s rights and economic, social, cultural (ESC) rights in seafood value chains. Mar Policy. 2021; 128 :104482. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104482. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fischer M, Maxwell K, Pedersen H, Greeno D, Jingwas N, Graham Blair J, Mustonen K. Empowering her guardians to nurture our Ocean’s future. Rev Fish Biol Fish. 2022; 32 (1):271–296. doi: 10.1007/s11160-021-09679-3. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fox HE, Christian C, Nordby JC, et al. Perceived barriers to integrating social science and conservation. Conserv Biol. 2006; 20 :1817–1820. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00598.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frangoundes K, Gerrard S. (En)Gendering change in small-scale fisheries and fishing communities in a globalized world. Maritime Stud. 2018; 17 :117–124. doi: 10.1007/s40152-018-0113-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Free CM, Thorson JT, Pinsky ML, et al. Impacts of historical warming on marine fisheries production. Science. 2019; 363 :979–983. doi: 10.1126/science.aau1758. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fulton EA. Approaches to end-to-end ecosystem models. J Mar Syst. 2010; 81 :171–183. doi: 10.1016/j.jmarsys.2009.12.012. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fulton EA. Opportunities to improve ecosystem-based fisheries management by recognizing and overcoming path dependency and cognitive bias. Fish Fish. 2021; 22 :428–448. doi: 10.1111/faf.12537. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fulton S, López-Sagástegui C, Weaver AH, et al. Untapped potential of citizen science in Mexican small-scale fisheries. Front Mar Sci. 2019; 6 :517. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2019.00517. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Funge-Smith S, Bennett A. A fresh look at inland fisheries and their role in food security and livelihoods. Fish Fish. 2019; 20 :1176–1195. doi: 10.1111/faf.12403. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gadgil M, Berkes F, Folke C. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio. 1993; 22 :151–156. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gallic BL, Cox A. An economic analysis of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing: key drivers and possible solutions. Mar Policy. 2006; 30 :689–695. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2005.09.008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gatto M. Bioeconomic modelling and fisheries management: Colin W. Clark. Wiley, Chichester, Great Britain, 1985 291 pp ISBN 0–471–87394–2. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilbey J, Carvalho G, Castilho R, et al. Life in a drop: Sampling environmental DNA for marine fishery management and ecosystem monitoring. Mar Policy. 2021; 124 :104331. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104331. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillanders BM, McMillan MN, Reis-Santos P, Baumgartner LJ, Brown LR, Conallin J, Feyrer FV, Henriques S, James NC, Jaureguizar AJ, Pessanha ALM, Vasconcelos RP, Vu AV, Walther B, Wibowo A. Climate change and fishes in estuaries. In: Whitfield A, Able K, Blaber S, Elliott M, editors. Fish and Fisheries in Estuaries A Global Perspective. Heidelberg: Wiley; 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillespie J, Perry N. Feminist political ecology and legal geography: a case study of the Tonle Sap protected wetlands of Cambodia. Environ Plann A Econ Space. 2019; 51 (5):1089–1105. doi: 10.1177/0308518X18809094. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Golden CD, Allison EH, Cheung WWL, et al. Nutrition: fall in fish catch threatens human health. Nature (london) 2016; 534 :317–320. doi: 10.1038/534317a. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Golden CD, Koehn JZ, Shepon A, et al. Aquatic foods to nourish nations. Nature. 2021; 598 :315–320. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03917-1. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gopal N, Hapke HM, Kusakabe K, et al. Expanding the horizons for women in fisheries and aquaculture. Gend Technol Dev. 2020; 24 :1–9. doi: 10.1080/09718524.2020.1736353. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Graham A, D’Andrea A (2021) Gender and human rights in coastal fisheries and aquaculture. A comparative analysis of legislation in Fiji, Kiribati, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga and Vanuatu. Noumea, New Caledonia: Pacific Community. 108 p
• Grose MR, Narsey S, Delage F, et al. Insights from CMIP6 for Australia’s future climate. Earth’s Future. 2020; 8 :e2019EF001469. doi: 10.1029/2019EF001469. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gundelund C, Venturelli P, Hartill BW, et al. Evaluation of a citizen science platform for collecting fisheries data from coastal sea trout anglers. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2021; 78 :1576–1585. doi: 10.1139/cjfas-2020-0364. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hall-Arber M, Pomeroy C, Conway F. Figuring out the human dimensions of fisheries: illuminating models. Mar Coast Fish Dyn Manag Ecosyst Sci. 2009; 1 (1):300–314. doi: 10.1577/C09-006.1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hansen MC, Potapov PV, Moore R, et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science. 2013; 342 :850–853. doi: 10.1126/science.1244693. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harford WJ, Amoroso R, Bell RJ, Caillaux M, Cope JM, Dougherty D, et al. Multi-indicator harvest strategies for data-limited fisheries: a practitioner guide to learning and design. Front Mar Sci. 2021 doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.757877. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harrison I, Abell R, Darwall W, Thieme ML, Tickner D, Timboe I. The freshwater biodiversity crisis. Science. 2018; 362 (6421):1369–1369. doi: 10.1126/science.aav9242. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harvey CJ, Fluharty DL, Fogarty MJ, et al. The origin of NOAA’s Integrated ecosystem assessment program: a retrospective and prospective. Coast Manag. 2021; 49 :9–25. doi: 10.1080/08920753.2021.1846110. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Havel JE, Kovalenko KE, Thomaz SM, et al. Aquatic invasive species: challenges for the future. Hydrobiologia. 2015; 750 :147–170. doi: 10.1007/s10750-014-2166-0. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hazen EL, Scales KL, Maxwell SM, Briscoe DK, Welch H, Bograd SJ, Lewison RL. A dynamic ocean management tool to reduce bycatch and support sustainable fisheries. Sci Adv. 2018; 4 (5):eaar3001. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aar3001. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hermoso V, Abell R, Linke S, Boon P. The role of protected areas for freshwater biodiversity conservation: challenges and opportunities in a rapidly changing world. Aquat Conserv. 2016; 26 :3–11. doi: 10.1002/aqc.2681. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hicks CC, Cohen PJ, Graham NAJ, et al. Harnessing global fisheries to tackle micronutrient deficiencies. Nature. 2019; 574 :95–98. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1592-6. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hilborn R. Managing fisheries is managing people: what has been learned? Fish Fish. 2007; 8 :285–296. