Expanding the concept of sustainable seafood using Life Cycle Assessment

Fisheries management and sustainability assessment of fisheries more generally have recently expanded their scope from single‐species stock assessment to ecosystem‐based approaches, aiming to incorporate economic, social and local environmental impacts, while still excluding global‐scale environmental impacts. In parallel, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has emerged as a widely used and recommended framework to assess environmental impacts of products, including global‐scale impacts. For over a decade, LCA has been applied to seafood supply chains, leading to new insights into the environmental impact of seafood products. We present insights from seafood LCA research with particular focus on evaluating fisheries management, which strongly influences the environmental impact of seafood products. Further, we suggest tangible ways in which LCA could be taken up in management. By identifying trade‐offs, LCA can be a useful decision support tool and avoids problem shifting from one concern (or activity) to another. The integrated, product‐based and quantitative perspective brought by LCA could complement existing tools. One example is to follow up fuel use of fishing, as the production and combustion of fuel used dominates overall results for various types of environmental impacts of seafood products, and is also often linked to biological impacts of fishing. Reducing the fuel use of fisheries is therefore effective to reduce overall impacts. Allocating fishing rights based on environmental performance could likewise facilitate the transition to low‐impact fisheries. Taking these steps in an open dialogue between fishers, managers, industry, NGOs and consumers would enable more targeted progress towards sustainable fisheries.     

Beyond Individual Transferrable Quotas: methodologies for integrating ecosystem impacts of fishing into fisheries catch rights

While there has been a growing concern for the adverse ecological impacts of fishing, progress on incorporating these into operational fisheries management has been slow. Many fisheries management organizations have addressed the problem of overharvesting and over‐capitalization first. In this domain, the question of access regulation has gained growing recognition as a key dimension of fisheries sustainability, leading to recommendation and progressive implementation of rights‐based systems, in particular Individual Transferrable Quotas (ITQs). While adjustments in fishing capacity resulting from the implementation of these systems may entail a reduction in some unwanted ecosystem impacts of fishing, it is also recognized that they will not be sufficient to achieve the ecological outcomes increasingly demanded by the global community. There is thus a need to examine the possibilities for a common management framework for dealing with both over‐capitalization of fisheries and adverse ecological effects of fishing. In this paper, we examine the feasibility of incorporating greater ecosystem goods and services into ITQ policy instruments initially designed with a narrow focus on commercial target species. We consider the advantages and limitations of alternative approaches in this respect and identify some of the practical issues associated with the different alternatives, in particular the underpinning knowledge requirements. We argue that given the need for increasingly streamlined management processes, further investigation into practical ways forward in this domain is crucial if management of fisheries is to achieve economic efficiency while fully encompassing the ecologically sustainable development objectives of ecosystem‐based fisheries management.     

Categorising the risks in fisheries management

Abstract The many risks associated with fisheries management can be attributed to the substantial uncertainties that exist within fishery systems and their numerous possible consequences for fishers and fish stocks. Compounding these risks are the possible disparities between different fisheries professionals on the nature and source of these risks. This paper attempts to categorise the risks as reported by fishery scientists and managers in Australia and along the US Atlantic Coast. Through the use of semi‐structured interview data, this paper attempts to provide a categorisation of the risks identified by fisheries professionals; and to compare the identified risks by professional group and by country. The analysis yields three broad categories and 12 subcategories of risk found in both nations. Results indicate that: (1) fisheries management risks can be broadly categorised through interview data; (2) the frequency of identification of a particular risk category reflects the management system in which they operate; and (3) risk categorisation could be useful from a risk management perspective as risks in different categories may be evaluated and managed using different risk management approaches.     

Wealth and welfare? Can fisheries management succeed in achieving multiple objectives? A case study of Lake Victoria,East Africa

Fisheries policies often pursue multiple objectives, which may, in some instances, be in conflict or competition with each other. It may not be possible, for example, to create or maintain employment and generate increasing volumes of revenue for government whilst also sustaining stocks and biodiversity. Two approaches to fisheries management, one focused on capturing wealth and limiting access and the other on maintaining access for employment and providing community development and welfare, present contrasting policy advice, with different points of emphases and objectives. This article examines the case of Lake Victoria, where the three main commercial fisheries are seen to contribute to different objectives for the lake's fisheries. Insights from the debate between wealth‐based and welfare‐based approaches to fisheries management provide a framework for the analysis of fisheries policy and practice on the lake. From the analysis, it is concluded that whilst there is much rhetoric in support of a wealth‐based approach, this has not been followed through in implementation, reflecting the lack of political support for new taxation and limiting access. The welfare functions of the fisheries are significant, but could be substantially strengthened through greater investment in the provision of services to fisheries communities. The approaches are not mutually exclusive, but pursuing wealth‐based management must support livelihoods, employment and development, as well as fisheries management objectives. Without the incorporation of welfare objectives, fisheries policies will not be politically accepted or fully implemented, suggesting the need for a balance between wealth and welfare objectives and measures.     

