research topic in agriculture and fisheries

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
• ADVERTISEMENT FEATURE Advertiser retains sole responsibility for the content of this article

Agriculture and fisheries join forces

Produced by

Only 30,000 tonnes of the popular Pacific saury fish was caught by Japanese fleets in 2020, compared with 229,000 tonnes in 2014. © MIXA Co. Ltd./MIXA/Getty

Several years ago, insurance provider Sony Life asked 800 Japanese high school students what they wanted to be in later life. The top picks included computer programmer, entrepreneur, civil servant and nurse. But two occupations, once popular in Japan, failed to make the list.

“Young people are no longer interested in becoming farmers or fishermen,” says Akihiro Takemura, a marine biologist at the University of the Ryukyus (UR), based in Okinawa, Japan.

That comes as little surprise given the decline of the country’s fishing industry. Although seafood has long been a major Japanese staple, demand has fallen sharply — in 2020, per capita consumption was 23.4 kilograms, roughly half that in 2001.

However, one of the biggest challenges, as the Japan Fisheries Agency outlined in its 2022 Fisheries Whitepaper, is the steep drop in production. Only 30,000 tonnes of the popular Pacific saury fish, for instance, was caught in 2020, compared with 229,000 tonnes in 2014.

But Takemura and his colleagues have an ambitious new plan to revamp the industry and make it more attractive to youngsters. “We want to merge aquaculture with agriculture and create a sustainable new industry,” he says. “We want to carry out fisheries on land.”

The wind and sun

The researchers launched their project earlier this year, calling it the ‘Okinawa model’. The overall aim, says Takemura, is to produce high-quality, marine-based proteins in an efficient manner, which in turn will add value to both the fishery and agriculture industries. The Okinawa model will strive to be sustainable — by recycling resources, employing smart technology, and making use of renewable energy.

This new approach to farming and fishing could “solve many problems related to food production,” he says, such as soil pollution, deforestation and land degradation.

There are two sides to the Okinawa model, explains Takemura — the biology aspect, which he leads; and the energy aspect, led by his colleague, Tomonobu Senjyu.

Mastering the use of renewable energy is key to the project’s success, says Senjyu, an electrical engineer at UR. There are two drivers for this, rising energy costs and the need to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. “In our project, we aim to power the supply system with 100% renewable energy and have zero carbon dioxide emissions,” he says.

For the Okinawa model, he and his team are looking to develop a system that combines both wind and solar power, which helps regulate the supply when either the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing.

“In summer the weather is often fine in Okinawa; we can get enough photovoltaic power, however, the wind speed is often low,” explains Senjyu. “In winter, the weather is not as good; we can get wind power, but the photovoltaic power is often low.” As power is needed for the aquaculture system all year, the researchers have created a system that takes advantage of both sources of renewable energy.

“Another important issue is the optimal control of this supply,” says Senjyu. This involves managing the electrical load of batteries, and their charge and discharge cycles, among other factors. Good control equals a stable supply of electricity.

Senjyu and his team have already begun testing a prototype of their system at Nakagusuku Aquaculture Innovation Center (NAICe). The system can currently deliver between 20 to 30 kilowatts of power, but the team hopes to raise this by 100 times in the next five years.

(From left) Akihiro Takemura, Fumihiro Haga and Tomonobu Senjyu are creating a new aquaculture system at Nakagusuku Aquaculture Innovation Center. © Tessue Kawano

A smart system

Senjyu’s renewable energy system will help power the land-based aquaculture system that Takemura is developing. The aim is to rear grouper, a popular fish, in large tanks, quickly, sustainably, and healthily. His team has set up tanks for keeping 5,000 grouper at NAICe. The researchers vary the conditions in the tanks — light, temperature and salinity — to figure out which ones work best to optimize growth.

They are also testing how growing certain plants and algae, such as those that can remove microplastics, can complement fish breeding.

“We’re selecting some salt-tolerant plants and trying to develop the aquaponics technology that will allow us to recover more than 80% of the nitrogen and phosphorus they produce for use as fertilizer,” explains Takemura. The plants are cultivated separately and the water they are grown in, which contains the plant-derived residues, is then circulated to the fish tanks. In addition to boosting sustainability, the system also offers the added benefit of saving on feed costs.

“I believe we’re the first in Japan to develop aquaponics using saltwater,” he says.

An important part of the new system involves the use of artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things. Such smart technology will allow the researchers to monitor the water conditions, feed the fish remotely and collect data on their growth.

“By doing so, we can control the quality of the fish produced and its traceability too,” says Takemura. “We can even control the best timing for fish growth — for example, if we know that Singapore needs this kind of fish in November, we can time it right.”

Automating parts of the breeding process will also help save on labour costs, which have been rising in recent years.

Students help with the 5,000 grouper being studied. © Shingo Udagawa

Faraway fisheries

The researchers involved in this project will spend the next four years collecting data and perfecting the Okinawa model. They then plan to introduce their recirculating aquaculture system elsewhere in Japan, and to countries in Asia and the Pacific Islands.

The models will be customized to suit the needs of the specific location, explains Takemura. For example, the fish species and complementary plants cultured will be altered. The countries they have in mind for expansion are “places that have problems with aquaculture and fish resources, and not much land for agriculture either,” he says. “So if we bring our system over, we can help with their development.”

The Okinawa model project is part of UR’s response to a post-pandemic call by the Japanese government to work towards a future society based on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) — which the UN says are a global blueprint to achieve “a better and sustainable future for all”.

Japan is trying to realize this by promoting collaborations between academia, industry, and the government, with universities being the main driving force to spearhead research and development, says Fumihiro Haga, a research administrator at UR and deputy project manager of the Okinawa model.

Takemura adds: “At the end of the day, we hope to create a sustainable and inclusive society in which young people from all over the world grow and provide food.”

Related Articles

Quick links

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

• Our Program Divisions
• Our Three Academies
• Government Affairs
• Statement on Diversity and Inclusion
• Our Study Process
• Conflict of Interest Policies and Procedures
• Project Comments and Information
• Read Our Expert Reports and Published Proceedings
• Explore PNAS, the Official Scientific Journal of NAS
• Access Transportation Research Board Publications
• Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Economic Recovery
• Fellowships and Grants
• Publications by Division
• Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
• Division on Earth and Life Studies
• Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
• Gulf Research Program
• Health and Medicine Division
• Policy and Global Affairs Division
• Transportation Research Board
• National Academy of Sciences
• National Academy of Engineering
• National Academy of Medicine
• Publications by Topic
• Agriculture
• Behavioral and Social Sciences
• Biography and Autobiography
• Biology and Life Sciences
• Computers and Information Technology
• Conflict and Security Issues
• Earth Sciences
• Energy and Energy Conservation
• Engineering and Technology
• Environment and Environmental Studies
• Food and Nutrition
• Health and Medicine
• Industry and Labor
• Math, Chemistry, and Physics
• Policy for Science and Technology
• Space and Aeronautics
• Surveys and Statistics
• Transportation and Infrastructure
• Searchable Collections
• New Releases

Agriculture » Aquaculture and Fisheries

• Search Within This Topic
• Browse by Subtopic
• View All Topics
• Agricultural Facilities and Equipment
• Animal Health and Nutrition
• Aquaculture and Fisheries
• Crop and Plant Production
• Pesticides, Insecticides and Herbicides
• Policy, Reviews and Evaluations

Viewing 1 - 10 of 38 books in Aquaculture and Fisheries

Assessing Equity in the Distribution of Fisheries Management Benefits: Data and Information Availability  (2024)

The Use of Limited Access Privilege Programs in Mixed-Use Fisheries  (2021)

Atlantic Offshore Renewable Energy Development and Fisheries: Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief  (2018)

Robust Methods for the Analysis of Images and Videos for Fisheries Stock Assessment: Summary of a Workshop  (2015)

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Fish Stock Rebuilding Plans in the United States  (2014)

Nutrient Requirements of Fish and Shrimp  (2011)

Ecosystem Concepts for Sustainable Bivalve Mariculture  (2010)

Shellfish Mariculture in Drakes Estero, Point Reyes National Seashore, California  (2009)

Hydrology, Ecology, and Fishes of the Klamath River Basin  (2008)

Review of Recreational Fisheries Survey Methods  (2006)

Types of publications.

Proceedings: Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.

Consensus Study Reports: Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.

Rapid Expert Consultation: Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release.

• 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.

Advertisement

Food system perspective on fisheries and aquaculture development in Asia

• Open access
• Published: 28 April 2020
• Volume 38 , pages 73–90, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Xavier Tezzo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4509-2901 1 , 2 ,
• Simon R. Bush 1 ,
• Peter Oosterveer 1 &
• Ben Belton 3 , 4  

9883 Accesses

31 Citations

38 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This paper reviews development research and policies on freshwater fish in South and Southeast Asia. We conduct a systematic review of academic literature from three major science-based policy institutions to analyze development research and policies that have accompanied the ongoing transition from freshwater capture fisheries to aquaculture in the region. Using a ‘food fish system’ framework allows for the identification and systematic comparison of assumptions underpinning dominant development policies. We analyze the interrelations between the production, provisioning, and consumption of wild and farmed fish and demonstrate a shift toward food fish systems thinking in the sampled literature. We discuss gaps and weaknesses in the literature, as identified through the application of the food fish systems framework and present an agenda for future research aimed at securing the potential of fish as food.

Similar content being viewed by others

Recognize fish as food in policy discourse and development funding

Abigail Bennett, Xavier Basurto, … Sarah Zoubek

Linked sustainability challenges and trade-offs among fisheries, aquaculture and agriculture

Julia L. Blanchard, Reg A. Watson, … Simon Jennings

On the sustainability of inland fisheries: Finding a future for the forgotten

Steven J. Cooke, Edward H. Allison, … Robin L. Welcomme

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

‘Food systems’ are receiving renewed interest as means of moving beyond the productivist agendas that tend to dominate food policy (Béné et al. 2019 ). Central to food systems thinking is the transdisciplinary analysis of social and environmental trade-offs and synergies across the whole set of production, provisioning, and consumption activities that affect food security (Ericksen 2008 ; Ingram 2011 ; Eakin et al. 2016 ). Here, food security is understood as a condition related to the availability, accessibility, and use of food (Eakin et al. 2016 ). Such approaches are increasingly being promoted in policy circles as a way of identifying and understanding the effects of broader drivers of change such as urbanization and globalization on sustainable food provisioning (HLPE 2017 ; IPES 2017 ).

Despite growing attention, food systems thinking has yet to be applied in a systematic way to fish production, provisioning, and consumption (Olson et al. 2014 ; Béné et al. 2015 ). Recent policy discussions have marginalised or overlooked the role of fish, in comparison with conventional agricultural commodities (HLPE 2014 ; Willett et al. 2019 ). This is a major oversight given the significant contribution that fish makes to global food security: fish is a relatively cheap and accessible micronutrient-rich food that provides over 3 billion people with almost 20% of their average per capita intake of animal protein, and a further 1.3 billion people with about 15% of this intake (Beveridge et al. 2013 ; HLPE 2014 ). Golden et al. ( 2016 ) further predict that over 10% of the world population is vulnerable to micronutrient and fatty acid deficiencies due to declining fish supply over the next decade, with developing nations being particularly exposed.

Moreover, when fish is considered, it is articulated predominantly in terms of marine ‘seafood’, leaving freshwater food fish marginalized (Cooke et al. 2013 ; Lynch et al. 2019 ). Limited attention to freshwater fish production can be attributed to its relatively dispersed nature, the poor consistency of associated data, and the bias of northern-dominated research towards exported seafoods (FAO and WorldFish 2008 ; McIntyre et al. 2016 ; Bush et al. 2019 ; Tlusty et al. 2019 ; Belton and Bush 2014 ). This omission is particularly problematic in the context of South and Southeast Asia, which account for over a quarter of global fish production, the bulk of which is comprised of freshwater fish species (Chan et al. 2017 ; FAO 2018 ).

There is a rapid ongoing shift in the supply of freshwater fish in Asia, from wild to farmed sources, constituting an important, yet poorly understood food transition. Throughout inland areas of Asia, fish has been historically supplied by the harvest of wild fish from extensive networks of rivers and floodplains (Delgado et al. 2003 ; Brummett et al. 2013 ). The same region now accounts for the majority of global aquaculture (or farmed fish) production, most of which also takes place in freshwater environments. China, South and Southeast Asia are expected to remain the largest suppliers of farmed fish globally for the foreseeable future (Edwards 2015 ; FAO 2016 ; Ottinger et al. 2016 ). Integrated understandings of this transition are rare. Literature on the contribution of freshwater fish to food security tends to emphasize two polarizing narratives. As summarized by Little et al. ( 2016 ), the first narrative stresses trajectories of decline in wild capture fisheries production, while the second emphasises the role of a ‘booming’ aquaculture sector in meeting growing future demand for food fish.

The production focus central to both narratives, risks limiting how policy makers understand freshwater food fish in the context of rapid urbanization, rising incomes and changing diets (Reardon et al. 2014 ; Béné et al. 2016 ). A ‘food fish system’ approach, in contrast, integrates the role that provision and consumption play in shaping different demands for fish as food, and examines how these demands can be met through existing or potential capture fisheries and/or aquaculture production. We argue that this perspective can support the formulation of more proactive food security policies to address healthy and sustainable food fish provisioning at national, regional, and even global scales (see for e.g. Jennings et al. 2016 ).

Developing a food fish system perspective is especially relevant for South and Southeast Asia, as a major fish producing and consuming region that is undergoing rapid economic and social change. This raises the question of whether, in line with the wider food production literature, a shift towards food systems thinking is taking place in the science-based development literature on freshwater fish as food in this region. In other words, are science-based policy institutions with a mandate to support the fish sector development in South and Southeast Asia moving away from productivism toward more integrated approaches? To what degree are their perspectives locked in the two polarizing narratives of capture fisheries and aquaculture? And to what extent do associated development policies integrate and leverage interrelations across freshwater fish production, provision, and consumption activities?

In this paper we address these questions by reviewing the past 45 years of science-based development-policy literature on freshwater fish as food in South and Southeast Asia. Our investigation builds on a systematic review of the academic literature affiliated with three international organizations—FAO, SEAFDEC, and WorldFish—that have a long history of providing policy advice for fisheries and aquaculture in the region. The evolution of their academic positions provides a basis for identifying and systematically assessing evidence of progress from polarized narratives to more integrated understandings of freshwater fish as food.

