Knowledge

The regionalization process promoted by the EU's Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) enabled the formulation of a new governance arrangement at the sub-national regional level of the Northern Adriatic Sea (NAS). Given the potential for dominating narratives to foster simplified solutions for fishery management, the article sought to analyze discourse formations across Italian Regional Fishery Departments (RFDs) of the NAS. A discourse analysis based on the Discursive Agency Approach (DAA) delineated the discursive strategies, while a weak vs strong sustainability narrative was adopted to broadly group stakeholders into discourse coalitions. The results showed the presence of a dominating narrative in RFD settings, prioritizing the economic growth of the fishery sector - particularly the trawling industry - over current environmental concerns. The study points to a possibly increasing dominance of weak sustainability narratives in the Italian NAS and invites for stakeholders' representation to significantly broaden and diversify, enabling the development of multifaceted solutions to the NAS crisis.

For the EU's Common Fisheries Policy, solving the discard problem is a central issue. Through a study of the institutional set-up and initiatives to solve the discard problem in Denmark, the Faroe Islands, Iceland and Norway, the article identifies the discard problem as related to natural and other material conditions as well as cultural conditions. Therefore, solving the discard problem requires not only technical and regulatory instruments, but also arenas and structures that allow and support cultural change processes.

The SEAwise project works to deliver a fully operational tool that will allow fishermen, managers, and policy makers to easily apply Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management (EBFM) in their own fisheries. One of the key uncertainties in fisheries science and management can be linked to (our understanding of) fishermen's behaviour. In this report we describe the project efforts to better understand fisher behavior by assessing literature, interviews and data to advance towards a better representation of fisher behavior in our modelling. A better understanding of fisher behavior is especially needed in the context of change affecting Europe's marine ecosystems. Change is both related to the natural part of the ecosystem (ie climate change) as to the social side of the ecosystem (ie building of wind parks).

To that aim we present nine different case studies in Europe as examples of how fisher behavior has been studied and which factors are (or can be) relevant for a better understanding of fisher behaviour. Each case study ends with a table summarizing the factors influencing behaviour, the categories within that factor and the (potential) application in modeling as well as the implications for management. The table below summarizes the factors found / used in the case studies and the elements (social, cultural, ecological, economic and institutional) to which they relate. A variety of social factors were identified that are promising for use in modelling. A key conclusion is that social data are often context dependent and cannot be copy pasted from one situation to the other and in some cases, additional data needs to be collected. The cases also demonstrate that mixed methods approaches and interdisciplinary approaches are key to get in-depth understanding of fisher behavior in fisheries science.

The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) occupies a central role in the advice system to support the implementation of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management (EAFM) in the European Union (EU). Despite improvements, its capacity to deliver ecosystem advice seems to be far from a fully functional operational framework. To what extent availability of appropriate scientific advice is a barrier for a more widespread use of an EAFM in Europe remains an open question. Building on the findings of a large research project, this article explores what advice ICES can provide. The article concludes that: (i) ICES has taken a leading role in generating an EAFM framework in which management decisions can operate; (ii) the advice “suppliers” and the advice “users” agree on the feasibility of using existing knowledge to “do EAFM now”; (iii) ICES can address a range of shortcomings, but some of the present bottlenecks demand concerted action between the advisory system and the political realm. The implementation of an EAFM requires consistency between science and management. ICES appears as well-suited to facilitate the dialogue on applying an EAFM in the EU, but it is unrealistic to expect ICES to produce all the answers.

This study compares the details and performance of fisheries management between the EU and a selection of other countries worldwide: Iceland, New Zealand, and Australia, which are considered in many respects to be among the most advanced in the world in fisheries management. Fisheries management in the EU, Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand has developed following different paths, despite being based on similar instruments and principles. Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand have been at the forefront of developing management practices such as stakeholder involvement, legally binding management targets (Australia, New Zealand), individual transferable quotas, and discard bans (Iceland, New Zealand). The EU has since the beginning of the 21st century taken significant steps to better involve stakeholders and establish quantitative targets through management plans, and a landing obligation is gradually being implemented from 2015 onwards. The management of domestic fisheries resources in Australia, New Zealand, and Iceland has, overall, performed better than in the EU, in terms of conservation and economic efficiency. It should, however, be stressed that, compared to Australia, New Zealand, and Iceland, (i) initial over‐capacity was more of an issue in the EU when management measures became legally binding and also that (ii) the EU has been progressive in developing common enforcement standards, on stocks shared by sovereign nations. The situation of EU fisheries has substantially improved over the period 2004–2013 in the northeast Atlantic, with fishery status getting close to that in the other jurisdictions, but the lack of recovery for Mediterranean fish stocks remains a concern.

While European policies have progressed towards an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM), limited attention has been paid to the implications for its advisory system. This paper analyzes the advisory landscape in the European Union (EU) by addressing two questions: to what extent can the needed advice be provided? how prepared is the management system to integrate ecosystem advice? We provide a systematic analysis of the relevant advisory bodies, explore gaps related to the requested and delivered advice, and identify paths for improvement. The findings confirm earlier observations of lack of a formalized process to provide and integrate advice in support of an ecosystem approach into EU fisheries management. Instead of enabling existing capacities to embed ecosystem components (eg investments and initiatives made by stakeholders (and authorities) to move to EAFM -pushing strategies), the system relies heavily on mandatory requests from policy makers (pulling mechanisms). Furthermore, social and economic dimensions are the weakest aspects in the advisory process, which hampers the balancing of objectives that represent one of the hallmarks of EAFM. The policy framework has adopted EAFM for European fisheries, but the advisory processes have not yet been adapted to substantially support EAFM.