Effort rights‐based management

Effort rights‐based fisheries management (RBM) is less widely used than catch rights, whether for groups or individuals. Because RBM on catch or effort necessarily requires a total allowable catch (TAC) or total allowable effort (TAE), RBM is discussed in conjunction with issues in assessing fish populations and providing TACs or TAEs. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages, and there are trade‐offs between the two approaches. In a narrow economic sense, catch rights are superior because of the type of incentives created, but once the costs of research to improve stock assessments and the associated risks of determining the TAC and costs of monitoring, control, surveillance and enforcement are taken into consideration, the choice between catch or effort RBM becomes more complex and less clear. The results will be case specific. Hybrid systems based on both catch and effort are increasingly employed to manage marine fisheries to capture the advantages of both approaches. In hybrid systems, catch or effort RBM dominates and controls on the other supplements. RBM using either catch or effort by itself addresses only the target species stock externality and not the remaining externalities associated with by‐catch and the ecosystem.     

Managing the development of artificial reef systems: The need for quantitative goals

Fisheries enhancement initiatives are a potentially useful tool for managers to supplement traditional approaches. Habitat‐based enhancements often deploy artificial reefs with the aim to increase the available structure to augment local production, yet current assessment approaches make it difficult to assess whether these reefs achieve pre‐deployment goals. This makes it hard for managers to determine whether artificial reefs could improve their fishery outputs, potentially leading to missed opportunities and reduced production. We reviewed 270 research articles to determine whether existing monitoring studies identify whether artificial reefs meet their pre‐deployment goals, thereby providing some evidence of their suitability for certain fisheries. We found only 62% of these studies clearly articulated the original goals of the reef. Goals were qualitative, and most studies were conducted over insufficient time frames to allow for ecological communities to stabilize and mature. It is therefore difficult to determine the success or failure of many artificial reefs in addressing the management issues for which they were deployed. In the light of these findings, we think the setting of explicit quantitative goals (which may be biological, social or economic), and monitoring the performance of reefs against these goals, could stimulate the broader application of artificial reefs in fisheries management strategies. Such an approach has been successfully adopted in aquaculture‐based fisheries enhancement, and we explain how current evaluation methods such as harvest strategies can be easily adapted to quantitatively monitor artificial reef performance.     

Fish spawning aggregations: where well‐placed management actions can yield big benefits for fisheries and conservation

Marine ecosystem management has traditionally been divided between fisheries management and biodiversity conservation approaches, and the merging of these disparate agendas has proven difficult. Here, we offer a pathway that can unite fishers, scientists, resource managers and conservationists towards a single vision for some areas of the ocean where small investments in management can offer disproportionately large benefits to fisheries and biodiversity conservation. Specifically, we provide a series of evidenced‐based arguments that support an urgent need to recognize fish spawning aggregations (FSAs) as a focal point for fisheries management and conservation on a global scale, with a particular emphasis placed on the protection of multispecies FSA sites. We illustrate that these sites serve as productivity hotspots – small areas of the ocean that are dictated by the interactions between physical forces and geomorphology, attract multiple species to reproduce in large numbers and support food web dynamics, ecosystem health and robust fisheries. FSAs are comparable in vulnerability, importance and magnificence to breeding aggregations of seabirds, sea turtles and whales yet they receive insufficient attention and are declining worldwide. Numerous case‐studies confirm that protected aggregations do recover to benefit fisheries through increases in fish biomass, catch rates and larval recruitment at fished sites. The small size and spatio‐temporal predictability of FSAs allow monitoring, assessment and enforcement to be scaled down while benefits of protection scale up to entire populations. Fishers intuitively understand the linkages between protecting FSAs and healthy fisheries and thus tend to support their protection.     