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2007.00263_2.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hilborn R, Amoroso RO, Anderson CM, et al. Effective fisheries management instrumental in improving fish stock status. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2020; 117 :2218–2224. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1909726116. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoa LTV, Shigeko H, Nhan NH, Cong TT. Infrastructure effects on floods in the Mekong River Delta in Vietnam. Hydrol Process Int J. 2008; 22 (9):1359–1372. doi: 10.1002/hyp.6945. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hobday AJ, Pecl GT. Identification of global marine hotspots: sentinels for change and vanguards for adaptation action. Rev Fish Biol Fish. 2014; 24 (2):415–425. doi: 10.1007/s11160-013-9326-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hobday AJ, Smith ADM, Stobutzki IC, et al. Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing. Fish Res. 2011; 108 :372–384. doi: 10.1016/j.fishres.2011.01.013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoeinghaus DJ, Agostinho AA, Gomes LC, et al. Effects of River impoundment on ecosystem services of large tropical rivers: embodied energy and market value of artisanal fisheries. Conserv Biol. 2009; 23 :1222–1231. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01248.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holsman KK, Haynie AC, Hollowed AB, et al. Ecosystem-based fisheries management forestalls climate-driven collapse. Nat Commun. 2020; 11 :1–10. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-18300-3. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Howell D, Schueller AM, Bentley JW, et al. Combining ecosystem and single-species modeling to provide ecosystem-based fisheries management advice within current management systems. Front Mar Sci. 2021; 7 :1163. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.607831. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jentoft S, Chuenpagdee R. Fisheries and coastal governance as a wicked problem. Mar Policy. 2009; 33 :553–560. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2008.12.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jentoft S, Stacey N, Sunde J, González M. The small-scale fisheries of indigenous peoples: a struggle for secure tenure rights. In: Chuenpagdee R, Jentoft S, editors. Transdisciplinarity for small-scale fisheries governance: analysis and practice. Cham: Springer; 2019. pp. 263–282. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jeunen G-J, Knapp M, Spencer HG, et al. Species-level biodiversity assessment using marine environmental DNA metabarcoding requires protocol optimization and standardization. Ecol Evol. 2019; 9 :1323–1335. doi: 10.1002/ece3.4843. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kadykalo AN, Cooke SJ, Young N. The role of western-based scientific, Indigenous and local knowledge in wildlife management and conservation. People Nat. 2021; 3 :610–626. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10194. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaplan IC, Gaichas SK, Stawitz CC, et al. Management strategy evaluation: allowing the Light on the Hill to Illuminate More Than One Species. Front Mar Sci. 2021 doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.624355. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karr KA, Fujita R, Carcamo R, et al. Integrating science-based co-management, partnerships, participatory processes and stewardship incentives to improve the performance of small-scale fisheries. Front Mar Sci. 2017; 4 :345. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2017.00345. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelly R, Mackay M, Nash KL, et al. Ten tips for developing interdisciplinary socio-ecological researchers. Socio-Ecol Pract Res. 2019; 1 :149–161. doi: 10.1007/s42532-019-00018-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelly R, Foley P, Stephenson RL, Hobday AJ, Pecl GT, Boschetti F, et al. Foresighting future oceans: considerations and opportunities. Mar Policy. 2022; 140 :105021. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105021. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Knuckey I, Boag S, Day G, Hobday A, Jennings S, Little R, Mobsby D, Ogier E, Nicol S, Stephenson R (2018) Understanding factors influencing under-caught TACs, declining catch rates and failure to recover for many quota species in the SESSF. FRDC Project No 2016/146. Fishwell Consulting, [CC BY 3.0] 164pp
• Koehn JZ, Allison EH, Villeda K, et al. Fishing for health: do the world’s national policies for fisheries and aquaculture align with those for nutrition? Fish Fish. 2022; 23 :125–142. doi: 10.1111/faf.12603. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Komoroske LM, Lewison RL. Addressing fisheries bycatch in a changing world. Front Mar Sci. 2015 doi: 10.3389/fmars.2015.00083. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koning AA, Perales KM, Fluet-Chouinard E, McIntyre PB. A network of grassroots reserves protects tropical river fish diversity. Nature. 2020; 588 :631–635. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2944-y. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kooiman J, Bavinck M. The Governance perspective. Fish Life Interact Govern Fish. 2005; 3 :11. doi: 10.1017/9789048505326.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kurekin A, Loveday B, Clements O, et al. Operational monitoring of illegal fishing in Ghana through exploitation of satellite earth observation and AIS Data. Remote Sens. 2019; 11 :293. doi: 10.3390/rs11030293. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Larkin PA. Concepts and issues in marine ecosystem management. Rev Fish Biol Fish. 1996 doi: 10.1007/BF00182341. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lauchlan SS, Nagelkerken I. Species range shifts along multi-stressor mosaics in estuarine environments under future climate. Fish Fish. 2020; 21 :32–46. doi: 10.1111/faf.12412. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lawless S, Cohen PJ, Mangubhai S, Kleiber D, Morrison TH. Gender equality is diluted in commitments made to small-scale fisheries. World Dev. 2021; 140 :105348. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105348. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lennox RJ, Crook DA, Moyle PB, et al. Toward a better understanding of freshwater fish responses to an increasingly drought-stricken world. Rev Fish Biol Fish. 2019; 29 :71–92. doi: 10.1007/s11160-018-09545-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lester SE, Ruff EO, Mayall K, McHenry J. Exploring stakeholder perceptions of marine management in Bermuda. Mar Policy. 2017; 84 :235–243. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.08.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liguori L, Freire KM, Lambert D, Poo A. How are we performing in the social aspects of fisheries science. Innov Outlook Fish Fish Centre Res Rep. 2005; 13 :35–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Link J. Ecosystem-based fisheries management: confronting tradeoffs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Link JS. Evidence of ecosystem overfishing in US large marine ecosystems. ICES J Mar Sci. 2021; 78 :3176–3201. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsab185. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Link JS, Dickey-Collas M, Rudd M, et al. Clarifying mandates for marine ecosystem-based management. ICES J Mar Sci. 2018; 76 :41–44. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsy169. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Link J, Karp M, Lynch P, et al. Proposed business rules to incorporate climate-induced changes in fisheries management. ICES J Mar Sci. 2021; 78 :3562–3580. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsab219. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Litzow MA, Malick MJ, Abookire AA, Duffy-Anderson J, Laurel BJ, Ressler PH, Rogers LA. Using a climate attribution statistic to inform judgments about changing fisheries sustainability. Sci Rep. 2021; 11 (1):1–12. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-03405-6. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Long RD, Charles A, Stephenson RL. Key principles of marine ecosystem-based management. Mar Policy. 2015; 57 :53–60. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2015.01.013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lynch AJ, Cowx IG, Fluet-Chouinard E, et al. Inland fisheries–Invisible but integral to the UN Sustainable Development Agenda for ending poverty by 2030. Glob Environ Chang. 2017; 47 :167–173. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.10.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lynch AJ, Baumgartner LJ, Boys CA, et al. Speaking the same language: can the sustainable development goals translate the needs of inland fisheries into irrigation decisions? Mar Freshw Res. 2019; 70 :1211–1228. doi: 10.1071/MF19176. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lynch AJ, Bartley DM, Beard TD, Jr, et al. Examining progress towards achieving the ten steps of the rome declaration on responsible inland fisheries. Fish Fish. 2020; 21 :190–203. doi: 10.1111/faf.12410. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mace PM. A new role for MSY in single-species and ecosystem approaches to fisheries stock assessment and management. Fish Fish. 2001; 2 :2–32. doi: 10.1046/j.1467-2979.2001.00033.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Magilligan FJ, Graber BE, Nislow KH, et al (2016) River restoration by dam removal: Enhancing connectivity at watershed scalesRiver restoration by dam removal. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 4
• Magness DR, Hoang L, Belote RT, et al. Management foundations for navigating ecological transformation by resisting, accepting, or directing social-ecological change. Bioscience. 2021 doi: 10.1093/biosci/biab083. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mariani G, Cheung WW, Lyet A, et al. Let more big fish sink: Fisheries prevent blue carbon sequestration—half in unprofitable areas. Science Advances. 2020; 6 :eabb4848. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abb4848. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin BR. Foresight in science and technology. Technol Anal Strateg Manag. 1995; 7 :139–168. doi: 10.1080/09537329508524202. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maxwell SM, Hazen EL, Lewison RL, et al. Dynamic ocean management: defining and conceptualizing real-time management of the ocean. Mar Policy. 2015; 58 :42–50. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2015.03.014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McDonald KS, Hobday AJ, Thompson PA, et al. Proactive, reactive, and inactive pathways for scientists in a changing world. Earth’s Future. 2019; 7 :60–73. doi: 10.1029/2018EF000990. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McGoodwin J. Fish for Life: interactive governance for fisheries. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• McKinley E, Kelly R, Mackay M, Shellock R, Cvitanovic C, van Putten I. Development and expansion in the marine social sciences: Insights from the global community. Iscience. 2022; 25 (8):104735. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2022.104735. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moewaka Barnes H, Harmsworth G, Tipa G, Henwood W, McCreanor T. Indigenous-led environmental research in Aotearoa New Zealand beyond a transdisciplinary model for best practice empowerment and action. AlterNative Int J Indigen Peoples. 2021; 17 (2):306–316. doi: 10.1177/11771801211019397. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Möllmann C, Cormon X, Funk S, Otto SA, Schmidt JO, Schwermer H, et al. Tipping point realized in cod fishery. Sci Rep. 2021; 11 (1):1–12. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-93843-z. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morgera E, Nakamura J. Shedding a light on the human rights of small-scale fishers: complementarities and contrasts between the UNDROP and the small-scale fisheries guidelines. In: Alabrese M, editor. The United Nations' Declaration on Peasants' Rights. Oxford: Routledge; 2022. pp. 62–88. [ Google Scholar ]
• Murphy EL, Bernard M, Gerber LR, Dooley KJ. Evaluating the role of market-based instruments in protecting marine ecosystem services in wild-caught fisheries. Ecosyst Serv. 2021; 51 :101356. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101356. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nakamura J. Legal reflections on the small-scale fisheries guidelines: building a Global Safety Net for Small-Scale Fisheries. IJMCL. 2022; 37 :31–72. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nakamura J, Chuenpagdee R, El Halimi M. Unpacking legal and policy frameworks: a step ahead for implementing the Small-Scale Fisheries Guidelines. Mar Policy. 2021; 129 :104568. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104568. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nash KL, Alexander K, Melbourne-Thomas J, et al. Developing achievable alternate futures for key challenges during the UN decade of ocean science for sustainable development. Rev Fish Biol Fish. 2021; 00 :000–000. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nash KL, Van Putten I, Alexander KA, et al. Oceans and society: feedbacks between ocean and human health. Rev Fish Biol Fish. 2021; 00 :000–000. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Naylor RL, Hardy RW, Bureau DP, et al. Feeding aquaculture in an era of finite resources. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2009; 106 :15103–15110. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0905235106. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Naylor RL, Kishore A, Sumaila UR, et al. Blue food demand across geographic and temporal scales. Nat Commun. 2021; 12 :1–14. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Newman SJ, Brown JI, Fairclough DV, et al. A risk assessment and prioritisation approach to the selection of indicator species for the assessment of multi-species, multi-gear, multi-sector fishery resources. Mar Policy. 2018; 88 :11–22. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.10.028. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nielsen LA, Wespestad VG (1993) Organization and implementation of the World Fisheries Congress. In: Proceedings of the World Fisheries Congress. Oxford and IBH Press New Delhi, India, pp 1–13