Rigid fisheries management frameworks often leave fishermen with limited possibilities and incentives to adjust the selectivity of their gears to the specific fishing conditions. Implementation of the landing obligation in European fisheries emphasizes fishermen's need for flexibility in which gear to use to be able to match the selectivity of the gear to the quota available. How fishermen can play an important role in facilitating a more regionalised and flexible technical regulation by actively participating in the development of gears and contributing to the scientific documentation of their selectivity is discussed. Perspectives in the proposed technical regulation for EU fisheries and the regionalization in the 2013 Common Fisheries Policy are discussed based on an analysis of the current EU technical regulation. Then a new pathway to address the problem, currently being trialled in Danish fisheries, is discussed. Throughout the article, three themes are discussed: Identifying gear needs, development and testing of gear with fishermen as central actors; how the selectivity of the gear should be documented; and opportunities for faster evaluation of new gear, following the regionalization of the technical measure regulation. The paper concludes that a more flexible system of gear development and evaluation is possible by a) involvement of fishermen in proposing gear adjustments, self-sampling and documenting results following scientific protocols and evaluation, testing a range of designs before scientific testing, and b) open for faster approval of gear use under a regionalized technical regulation regime with annual adjustments of management plans containing the technical regulation.

Automated fish documentation processes are in the near future expected to play an essential role in sustainable fisheries management and for addressing challenges of overfishing. In this paper, we present a novel and publicly available dataset named AutoFish designed for fine-grained fish analysis. The dataset comprises 1,500 images of 454 specimens of visually similar fish placed in various constellations on a white conveyor belt and annotated with instance segmentation masks, IDs, and length measurements. The data was collected in a controlled environment using an RGB camera. The annotation procedure involved manual point annotations, initial segmentation masks proposed by the Segment Anything Model (SAM), and subsequent manual correction of the masks. We establish baseline instance segmentation results using two variations of the Mask2Former architecture, with the best performing model reaching an mAP of 89.15%. Additionally, we present two baseline length estimation methods, the best performing being a custom MobileNetV2-based regression model reaching an MAE of 0.62cm in images with no occlusion and 1.38cm in images with occlusion. Link to project page: https://vap.aau.dk/autofish/.

The Faroe Islands are currently struggling to find their feet in a new context of globalization and changing international requirements on fishery management best practices, as exemplified by United Nations protocols and agreements. We introduce the Faroese fisheries effort management system for cod, haddock and saithe, which represents an innovative attempt to tackle the challenges of mixed fisheries by means of a combination of total allowable effort implemented through days-at-sea and extensive use of closed or limited access areas. Subsequently, we present and discuss controversies concerning the system's ability (or lack thereof) to achieve a level of fishing effort that produces long-term sustainability. Over the years the system has proven able to evolve and overcome challenges, and the Faroe Islands are currently considering adding a proper fisheries management plan to the system to achieve fishing at maximum sustainable yield. However, finding support for this plan presents a challenge due particularly to an enduring gap between the perspectives of scientists and actors in the catching sector. Finally, we outline some actions that could be taken to reduce the gap and hence facilitate reform of the system: 1) integration of the consultative/advisory process; 2) obtaining tailor-made advice for the Faroese effort management system from the relevant scientific body; 3) establishment of a transparent mechanism for monitoring and regulating fishing effort; 4) clarifying the effectiveness of the prevalent system of closed areas.

The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is rooted in the Treaty of Rome. After its completion in 1983, the policy framework was gradually reformed through decennial reviews in 1993, 2003, and 2014. Due to geopolitical, physiographic, and historical reasons, the EU implementation of the CFP is most developed in the North Atlantic Ocean, the North Sea, and the Baltic Sea, and less developed in the Mediterranean and Black Sea. However, the CFP applies throughout European Union (EU) waters, which that are treated as a “common pond.” The CFP has been heavily contested since its introduction, and over long periods was characterized as a management system in crisis. Historically, the CFP has arguably struggled to perform and the policy’s ability to meet its objectives has not uncommonly been undermined by factors such as internally contradictory decisions and inefficient implementation. Since the turn of the century, the policy has changed its course by incrementally institutionalizing principles for a more environmentally orientated and scientifically based fisheries management approach. In general, in the latest decade, fisheries have become increasingly sustainable in both environmental and economic terms. An increasing number of fish stocks under the CFP are being exploited at sustainable levels—a development that is likely to continue, as fish stocks are coming to be more commonly managed along the lines of science-based multi-annual management plans. Consequently, many fishing fleets, particularly those deployed in northern waters, have shown good economic performance in recent years. This development has been further facilitated by the introduction of market-based management principles; in most member states these have been implemented by granting de facto ownership to fishing rights for free in the name of ecological and economic sustainability. This has, however, in many cases also led to huge wealth generation for a small privileged group of large-scale fishers at the expense of small-scale fisheries and smaller fishing communities, as well as society at large; this situation has led to calls for both a fairer distribution of fishing rights—to protect the small-scale sector—and for a resource rent or exploitation fee to be collected for the benefit of society at large, which is the true owner of fishing resources. Consequently, social sustainability, understood as the improved well-being of fishing communities and a fairer sharing out of the benefits derived from fisheries resources, should be a subject for the CFP to consider in the future.