The use of spatial management tools in rights‐based groundfish fisheries

The role of spatial management, including marine protected areas, in achieving fisheries outcomes alongside conservation goals is debated. In fisheries that fail to meet fishing mortality targets, closed areas are sometimes implemented to reduce fishing mortality. However, fisheries with stronger management, including rights‐based approaches that can address overcapacity and overfishing problems, often employ spatial management as well. Here, we compare the objectives, design, and performance of spatial management in nine temperate demersal fisheries in North America, Oceania, Europe, and Africa that employ rights‐based systems. Common objectives of spatial management included protecting habitat, juveniles, and spawners and reducing discards. Recovering age structure and creating scientific reference sites were less common objectives, despite being widely cited benefits of spatial management. Some fisheries adopted single closures to achieve single objectives, whereas others adopted diverse networks to achieve multiple objectives. Importantly, many spatial protections are implemented primarily through industry initiatives. Environmental change compromised the efficacy of spatial management in some cases, suggesting the need to design spatial management systems that are robust to changing ocean conditions. Fisheries with diverse and extensive spatial management systems have generally healthier fish stocks. Whether this implies that spatial management contributed substantially to fishery performance is unclear due to an absence of large‐scale, long‐term studies aimed at discerning different drivers of success. Although these targeted monitoring studies of closed areas are limited, such studies are necessary to help resolve the ongoing debate and to enable more purposeful design of spatial management for fisheries and conservation.     

Interactions between the implementation of marine protected areas and right-based fisheries management in Australia

Abstract  The declaration of marine protected areas (MPAs) in Australia generates much confusion and controversy between government conservation and fisheries agencies, the fishing industry and NGOs. There are fundamental differences between the principles and practices underpinning the implementation of MPAs and fisheries management. This paper analyses the interactions between these two approaches to natural resource management and highlights the difficulties in integrating them effectively. The major challenges for governments are: poor cooperation between fisheries and conservation agencies; in principle inconsistencies between allocation of fishing rights by fisheries agencies and loss of these rights through MPA declaration; re-allocation of resources between user groups through spatial zoning; lack of fisheries expertise in conservation planning, and inappropriate single-species/single-issue approach to fisheries management. As fisheries agencies are now considering developing their own MPAs as tools for fisheries management, the need to address inconsistencies between conservation and fisheries approaches to the spatial management of natural resources increases further. Better collaboration between government agencies and better coordination of their activities would help more effective and less conflicting management of marine resources.     

Strong fisheries management and governance positively impact ecosystem status

Fisheries have had major negative impacts on marine ecosystems, and effective fisheries management and governance are needed to achieve sustainable fisheries, biodiversity conservation goals and thus good ecosystem status. To date, the IndiSeas programme (Indicators for the Seas) has focussed on assessing the ecological impacts of fishing at the ecosystem scale using ecological indicators. Here, we explore fisheries ‘Management Effectiveness’ and ‘Governance Quality’ and relate this to ecosystem health and status. We developed a dedicated expert survey, focused at the ecosystem level, with a series of questions addressing aspects of management and governance, from an ecosystem‐based perspective, using objective and evidence‐based criteria. The survey was completed by ecosystem experts (managers and scientists) and results analysed using ranking and multivariate methods. Results were further examined for selected ecosystems, using expert knowledge, to explore the overall findings in greater depth. Higher scores for ‘Management Effectiveness’ and ‘Governance Quality’ were significantly and positively related to ecosystems with better ecological status. Key factors that point to success in delivering fisheries and conservation objectives were as follows: the use of reference points for management, frequent review of stock assessments, whether Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) catches were being accounted for and addressed, and the inclusion of stakeholders. Additionally, we found that the implementation of a long‐term management plan, including economic and social dimensions of fisheries in exploited ecosystems, was a key factor in successful, sustainable fisheries management. Our results support the thesis that good ecosystem‐based management and governance, sustainable fisheries and healthy ecosystems go together.     

Primary fisheries management: a minimum requirement for provision of sustainable human benefits in small‐scale fisheries

The social and economic importance of small‐scale fisheries is frequently under‐valued, and they are rarely effectively managed. There is now growing consensus on how these fisheries could be managed for sustainability and to minimize the risks of crossing undesirable thresholds. Using a concept developed in health care, these approaches have been referred to as primary fisheries management. By encouraging the use of best‐available information in a precautionary way, the approaches will facilitate sustainable use and should therefore be encouraged, but they accept high scientific and implementation uncertainties as unavoidable because of limited management and enforcement resources and capacity. It is important to recognize that this limitation will result in social costs, because application of a precautionary approach in the face of high uncertainties will require forgoing potential sustainable benefits. Acceptance of primary fisheries management as a final and sufficient goal could therefore add a further constraint on the possibility of fishing communities escaping the poverty trap. Primary fisheries management should be seen as a first and minimum target for fisheries where there is currently no or inadequate management, but the longer‐term goal should still be well informed and adaptive management that strives for optimal benefits, referred to here as tertiary management.     