The following section introduces the food fish system framework used for the review and positions it within the wider literature on food systems research. Section 3 then describes the methodology used for the review. Sections 4 and 5 present the results of the analysis, identifying and comparing literature focused on farmed or wild fish production, provisioning and consumption. Section 6 evaluates progression towards food fish systems thinking. The remaining sections discuss the broader implications of the results, and the emerging opportunities for revitalizing development agendas around food fish security.

The food fish system

The concept of food systems was formulated as early as in the 1980s, but it remained relatively marginal in food policy over subsequent decades (Kneen 1989 ). Renewed interest in food systems in recent years provides a framework for understanding trade-offs and synergies between food production with diverse consumer demands and complex provisioning systems that affect food security (Ericksen 2008 ; HLPE 2017 ). As argued by Béné et al. ( 2019 ), in policy terms this means moving beyond a focus on productivist technology and extension to pay greater attention to the full range of social and environmental concerns that affect how food is distributed and consumed.

‘Commodity chain’ and ‘value chain’ perspectives constituted an important first step away from productivist approaches by extending the scope of research and policy beyond the production ‘node’. These perspectives emphasize multi-directional flows of products, finance, and information between actors connecting sites of production and consumption, as well as extra-transactional actors that shape these flows (Ponte and Sturgeon 2014 ; Bush et al. 2015 ). Recent years have seen a broadening in the scope of value chain research with increasing consideration for social equity (see for e.g. Barrientos et al. 2003 ; Kaplinsky 2000 ). Yet, associated approaches largely conceive governance as a process of linking codified norms to economic value in order to leverage improvements in production (Marsden et al. 2000 ; Gereffi 2005 ; Ponte and Sturgeon 2014 ). Food systems thinking goes beyond value chain-based approaches by recognizing the multidirectional relations between interrelated sets of production, provision, and consumption practices (Spaargaren et al. 2012 ), and the possibilities for coordinating these practices and relations for achieving outcomes that extend beyond the performance of producers alone, such as food security or sustainability (Ericksen 2008 ; Ingram 2011 ). In addition, the food systems approach extends beyond value chain approaches by incorporating broader societal transitions such as urbanization and globalization and their influence on where and how food is produced, distributed, and consumed (HLPE 2017 ; IPES 2017 ).

Our review is based on a simplified food system framework that focuses on the interactions between wild and farmed freshwater fish across activities related to the production, provisioning, and consumption of food fish. The framework is used to identify governance approaches used to steer these activities toward normative goals such as food security or sustainability (Fig.  1 ). Each of these components is explained in turn below.

The food fish system conceptual framework

First, production is defined as the entire set of activities involved in the production of freshwater fish and derived foodstuffs. Production activities related to wild capture fisheries and aquaculture are highly differentiated. Capture fisheries use fishing gears to harvest wild fish and other aquatic organisms (i.e. originating from naturally reproducing, self-sustaining populations) from public or common access water bodies (FAO 2015 ). Aquaculture is a form of farming. This implies active management interventions to enhance biological productivity (e.g. artificial reproduction, stocking and feeding), and private property relations—i.e. private ownership of fish stocked in enclosed water bodies (FAO 2015 ; Edwards et al. 2002 ). However, in practice, the lines between these forms of production are often blurred. For example, aquaculture systems can rely to varying degrees on natural or stocked recruitment of wild fingerlings to ponds, fenced off habitat, or rice fields, while capture fisheries in lakes and reservoirs may rely on stocking of artificially spawned and raised fingerlings (FAO 2015 ). The review explores the diversity of these production activities and the degree to which they are differentiated from the perspective of provisioning and consumption.

Second, food provisioning refers to the organization of social and economic practices involved in the delivery of goods and services (Fine 1993 ; Evans 2011 ). These practices encompass activities related to the transmission and transformation of fish from raw material to marketable products—such as sourcing, transport, storage and trade, as well as processing and packaging. Provisioning practices also include social relations amongst chain actors that enable the flow of goods and/or preservation/transformation of products, including credit and finance, cultural and food safety norms and standards, and the use of cooperation and/or contractualization to set prices and supply (Reardon and Timmer 2014 ; HLPE 2017 ). Combined, these food-provisioning practices set the conditions for producers to access markets, information, and resources necessary for production. They also condition consumption practices while at the same time translating consumer demands to producers.

Third, consumption is defined as the entire range of activities related to the selection, purchase, preparation, and eating of fish. Consumption, as such, is influenced by economic determinants, such as price, but also by a range of practices that determine which species of fish are purchased, in what forms (e.g. fresh, processed, or prepared), from which outlets (e.g. wet markets, supermarkets, or restaurants), and with what consideration to quality—related to food safety, taste or culture (Spaargaren et al. 2012 ). From a systems approach, consumption is shaped by wider processes of urbanization, globalization and/or food (in)security rather than individual choice alone (HLPE 2017 ).

Finally, governance is defined as the rules, authority and institutions that coordinate, manage, or steer the food system. These include governments, and non-state institutions such as markets, traditions, networks, and civil society (van Bers et al. 2019 ). Among these governing entities, the present review focuses on science-based development policy actors and explores the logic of their efforts to move the system toward delivering food security. Food security here is understood as a condition related to the availability, accessibility, and use of fish as food. From a food fish systems perspective, governing food security requires incorporating the multiple ways in which production, provisioning and consumption interact (Ericksen 2008 ; Ingram 2011 ). The challenge of accounting for the full range of food system activities is in sharp contrast to the productivist paradigm that permeates much of the science underlying food policy in developing countries (Ickowitz et al. 2019 ). This focus on production has meant that the governance of food security has relied heavily on the extension of technologies to increase output, with the assumption that food availability would shape provisioning and consumption practices (Ickowitz et al. 2019 ; Gómez et al. 2013 ). However, as we explore further in this paper, a shift to a food fish systems thinking calls for understanding production as bound up with both the diverse demands of consumers and the complex factors influencing the development of provisioning systems in between.

Methodology

We undertook a systematic review (Arksey and Malley 2005 ; Levac et al. 2010 ) to assess the extent to which the development policy literature on freshwater fisheries and aquaculture in South and Southeast Asia reflects a shift to food systems thinking. We acknowledge that this literature does not provide a complete picture of how fish has been taken up in food systems thinking. But, aligned with our objective, this literature does represent the extent to which academic thinking has been translated into policy-directed science. As we describe below, this methodology follows a two-step process, comprised of: (1) document selection; and (2) content analysis.

Document selection

For the purpose of narrowing the scope, the review of the science policy landscape was limited to a selection of ‘boundary organizations’ that straddle politics and science (Guston 1996 ). As such, we only selected documents published by FAO, SEAFDEC, and WorldFish—three multilateral science-based policy organizations with more than 40 years of experience advising governments on improving fisheries and aquaculture for food security. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations established since 1945. The Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC) is an autonomous intergovernmental body established in 1967 with membership of 11 Southeast Asian countries. Footnote 1 WorldFish was established in 1973 as the International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM) and integrated into the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) in the 1980s (cf. Pullin and Neal 1984 ).

Scientific publications from these organizations addressing freshwater fisheries and/or aquaculture in South and Southeast Asia were sourced through Scopus and Aquaculture Science and Fisheries Abstract (ASFA) databases. The search included all reviews, conference papers, and articles published between 1975 and 2018 Footnote 2 in academic journals, using the search terms: AF-ID (“WorldFish” OR “ICLARM” OR “FAO” OR “SEAFDEC”) AND (“Cambodia” OR “Myanmar” OR “Vietnam” OR “Thailand” OR “Laos” OR “Indonesia” OR “Malaysia” OR “Philippines” OR “Bangladesh” OR “India” OR “Pakistan” OR “Nepal” OR “Bhutan” OR “Sri-Lanka” OR “South Asia” OR “Southeast Asia”) AND (“Freshwater Fisheries”) OR (“Inland Fisheries”) OR (“Aquaculture”) in titles, abstracts, and keywords. The pooled search returned a total of 457 (N T ) distinct documents published in English.

Metadata for all articles was imported to Excel and titles, abstracts, and keywords were screened to select documents. First, we removed articles that were not fisheries or aquaculture related (n 1  = 19). We then excluded books and book chapters (n 2  = 48) as well as non-peer-reviewed documents (n 3  = 38) based on the observation that institutional reports from FAO, WorldFish and SEAFDEC were largely replicated in the peer-reviewed literature. We further excluded literature focusing only on geographical areas outside the scope of the study (n 4  = 37), as well as articles focusing solely on marine and coastal production systems (n 5  = 138). The final sample included 177 (N S1 ) articles.

Content analysis

The data extraction and analysis was carried out in two-steps.

First, a scan of the literature was conducted over all 177 (N S1 ) articles. Titles, abstracts, introductions, and conclusions were used to classify articles in terms of their relevance to (1) aquaculture and/or capture fisheries, and (2) production, provision and/or consumption. Papers focusing exclusively on wild or farmed fish were categorized as ‘segregated’. Papers focusing on both wild and farmed fish were categorized as ‘integrated’. Similarly, the coverage of production, provision and/or consumption supported a further classification: papers that did not explicitly refer to production, provision or consumption, or did refer to one component but did not provide any analytical focus on that component; and papers that effectively covered production, provision and/or consumption as an integral part of their analysis. In case of uncertainty, the screening of the text extended to the results and discussion sections of the paper.

Second, a content analysis of articles cited at least 15 times (N S2  = 85) was undertaken. For each category defined in the first step, the papers were read and assessed for the degree to which they focused on wild and/or farmed fish, and the extent to which production, provisioning and/or consumption were analysed, including the relationship between them.

Finally, both stages of the analysis took into consideration the change in food systems thinking over time, breaking the literature into five evenly distributed time-periods from 1975 to 2018.

Overview of the sampled literature

The first overall observation about the sampled literature is the institutional bias. The selection of documents is heavily skewed to WorldFish, which represents 78% of all documents compared to FAO and SEAFDEC making up 15% and 7% respectively (Fig.  2 ). This bias is caused by the higher prevalence of publications by WorldFish staff in international peer-reviewed journals compared to the higher proportion of institutionally published reports by FAO and SEAFDEC. Nevertheless, the review indicates that themes covered in the review are shared across the three organizations and, as a result, our analysis does not make any comparison between them. A detailed comparative analysis of the science policy interface that scrutinizes the contributions of these institutions to the complex process of policy-making (Gluckman 2018 ) goes beyond the scope of this study.

Institutional ( a ) and geographical ( b ) coverages of the sampled literature

The second observation is the bias in the geographical scope of the documents sampled. Bangladesh, which has received more development attention than other South and Southeast Asian nations over the past 40 years, represents over 35% of the documents reviewed. The Philippines, which hosted both ICLARM (now WorldFish) and SEAFDEC, makes up close to 10% of the articles reviewed. Meanwhile other major freshwater fisheries and aquaculture countries, such as Thailand and Vietnam, make up only 3% of the papers reviewed (Fig.  2 ). Overall, however, the sampled literature indicates that development policies and perspectives surrounding fish as food are largely shared across all countries covered in the review. Hence, while we are mindful that our choice of treating the great diversity of South and Southeast Asian contexts as one group implies important simplifications, we contend that our approach paints a faithful (albeit general) description of research and development policy around freshwater fisheries and aquaculture in the region.

The third and most significant observation is that the segregated literature (i.e. analytical focus on wild or farmed fish) represents 76% of the literature sampled, while the integrated literature (analytical focus on wild and farmed fish together) represents only 24% (Fig.  3 ). This confirms that freshwater fish production is largely understood as either farmed or wild caught, with limited understanding of how these two modes of production relate to each other. The division also confirms the polarization of narratives associated with farmed and wild fish production and their expected contribution to food security (cf. Little et al. 2016 ).

Proportions of segregated and integrated articles in the sampled literature

In the following section we present the results of the review by food fish system components (i.e. production, provisioning and consumption). In doing so we only reference papers categorized under the respective food fish system component and not papers that, even while relevant to the observations made, are not categorised under that component.

Coverage of the segregated literature

An observation shared across both the wild and farmed fish literature is the disproportionate and persistent focus on production. Nearly all (99%) the articles reviewed included analysis of production, creating a clear division between capture fisheries and aquaculture respectively (Fig.  4 ). This production focus was absolute from the 1970s into the 2000s. As the following shows, provision and consumption became more prevalent themes from the 2000s onwards. Nevertheless, a clear division between wild and farmed fish persists. The following outlines the main themes and topics covered under associated bodies of literature.

Proportion of segregated articles and key messages by food fish system components

The starting point of our review, in the mid-1970s, coincides with a redefinition of the capture fisheries research and development agenda. While the early literature from the 1960s-1970s had focused predominantly on increasing production through improved technology and infrastructure, Footnote 3 the new agenda emerged from the recognition that resources were not endless and that small-scale operators were the most impacted by their exhaustion (Smith 1981 ). This new agenda, commonly labelled “small-scale fisheries” largely developed around perspectives from both coastal and freshwater fisheries. From the 1990s onwards, this literature largely put the emphasis on overfishing as the main factor driving fisheries decline (Smith 1981 ; Sultana and Thompson 2004 ; Ratner 2006 ). Subsequently, in the late 2000s the scope of factors driving fisheries decline expanded to include environmental degradation and fish habitat destruction derived from industrial, agricultural developments, or climate change (Allison et al. 2009 ; Baran and Myschowoda 2009 ; Beard et al. 2011 ).

In parallel, a body of capture fisheries literature emerged in early to mid-2000s focusing on solutions for improving the status of wild fish stocks. The literature on solutions for fisheries decline can be further divided into two main themes. In the mid-2000s a broad range of resource management options were focused on, with co-management emerging as a leading approach for promoting the empowerment of fishing communities in the management and help to address broader inter-sectoral conflicts (Thompson et al. 2003 ; Nielsen et al. 2004 ; Andrew et al. 2007 ). In the mid to late 2000s, this management-focused literature broadened to include more attention to the social and economic conditions of fisheries production. Most notably, this literature has moved beyond conflict resolution to include social welfare (Béné et al. 2010 ), resilience (Ratner and Allison 2012 ), human rights (Allison et al. 2012 ) and well-being (Weeratunge et al. 2014 ). This ‘social-turn’ in freshwater capture fisheries contrasts markedly with the early literature in placing fishing communities as centrally important for the persistence of the fisheries as a source of food security.