• Nugent J. Global fishing watch. Sci Scope. 2019; 42 :22–25. doi: 10.2505/4/ss19_042_05_22. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nyboer EA, Reid AJ, Jeanson AL, Kelly R, Mackay M, House J, Arnold SM, Simonin PW, et al. Goals, challenges, and next steps in transdisciplinary fisheries research: perspectives and experiences from early career researchers. Rev Fish Biol Fish. 2022 doi: 10.1007/s11160-022-09719-6. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ojea E, Lester SE, Salgueiro-Otero D. Adaptation of fishing communities to climate-driven shifts in target species. One Earth. 2020; 2 :544–556. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2020.05.012. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oliver EC, Burrows MT, Donat MG, Sen Gupta A, Alexander LV, Perkins-Kirkpatrick SE, et al. Projected marine heatwaves in the 21st century and the potential for ecological impact. Front Mar Sci. 2019; 6 :734. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2019.00734. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ommer RE, Perry RI, Murray G, Neis B. Social–ecological dynamism, knowledge, and sustainable coastal marine fisheries. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2012; 4 :316–322. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2012.05.010. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ostrom E. Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems. Am Econ Rev. 2010; 100 :641–672. doi: 10.1257/aer.100.3.641. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pacheco Rodriguez MN, Rosales Lozada LF (2020) The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas: One step forward in the promotion of human rights for the most vulnerable. Research Paper
• Palacios-Abrantes J, Reygondeau G, Wabnitz CC, Cheung WW. The transboundary nature of the world’s exploited marine species. Sci Rep. 2020; 10 :1–12. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-74644-2. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Papanicolopulu I. International law and the protection of people at sea. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Parker RW, Blanchard JL, Gardner C, et al. Fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions of world fisheries. Nat Clim Chang. 2018; 8 :333–337. doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0117-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parma AM. In search of robust harvest rules for Pacific halibut in the face of uncertain assessments and decadal changes in productivity. Bull Mar Sci. 2002; 70 :423–453. [ Google Scholar ]
• Patrick WS, Link JS. Hidden in plain sight: using optimum yield as a policy framework to operationalize ecosystem-based fisheries management. Mar Policy. 2015; 62 :74–81. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2015.08.014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Patrick WS, Link JS. Myths that continue to impede progress in ecosystem-based fisheries management. Fisheries. 2015; 40 :155–160. doi: 10.1080/03632415.2015.1024308. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peeler E, Ernst I. A new approach to the management of emerging diseases of aquatic animals. Revue Scientifique Et Technique (international Office of Epizootics) 2019; 38 :537–551. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pelicice FM, Azevedo-Santos VM, Vitule JR, et al. Neotropical freshwater fishes imperilled by unsustainable policies. Fish Fish. 2017; 18 :1119–1133. doi: 10.1111/faf.12228. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Penaluna BE, Arismendi I, Moffitt CM, Penney ZL. Nine proposed action areas to enhance diversity and inclusion in the American Fisheries Society. Fisheries. 2017; 42 :399–402. doi: 10.1080/03632415.2017.1345549. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perryman HA, Hansen C, Howell D, Olsen E. A review of applications evaluating fisheries management scenarios through marine ecosystem models. Rev Fish Sci Aquacult. 2021; 29 (4):800–835. doi: 10.1080/23308249.2021.1884642. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Petersson MT (2019) New actors, new possibilities, new challenges—nonstate actor participation in global fisheries governance. In: Predicting Future Oceans. Elsevier, pp 377–385
• Petrossian GA. Preventing illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing: a situational approach. Biol Cons. 2015; 189 :39–48. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2014.09.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pikitch EK, Santora C, Babcock EA, et al. Ecosystem-based fishery management. Science. 2004; 305 :346–347. doi: 10.1126/science.1098222. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pillay TVR. Aquaculture and the environment. Heidelberg: Wiley; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinsky ML, Reygondeau G, Caddell R, et al. Preparing ocean governance for species on the move. Science. 2018; 360 :1189–1191. doi: 10.1126/science.aat2360. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Plagányi ÉE, Weeks JS, Skewes TD, Gibbs MT, Poloczanska ES, Norman-López A, Blamey LK, Soares M, Robinson WML. Assessing the adequacy of current fisheries management under changing climate: a southern synopsis. ICES J Mar Sci. 2011; 68 :1305–1317. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsr049. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Plagányi ÉE, van Putten I, Hutton T, et al. Integrating indigenous livelihood and lifestyle objectives in managing a natural resource. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2013; 110 :3639–3644. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1217822110. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Plagányi ÉE, Punt AE, Hillary R, et al. Multispecies fisheries management and conservation: tactical applications using models of intermediate complexity. Fish Fish. 2014; 15 :1–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2012.00488.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Poff NL, Zimmerman JK. Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows. Freshw Biol. 2010; 55 :194–205. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02272.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pomeroy R, Parks J, Pollnac R, et al. Fish wars: conflict and collaboration in fisheries management in Southeast Asia. Mar Policy. 2007; 31 :645–656. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2007.03.012. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Popova E, Vousden D, Sauer WH, et al. Ecological connectivity between the areas beyond national jurisdiction and coastal waters: safeguarding interests of coastal communities in developing countries. Mar Policy. 2019; 104 :90–102. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2019.02.050. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Popper R. How are foresight methods selected? Foresight. 2008; 10 (6):62–89. doi: 10.1108/14636680810918586. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Potts J, Lynch M, Wilkings A, Hupp´e G, Cunningham M, Voora V (2017) State of Sustainability. Initiatives Review: Standards and the Blue Economy. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/ssi-blue-economy-2016.pdf