Small‐scale fisheries through the wellbeing lens

Despite longstanding recognition that small‐scale fisheries make multiple contributions to economies, societies and cultures, assessing these contributions and incorporating them into policy and decision‐making has suffered from a lack of a comprehensive integrating ‘lens’. This paper focuses on the concept of ‘wellbeing’ as a means to accomplish this integration, thereby unravelling and better assessing complex social and economic issues within the context of fisheries governance. We emphasize the relevance of the three key components of wellbeing – the material, relational and subjective dimensions, each of which is relevant to wellbeing at scales ranging from individual, household, community, fishery to human‐ecological systems as a whole. We review nine major approaches influential in shaping current thinking and practice on wellbeing: the economics of happiness, poverty, capabilities, gender, human rights, sustainable livelihoods, vulnerability, social capital, and social wellbeing. The concept of identity is a thread that runs through the relational and subjective components of social wellbeing, as well as several other approaches and thus emerges as a critical element of small‐scale fisheries that requires explicit recognition in governance analysis. A social wellbeing lens is applied to critically review a global body of literature discussing the social, economic and political dimensions of small‐scale fishing communities, seeking to understand the relevance and value addition of applying wellbeing concepts in small‐scale fisheries.     

Does MPA mean ‘Major Problem for Assessments'? Considering the consequences of place‐based management systems

Marine protected areas (MPAs) have been increasingly proposed, evaluated and implemented as management tools for achieving both fisheries and conservation objectives in aquatic ecosystems. However, there is a challenge associated with the application of MPAs in marine resource management with respect to the consequences to traditional systems of monitoring and managing fisheries resources. The place‐based paradigm of MPAs can complicate the population‐based paradigm of most fisheries stock assessments. In this review, we identify the potential complications that could result from both existing and future MPAs to the science and management systems currently in place for meeting conventional fisheries management objectives. The intent is not to evaluate the effects of implementing MPAs on fisheries yields, or even to consider the extent to which MPAs may achieve conservation oriented objectives, but rather to evaluate the consequences of MPA implementation on the ability to monitor and assess fishery resources consistent with existing methods and legislative mandates. Although examples are drawn primarily from groundfish fisheries on the West Coast of the USA, the lessons are broadly applicable to management systems worldwide, particularly those in which there exists the institutional infrastructure for managing resources based on quantitative assessments of resource status and productivity.     

Model uncertainty in the ecosystem approach to fisheries

Fisheries scientists habitually consider uncertainty in parameter values, but often neglect uncertainty about model structure, an issue of increasing importance as ecosystem models are devised to support the move to an ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF). This paper sets out pragmatic approaches with which to account for uncertainties in model structure and we review current ways of dealing with this issue in fisheries and other disciplines. All involve considering a set of alternative models representing different structural assumptions, but differ in how those models are used. The models can be asked to identify bounds on possible outcomes, find management actions that will perform adequately irrespective of the true model, find management actions that best achieve one or more objectives given weights assigned to each model, or formalize hypotheses for evaluation through experimentation. Data availability is likely to limit the use of approaches that involve weighting alternative models in an ecosystem setting, and the cost of experimentation is likely to limit its use. Practical implementation of an EAF should therefore be based on management approaches that acknowledge the uncertainty inherent in model predictions and are robust to it. Model results must be presented in ways that represent the risks and trade‐offs associated with alternative actions and the degree of uncertainty in predictions. This presentation should not disguise the fact that, in many cases, estimates of model uncertainty may be based on subjective criteria. The problem of model uncertainty is far from unique to fisheries, and a dialogue among fisheries modellers and modellers from other scientific communities will therefore be helpful.     

Forage fish fisheries management requires a tailored approach to balance trade‐offs

Ecosystem‐based fishery management requires considering the effects of actions on social, natural and economic systems. These considerations are important for forage fish fisheries, because these species provide ecosystem services as a key prey in food webs and support valuable commercial fisheries. Forage fish stocks fluctuate naturally, and fishing may make these fluctuations more pronounced, yet harvest strategies intended to ameliorate these effects might adversely affect fisheries and communities. Here, we evaluate trade‐offs among a diverse suite of management objectives by simulating outcomes from several harvest strategies on forage fish species. We demonstrate that some trade‐offs (like those between catches and minimizing collapse length) were universal among forage species and could not be eliminated by the use of different control rules. We also demonstrate that trade‐offs vary among forage fish species, with strong trade‐offs between stable, high catches and high‐biomass periods (“bonanzas”) for menhaden‐ and anchovy‐like fish, and counterintuitive trade‐offs for sardine‐like fish between shorter collapses and longer bonanzas. We find that harvest strategies designed to maintain stability in catches will result in more severe collapses. Finally, we show that the ability of assessments to detect rapid changes in population status greatly affects control rule performance and the degree and type of trade‐offs, increasing the risk and severity of collapses and reducing catches. Together, these results demonstrate that while default harvest strategies are useful in data‐poor situations, management strategy evaluations that are tailored to specific forage fish may better balance trade‐offs.     