In contrast to capture fisheries, the aquaculture literature has persisted from the 1970s with a strong productivist agenda (Pullin and Neal 1984 ). Throughout this early literature, the focus on production was justified by perceptions of declining wild capture fisheries, the assumption that aquaculture would replace declining stocks, and a broader agenda to further ‘the tropics’ as central to the development of the sector on a global scale (Coche 1978 ; Pullin and Neal 1984 ). The alignment of aquaculture under the wider ‘blue revolution’ narrative emphasizes the ‘untapped biophysical potential’ of the sector and (reflecting green revolution rhetoric) the need to advance the production technologies and cost-efficiency of a variety of production systems. This narrative of technical efficiency has persisted in the literature as a guiding principle for farmed fish research and development in South and Southeast Asia to the present (Dey et al. 2000b , 2005b ; Katiha et al 2005 ; Karim et al. 2016 ).

The focus on the technical efficiency of production is observed in the sampled literature through two further persistent narratives around Asian aquaculture. First, in line with the priorities of the three institutions studied, calls for technical efficiency have been made predominantly in relation to small-scale rural aquaculture (Dalsgaard 1997 ). The assumption underlying this focus is that these producers dominate the overall production in Asia and make the most direct contribution to food security (Ahmed and Lorica 2002 ; Dey et al. 2005a , b ). Second, the focus on technical efficiency has meant that a significant proportion of the literature sampled (33%) has been on fish breeding. Associated research has concentrated on single species’ yield maximization, denoting a change from earlier conceptualization of aquaculture as “an extremely diverse means of food production” (Pullin and Neal 1984 , p. 227). While still including a number of species overall (see Lind et al. 2012 ), fish breeding research has been dominated by tilapia (Eknath et al. 1993 ; Khaw et al. 2008 ; Dey et al. 2000b ; Bentsen et al. 2012 ); a species that now contributes over 20% of freshwater farmed fish in the region Footnote 4 .

In contrast with fisheries, and the wider literature on industrial (largely marine) aquaculture in other parts of the world Footnote 5 , the sampled literature on freshwater aquaculture gives limited consideration to environmental impact. This apparent gap may be explained by assumptions expressed in some papers around the limited environmental impact of production of low trophic-level freshwater carps (Prein 2002 ; Dey et al. 2005b ). These papers assume a high efficiency of such systems, with only limited attention to the gradual intensification of carp production systems. This is particularly evident in the research around terrestrial ingredients used in their diets, Footnote 6 where the emphasis has essentially consisted in ascertaining “economically optimal” feeding rate (Tacon and Silva 1997 ; Karim et al. 2011 ).

In addition to a sustained focus on production, the sampled science-policy literature is characterised by two persistent narratives. The fisheries literature has emphasized the decline of fish resources and the need for more effective stewardship and management through the empowerment of fishing communities. The aquaculture literature, in contrast, has persisted with a narrative of unfulfilled potential and the need for improved technical efficiency. As a result of their distinct narratives, a division is also observed between the disciplines underlying these two literatures: social scientists for wild fish, and natural scientists and economists for farmed fish research. As the following sections demonstrate, this dichotomy is also apparent across other food fish system components.

Research related to provisioning is evident in papers published from 2000 onwards but represents less than 20% of the literature reviewed (Fig.  4 ). Hence, provisioning represents the least documented food fish system component across both the wild and farmed fish literature. Provisioning activities are commonly observed as being related to, and of importance for consumption and production, rather than being a direct analytical focus of research. Nonetheless, the sampled literature does make various assertions around the importance of provisioning for addressing development priorities for both wild and farmed fish production.

Only 11% of wild fish-related papers integrate provisioning in their analysis (Fig.  4 ). Although not explicitly articulated, activities associated with moving and marketing freshwater fish are often assumed to be mostly traditional and homogenous by nature and therefore not worth further examination. For example, Thompson et al. ( 2003 ) do not consider market attributes related to community-based fisheries management in Bangladesh because “they are not significantly different between inland wetlands in Bangladesh” (p. 310). This is in direct contrast to more recent research which gives greater attention to complex and fragmented informal networks of trade and bartering that shape wild fish provisioning and catches (Cooke et al. 2016 ). As shown in the following section, there is mounting evidence of wild fish consumption far beyond the communities that catch them, but little research has been done on the provisioning practices that distribute this food fish.

The literature on farmed fish pays relatively greater attention to provisioning, with 18% of the papers reviewed making analytical reference in some way to provisioning related activities (Fig.  4 ). This literature can be further divided into papers focused on global provisioning (to major export markets like the EU and US), representing 12% of the sampled papers, and provisioning activities related to domestic and regional markets, representing only 6% of the sampled papers.

The main focus of the global provisioning literature addresses broad questions around the role of aquaculture in meeting global demands for export-oriented species like shrimp and pangasius (Ahmed et al. 2008 ; Little et al. 2012 ). Building on such a global perspective, it is often implied that Asian producers should target global export markets to benefit from enhanced profits compared to domestic or regional markets (Ahmed et al. 2010 ; Haque et al. 2010 ) and ideals of ‘upgrading’ trajectories are essentially articulated around international trade (Ponte et al. 2014 ). However, a smaller proportion of the literature raises questions around the merits of international trade, especially with regards to regulation and certification aimed at improving the environmental and social performance of the sector (Bush et al. 2013 ; Jonell et al. 2013 ; Troell et al. 2014 ). This literature acknowledges the limits of existing regulatory tools and points towards the necessary complementarity of public and private governance to address these challenges.

Papers focused on domestic and regional provisioning have been published from 2010 onwards and highlight the growing importance of aquaculture to food security and social wellbeing. Two major themes emerge from the literature sampled. First, the papers emphasize the development of farmed fish supply chains towards the provisioning of cities (E-Jahan et al. 2010 ; Karim et al. 2011 ; Toufique and Belton 2014 ; Belton et al. 2016 ). These papers show that urbanization translates into increased demand for (farmed) fish, rendering the development of the sector largely a peri-urban phenomenon, with fast-developing supply chains and associated services. Footnote 7 Second, this literature indicates a growing attention to gender in domestic supply chains, emphasizing on the one hand the more important roles women play in farmed fish post-harvest activities compared to men, and on the other the existence of formal and informal barriers limiting equal benefits from the sector for women (Morgan et al. 2017 ; Kruijssen et al. 2018 ). These papers, however, tend to focus on gendered roles and benefits from provisioning fish rather than the performance or conduct of provisioning activities themselves, such as processing, transportation or trade.

While some food system-related themes like the effects of urbanization on farmed fish demand are emerging, the sampled literature remains largely focused on international trade, regulation and social dynamics that condition but do not explain provisioning activities. This has consequences for understanding the relative contribution of wild and farmed fish to food security beyond the sites of production, especially in Asian domestic markets. As the following section demonstrates, this also has consequences for the attention paid to fish consumption.

Consumption

Consumption is analysed substantively in 35% of the articles reviewed (Fig.  4 ). However, these studies only emerged from 2000 onwards, indicating a relatively late recognition of the importance of freshwater fish as food in the region. Reflecting the dearth of attention given to provisioning, consumption is commonly considered in conjunction with production, which emphasizes subsistence or semi-subsistence production and thereby overlooks the wider contributions of fish to food security. The following outlines the overarching themes covered under consumption in the literature on wild and farmed fish respectively.

In line with the overall sample, only 37% of wild fish-related articles integrate fish consumption in their analysis (Fig.  4 ). This overall bias can be explained by the predominant focus on production, which views fish as a resource to be conserved rather than as a food source (Hall et al. 2012 ). As demonstrated by Evans et al. ( 2011 ), less than 10% of studies on co-management consider fish consumption. Our review indicates that even when the wild fish literature considers consumption, the attention tends to be limited to direct or ‘subsistence’ consumption by fishing communities (Thompson et al. 2003 ; Badjeck et al. 2010 ). This subsistence focus also tends to reinforce assumptions that fishing communities are highly vulnerable (Allison et al. 2009 ; Badjeck et al. 2010 ), which is underpinned by the lack of knowledge on provisioning and, as such, their engagement with the wider (food) economy.

A more recent key theme in the wild fish literature is the assessment of freshwater production on the basis of consumption data (Fluet-chouinard et al. 2018 ). These consumption-based approaches build on a wider “hidden harvest” narrative of FAO, WorldFish and other international policy organizations Footnote 8 that advocates that up to 80% of freshwater fish landing volumes are not recorded, with the consequence that the contribution of wild fish to food security is fundamentally misunderstood (Hall et al. 2012 ; Youn et al. 2014 ). Studies focused on nutrition have also emphasized the importance of species diversity for healthy fish-based diets, which in turn reaffirms the need for production-oriented management strategies to maintain biodiversity (Nurhasan et al. 2010 ; Youn et al. 2014 ).

Also in line with the overall sample, 35% of sampled papers from the farmed fish literature cover consumption in their analysis (see Fig.  4 ). An overarching theme in this subset of papers, in direct support of the productivist ‘blue revolution’ narrative, is that farmed fish is compensating for the decreasing availability of wild fish (e.g. Ahmed and Lorica 2002 ; Prein 2002 ). Except for a few papers that explore how vulnerable (poor) consumers access fish (E-Jahan et al. 2010 ), the literature places considerable emphasis on increasing the overall affordability and accessibility of farmed fish supply across the region (Dey 2000 ; Dey et al. 2000a ). This literature overwhelmingly refers to a generic category of ‘fish’ rather than giving details on consumer preference for different species (Morgan et al. 2017 ). Instead, claims of consumer preference lead to distinctions of preference that provide generalized and often unsubstantiated claims. For example, "common carp has traditionally been a preferred cultured species […] tilapia are proposed as an alternative because these fish are cheap to raise, give high yields and are also quite palatable" (Fernando and Halwart 2000 , p. 45) or "prices of fish […] are the driving force that influence consumers' decision to buy a particular species" (Dey et al. 2005a , p. 105).

Similar to the wild fish literature, another persistent theme is farmed fish consumption by producers, often framed as a benefit of aquaculture development interventions (Prein 2002 ; Karim et al. 2011 ; Pant et al. 2014 ). Footnote 9 Following Ahmed and Lorica ( 2002 ), increased fish consumption is positioned next to two other ‘linkages’ (income and employment) by which aquaculture contributes to food security of producing households. Increased direct consumption is the only linkage that has been documented in the sampled literature (E-Jahan and Pemsl 2011 ). Claims that increased income from aquaculture increases the consumption of nutritious foods, or that the nutritional benefits brought by aquaculture extend to the hired labour, are not well supported in the sampled literature (Kawarazuka and Béné 2010 ). Nevertheless, these assumptions are commonly advanced to legitimatize aquaculture development interventions in the interest of food security (E-Jahan et al. 2010 ), including when the production target is oriented towards export (Ahmed et al. 2010 ).

Finally, there is a strong bias in favour of rural farmed fish consumption, despite relatively early acknowledgement of the growth and importance of urban fish consumption (Dey et al. 2000a ; Ahmed and Lorica 2002 ). Studies that do focus on urban consumption highlight the role of higher urban purchasing power as a means of driving rural development, rather than the importance of fish consumption to urban food security (e.g. Karim et al. 2011 ). More recently, albeit to a lesser extent, attention has been given to the wider influence of urbanization as a key driver of aquaculture development, with attention going to the effects growing urban demand will have on both the volume and kinds of fish produced (Belton and Bush 2014 ).

Overall, however, the science-policy literature treats consumption in relatively limited respects, placing emphasis on direct and spatially proximate consumption rather than the wider contribution of food fish, both wild and farmed, to domestic and regional economies of South and Southeast Asia. Our comparative review of the segregated fisheries and aquaculture literature shows how this segregation has had a foundational role in the articulation of development policies associated with the two sectors.

Coverage of the integrated literature

While most papers segregate wild and farmed fish production, consumption and provisioning, a small but growing set of papers takes a more integrated perspective. In breaking down the distinction between wild and farmed fish, this literature has increasingly drawn attention to the interlinkages between production, provisioning and consumption, thereby giving rise to progressively more food system-oriented perspectives on fish (Fig.  5 ).

a Number of sampled articles and b their proportional focus on food fish system components in the sampled literature from 1975 to 2018

In stark contrast to the segregated literature, nearly two thirds of the articles in the integrated literature focus on consumption as a main area of inquiry (see Fig.  6 ). Also, in direct contrast with the segregated literature, these papers emphasize the degree to which wild and farmed fish are not substitutable. Belton and Thilsted ( 2014 ), for example, demonstrate the complementarity of wild and farmed fish in contributing to food security in Asia and other developing regions. In doing so they challenge the prevailing policy narrative that aquaculture will gradually replace declining wild fish stocks by showing that wild fisheries continue to make an important contribution to nutrition, particularly for the most vulnerable consumers. This is supported by a number of other papers that underscore the relatively higher nutritional value of wild fish and, as such, the importance of maintaining species diversity, particularly highly nutritious small fish that are consumed whole (Welcomme et al. 2010 ; Kawarazuka and Béné 2011 ; Beveridge et al. 2013 ; Belton and Thilsted 2014 ; Youn et al. 2014 ; Bogard et al. 2017 ).

Proportion of integrated articles and key messages by food fish system components

Similar to the segregated literature, relatively few papers (36%) in the sample give analytical attention to provisioning (see Fig.  6 ). Although the integrated literature has the merit of being more focused on regional dynamics, farmed fish in this literature is still more commonly framed as a cash crop than a food crop (Kawarazuka and Béné 2010 ). This tendency has contributed to steering development efforts towards the production of larger-sized fish aimed at the urban middle-classes rather than smaller and economically accessible fish aimed at poorer rural and urban consumers (Beveridge et al. 2013 ). While this literature emphasizes the value of wild fish for rural food security, it also recognizes that wild fish are increasingly traded to meet growing urban demand (Kawarazuka and Béné 2010 ). These general observations, however, lack empirical evidence and underlines a need for increased attention to how the transition to farming affects access to and use of food fish by different consumers. As argued by Toufique and Belton ( 2014 ), the greater the recognition given to fish as food in domestic markets, the more important it will be for the science-policy literature to shift the understanding of consumption beyond the producers and beyond categories of ‘wild’ and ‘farmed’.