• Punt AE, Butterworth DS, de Moor CL, et al. Management strategy evaluation: best practices. Fish Fish. 2016; 17 :303–334. doi: 10.1111/faf.12104. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Punt AE, Dunn A, Elvarsson BÞ, et al. Essential features of the next-generation integrated fisheries stock assessment package: a perspective. Fish Res. 2020; 229 :105617. doi: 10.1016/j.fishres.2020.105617. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Punt AE, Dalton MG, Cheng W, Hermann AJ, Holsman KK, Hurst TP, et al. Evaluating the impact of climate and demographic variation on future prospects for fish stocks: an application for northern rock sole in Alaska. Deep Sea Res Part II. 2021; 189 :104951. doi: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2021.104951. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Purcell SW, Pomeroy RS. Driving small-scale fisheries in developing countries. Front Mar Sci. 2015; 2 :44. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2015.00044. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rasco B, Down K, Ovissipour M. Humane harvesting initiative: the influence of harvest and post-harvest handling practices on fish welfare and product quality. J Aquacult Res Develop. 2015; 6 (2):1. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reid AJ, Carlson AK, Creed IF, et al. Emerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity. Biol Rev. 2019; 94 :849–873. doi: 10.1111/brv.12480. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reid AJ, Eckert LE, Lane J-F, et al. Two-Eyed Seeing: an Indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management. Fish Fish. 2021; 22 :243–261. doi: 10.1111/faf.12516. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Resurrección BP. Gender and environment from ‘women, environment and development’ to feminist political ecology. In: MacGregor S, editor. Routledge Handbook of Gender and Environment. Oxford: Routledge; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Robinson JPW, Nash KL, Blanchard JL, Jacobsen NS, Maire E, Graham NAJ, MacNeil MA, Zamborain-Mason J, Allison EH, Hicks CC. Managing fisheries for maximum nutrient yield. Fish Fish. 2022; 23 :800–811. doi: 10.1111/faf.12649. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodriguez-Ezpeleta N, Toby A, Patterson IP, et al (2020) Feasibility Study on Applying Close-Kin Mark-Recapture Abundance Estimates to Indian Ocean Tuna Commission Shark Species Reference: IOTC-2020
• Rourke ML, Fowler AM, Hughes JM, et al. Environmental DNA (eDNA) as a tool for assessing fish biomass: a review of approaches and future considerations for resource surveys. Environm DNA. 2021 doi: 10.1002/edn3.185. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rytwinski T, Harper M, Taylor JJ, Bennett JR, Donaldson LA, Smokorowski KE, et al. What are the effects of flow-regime changes on fish productivity in temperate regions? A Systematic Map. Environ Eviden. 2020; 9 (1):1–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Said A, Chuenpagdee R. Aligning the sustainable development goals to the small-scale fisheries guidelines: a case for EU fisheries governance. Mar Policy. 2019; 107 :103599. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103599. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sainsbury NC, Genner MJ, Saville GR, Pinnegar JK, O’Neill CK, Simpson SD, Turner RA. Changing storminess and global capture fisheries. Nat Clim Chang. 2018; 8 (8):655–659. doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0206-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandlos J, Bennett NJ, Roth R, et al. Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation. Conserv Biol. 2016; 31 :56–66. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schilt CR. Developing fish passage and protection at hydropower dams. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2007; 104 :295–325. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.09.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schneckenburger C, Aukerman R (2002) The economic impact of drought on recreation and tourism. In: Proceedings from the Colorado drought conference: Managing water supply and demand in the fime of drought. pp 93–97
• Schreckenberg K, Poudyal M, Mace G. Ecosystem services and poverty alleviation: trade-offs and governance. NY: Taylor; 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scott F, Blanchard JL, Andersen KH. Mizer: an R package for multispecies, trait-based and community size spectrum ecological modelling. Methods Ecol Evol. 2014; 5 :1121–1125. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12256. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Short RE, Mussa J, Hill NA, et al. Challenging assumptions: the gendered nature of mosquito net fishing and the implications for management. Gend Technol Dev. 2020; 24 :66–88. doi: 10.1080/09718524.2020.1729583. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sigsgaard EE, Torquato F, Frøslev TG, et al. Using vertebrate environmental DNA from seawater in biomonitoring of marine habitats. Conserv Biol. 2020; 34 :697–710. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13437. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Silva AT, Lucas MC, Castro-Santos T, et al. The future of fish passage science, engineering, and practice. Fish Fish. 2018; 19 :340–362. doi: 10.1111/faf.12258. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Silva LG, Doyle KE, Duffy D, et al. Mortality events resulting from Australia’s catastrophic fires threaten aquatic biota. Glob Change Biol. 2020; 26 :5345–5350. doi: 10.1111/gcb.15282. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith D, Punt A, Dowling N, et al. Reconciling approaches to the assessment and management of data-poor species and fisheries with Australia’s harvest strategy policy. Mar Coast Fish Dyn Manag Ecosyst Sci. 2009; 1 :244–254. doi: 10.1577/C08-041.1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sowman M, Sunde J. A just transition? Navigating the process of policy implementation in small-scale fisheries in South Africa. Mar Policy. 2021; 132 :104683. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104683. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Squires D, Restrepo V, Garcia S, Dutton P. Fisheries bycatch reduction within the least-cost biodiversity mitigation hierarchy: conservatory offsets with an application to sea turtles. Mar Policy. 2018; 93 :55–61. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.03.018. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Staudinger MD, Lynch AJ, Gaichas SK, et al. How does climate change affect emergent properties of aquatic ecosystems? Fisheries. 2021; 46 (9):423–441. doi: 10.1002/fsh.10606. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stocks JR, Ellis IM, van der Meulen DE, et al. Kills in the Darling: assessing the impact of the 2018–20 mass fish kills on the fish communities of the Lower Darling-Baaka River, a large lowland river of south-eastern Australia. Mar Freshw Res. 2021; 73 (2):159–177. doi: 10.1071/MF20340. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stuart I, Sharpe C, Stanislawski K, et al. From an irrigation system to an ecological asset: adding environmental flows establishes recovery of a threatened fish species. Mar Freshw Res. 2019; 70 :1295–1306. doi: 10.1071/MF19197. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sumaila UR, Skerritt DJ, Schuhbauer A, et al. WTO must ban harmful fisheries subsidies. Science. 2021; 374 :544–544. doi: 10.1126/science.abm1680. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Switzer S, Lennan M (2022) ‘The WTO’s Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies. “It’s good, but it’s not quite right”’ (OOH, published 23 June 2022). https://oneoceanhub.org/the-wtos-agreement-on-fisheries-subsidies-its-good-but-its-not-quite-right/ . Accessed July 2022