The mitigation hierarchy for sharks: A risk‐based framework for reconciling trade‐offs between shark conservation and fisheries objectives

Sharks and their cartilaginous relatives are one of the world's most threatened species groups. The primary cause is overfishing in targeted and bycatch fisheries. Reductions in fishing mortality are needed to halt shark population declines. However, this requires complex fisheries management decisions, which often entail trade‐offs between conservation objectives and fisheries objectives. We propose the mitigation hierarchy (MH)—a step‐wise precautionary approach for minimizing the impacts of human activity on biodiversity—as a novel framework for supporting these management decisions. We outline a holistic conceptual model for risks to sharks in fisheries, which includes biophysical, operational and socioeconomic considerations. We then demonstrate how this model, in conjunction with the MH, can support risk‐based least cost shark conservation. Through providing examples from real‐world fishery management problems, we illustrate how the MH can be applied to a range of species, fisheries and contexts, and explore some of the opportunities and challenges hereto. Finally, we outline next steps for research and implementation. This is important in the context of increasing international regulation of shark fishing and trade, which must lead to reductions in shark mortality, while managing trade‐offs between conservation objectives and the socioeconomic value of fisheries.     

Evolution of marine fisheries management in China from 1949 to 2019: How did China get here and where does China go next?

China is the world’s biggest fishing nation and a major player in the global seafood trade. Its fisheries development can decisively influence the global seafood trade, food security and marine conservation. In recent years, significant changes have taken place in China’s fisheries management priorities, policies and regulations. In this paper, we review the evolving fisheries management practices in China to delineate changes in the management policies, methods and their performances from 1949 to 2019. We determined that the following issues impede the development, implementation and enforcement of fisheries policies and regulations, namely the large size of the fishing fleet, large and poorly organized fisheries population, the “hidden” fishing capacity, uniform management approaches that sometimes fail to account for local conditions, lack of clearly defined and allocated fishing rights, limited data quality and availability, insufficient fisheries monitoring programmes, absence of a robust scientific input framework and insufficient stakeholder involvement. Combining those problems with China’s current management initiatives, we propose recommendations for China’s future fisheries reforms. We hope this paper can inform China’s marine fisheries policies and provide valuable references for further researches related to China’s sustainable fisheries management.     

Reconciling traditional inland fisheries management and sustainability in industrialized countries, with emphasis on Europe

In northern industrialized countries, the inland fisheries sector has long been dominated by recreational fisheries, which normally exploit fish for leisure or subsistence and provide many (poorly investigated) benefits to society. Various factors constrain the development and existence of inland fisheries, such as local user conflicts, low social priority and inadequate research and funding. In many cases, however, degradation of the environment and loss of aquatic habitat are the predominant concerns for the sustainability of inland fisheries. The need for concerted effort to prevent and reduce environmental degradation, as well as conservation of freshwater fish and fisheries as renewable common pool resources or entities in their own right is the greatest challenge facing sustainable development of inland waters. In inland fisheries management, the declining quality of the aquatic environment coupled with long‐term inadequate and often inappropriate fisheries management has led to an emphasis on enhancement practices, such as stocking, to mitigate anthropogenic stress. However, this is not always the most appropriate management approach. Therefore, there is an urgent need to alter many traditional inland fisheries management practices and systems to focus on sustainable development. This paper reviews the literature regarding the inputs needed for sustainability of inland fisheries in industrialized countries. To understand better the problems facing sustainable inland fisheries management, the inland fisheries environment, its benefits, negative impacts and constraints, as well as historical management, paradigms, trends and current practices are described. Major philosophical shifts, challenges and promising integrated management approaches are envisaged in a holistic framework. The following are considered key elements for sustainable development of inland fisheries: communication, information dissemination, education, institutional restructuring, marketing outreach, management plans, decision analysis, socioeconomic evaluation and research into the human dimension, in addition to traditional biological and ecological sciences. If these inputs are integrated with traditional fisheries management practices, the prospects for sustainability in the inland fisheries will be enhanced.