Like the segregated literature, 89% of papers in the integrated literature focus their analysis on production (see Fig.  6 ). In opposition to the segregated literature however, the integrated literature challenges the dichotomy commonly assumed between farmed and wild fish. From the late 1990s onwards, the integrated literature has emphasised a continuum based on increasing human inputs and control over freshwater fish production and increasing private ownership moving from fisheries to aquaculture (Welcomme and Bartley 1998 ; Lorenzen et al. 2012 ). More recently, Little et al. ( 2016 ) explain the origin of aquaculture by describing the transition from fishing as "a gradual process" developing in "responses to times when demands for wild foods outstripped supplies" (p. 275). Despite its analytical power to rethink freshwater fisheries and aquaculture as closely interrelated production processes, it is evident from the review that such continuum perspective has had very little influence on the science-policy literature surrounding South and Southeast Asian freshwater.

Across consumption, provision, and production the integrated literature emphasizes the different contributions of wild and farmed fish as food, highlighting their complementarity rather than their substitutability. While this perspective underlines the importance of food fish systems thinking, it also shows that further evidence is still needed on the linkages between the three food system components, especially with respect to access and use of food fish by poor consumers in both rural and urban settings.

Discussion: towards food (fish) systems thinking

Our review of the science-policy literature on freshwater fish reveals a gradual shift toward understanding freshwater fish in South and Southeast Asia from a more integrated perspective. Historically, the science-policy literature has focused heavily on fish production and maintained a clear division between capture fisheries and aquaculture. However, attention is increasingly being paid to the provisioning and consumption of freshwater fish, and an emerging strand of ‘integrated’ literature is beginning to break down the dichotomy between wild caught and farmed fish. Though these emerging strands still represent a small proportion of the literature, and are not framed explicitly in terms of food systems thinking, they demonstrate the complementarity of wild and farmed fish as food, and lay the foundations for a more precise understanding of freshwater food fish in the region. We argue that the main value of the food fish systems approach, as applied to the Asian freshwater fish science-policy landscape in this review, is to reveal weaknesses and lacunae in the existing literature and identify agendas for future research.

Three points stand out. First, the science-policy literature on capture fisheries and aquaculture are heavily siloed. The two sectors are erroneously framed as separate, and in opposition, while their overlapping and highly complementary contributions to food security are rarely recognized. Second, the strongly productivist bias of the literature results in inadequate understanding of the system of provision and consumer behavior and their mutually constitutive and recursive relationships with the system of production. Moreover, a focus on specific types of production (subsistence, export) means that many important forms of production and associated systems of provision and consumption are overlooked. Third, the literature on freshwater fish largely assumes simplistic relations from production to consumption with the consequence that governance is conceived predominantly around production. Such framing ignores the multidirectional relations between the production, provision, and consumption of freshwater food fish and, as a result, falls short in leveraging other important entry points for governing food security. We address these points in greater detail below.

First, the deep disciplinary and epistemological disconnect between scientists working in freshwater fisheries and aquaculture, and the framing of the two sectors as separate and distinct policy spheres, often in competition or opposition to one another, has severely curtailed the terms in which policy-makers and researchers understand the relative roles and contributions of wild and farmed fish. In contrast, the food fish system perspective stresses the complementarity of these forms of production within the same food system, making it possible to appreciate their overlapping (albeit differentiated) contributions to food security in the region. As such, the food fish system perspective lays the ground for reconciling the siloed research agendas surrounding wild and farmed fish, suggesting multidisciplinary perspectives that combine elements from social and natural sciences. Such a reassessment notably calls for a better recognition of intermediate forms of production, that are still largely disregarded, and which understandings could help leveraging ecological synergies across wild and farmed fish production (Lynch et al. 2019 ). For instance, the food fish system would help moving the aquaculture research agenda beyond technical efficiency to pay greater attention to species diversity and become more sensitive to the ecology of local fish communities. By articulating a more integrated perspective on production, a food fish system perspective holds the promise to not only better tackle food security, but also to put greater emphasis on agroecological integrity rather than production efficiency alone (Eakin et al. 2016 ).

Second, a focus on fish production—and on specific types of production—has contributed to inadequate and distorted understandings of fish provision and consumption. Except for the literature on global value chains dealing with production for export, fish provision has been largely overlooked, creating a ‘missing middle’ in food fish system science-policy literature. Processing, distribution and consumption of fish, and the ways that changes in these spheres (e.g. technological and institutional innovations, new forms of retail, evolving consumption practices) ultimately shape production practices have been overlooked. Excessive attention towards export-oriented production in aquaculture has framed freshwater fish more as a global commodity for revenue generation than as a foodstuff contributing to food security in producing nations. Similarly, emphasis on the role of subsistence production in freshwater capture fisheries and aquaculture has contributed to ignoring the wider contribution of food fish to domestic and regional economies of South and Southeast Asia. As a result of these biases, understandings of fish consumption in the region fall short of grasping the socio-cultural factors that underpin where, how, and why, wild and/or farmed fish are consumed (see for e.g. Jennings et al. 2016 ), and their contributions to food security. In short, a food fish system perspective gives rise to clearer recognition of the specific nature of provision and consumption, implying a reconsideration of how these in turn shape and structure the system (Koc and Dahlberg 1999 ; Béné et al. 2019 ).

Third, our review demonstrates the value of understanding multidirectional interrelations between production, provisioning and consumption that make up a food fish systems approach. As such, the food fish system thinking goes beyond ‘chain’ approaches where the emphasis is on bi-directional flows of products and finance and where governance is predominantly perceived in terms of leveraging improvements around production (Ponte and Sturgeon 2014 ). In contrast, by recognizing interrelated sets of production, provision, and consumption practices, a food fish system perspective reveals multiple entry points for governing outcomes associated with food. Seen from this angle, achieving food security or sustainability requires incorporating and coordinating the multiple ways in which these different sets interact (Ericksen 2008 ; Ingram 2011 ). In the context of rapid societal transitions such as those occurring in South and Southeast Asia, acknowledging such multi-directionality has the potential to better anticipate what changing consumer demands and systems of provision mean for the relative contributions of wild and farmed fish to consumers in the region; both vulnerable and affluent (IPES 2017 ).

We have articulated our food fish system approach here around freshwater fish, the marginalized bulk of food fish in the region, and argued that it makes a compelling case for advancing food systems thinking. Yet, more research is needed to complement these understandings with a food systems-based analysis of marine food fish, which is another substantial component of the regional food basket. It will be even more important for future research to move beyond these two broad aggregate categories of food fish in order to fully account for diversity within them, and better appreciate the differentiated contributions that individual species and products make to the overall food fish system (Tlusty et al. 2019 ). Going even further, we argue that a food fish systems thinking can be advanced by engaging with the turn to ‘diet-thinking’. The latter works back from the practice of consuming meals or dishes to integrate the multiple and extended systems of ingredients (Haddad et al. 2016 ; Willett et al. 2019 ). A diet approach can also help avoid the common export bias surrounding food fish (see Belton and Bush 2014 ; McClanahan et al. 2015 ; Bush et al. 2019 ) by articulating the geographic scope of production through consumption and provisioning (Béné et al. 2019 ).

A partial shift towards a food fish system perspective is apparent in the freshwater fisheries and aquaculture literature in South and Southeast Asia. The approach appears to be useful in explaining and reconciling polarizing narratives surrounding freshwater food fish by questioning key assumptions around what drives their production, provisioning and consumption in the region. The science policy literature is yet to frame future directions in ‘food fish systems’ terms. Nevertheless, there are indications that this literature, and the organizations it represents, are starting to open up to the value of systemically linking production, provision and consumption and translating these linkages into the policy landscape. By doing so they hold the potential to shift policy towards more integrated perspectives, moving beyond the simplistic productivist narratives to better consider how food fish is distributed and consumed in the region.

There remains considerable opportunity to further develop a food fish systems approach in Asia and beyond. While food systems research has generated considerable enthusiasm in recent years, such studies are still for the most part limited to the ‘temperate minority’ Footnote 10 from where most academic contributors originate (see for e.g. Jennings et al. 2016 ). In advancing the food fish system agenda, it will be essential for academics to make sure that they account for the realities of the ‘tropical majority’, 9 in particular Asia, where most of the world’s fish is produced and consumed (FAO 2018 ). In that regard, the present study should be taken as a preliminary broad-brush assessment. Because food fish systems (however global) are dependent on local conditions, further attention should be given to fine-grained place-based studies that dissect and document how complex and interrelated sets of production, provision, and consumption practices affect the availability, accessibility, and use of food fish in particular places.

Notwithstanding this ongoing shift towards food fish systems thinking, we contend that the latter needs to be more explicitly fostered and adopted by research and development actors at the center of our review. Only then will it have a substantial influence in framing how the contribution of fish to food security is understood and translated into policy in regions such as South and Southeast Asia. It is worth noting that some of the criticisms stemming from our review have been recurring. It has been over 20 years since Bailey ( 1988 ) wrote in this same journal: “international development agencies have promoted a dualistic pattern of fisheries development within the Third World […] fisheries development and resource management need to be seen as complementary aspects of a single process”. To do so effectively, we have argued here for a food fish system as a promising framework for revitalizing fisheries and aquaculture development agendas towards food security.

Brunei, Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Japan, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam

The search was initially done using 1960 as a starting date, corresponding to the beginning of the Green Revolution. 1975 was eventually retained as the start point because it corresponded to the earliest publication in the sample fitting the review inclusion criteria. The end date of 2018 was used as it corresponded to the year when the review process was initiated.

Refer to Smith ( 1979 ) and the more recent sequel article of Pomeroy ( 2016 ) for a contextualization of the research agenda prevailing at the time.

*Statistics calculated with FAO-FIGIS ( http://www.fao.org/figis ) for 2017.

Refer to Naylor et al. ( 2000 ), or Natale et al. ( 2013 ) for a discussion on the environmental impacts of (marine) aquaculture.

Refer to Pahlow et al. ( 2015 ) for a discussion on the terrestrial feed demand of (marine and freshwater) aquaculture.

See Bush et al. ( 2019 ) for a recent synthesis of aquaculture research on domestic and regional supply chains in the Global South.

See Kelleher et al. ( 2012 ) for more on the “Hidden harvest” narrative.

Refer to Belton and Little ( 2011 ) for an analysis of the aquaculture development narrative in Asia.

This terminology is borrowed from Bavinck et al. ( 2018 ) to refer to the global north and the global south respectively.

Ahmed, N., E.H. Allison, and J.F. Muir. 2008. Using the sustainable livelihoods framework to identify constraints and opportunities to the development of freshwater prawn farming in Southwest Bangladesh. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 39 (5): 598–611.

Google Scholar  

Ahmed, N., Æ.E.H. Allison, and Æ.J.F. Muir. 2010. Rice fields to prawn farms: A blue revolution in southwest Bangladesh? Aquaculture International 18: 555–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-009-9276-0 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Ahmed, M., and M.H. Lorica. 2002. Improving developing country food security through aquaculture development—Lessons from Asia. Food Policy 27 (1652): 125–141.

Allison, E.H., A.L. Perry, M. Badjeck, W.N. Adger, K. Brown, D. Conway, A.S. Halls, J.M. Pilling, J.D. Reynolds, N.L. Andrew, and N.K. Dulvy. 2009. Vulnerability of national economies to the impacts of climate change on fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 10: 173–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2008.00310.x .

Allison, E.H., B.D. Ratner, B. Asgard, R. Willmann, R. Pomeroy, and J. Kurien. 2012. Rights-based fisheries governance: From fishing rights to human rights. Fish and Fisheries 13: 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2011.00405.x .

Andrew, N.L., C. Béné, S.J. Hall, E.H. Allison, S. Heck, and B.D. Ratner. 2007. Diagnosis and management of small-scale fisheries in developing countries. Fish and Fisheries 8 (227): 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2679.2007.00252.x .

Arksey, H., and L.O. Malley. 2005. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8: 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 .

Badjeck, M., E.H. Allison, A.S. Halls, and N.K. Dulvy. 2010. Impacts of climate variability and change on fishery-based livelihoods. Marine Policy 34 (3): 375–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2009.08.007 .

Bailey, C. 1988. The political economy of fisheries development in the third world. Agriculture and Human Values 5 (1–2): 35–48.

Baran, E., and C. Myschowoda. 2009. Dams and fisheries in the Mekong Basin. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 12 (3): 227–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/14634980903149902 .

Barrientos, S., C. Dolan, and A. Tallontire. 2003. A gendered value chain approach to codes of conduct in African horticulture. World Development 31 (9): 1511–1526.

Bavinck, M., S. Jentoft, and J. Scholtens. 2018. Fisheries as social struggle: A reinvigorated social science research agenda. Marine Policy 94: 46–52.

Beard, T.D.J., R. Arlinghaus, S.J. Cooke, P.B. McIntyre, S. De Silva, D. Bartley, and I.G. Cowx. 2011. Ecosystem approach to inland fisheries: Research needs and implementation strategies. Biology Letters - Conservation Biology 7: 481–483.

Belton, B., and S.R. Bush. 2014. Beyond net deficits: New priorities for an aquacultural geography. Geographical Journal 180 (1): 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12035 .

Belton, B., and D.C. Little. 2011. Immanent and interventionist inland Asian aquaculture development and its outcomes. Development Policy Review 29 (4): 459–484.

Belton, B., and S.H. Thilsted. 2014. Fisheries in transition: Food and nutrition security implications for the global South. Global Food Security 3 (1): 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2013.10.001 .

Belton, B., I.J.M. van Asseldonk, and S.R. Bush. 2016. Domestic crop booms, livelihood pathways and nested transitions: Charting the implications of Bangladesh’s Pangasius Boom. Journal of Agrarian Change 17 (4): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/joac.12168 .

Béné, C., R. Arthur, H. Norbury, E.H. Allison, M.C.M. Beveridge, S.R. Bush, L. Campling, W. Leschen, D. Little, D. Squires, S.H. Thilsted, M. Troell, and M. Williams. 2016. Contribution of fisheries and aquaculture to food security and poverty reduction: Assessing the current evidence. World Development 79: 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.11.007 .

Béné, C., M. Barange, R. Subasinghe, P. Pinstrup-Andersen, G. Merino, G. Hemre, and M. Williams. 2015. Feeding 9 billion by 2050—Putting fish back on the menu. Food Security 7: 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-015-0427-z .