• Syddall V, Thrush S, Fisher K. Transdisciplinary analysis of Pacific tuna fisheries: a research framework for understanding and governing oceans as social-ecological systems. Mar Policy. 2021; 134 :104783. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104783. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Szuwalski CS, Hollowed AB. Climate change and non-stationary population processes in fisheries management. ICES J Mar Sci. 2016; 73 :1297–1305. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsv229. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tam JC, Link JS, Rossberg AG, et al. Towards ecosystem-based management: identifying operational food-web indicators for marine ecosystems. ICES J Mar Sci. 2017; 74 :2040–2052. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsw230. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tatar M, Kalvet T, Tiits M. Cities4ZERO approach to foresight for fostering smart energy transition on municipal level. Energies. 2020; 13 :3533. doi: 10.3390/en13143533. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor WW, Bartley DM. Call to action–The “Rome Declaration”: ten steps to responsible inland fisheries. Fisheries. 2016; 41 (6):269–269. doi: 10.1080/03632415.2016.1183993. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson LM, Lynch AJ, Beever EA, et al. Responding to ecosystem transformation: resist, accept, or direct? Fisheries. 2021; 46 :8–21. doi: 10.1002/fsh.10506. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thorpe RB. What is multispecies MSY? A worked example from the North Sea. J Fish Biol. 2019; 94 :1011–1018. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thorson JT, Adams G, Holsman K. Spatio-temporal models of intermediate complexity for ecosystem assessments: a new tool for spatial fisheries management. Fish Fish. 2019; 20 :1083–1099. doi: 10.1111/faf.12398. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tickner D, Opperman JJ, Abell R, et al. Bending the curve of global freshwater biodiversity loss: an emergency recovery plan. Bioscience. 2020; 70 :330–342. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biaa002. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tigchelaar M, Cheung WW, Mohammed EY, et al. Compound climate risks threaten aquatic food system benefits. Nature Food. 2021; 2 :673–682. doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00368-9. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tipping A and Irschlinger T (2022) ‘WTO Members Clinch a Deal on Fisheries Subsidies’ (IISD, published 17 June 2022). https://sdg.iisd.org/news/wto-members-clinch-a-deal-on-fisheries-subsidies/#:~:text=The%20new%20treaty%20includes%20a,of%20regional%20fisheries%20management%20organizations . Accessed July 2022
• Tittensor DP, Novaglio C, Harrison CS, Heneghan RF, Barrier N, Bianchi D, et al. Next-generation ensemble projections reveal higher climate risks for marine ecosystems. Nat Clim Chang. 2021; 11 (11):973–981. doi: 10.1038/s41558-021-01173-9. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Travers-Trolet M, Bourdaud P, Genu M, Velez L, Vermard Y. The risky decrease of fishing reference points under climate change. Front Mar Sci. 2020; 7 :568232. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.568232. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Turgeon K, Hawkshaw SC, Dinning KM, et al. Enhancing fisheries education and research through the Canadian Fisheries Research Network: a student perspective on interdisciplinarity, collaboration and inclusivity. FACETS. 2018; 3 :963–980. doi: 10.1139/facets-2017-0038. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Twardek WM, Nyboer EA, Tickner D, O'Connor CM, Lapointe NW, Taylor MK, Cooke SJ. Mobilizing practitioners to support the Emergency Recovery Plan for freshwater biodiversity. Conserv Sci Pract. 2021; 3 (8):e467. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Damme PA, Clavijo LC, Baigún C, Hauser M, da Costa CRD, Duponchelle F (2019) The use of participative fisheries monitoring to detect dam impacts on goliath catfish (Brachyplatystoma rousseauxii) populations in the Bolivian Amazon. In Actas del III Simposio Internacional de Acuicultura & V Workshop de la Red de Investigación sobre la Ictiofauna Amazónica (RIIA)
• van Helmond AT, Mortensen LO, Plet-Hansen KS, et al. Electronic monitoring in fisheries: lessons from global experiences and future opportunities. Fish Fish. 2020; 21 :162–189. doi: 10.1111/faf.12425. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Vliet MT, Ludwig F, Kabat P. Global streamflow and thermal habitats of freshwater fishes under climate change. Clim Change. 2013; 121 :739–754. doi: 10.1007/s10584-013-0976-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Verstappen L (2017) Multilevel Governance of Property Titles in Land: The Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security. In: Regulatory Property Rights. Brill Nijhoff, pp 98–118
• Wayte SE. Management implications of including a climate-induced recruitment shift in the stock assessment for jackass morwong (Nemadactylus macropterus) in south-eastern Australia. Fish Res. 2013; 142 :47–55. doi: 10.1016/j.fishres.2012.07.009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Welcomme R (2016) Inland Fisheries: Past, Present, and Future. In: Freshwater, fish and the future: proceedings of the global crosssectoral conference. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome; Michigan State University, East Lansing; and American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland
• Wilen JE. Renewable resource economists and policy: what differences have we made? J Environ Econ Manag. 2000; 39 :306–327. doi: 10.1006/jeem.1999.1110. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams MJ. Why look at fisheries through a gender lens? Development. 2008; 51 :180–185. doi: 10.1057/dev.2008.2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams M. Expanding the horizons: connecting gender and fisheries to the political economy. Mar Stud. 2019; 18 (3):399–407. doi: 10.1007/s40152-019-00149-y. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Winemiller KO, McIntyre PB, Castello L, et al. Balancing hydropower and biodiversity in the Amazon, Congo, and Mekong. Science. 2016; 351 :128–129. doi: 10.1126/science.aac7082. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wong C, Ballegooyen K, Ignace L, et al. Towards reconciliation: 10 Calls to Action to natural scientists working in Canada. Facets. 2020; 5 :769–783. doi: 10.1139/facets-2020-0005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• World Bank/FAO/WorldFish (2012). Hidden harvest: the global contribution of capture fisheries. World Bank, Report No. 66469-GLB, Washington, DC, 69 pp
• Zarfl C, Lumsdon AE, Berlekamp J, et al. A global boom in hydropower dam construction. Aquat Sci. 2015; 77 :161–170. doi: 10.1007/s00027-014-0377-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Scientists Discover 100 New Marine Species in New Zealand