Béné, C., B. Hersoug, and E.H. Allison. 2010. Not by rent alone: Analysing the pro-poor functions of small-scale fisheries in developing countries. Development Policy Review 28 (3): 325–358.

Béné, C., P. Oosterveer, L. Lamotte, I.D. Brouwer, S. de Haan, S.D. Prager, E.F. Talsma, and C.K. Khoury. 2019. When food systems meet sustainability—Current narratives and implications for actions. World Development 113: 116–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.08.011 .

Bentsen, H.B., B. Gjerde, N.H. Nguyen, M. Rye, R.W. Ponzoni, M.S. Palada de Vera, H.L. Bolivar, R.R. Velasco, J.C. Danting, E.E. Dionisio, F.M. Longalong, R.A. Reyes, T.A. Abella, M.M. Tayamen, and A.E. Eknath. 2012. Genetic improvement of farmed tilapias: Genetic parameters for body weight at harvest in Nile tilapia ( Oreochromis niloticus ) during five generations of testing in multiple environments. Aquaculture 341: 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.01.027 .

Beveridge, M.C.M., S.H. Thilsted, M.J. Phillips, M. Metian, M. Troell, and S.J. Hall. 2013. Meeting the food and nutrition needs of the poor: The role of fish and the opportunities and challenges emerging from. Fish Biology 83: 1067–1084. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12187 .

Bogard, J.R., S. Farook, G.C. Marks, J. Waid, B. Belton, M. Ali, K. Toufique, A. Mamun, and S.H. Thilsted. 2017. Higher fish but lower micronutrient intakes: Temporal changes in fish consumption from capture fisheries and aquaculture in Bangladesh. PLoS ONE . https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175098 .

Brummett, R.E., M.C.M. Beveridge, and I.G. Cowx. 2013. Functional aquatic ecosystems, inland fisheries and the Millennium Development Goals. Fish and Fisheries 14 (3): 312–324.

Bush, S.R., B. Belton, D. Hall, P. Vandergeest, F.J. Murray, S. Ponte, P. Oosterveer, M.S. Islam, A.P.J. Mol, M. Hatanaka, T.T.T. Ha, D.C. Little, and R. Kusamawati. 2013. Certify sustainable aquaculture? Science 341 (6150): 1067–1068. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1237314 .

Bush, S.R., B. Belton, D. Little, and I.M. Saidul. 2019. Emerging trends in aquaculture value chain research. Aquaculture 498: 428–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2018.08.077 .

Bush, S.R., P. Oosterveer, M. Bailey, and A.P. Mol. 2015. Sustainability governance of chains and networks: A review and future outlook. Journal of Cleaner Production 107: 8–19.

Chan, C.Y., N. Tran, C.D. Dao, T.B. Sulser, M.J. Phillips, M. Batka, K. Wiebe, and N. Preston. 2017. Fish to 2050 in the ASEAN region. Penang, Malaysia: WorldFish and Washington DC, USA: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Working Paper: 2017-01.

Coche, G. 1978. A Review of fish cage culture as practiced in inland waters. Aquaculture 13: 157–189.

Cooke, S.J., E.H. Allison, T.D. Beard Jr., J.R. Arlinghaus, A.H. Arthington, D.M. Bartley, I.G. Cowx, C. Fuentevilla, N.J. Leonard, K. Lorenzen, A.J. Lynch, V.M. Nguyen, S. Youn, W.W. Taylor, and R.L. Welcomme. 2016. On the sustainability of inland fisheries: Finding a future for the forgotten. Ambio 45 (7): 753–764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0787-4 .

Cooke, S.J., N.W.R. Lapointe, E.G. Martins, J.D. Thiem, G.D. Raby, M.K. Taylor, T.D. Beard Jr., and I.G. Cowx. 2013. Failure to engage the public in issues related to inland fishes and fisheries: Strategies for building public and political will to promote meaningful conservation. Journal of Fish Biology 83 (4): 997–1018. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12222 .

Dalsgaard, J.P.T. 1997. A quantitative approach for assessing the productive performance and ecological contributions of smallholder farms. Agricultural Systems 55 (4): 503–533.

Delgado, C.L. 2003. Fish to 2020: Supply and demand in changing global markets . Washington: WorldFishTechnical Report 62. International Food Policy Research Institute and WorldFish.

Dey, M.M. 2000. The impact of genetically improved farmed Nile tilapia in Asia. Aquaculture Economics and Management 7305 (4): 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657300009380263 .

Dey, M.M., G.B. Bimbao, L. Yong, P. Regaspi, A.H.M. Kohinoor, N. Pongthana, and F.J. Paraguas. 2000a. Current status of production and consumption of tilapia in selected Asian countries. Aquaculture Economics and Management 7305 (4): 13–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657300009380258 .

Dey, M.M., F.J. Paraguas, G.B. Bimbao, and P.B. Regaspi. 2000b. Technical efficiency of tilapia growout pond operations in the Philippines. Aquaculture Economics and Management 4 (1–2): 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657300009380259 .

Dey, M.M., M.A. Rab, F.J. Paraguas, S. Piumsombun, R. Bhatta, M.F. Alam, and M. Ahmed. 2005a. Fish consumption and food security: A disaggregated analysis by types of fish and classes of consumers in selected Asian countries. Aquaculture Economics and Management 9 (1–2): 89–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657300590961537 .

Dey, M.M., M.A. Rab, F.J. Paraguas, R. Bhatta, M.F. Alam, S. Koeshendrajana, and M. Ahmed. 2005b. Status and economics of freshwater aquaculture in selected countries of Asia. Aquaculture Economics and Management 9 (1): 11–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657300590961609 .

E-Jahan, K.M., M. Ahmed, and B. Belton. 2010. The impacts of aquaculture development on food security: Lessons from Bangladesh. Aquaculture Research 41: 481–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2009.02337.x .

E-Jahan, K.M., and D.E. Pemsl. 2011. The impact of integrated aquaculture—Agriculture on small-scale farm sustainability and farmers’ livelihoods: Experience from Bangladesh. Agricultural Systems 104 (5): 392–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2011.01.003 .

Eakin, H., J.P. Connors, C. Wharton, F. Bretmann, A. Xiong, and J. Stoltzfus. 2016. Identifying attributes of food system sustainability: Emerging themes and consensus. Agriculture and Human Values 34 (3): 757–773.

Edwards, P. 2015. Aquaculture environment interactions: Past, present and likely future trends. Aquaculture 447: 2–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2015.02.001 .

Edwards, P., D.C. Little, and H. Demaine (eds.). 2002. Rural aquaculture . Wallingford: CABI.

Eknath, A.E., M.M. Tayamen, M.S. Palada-de Vera, J.C. Danting, R.A. Reyes, E.E. Dionisio, J.B. Capili, L. Boliva, T.A. Abella, A.V. Circa, H.B. Bentsen, B. Gjerde, T. Gjedrem, and R.S.V. Pullin. 1993. Genetic improvement of farmed tilapias: The growth performance of eight strains of Oreochromis niloticus tested in different farm environments. Aquaculture 111 (1–4): 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0044-8486(93)90035-W .

Ericksen, P.J. 2008. Conceptualizing food systems for global environmental change research. Global Environmental Change 18: 234–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.09.002 .

Evans, D. 2011. Systems of provision. In Encyclopedia of consumer culture , ed. D. Southerton. London: Sage Publications.

Evans, L., N. Cherrett, and D. Pemsl. 2011. Assessing the impact of fisheries co-management interventions in developing countries: A meta-analysis’. Journal of Environmental Management 92: 1938–1949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.03.010 .

FAO. 2015. Responsible stocking and enhancement of inland waters in Asia . FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok. RAP Publication 2015/11.

FAO. 2016. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016. Contributing to food security and nutrition for all . Rome: FAO.

FAO. 2018. Yearbook: Fishery and aquaculture statistics . Rome: FAO.

FAO and WorldFish. 2008. Small-scale capture fisheries: A global overview with emphasis on developing countries . Penang, Malaysia: A Preliminary Report of the Big Numbers Project.

Fernando, C.H., and M. Halwart. 2000. Possibilities for the integration of fish farming into irrigation systems. Fisheries Management and Ecology 7 (1–2): 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2400.2000.00188.x .

Fine, B. 1993. The world of consumption: The material and cultural revisited . London: Routledge.

Fluet-chouinard, E., S. Funge-smith, and P.B. Mcintyre. 2018. Global hidden harvest of freshwater fish revealed by household surveys. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (29): 7623–7628. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1721097115 .

Gereffi, G., J. Humphrey, and T. Sturgeon. 2005. The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy 12 (1): 78–104.

Gluckman, P. 2018. The role of evidence and expertise in policy-making: The politics and practice of science advice. Journal and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales 151 (467/468): 91.

Golden, C.D., E.H. Allison, W.W. Cheung, M.M. Dey, B.S. Halpern, D.J. McCauley, M. Smith, B. Vaitla, D. Zeller, and S.S. Myers. 2016. Nutrition: Fall in fish catch threatens human health. Nature News 534 (7607): 317.

Gómez, M.I., C.B. Barrett, T. Raney, P. Pinstrup-Andersen, J. Meerman, A. Croppenstedt, B. Carisma, and B. Thompson. 2013. Post-green revolution food systems and the triple burden of malnutrition. Food Policy 42: 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.06.009 .

Guston, D.H. 1996. Principal-agent theory and the structure of science policy. Science and Public Policy 23 (4): 229–240.

Haddad, L., C. Hawkes, P. Webb, S. Thomas, J. Beddington, J. Waage, and D. Flynn. 2016. A new global research agenda for food. Nature News 540 (7631): 30.

Hall, S.J., R. Hillborn, N.L. Andrew, and E.H. Allison. 2012. Innovations in capture fisheries are an imperative for nutrition security in the developing world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (21): 8393–8398. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1208067110 .

Haque, M.M., D.C. Little, and B.K. Barman. 2010. The adoption process of ricefield-based fish seed production in Northwest Bangladesh: An understanding through quantitative and qualitative investigation the adoption process of ricefield-based fish seed production in Northwest Bangladesh: An understand. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 16 (2): 161–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/13892241003651415 .

HLPE. 2014. Aquaculture for food security and nutrition. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security. Rome, Italy.

HLPE. 2017. Nutrition and food systems. A report by The High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition. Rome, Italy.

Ickowitz, A., B. Powell, D. Rowland, A. Jones, and T. Sunderland. 2019. Agricultural intensification, dietary diversity, and markets in the global food security narrative. Global Food Security 20: 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2018.11.002 .

Ingram, J. 2011. A food systems approach to researching food security and its interactions with global environmental change. Food Security 3 (4): 417–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-011-0149-9 .

IPES. 2017. What makes urban food policy happen? Insights from five case studies . International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems. https://www.ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/Cities_full.pdf Accessed 20 June 2018.

Jennings, S., G.D. Stentiford, A.M. Leocadio, K.R. Jeffery, J.D. Metcalfe, I. Katsiadaki, N.A. Auchterlonie, S.C. Mangi, J.K. Pinnegar, T. Ellis, E.J. Peeler, T. Luisetti, C. Baker-Austin, M. Brown, L. Catchpole, F.J. Clyne, S.R. Dyel, N.J. Edmonds, K. Hyder, J. Lee, D.N. Lees, O.C. Morgan, C.M. O'Brien, B. Oidtmann, P.E. Posen, A.R. Santos, N.G.H. Taylor, A.D. Turner, B.L. Townhill, and D.W. Verner-Jeffrey. 2016. Aquatic food security: Insights into challenges and solutions from an analysis of interactions between fisheries, aquaculture, food safety, human health, fish and human welfare, economy and environment. Fish and Fisheries 17: 893–938. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12152 .

Jonell, M., M.J. Phillips, P. Ronnback, and M. Troell. 2013. Eco-certification of farmed seafood: Will it make a difference? Ambio 42: 659–674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-013-0409-3 .

Kaplinsky, R. 2000. Globalisation and unequalisation: What can be learned from value chain analysis? Journal of development studies 37 (2): 117–146.

Karim, M., H.J. Keus, M.H. Ullah, L. Kassam, M.J. Phillips, and M.C.M. Beveridge. 2016. Investing in carp seed quality improvements in homestead aquaculture: Lessons from Bangladesh. Aquaculture 453: 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2015.11.027 .

Karim, M., D.C. Little, M.S. Kabir, M.J.C. Verdegem, T. Telfer, and M.A. Wahab. 2011. Enhancing benefits from polycultures including tilapia ( Oreochromis niloticus ) within integrated pond-dike systems: A participatory trial with households of varying socio-economic level in rural and peri-urban areas of Bangladesh. Aquaculture 314 (1–4): 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2011.01.027 .

Katiha, P.K., J.K. Jena, N.G.K. Pillai, C. Chakraborty, and M.M. Dey. 2005. Inland aquaculture in India: Past trend, present status and future prospects. Aquaculture Economics and Management 9 (1–2): 237–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/13657300590961573 .

Kawarazuka, N., and C. Béné. 2010. Linking small-scale fisheries and aquaculture to household nutritional security: An overview. Food Security 2 (4): 343–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-010-0079-y .

Kawarazuka, N., and C. Béné. 2011. The potential role of small fish species in improving micronutrient deficiencies in developing countries: Building evidence. Public Health Nutrition 14 (11): 1927–1938. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980011000814 .

Kelleher, K., L. Westlund, E. Hoshino, D. Mills, R. Willmann, G. de Graaf, and R. Brummett. 2012. Hidden harvest: The global contribution of capture fisheries . Washington: The World Bank and WorldFish.

Khaw, H.L., R.W. Ponzoni, and M.J.C. Danting. 2008. Estimation of genetic change in the GIFT strain of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) by comparing contemporary progeny produced by males born in 1991 or in 2003. Aquaculture 275 (1–4): 64–69.

Kneen, B. 1989. From land to mouth: Understanding the food system . Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Koc, M., and K.A. Dahlberg. 1999. The restructuring of food systems: Trends, research, and policy issues. Agriculture and Human Values 16 (2): 109–116.

Kruijssen, F., C.L. Mcdougall, and I.J.M. van Asseldonk. 2018. Gender and aquaculture value chains: A review of key issues and implications for research. Aquaculture 493: 328–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2017.12.038 .