The findings, from the largely uncharted waters of Bounty Trough, show that “we’ve got a long way to go in terms of understanding where life is found in the ocean,” a researcher said.

By Rebecca Carballo

A team of 21 scientists set off on an expedition in the largely uncharted waters of Bounty Trough off the coast of the South Island of New Zealand in February hoping to find a trove of new species.

The expedition paid off, they said on Sunday, with the discovery of 100 new species, a number that was likely to grow, said Alex Rogers, a marine biologist who was a leader of the expedition.

“I expect that number to increase as we work through more and more of the samples,” Dr. Rogers said. “I think that number is going to be in the hundreds instead of just 100.”

Dozens of mollusks, three fish, a shrimp and a cephalopod that is a type of predatory mollusk were among the new species found in the expedition, which was led by Ocean Census, a nonprofit dedicated to the global discovery of ocean life, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research in New Zealand, and the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa.

One creature that caused a “lot of head-scratching” is a star-shaped animal, about a centimeter across, but researchers have not managed to identify it, Dr. Rogers said. They believe it may possibly be a coral.

Two million-plus species are estimated to live in the oceans, but only 10 percent of ocean life is known. It is vital to learn more about the aquatic life because marine ecosystems carry out functions that support life on Earth, such as creating food for billions, storing carbon and regulating climate, Dr. Rogers said.

“We’re dealing with a situation where we know marine life is in decline,” he said. “In order to try to manage human activities to prevent this continuing decline, we need to understand the distribution of marine life better than we currently do.”

Ocean Census was founded last year by the Nippon Foundation, a Japanese philanthropic organization, and the U.K.-based ocean exploration foundation Nekton. When it began its work, Ocean Census set a goal of finding at least 100,000 new marine species in a decade.

The group is focused on exploring some of the most under-sampled bodies of water.

In the February expedition, researchers first mapped the area with an imaging system and video cameras to check that it would be safe for their equipment and to ensure that there were no vulnerable animal communities that potentially could be harmed.

Then, they deployed what is known as the Brenke sled , a sampling device that has two nets, one close to the seabed, and the other a meter above it. As it drags along the floor, it churns up animals living close to the sea floor. To find larger animals, the researchers used other methods, such as baited nets.

Trawling the depths at 4,800 meters — or roughly the equivalent to Mont Blanc, the highest peak in the Alps — researchers collected 1,791 samples.

Given its depth, Bounty Trough is not of great interest to fisheries and therefore is poorly sampled, Dr. Rogers said. Geologists have surveyed this area but biologists have not.

Worldwide, about 240,000 marine species have been discovered and named to date but only 2,200 species are discovered each year on average, according to Ocean Census.

In many bodies of water there is still a lot that scientists have to learn, Dr. Rogers said.

“It’s probably the equivalent of a space mission,” he said. “We’re still in early days, but the number of species that we found in the Bounty Trough really indicates to us that we’ve got a long way to go in terms of understanding where life is found in the ocean.”

Rebecca Carballo is a reporter based in New York. More about Rebecca Carballo

Explore the Animal Kingdom

A selection of quirky, intriguing and surprising discoveries about animal life..

Scientists never imagined that the blind cave salamanders called olms willingly left their caves. Then, they discovered several at aboveground springs in northern Italy .

According to a common narrative that male mammals tend to be larger than female ones. A new study paints a more complex picture .

Daddy longlegs, the group of splendidly leggy arachnids also known as harvestmen, have been thought to have just two eyes. New research has uncovered four more vestigial ones .

The means by which some whales sing underwater has long been a mystery. A contraption that forced air through the larynxes of three carcasses puts forth an explanation .

Here’s how a male elephant seal, not usually possessed with a paternal instinct, prevented a younger animal from drowning in an unlikely act of altruism .

What paleontologists long believed were long spines on the aptly named Alienacanthus, an ancient fish, turned out to be an extended lower jaw .

• The Star ePaper
• Subscriptions
• Manage Profile
• Change Password
• Manage Logins
• Manage Subscription
• Transaction History
• Manage Billing Info
• Manage For You
• Manage Bookmarks
• Package & Pricing

Expert’s visit highlights aquatic food research

Saturday, 16 Mar 2024

Related News

Penang to host global fisheries conference

Maritime foreign trade, fishing industry contribute over 50% to malaysia’s gdp, says wee, 4th ld writethru-xinhua headlines: uk, eu clinch christmas trade deal, yet not a gift for all.

Elouafi (fourth from right) in Penang. — Photo courtesy of WorldFish

THE 21st International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade (IIFET) Conference, organised in collaboration with the Fisheries Department, is taking place from July 15 to 19.

This was among the items discussed during the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research’s (CGIAR) newly-appointed executive managing director Dr Ismahane Elouafi’s visit to the WorldFish headquarters in Penang.

During her visit, hosted by WorldFish director-general Dr Essam Yassin Mohammed, Elouafi discussed the critical role of aquatic food systems as a solution to the challenges faced across the globe, including climate change, biodiversity loss, and food and nutrition insecurity.

According to a press statement, the visit included a tour of WorldFish’s research facilities, where Elouafi “observed groundbreaking” work in genetics.

Discussions aimed at strengthening collaboration and supporting initiatives that align with Malaysia’s goals for sustainable development and food security were key components of her meeting with Agriculture and Food Security Minister Datuk Seri Mohamad Sabu.

Elouafi’s visit to Penang included a “Fish for Thought” knowledge sharing session where researchers from across the organisation showcased some of the scientific innovations they have been working on.

These ranged from digital tools for aquatic food systems and development of low-cost and highly nutritious aquatic feed to sophisticated data collection systems for small-scale fisheries.

World Fish is an international, non-profit research organisation that creates and translates scientific research in aquatic food systems.

It is a member of CGIAR, which unites international organisations engaged in research about food security.

Tags / Keywords: International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade (IIFET) Conference ,

Found a mistake in this article?

Report it to us.

Thank you for your report!

Winning designs with seamless connectivity

Next in metro news.

Trending in Metro

Air pollutant index, highest api readings, select state and location to view the latest api reading.

• Select Location

Source: Department of Environment, Malaysia

Others Also Read

Best viewed on Chrome browsers.

We would love to keep you posted on the latest promotion. Kindly fill the form below

Thank you for downloading.

We hope you enjoy this feature!

Internet Explorer lacks support for the features of this website. For the best experience, please use a modern browser such as Chrome, Firefox, or Edge.

Closure of 2019–2023 Eastern North Pacific Gray Whale Unusual Mortality Event

March 14, 2024

The Unusual Mortality Event involving stranded eastern North Pacific gray whales has ended.