Levac, D., H. Colquhoun, and K.K.O. Brien. 2010. Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science 5 (69): 1–9.

Lind, C.E., R.W. Ponzoni, N.H. Nguyen, and H.L. Khaw. 2012. Selective breeding in fish and conservation of genetic resources for aquaculture. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 47: 255–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2012.02084.x .

Little, D.C., S.R. Bush, B. Belton, N.T. Phuong, J.A. Young, and F.J. Murray. 2012. Whitefish wars: Pangasius, politics and consumer confusion in Europe. Marine Policy 36 (3): 738–745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.10.006 .

Little, D.C., R.W. Newton, and M.C.M. Beveridge. 2016. Aquaculture: A rapidly growing and significant source of sustainable food? Status, transitions and potential. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 75 (3): 274–286.

Lorenzen, K., M.C.M. Beveridge, and M. Mangel. 2012. Cultured fish: Integrative biology and management of domestication and interactions with wild fish. Biological Reviews 87: 639–660. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2011.00215.x .

Lynch, A.J., D.M. Bartley, T.D. Beard Jr., I.G. Cowx, S. Funge-Smith, W.W. Taylor, and S.J. Cooke. 2019. Examining progress towards achieving the Ten Steps of the Rome Declaration on Responsible Inland Fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 21 (1): 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12410 .

Marsden, T., J. Banks, and G. Bristow. 2000. Exploring their role in rural development food supply chain approaches. Sociologia Ruralis 40 (4): 424–438.

McClanahan, T., E.H. Allison, and J.E. Cinner. 2015. Managing fisheries for human and food security. Fish and Fisheries 16 (1): 78–103.

McIntyre, P.B., C.A.R. Liermann, and C. Revenga. 2016. Linking freshwater fishery management to global food security and biodiversity conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 (45): 12880–12885.

Morgan, M., G. Terry, S. Rajaratnam, and J. Pant. 2017. Socio-cultural dynamics shaping the potential of aquaculture to deliver development outcomes. Reviews in Aquaculture 9: 317–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12137 .

Natale, F., J. Hofherr, G. Fiore, and J. Virtanen. 2013. Interactions between aquaculture and fisheries. Marine Policy 38: 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.05.037 .

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

Nielsen, R.J., P. Degnbol, K.K. Viswanathan, M. Ahmed, M. Hara, and N.M.R. Abdullah. 2004. Fisheries co-management—An institutional innovation? Lessons from South East Asia and Southern Africa. Marine Policy 28: 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-597X(03)00083-6 .

Nurhasan, M., H.K. Maehre, M.K. Malde, S.K. Stormo, M. Halwart, D. James, and E.O. Elvevoll. 2010. Nutritional composition of aquatic species in Laotian rice field ecosystems. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 23 (3): 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2009.12.001 .

Olson, J., P.M. Clay, and P. Pinto. 2014. Putting the seafood in sustainable food systems. Marine Policy 43: 104–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.05.001 .

Ottinger, M., K. Clauss, and C. Kuenzer. 2016. Aquaculture: Relevance, distribution, impacts and spatial assessments—A review. Ocean and Coastal Management 119: 244–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.10.015 .

Pahlow, M., P.R. Van Oel, M.M. Mekonnen, and A.Y. Hoekstra. 2015. Increasing pressure on freshwater resources due to terrestrial feed ingredients for aquaculture production. Science of the Total Environment 536: 847–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.124 .

Pant, J., B.K. Barman, K.M. E-Jahan, B. Belton, and M.C.M. Beveridge. 2014. Can aquaculture benefit the extreme poor? A case study of landless and socially marginalized Adivasi (ethnic) communities in Bangladesh. Aquaculture 418: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2013.09.027 .

Pomeroy, R. 2016. A research framework for traditional fisheries: Revisited. Marine Policy 70: 153–163.

Ponte, S., I. Kelling, and K. Sau. 2014. The blue revolution in Asia: Upgrading and governance in aquaculture value chains. World Development 64: 52–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.05.022 .

Ponte, S., and T. Sturgeon. 2014. Explaining governance in global value chains: A modular theory-building effort. Review of International Political Economy 21 (1): 195–223.

Prein, M. 2002. Integration of aquaculture into crop—Animal systems in Asia. Agricultural Systems 71 (1611): 127–146.

Pullin, R.S., and R.A. Neal. 1984. Tropical aquaculture. Need for a strong research base. Marine Policy 8 (3): 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-597X(84)90002-2 .

Ratner, B.D. 2006. Policy review community management by decree? Lessons from Cambodia’ s fisheries reform. Society and Natural Resources 19: 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920500323344 .

Ratner, B.D., and E.H. Allison. 2012. Wealth, rights, and resilience: An agenda for Governance Reform in Small-scale Fisheries. Development Policy Review 30 (4): 371–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.2012.00581.x .

Reardon, T., and C.P. Timmer. 2014. Five inter-linked transformations in the Asian agrifood economy: Food security implications. Global Food Security 3 (2): 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2014.02.001 .

Reardon, T., D. Tschirley, M. Dolislager, J. Snyder, C. Hu, and S. White. 2014. Urbanization, diet change, and transformation of food supply chains in Asia . Michigan: Global Center for Food Systems Innovation.

Smith I.R. 1979. A research framework for traditional fisheries . ICLARM Studies and Reviews No. 2, International Center For Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, the Philippines.

Smith, I.R. 1981. Improving fishing incomes when resources are overfished. Marine Policy 5 (1): 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-597X(81)90070-1 .

Spaargaren, G., P. Oosterveer, and A. Loeber. 2012. Sustainability transitions in food consumption, retail and production. In Food practices in transition: Changing food consumption, retail and production in the age of reflexive modernity , ed. G. Spaargaren, P. Oosterveer, and A. Loeber, 21–52. London: Routledge.

Sultana, P., and P. Thompson. 2004. Methods of consensus building for community-based fisheries management in Bangladesh and the Mekong Delta. Agricultural Systems 82 (3): 327–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2004.07.007 .

Tacon, A.G.J., and S.S. De Silva. 1997. Feed preparation and feed management strategies within semi-intensive fish farming systems in the tropics. Aquaculture 151: 379–404.

Thompson, P.M., P. Sultana, and N. Islam. 2003. Lessons from community based management of floodplain fisheries in Bangladesh. Journal of Environmental Management 69: 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2003.09.014 .

Tlusty, M.F., P. Tyedmers, M. Bailey, F. Ziegler, P.J. Henriksson, C. Béné, S.R. Bush, R. Newton, F. Asche, D.C. Little, and M. Troell. 2019. Reframing the sustainable seafood narrative. Global Environmental Change 59: 101991.

Toufique, K.A., and B. Belton. 2014. Is aquaculture pro-poor? Empirical evidence of impacts on fish consumption in Bangladesh. World Development 64: 609–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.06.035 .

Troell, M., R.L. Naylor, M. Metian, M.C.M. Beveridge, P.H. Tyedmers, C. Folke, K.J. Arrow, S. Barrett, A. Crepin, P.R. Ehrlich, A. Gren, N. Kautsky, S.A. Levin, K. Nyborg, H. Osterblom, S. Polasky, M. Scefferm, B.H. Walker, T. Xepapadeas, and A. de Zeeuw. 2014. Does aquaculture add resilience to the global food system? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111 (37): 13257–13263. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1404067111 .

van Bers, C., A. Delaney, H. Eakin, L. Cramer, M. Purdon, C. Oberlack, T. Evans, C. Pahl-Wostl, S. Eriksen, L. Jones, and K. Korhonen-Kurki. 2019. Advancing the research agenda on food systems governance and transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 39: 94–102.

Weeratunge, N., C. Béné, R. Siriwardane, A. Charles, D. Johnson, E.H. Allison, P.K. Nayak, and M. Badjeck. 2014. Small-scale fisheries through the wellbeing lens. Fish and Fisheries 15 (2): 255–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12016 .

Welcomme, R.L., and D.M. Bartley. 1998. Current approaches to the enhancement of fisheries. Fisheries Management and Ecology 5: 351–382.

Welcomme, R.L., I.G. Cowx, and D. Coates. 2010. Inland capture fisheries. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365 (1554): 2881–2896. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0168 .

Willett, W., J. Rockstom, B. Loken, M. Springmann, T. Lang, S. Vermeulen, T. Garnett, D. Tilman, F. DeClerck, A. Wood, M. Jonell, M. Clark, L.J. Gordon, J. Fanzo, C. Hawkes, R. Zurayk, J.A. Rivera, W. De Vries, M.S. Sibanda, A. Afshin, A. Chaudhary, M. Herrero, R. Augustina, F. Branca, A. Lartey, S. Fan, B. Crona, E. Fox, V. Bignet, M. Troell, T. Lindhal, S. Singh, S.E. Cornell, K.S. Reddy, S. Narain, S. Nishtar, and C.J.L. Murray. 2019. The Lancet Commissions Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT – Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet 393 (10170): 447–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4 .

Youn, S., W.W. Taylor, A.J. Lynch, I.G. Cowx, T.D. Beard Jr., D. Bartley, and F. Wu. 2014. Inland capture fishery contributions to global food security and threats to their future. Global Food Security 3 (3–4): 142–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2014.09.005 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was undertaken as part of the CGIAR Research Program on Fish Agri-Food Systems (FISH) led by WorldFish. The program is supported by contributors to the CGIAR Trust Fund. Funding support for this work was provided by the Australian Government and the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (Grant No. FIS/2011/052), the United States Agency for International Development (Grant No. AID-482-LA-14-00003), and financial assistance from the Livelihoods and Food Security Trust Fund (LIFT). We are very grateful to the many counterparts from FAO, SEAFDEC, and WorldFish with whom we had the privilege to interact during the implementation of this research. The richness of our discussions provided some inestimable contribution to the conceptualization and writing of this article. The authors also thank Alexandra Vanderschelden for constructive and helpful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript and her invaluable help with the visuals. Finally, we would like to stress that the opinions expressed here belong to the authors only, and do not necessarily reflect those of the FAO, SEAFDEC, WorldFish, nor of the aforementionned donors.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Environment Policy Group, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Xavier Tezzo, Simon R. Bush & Peter Oosterveer

Department of Fisheries, WorldFish, Myanmar Office, West Gyogone, Bayint Naung Road, Insein Township, Yangon, 11181, Myanmar

Xavier Tezzo

Department of Agricultural, Food and Resources Economics, Michigan State University, 446 West Circle Drive, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA

WorldFish, Head Office, Jalan Batu Maung, 11960, Bayan Lepas, Penang, Malaysia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xavier Tezzo .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

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 licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence 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 licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Tezzo, X., Bush, S.R., Oosterveer, P. et al. Food system perspective on fisheries and aquaculture development in Asia. Agric Hum Values 38 , 73–90 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10037-5

Download citation

Accepted : 18 April 2020

Published : 28 April 2020

Issue Date : February 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10037-5

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

• Development policy
• Food security
• Food systems
• Freshwater fish
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

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

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• 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 ]

• Browse Works
• Agriculture

Fisheries and Aquaculture

Fisheries and aquaculture research papers/topics, using ulva (chlorophyta) for the production of biomethane and mitigation against coastal acidification.

In South Africa the green macroalga Ulva armoricana is the main species of macroalgae cultured. The species is currently the largest aquaculture (2884.61 tonnes) product by weight with a corresponding capacity for biogas (CH4) production. We have shown that biotransformation of U. armoricana to Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) is viable and economically feasible as a clean fuel. pH toxicity tests showed that U. armoricana can be used as a health index, under potentially increased CO2 concentrati...

Moving Toward Sustainable Aquaculture for Rural Sustainability and Development in Kenya. A Case of Vihiga County

Kenya has a tremendous great potential for growth in the aquaculture sector. To attain the sustainable development goal of zero hunger, the government is needed to encourage fish culture among the rural communities. The study's objective is to investigate the elements that affect the sustainable development of fresh water Aquaculture in Kenya a Vihiga County case. The purpose of the research is to determine how production characteristics and extension affect the long-term sustainability of fr...

A Comparison of the Growth of the Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis Niloticus, Linnaeus, 1758) Fingerlings Fed with Blue Crown® And Skretting® Commercial Feeds

ABSTRACTA comparison of the growth of the Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)fingerlings fed with Blue crown® and Skretting® commercial feeds was studiedfor a period of 8 weeks. A total of sixty fingerlings of Oreochromis niloticuswere used. The treatments showed significant difference (p0.05)between   the   two   feeds.  Some   water   quality   parameters   assessed   during   theexperiment indicated that only the dissolved oxygen was significantly differentbetween the two treatments (p

Determination Of Thermal Tolerance, Density And Distribution Of The Mangrove Crabs, Perisesarma Guttatum (Sesarmidae) And Uca Urvillei (Ocypodidae) At Gazi-Bay, Kenya

Abstract Mangrove crabs are important in ecosystem functioning including; bioturbation of the soil resulting in soil particle size distribution, sediment aeration, reduction in sediment salinity and nutrient recycling and thus are fundamental for the viability of mangrove forests which are in turn important to the coastal communities’ livelihoods. Mangroves are intertidal forested wetlands confined to the tropical and subtropical regions. They play important role as habitat for animals, pro...

Nutrient Composition of Trachurus trachurus (Atlantic Horse Mackerel) Smoked With Sawdust and Different Fire Woods (Dialium guineensis AND Pentaclethra macrophylla)

ABSTRACT Trachurus trachurus (Atlantic horse mackerel) was smoked with two different fire woods Di'alium guineensis and Pentaclethra macrohylla and sawdust using a traditional smoking kiln and a constructed sawdust stove sited in the fish farm of Michael Okpara University of agriculture Umudike. The frozen fish sample was weighed, eviscerated and washed properly with clean water. During smoking the temperature of the heat was taken, duration of smoking period was also noted in smoking p...

Chemical Analysis and Nutritional Assessment of Artocarpus heterophyllus Lam. (Jack Fruit) Defatted Seeds used as Additive in Feed for Clarias gariepinus post juveniles

Abstract A 49-day feeding trial was carried out with feeds supplemented with microgram quantities of the defatted seeds of Artocarpus heterophyllus in the diets of Clarias gariepinus at the post juveinile stage. Five diets at 40% crude protein were formulated containing 0, 15, 30, 45 and 60x106 µg DAH seed as additive. Each dietary treatment was replicated three times with 10 fish per replicate. Proximate composition of the defatted seed showed that it was rich in protein, carbohydrate and ...