NOAA Fisheries has determined the Unusual Mortality Event involving eastern North Pacific gray whales is over. We made this determination in consultation with the Working Group on Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality Events and outside experts. The increased stranding rate that triggered the Unusual Mortality Event UME declaration is no longer occurring. It was associated with localized ecosystem changes in the whale's Subarctic and Arctic feeding areas that led to changes in food, malnutrition, decreased birth rates, and increased mortality.

We declared the UME in 2019. It involved hundreds of dead gray whales that stranded along the Pacific coast from Mexico to Alaska, including in gray whale wintering, migratory, and feeding areas. Scientists estimate the UME led to a roughly 40 percent decline in the population of eastern North Pacific gray whales.

The UME occurred from December 17, 2018 through November 9, 2023, with peak strandings occurring between December 17, 2018, and December 31, 2020. It involved 690 gray whale strandings, including 347 in the United States, 316 in Mexico, and 27 in Canada.

While the number of strandings spiked at the start of the UME, they have since declined to annual numbers similar to those recorded before the UME began. The number of calves born to the population also appears to be improving , with other signs that the population may have begun to recover.

The population decline over 5 years resembled a similar but shorter UME that affected the same population of gray whales from about 1999 to 2000. The population rebounded in the years that followed. It eventually climbed higher than it had been before that UME, until the more recent decline occurred.

“We know the population has demonstrated strong resilience in the past, and we will be watching to ensure we know how the whales recover from this UME,” said Deborah Fauquier, Veterinary Medical Officer for the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program in the NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources and Onsite Coordinator of the 2019-2023 Gray Whale UME.

Findings of the Investigation

Necropsy findings from a subset of dead whales supported malnutrition as a common cause of death and did not identify underlying infections. Additionally, the nutritional condition of live gray whales in Mexico was poorer leading into and during the UME compared to prior years. The UME Investigative Team concluded that localized ecosystem changes , including both access to and quality of prey, in the northern Bering and Chukchi seas contributed to the poor nutritional condition observed in live and stranded gray whales. This malnutrition led to increased mortality during the whales’ annual northward migration (from Mexico to Alaska) and decreased production of calves. This resulted in an overall decline in population abundance.

The UME prompted numerous research papers published in science journals and presented in science forums such as the International Whaling Commission’s Scientific Committee. A recent paper by Oregon State University and NOAA Fisheries scientists identified factors that likely compounded this and previous UMEs . Many of the papers reflected the international collaboration between scientists in Mexico, Canada, and the United States.

“The work to understand what was affecting gray whales was truly a collaborative effort,” said Moe Flannery of the California Academy of Sciences, one of the organizations that helped respond to stranded whales over the course of the UME. “In my experience, it is rare that scientists and government agencies from three separate countries work together to solve a problem spanning the entire coast.”

Importance of the Marine Mammal Stranding Networks

Volunteers and staff from the organizations that make up the Alaska and West Coast Marine Mammal Stranding Network s responded to the gray whale strandings during the UME. Teams examined carcasses, often in remote locations and challenging weather, collecting details to support the investigation into the likely causes and extent of the UME. NOAA Fisheries coordinates the U.S. Stranding Networks. Our transboundary partners in the Canadian Marine Mammal Response Program and Mexican gray whale colleagues also supported the investigation.

“We could not have come close to collecting the important data that we needed to assess the UME without the Stranding Networks and our transboundary colleagues,” said Fauquier, who coordinated an international team of experts representing three countries and more than 35 organizations. “We owe great thanks to the many teams who responded to strandings rain or shine, often in remote areas, and even over the course of the pandemic. It was not an easy job, and we were fortunate that we could rely on the Stranding Networks and our partners for support.”

Post-Unusual Mortality Event Monitoring

The various marine mammal stranding networks from the three countries in the United States, Canada, and Mexico will continue to respond to fresh dead to moderately decomposed carcasses and fully sample the animals as is feasible. NOAA Fisheries Southwest Fisheries Science Center conducted a 2023–2024 survey to assess gray whale abundance. The SWFSC will conduct a 2024 survey to evaluate calf production.

Throughout this investigation, many partners supported NOAA Fisheries including:

United States

California partners.

• California Academy of Sciences, Department of Ornithology and Mammalogy
• Channel Islands Cetacean Research Unit
• California Polytechnic University - Humboldt State University
• Long Marine Laboratory, University of California, Santa Cruz
• Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, San José State University
• Northcoast Marine Mammal Center
• Ocean Animal Response and Research Alliance
• Southwest Fisheries Science Center
• The Marine Mammal Center

Washington and Oregon Partners

• Cascadia Research Collective
• Makah Tribe
• Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary
• Olympic National Park
• Oregon State University Marine Mammal Institute
• Portland State University / Seaside Aquarium
• Quinault Tribe
• Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Marine Mammal Investigations
• Washington State Parks

Alaska Partners

• Alaska Consortium of Zooarcheologists
• Alaska Veterinary Pathology Services
• Alaska SeaLife Center
• Alaska Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program
• Alaska Whale Foundation
• Aleut Community of St. Paul
• Chichagof Conservation Council
• Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve
• North Slope Borough
• Petersburg Marine Mammal Center
• Sun'aq Tribe of Kodiak
• University of Alaska Southeast, Juneau
• University of Alaska Southeast, Sitka
• University of Alaska Fairbanks, Museum of the North
• Fisheries and Oceans Canada
• Animal Health Center, British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Land
• Universidad Autonoma de Baja California Sur
• Laguna San Ignacio Ecosystem Science Program

More Information

• 2019-2023 Gray Whale Unusual Mortality Event along the West Coast and Alaska
• Frequent Questions: West Coast Gray Whale Unusual Mortality Event

Recent News

Diverse habitats help salmon weather unpredictable climate changes.

Marine Heatwaves Reshape the Northern California Current Ecosystem

California Current Ecosystem Shows Resilience To Strong El Niño

Last updated by West Coast Regional Office on March 14, 2024

More On This Topic

Documenting the Elusive North Pacific Right Whale

FY 2024 Received Prescott Grant Proposals

Podcast: Checking In on Endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales

Searching for Type D: A New Species of Killer Whale?