Assessment of Genetic Structure of Clarias Gariepinus, Burchell, 1822 Population in Asejire Lake

Abstract Wild brood-stock is a major genetic reservoir for sustainable culture of Clarias gariepinus. This has been observed to be declining in major freshwater dams in Nigeria. There is inadequate information on factors responsible for this decline and their effects on genetic structuring of the fish resources in these dams. This study therefore investigated genetic structure of C. gariepinus in relation to environmental condition of Asejire Dam.    The Dam was spatially divided into Oyo...

Economic Efficiency Of Fishing Among Marine And Lagoon Artisanal Fisherfolks In Lagos State, Nigeria

ABSTRACT Fishing is a major source of livelihood for rural and peri-urban communities along coastal waters. The operation of artisanal fisherfolks is threatened by increasing overfishing of inshore waters, inadequate credit facilities, insufficient fishing input subsidies and inadequate extension services. These had negative implications on their efficiency hence their well-being.  In order to enhance their performance, the efficiency of the fisherfolks, profitability and challenges were ex...

The Effect of Walnut (Tetracarpidium conophorum) Leaf and Onion (Allium cepa) Bulb Residues on the Growth Performance and Nutrient Utilization of Clarias gariepinus Juveniles

Abstract Feeding trial were conducted in experimental tanks (50 x 34 x 27 cm) to assess the growth responses and nutrient utilization of Walnut Leaf (WL) and Onion Bulb (OB) residues in Clarias gariepinus. Nine experimental diets: control (0%), OB2 (0.5%), OB3 (1.0%), OB4 (1.5%), OB5 (2.0%), WL6 (0.5%), WL7 (1.0%), WL8 (1.5%) and WL9 (2.0%) were formulated and replicated thrice at 40% crude protein. Fish (mean weight 7.39±0.02 g and length 10.37±1.24 cm) were fed twice daily at 3% body wei...

Epidemiology Of Edwardsiella Infections In Farmed Fish In Morogoro, Tanzania

ABSTRACT A cross sectional study was undertaken from November 2016 to April 2017 to find out whether Edwardsiella infections exist in farmed fish in Morogoro. The prevalence of infection, risk factors and fish haematological parameters were established. A total of 270 fish were sampled from 24 ponds. Each fish was clinically examined and aseptically swabs of kidney, liver and spleen and pond water were collected for bacteriology. Bacteria were cultured onto Tryptic soya agar and Salmonella-S...

Abstract A 49-day feeding trial was carried out with feeds supplemented with microgram quantities of the defatted seeds of Artocarpus heterophyllus in the diets of Clarias gariepinus at the post juveinile stage. Five diets at 40% crude protein were formulated containing 0, 15, 30, 45 and 60x106 µg DAH seed as additive. Each dietary treatment was replicated three times with 10 fish per replicate. Proximate composition of the defatted seed showed that it was rich in protein, carbohydrate ...

Assessment Of Trace Metals Pollution Along The Central Namibian Marine Coastline: Using Choromytilus Meridionalis (Black Mussel) As Indicator Organisms

ABSTRACT This study was carried out at four stations along the Central Namibian marine coastline towns (Walvis Bay, Swakopmund, Henties Bay and Cape Cross) to assess trace metals pollution using Choromytilus meridionalis as indicator organism. Samples were collected using randomized sampling techniques during winter and summer months of 2012. EPA 3050B and ICP-OES protocols were used to digest and assimilate the samples. Data were analysed using a 4x2x3 factorial model of a completely random...

Stock Separation Of The Shallow-Water Hake Merluccius Capensis In The Benguela Using Otolith Shape Analysis And Parasite Infestation

Abstract The fishing industry is an important sector in Namibia with hake contributing about one third of the total commercial catch. Merluccius capensis, the shallow water hake, forms the bulk of this resource. Studies on the distribution of spawners and juveniles, spawning areas and genetics have proposed three stock structure hypotheses of M. capensis in the Benguela: (1) one stock throughout, (2) one in the northern and one in the southern Benguela or (3) three stocks: one in the norther...

Analysis Of Marine Biotoxins: Paralytic And Lipophilic Shellfish Toxins In Mussels (Mytilus Galloprovincialis) Along The Namibian Coastline

Abstract The study was carried out along the Namibian coastline, this includes Henties Bay, Swakopmund, Bird Island, Walvis Bay and Lüderitz to assess presence of shellfish marine biotoxins in mussels, Mytilus galloprovincialis which are filter feeders and feed on some of the algal species that produces phycotoxins, that can negatively affect the mariculture industry and human health. Samples were analysed for Paralytic and lipophilic shellfish toxins; including environmental parameters and ...

Trophic Relationships Of Shallow Water Cape Hake (Merluccius Capensis) And Cape Horse Mackerel (Trachurus Capensis) In The Northern Benguela Ecosystem

ABSTRACT Shallow water Cape hake (Merluccius capensis) and Cape horse mackerel (Trachurus capensis) are ecologically and commercially important species in the northern Benguela ecosystem (Namibia). The understanding of their trophic relationships is however still limited. In this study stable isotope measurements [carbon (δ13C) and nitrogen (δ15N)] of their muscles and stomach contents were used to investigate their feeding interactions. Understanding the feeding interactions of these two s...

Projects, thesis, seminars, research papers, termpapers topics in Fisheries & Aqauculture. Fisheries & Aquaculture projects, thesis, seminars and termpapers topic and materials

Commission starts setting up the Agriculture and Food Chain Observatory

The European Commission has launched the call for applications to set up the EU agri-food chain Observatory (AFCO). The creation of this Observatory that will look at production costs, margins and trading practices was announced mid-March as one of the measures to strengthen the position of farmers in the food supply chain and reinforce the trust between all actors throughout the chain.

Its objective is to bring increased transparency on prices, structure of costs and distribution of margins and added value in the supply chain , while respecting confidentiality and competition rules. Building trust between all stakeholders and public authorities is essential to ensure all actors are fairly remunerated for their contributions and work in the agri food supply chain.

The Observatory will gather up to 80 members , representing national authorities in charge of agriculture, fisheries and aquaculture or the food supply chain, as well as organisations representing stakeholders active in various stages of the chain - from farmers, input providers, food industry, traders, to transport, logistics, retail and consumers. In the medium term, it is expected that the work of the Observatory will allow to develop methodologies to assess and monitor the structure of costs and the distribution of margins and value added along the food supply chain . The existing agri-food data portal will be expanded to publish new relevant indicators, available to all online. This could include data on costs and margins at the different stages of the food chain. This new observatory will complement the work of the existing market observatories for agriculture and fisheries .

Members will also exchange information about trading practices affecting positively or negatively the smooth functioning of the supply chain. Case studies for certain products or sectors could also be shared.

The call for applications is open until 13 May. Organisations who apply must be registered in the Transparency Register to be appointed. The Observatory is expected to hold its first meeting in July 2024, chaired by the Directorate General of Agriculture of the European Commission. The Observatory will meet at least twice per year in plenary, with additional ad hoc meetings on specific topics to be organised too, if need be. In line with its transparency principles, all relevant documents (including the agenda and the minutes) will be published on the Register of expert groups. The Observatory is established for an initial duration of five years, renewable.

Reinforcing the position of farmers in the food supply chain is one of the key objectives of the CAP. There are already several measures in place at EU level to ensure more fairness and protect farmers against unfair trading practices. While the degree of trust and cooperation between actors in the chain is increasing, the full implementation and enforcement of the available policy tools take time, and more needs to be done. This is why the Commission presented to the Council and the European Parliament in March several options for actions that could be taken forward in the short and medium term. The proposal to set up an Observatory on production costs, margins and trading practices was warmly welcomed by agriculture ministers in the Council meeting of 26 March 2024. Heads of State also called on the Commission to keep up the work to strengthen the position of farmers in the food supply chain in the latest European Council meeting.

For more information

Call to apply for the EU agri-food chain Observatory

Commission proposes targeted review of Common Agricultural Policy to support EU farmers

Information on the agri-food supply chain and existing measures

Share this page

share this!

April 9, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

Research team releases new fertilizer prediction tool

by John Lovett, University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture

A new fertilizer recommendation tool, developed nationally in collaboration with the Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station, could save farmers millions of dollars annually while reducing excess nutrient losses to the environment.

FRST (Fertilizer Recommendation Support Tool) is a decision aid that provides an unbiased, science-based interpretation of soil test phosphorus and potassium values for crop fertilization, according to Nathan Slaton, a leader on the FRST Project and associate vice president for agriculture and assistant director of the Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station, the research arm of the University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture.

The tool also augments the interpretation of different fertilizer recommendations across state lines, which was one of the issues that prompted the project. Slaton said phosphorus and potassium are the primary nutrients from routine soil testing that are used to predict the need for crop fertilization.

A team of over 100 soil science and agronomic professionals from nearly 50 universities, four USDA divisions, several nonprofit organizations and one private-sector partner worked for six years to develop the free, web-based tool. Division of Agriculture scientists participating in the project include Slaton, Gerson Drescher, assistant professor of soil fertility, and Bronc Finch, assistant professor and state extension specialist for soil fertility.

"We are extremely excited about the launch of the decision support tool," Drescher said. "FRST was developed in response to the pressing need to harmonize soil testing across state boundaries. It represents an improvement in our ability to evaluate soil test correlation."

Deanna Osmond, soil science researcher at North Carolina State University, is also one of the FRST Project leaders.

"Until now, soil fertility faculty in each state worked independently," Osmond said. "But for farmers who work across state lines, it's difficult to compare or assimilate multi-state guidelines. Our goal is to improve the accuracy of nutrient recommendations through independent, scientifically developed nutrient management best practices that farmers can believe in and adopt."

Slaton explained that the FRST Project has accomplished two important objectives to advance phosphorus and potassium management for crop production . The first was developing a national database to archive soil test correlation and calibration research, ensuring the preservation of research information that supports crop fertilization recommendations as scientists retire. The second objective was to provide a tool that anyone can use to review the research results relevant to their crop, soils and geographic area to check their soil-test-based fertilizer recommendations.

The FRST Project was hosted in a neutral space (USDA) with common access, Drescher noted, "to foster collaboration and innovation in soil fertility research and pave the way for future advancements in nutrient management."

Greg Buol of North Carolina State University provided database and programming support.

"The design of FRST has always been focused on the end user being able to easily use the tool and understand the results," Buol said.

Current capabilities and plans

Currently, the FRST provides critical phosphorus and potassium soil test values, which indicate where there is no expected yield increase from phosphorus or potassium fertilizer application. In the next phase, the FRST will provide research-based phosphorus and potassium rate response information to assist farmers in selecting the minimum fertilizer rate expected to produce maximal crop yield.

The current version (FRST v1.0) includes data from nearly 2,500 phosphorus and potassium trials for 21 major agricultural crops, with the majority being corn and soybean.

The FRST includes a map of the United States that shows the location of phosphorus and potassium trials represented in the database and can be used to identify where the need for additional research data is greatest.

The database was constructed from current and historical research data, including trials from 40 states and Puerto Rico. The team has plans to expand the tool to other crops, cropping systems and nutrients such as sulfur.

Key features of FRST

• Data-driven by utilizing a dynamic database of soil test correlation data constantly updated to improve testing confidence.
• Crop-specific information with a database that currently covers 21 major commodity crops.
• Geographically diverse with published and unpublished trial data from 40 states and Puerto Rico.
• Unbiased information with blended data that removes political and institutional bias in soil test interpretation.
• Scientifically sound data that represents a minimum dataset to provide reliable outcomes.

"We believe that FRST will not only benefit farmers by improving farm economics and conservation practices but also contribute to global sustainability," Finch said.

Provided by University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Using CO₂ and biomass, researchers find path to more environmentally friendly recyclable plastics

9 hours ago

Precision agriculture research identifies gene that controls production of flowers and fruits in pea plants

Long-term forest study shows tornado's effects linger 25 years later

10 hours ago

A new coating method in mRNA engineering points the way to advanced therapies

ATLAS provides first measurement of the W-boson width at the LHC

11 hours ago

Smart vest turns fish into underwater spies, providing a glimpse into aquatic life like never before

Ants in Colorado are on the move due to climate change

Caterpillar 'noses' are surprisingly sophisticated, researchers find

Building footprints could help identify neighborhood sociodemographic traits

12 hours ago

Fossilized dinosaur eggshells can preserve amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, over millions of years

13 hours ago

Relevant PhysicsForums posts

How to implement beamforming in ultrasound diffraction tomography.

14 hours ago

Potentially fatal dog parasite found in the Colorado River

Apr 9, 2024

What do large moles on the body indicate?

Mar 30, 2024

Avian flu - A new study led by a team from the University of Maryland

Mar 27, 2024

Are all biological catabolic reactions exergonic?

Mar 20, 2024

A First of Its Kind: A Calcium-based signal in the Human Brain

Mar 18, 2024

More from Biology and Medical

Related Stories

Effects of nitrogen and phosphorus additions on soil nematode community of soybean farmland

Feb 7, 2024

Better phosphorus use can ensure its stocks last more than 500 years and boost global food production, study shows

Mar 25, 2024

Optimal soil phosphorus reduces fertilizer-derived nitrous oxide emissions

Feb 23, 2022

Balanced fertilization: A fulcrum for sustainable production of maize and rice in Africa

Sep 22, 2022

Potassium depletion in soil threatens global crop yields

Feb 19, 2024

A generic soil test extractant for environmental phosphorus risk assessment

Nov 29, 2021

Recommended for you

Single-crop farming has potential to harm bees, study finds

15 hours ago

Surprising role of female sex pheromone in crop pest points to new biocontrol possibilities

An inside look at how plants and mycorrhizal fungi cooperate

Apr 8, 2024

How plants adjust their photosynthesis to changing light

Enhanced rock weathering results in higher crop yields and improved crop health, study shows

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

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.

Young Puerto Ricans Restore Habitat Damaged by Hurricane While Launch Conservation Careers

April 10, 2024

Thanks to $1.3 million in NOAA funding, BoriCorps members will gain paid work experience and training while restoring ecosystems and supporting local communities.

Seven years after Hurricane Maria devastated Puerto Rico, the island’s forests, wetlands, and coral reefs still bear scars from the storm. At  Jobos Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve , dead mangrove trees and the blue tarp still covering the Department of Natural and Environmental Resources’ office testify to the ongoing need for restoration work in Puerto Rico.

“Maria was a wakeup call for a lot of people,” says Nicole Pillot, 23, who grew up near the Reserve. “We realized we’ve got to go out and support our neighbors.” In October 2023, after earning a bachelor’s degree in marine biology, Pillot joined  BoriCorps to support community-driven restoration projects in and around the Reserve. 

NOAA’s  Office of Habitat Conservation awarded BoriCorps’ parent organization  Franklin’s Promise Coalition $1.3 million through the  Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act to help expand the program’s reach. 

BoriCorps, a Conservation Corps program for young Puerto Ricans, serves a three-fold purpose. Corps members help restore the island’s environmental and cultural assets and volunteer in hard-hit local communities. They also gain valuable paid work experience and connections to possible future employers, something many young Puerto Ricans struggle to find.

The project will:

• Fund 36 BoriCorps positions for veterans and young people ages 18–25 over the next 3 years
• Provide members with a weekly living allowance and an AmeriCorps education award
• Train BoriCorps and community members in restoration techniques, disaster management, grant writing, and other skills
• Help local nonprofits and government agencies achieve their restoration and community development goals

“When I got to the BoriCorps interview, I realized this wasn’t just a job,” says Pillot, who had been working as a waitress despite an extensive search to find a paid job in her field. “There would be professional development and the opportunity to support people in the community, which is something I am passionate about. This project also made me realize that I want to work in restoration.”

BoriCorps Blooms from Conservation Corps Success in Florida

Franklin’s Promise Coalition founded BoriCorps in 2021 following their success running Corps programs in North Florida.  Conservation Corps offer young people the opportunity to gain work skills through conservation projects that benefit their local community. The Coalition established the Conservation Corps of the Forgotten and Emerald Coast in 2014 and oversees the Florida portion of the  GulfCorps . This NOAA-funded program with The Nature Conservancy along the Gulf of Mexico is  helping to restore coastal habitats including those damaged from the  Deepwater Horizon oil spill . 

Franklin’s Promise Coalition Executive Director Joe Taylor was asked to set up a Corps program in Puerto Rico. He had the perfect person in mind for the job: his wife and partner, Jeanette Taylor, a native of Puerto Rico. The Taylors made a 5-year commitment to establish the first Puerto Rico-based Corps program. They named it BoriCorps after the local term “Boricua,” which is derived from the indigenous Taino name for the island.

“I wanted us to create a Corps that will be for Puerto Rico by folks from Puerto Rico,” says Jeanette Taylor, BoriCorps project director. “It’s our legacy, because we've seen how transformative that Corps experience is to young people in Florida.” 

When BoriCorps began recruiting new members, they found many applicants were highly educated but had been unable to secure full-time jobs. “Most entry-level jobs in Puerto Rico are very competitive and require 1 to 2 years of paid field work,” says Taylor. “The experience we’re offering bridges that gap for the young people who want to stay here on the island. We have a serious brain drain here because all of our young educated folks leave for better opportunities on the mainland.” 

“If you value environmental restoration and climate resilience, you have to invest in people to make it sustainable,” says Joe Taylor. “So many of our young people have not been contributing to society because of the barriers they face. But now, not only are they earning sustainable incomes and paying taxes, they’re taking care of the land and communities.”

In October 2023, the first NOAA-funded cohort of 12 BoriCorps members began. Half of the group is restoring mangroves and seagrass in the Jobos Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve in Southeast Puerto Rico. The other half is supporting community forestry and agriculture projects near Mayaguez on the western coast.

Restoring Mangrove Forests and Seagrass in Jobos Bay

Hurricane Maria heavily damaged two critical habitats in Jobos Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve—mangrove forests and seagrass beds. Mangroves grow at the water’s edge where their submerged roots provide nursery grounds for fish and crustaceans, and help protect the coastline from flooding by buffering wave energy. The mangroves and surrounding seagrass beds are also home to many other species, including 60 percent of the Caribbean manatee population. 

Puerto Rico’s Department of Natural and Environmental Resources , which manages the Reserve, is partnering with BoriCorps and  The Ocean Foundation to restore 695 acres of mangrove forest. NOAA awarded the Foundation $450,000 under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act for this effort and to plan and permit an additional 750-acre project. The project also received an additional $1.2 million in funding from NOAA's Office of Coastal Management via the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's Natural Coastal Resilience Fund.

"This mangrove restoration project—the largest of its kind ever attempted in the United States—will contribute to improved fisheries and migratory bird habitat as well as provide hurricane-related wind and flood protection for surrounding communities and critical power-generating facilities,” says Ocean Foundation program officer Ben Scheelk. 

““BoriCorps has been the perfect match for us at the perfect time,” says Aitza E. Pabón-Valentín, Director of the Reserve. “They are maintaining the mangrove nursery, planting trees, and assisting all of the volunteers who come here. Driving by the reserve, you'll see a lot of new plants and migratory birds.”

We’ve planted about 4,000 mangroves so far,” says Pillot, who serves as Field and Community Coordinator for BoriCorps South. Her crew also restored water flow to the mangroves and is monitoring mangrove growth and water quality. 

Pillot helps organize outreach activities with local students and scouts. BoriCorps members teach them about mangroves and show them how to maintain the nursery. “We’re planting mangroves for the health and protection of the community, so involving them in the process helps them understand what we are doing and makes them feel like they are part of it,” says Pillot. “Every student who comes here plants a seed in our nursery and keeps that memory in their heart.”

“The Boricorps are wonderful,” says Lead Scientist Manuel Merello of Merello Marine Consulting, who is overseeing the BoriCorps work for the Ocean Foundation. “They are very hardworking and enthusiastic about restoring the coastal marine ecosystem.”

Planting Trees for Wildlife and People

On the other side of the island, BoriCorps members are planting native and fruit bearing trees at the  Rio Hondo Community Forest . They’re working under the guidance of local partner  Caribbean Regenerative Community Development . The project is the first of its kind in the Caribbean. The  forest protects the land from development while providing community members with a sustainable food source and recreation opportunities. 

“We have planted more than 1,700 trees and opened up 1 mile of trails so far,” says Jesús Colón Moreno, 25, crew leader for BoriCorps West. “We are also doing monitoring work on the Smart Ag project.” The Smart Ag project helps coffee and cacao farmers transition to more sustainable practices in the face of climate change, including planting native shade trees.

“By planting trees within existing working lands, we are providing wildlife corridors and improving the habitat available for native bird species,” says Connor Harron Co-Founder and Associate Director of Caribbean Regenerative Community Development. “This also protects water resources and coral reefs by  reducing the amount of sediment that flows into rivers and creeks and ultimately to the Caribbean.”

In response to community interest, they will train both BoriCorps and community members in grant writing. “We love the idea of helping these young people find grants for projects they are passionate about and aligned with their hopes for their community,” says Harron. “We’ll teach them how to write and submit proposals for funding so they can lead their own projects under our umbrella.”

All BoriCorps members also completed the  Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Community Emergency Response Team training and took courses in CPR and first aid. Local people were invited to participate as well. These trainings are key to helping local communities respond to future hurricanes.

Keeping the Talent in Puerto Rico

Towards the end of each cohort’s term, Jeanette Taylor and her staff will assist Corps members with resume writing, interview skills, and job searching. Members of previous cohorts have found jobs with partner organizations and even BoriCorps itself. 

Sara Del Mar Velez is a three-time BoriCorps member who won the  2024 Corpsmember of the Year Award out of all Corpsmembers in the United States. Jeanette Taylor hopes that one day Sara will succeed her as program director. Taylor says that Sara, who currently serves as Senior Crew Leader, stands out for her leadership and logistics skills and role in mentoring less experienced Corpsmembers. 

“After not being able to find work in my field or earn a living wage, I feel like I found my place with BoriCorps,” says Del Mar Velez. “We want to keep all these young people with all their potential in Puerto Rico because they are amazing and have great ideas,” says Jeanette Taylor.

“Working in Puerto Rico has always been my dream,” says Pillot. “We have a lot of natural resources that are beautiful and unique and I want to conserve them. My hope is that one day, my grandkids will see a fully grown mangrove I planted and will know the importance of preserving our environment.” Following her service, Pillot plans to put her education stipend towards a master’s degree so she can become a restoration biologist.

Additional funders include:

• National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
• Golden Acre Foods
• Commission for Environmental Cooperation
• 11th Hour Racing
• Marriott International
• JetBlue Airways
• Office of Congresswoman Jenniffer González-Colón
• Philadelphia Eagles

More Information

• About the Office of Habitat Conservation
• Habitat Restoration: Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act
• New Hope for Puerto Rico’s Coral Reefs
• Restoring Hawaiʻi Coral Reefs with Local Talent

Recent News

2020 and 2021 combined report of marine mammal strandings in the united states.

Emergency Response Effort for Endangered Sawfish

Where the Leatherbacks Roam

Last updated by Office of Habitat Conservation on April 10, 2024

More On This Topic

Restoring Florida's Iconic Coral Reefs

10 Years After Deepwater Horizon, We’re Optimistic About the Future

Restoring the Gulf: 10 Years After Deepwater Horizon

Infographic: Deepwater Horizon - Where Did the Oil Go?

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content

Virtual South Texas Agriculture Symposium to be April 30 in San Antonio

Event focuses on best practices to increase producer success.

April 8, 2024

The virtual 2024 South Texas Agriculture Symposium, hosted by Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service specialists in South Texas, will be on April 30 in San Antonio.

The symposium will be from 8 a.m.-2:30 p.m. Participants will also be able to watch the live-streamed event at the AgriLife Extension office in Bexar County, 3355 Cherry Ridge, Suite 208.

Registration cost is $25 by cash or check, with checks payable to Bexar Ag and Natural Resources Committee. The deadline to register is April 22. To register, or for more information, contact Kennedy Green at 210-631-0400 or [email protected] .

Agriculture Symposium agenda

The symposium’s focus is to help producers learn the latest best practices to increase success on their farms. Topics will include:

• From ranch to home: Common plant diseases and their management – Kim Cochran, Ph.D., AgriLife Extension plant pathologist and associate professor in the Department of Plant Pathology and Microbiology , Uvalde.
• Tree management decisions after tricky weather conditions – Larry Stein, Ph.D., AgriLife Extension horticulture specialist and professor in the Department of Horticultural Sciences , Uvalde.
• Common wildlife diseases and parasites – Jacob Dykes, Ph.D., AgriLife Extension wildlife specialist and assistant professor in the Department of Rangeland, Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences , Corpus Christi.
• Basics of wildlife management tax valuation – Elizabeth Tidwell, AgriLife Extension wildlife program specialist in the Department of Rangeland, Wildlife and Fisheries Management, Uvalde.
• Three essentials to every rangeland management plan – Stacy Hines, Ph.D., AgriLife Extension rangeland habitat management specialist and assistant professor in the Department of Rangeland, Wildlife and Fisheries Management, Corpus Christi.
• The state of our warm-season grasses – Megan Clayton, Ph.D., AgriLife Extension range specialist and professor in the Department of Rangeland, Wildlife and Fisheries Management, Uvalde.
• Sedge management in pastures and hay fields – Josh McGinty, Ph.D., AgriLife Extension agronomist and associate professor in the Department of Soil and Crop Sciences , Corpus Christi.
• Options to expand your cowherd – Karl Harborth, Ph.D., AgriLife Extension livestock specialist and professor in the Department of Animal Science , Corpus Christi.
• Digital agriculture: Economic implications – Yuri Calil, Ph.D., AgriLife Extension economist and assistant professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics , Corpus Christi.

• Resources for Press & Media
• Story Suggestion

Main Navigation

• Accept offer and enrol
• Current Students

Personalise your experience

Did you mean..., diploma of arts and social sciences, art/science collaboration wins waterhouse natural science art prize, unit of study mrne5009 sustainable fisheries and marine protected areas (2025).

Future students: T: 1800 626 481 E: Email your enquiry here

Current students: Contact: Faculty of Science and Engineering

Students studying at an education collaboration: Please contact your relevant institution

updated - DO NOT REMOVE THIS LINE 6:07 AM on Tue, 9 April

Show me unit information for year

Unit snapshot.

PG Coursework Unit

Credit points

Faculty & college.

Faculty of Science and Engineering

Enrolment information

There will be a 2-day compulsory residential for ALL students (Online and On Campus) that will be held at the National Marine Science Centre, Coffs Harbour. Please refer to http://scu.edu.au/timetables for further information on timetables.

Unit description

Provides knowledge to address global Sustainable Development Goals and contribute to maintaining the performance of fisheries and conserving marine biodiversity. A range of key issues, regulatory measures and assessment models of commercial and non-commercial fisheries are examined. The significance of indigenous fisheries, and their management, are covered in different modules. One module of this unit explores the science and planning of marine parks, and their contentious role in fisheries. The unit applies a systems approach by considering the role of scientific, economic and socio-cultural information in fisheries management decisions, as well as management approaches and issues relating to resources rights, compliance and co-management. Extensive use will be made of case studies in Australia and overseas, including studies through published research by SCU.

Unit content

Availabilities.

2025 unit offering information will be available in November 2024

Learning outcomes

Unit Learning Outcomes express learning achievement in terms of what a student should know, understand and be able to do on completion of a unit. These outcomes are aligned with the graduate attributes . The unit learning outcomes and graduate attributes are also the basis of evaluating prior learning.

On completion of this unit, students should be able to:

Explain and understand the key trends and issues in commercial, recreational and indigenous fisheries at a global and national level

Understand, be able to define and use key terms and concepts related to fisheries and marine parks

Demonstrate skills and knowledge on the collection and use of data in the assessment and decision-making processes of fisheries management

Critically evaluate and understand the structure and appropriateness of fisheries and marine park management systems including regulatory measures, legislation, international instruments, and governance.

Fee information

Commonwealth Supported courses For information regarding Student Contribution Amounts please visit the Student Contribution Amounts .

Fee paying courses For postgraduate or undergraduate full-fee paying courses please check Domestic Postgraduate Fees OR Domestic Undergraduate Fees .

International

Please check the international course and fee list to determine the relevant fees.

Any questions? We'd love to help