Managing fisheries resources to maintain healthy ecosystems is one of the main goals of the ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF). While a number of international treaties call for the implementation of EAF, there are still gaps in the underlying methodology. One aspect that has received substantial scientific attention recently is fisheries-induced evolution (FIE). Increasing evidence indicates that intensive fishing has the potential to exert strong directional selection on life-history traits, behaviour, physiology, and morphology of exploited fish. Of particular concern is that reversing evolutionary responses to fishing can be much more difficult than reversing demographic or phenotypically plastic responses. Furthermore, like climate change, multiple agents cause FIE, with effects accumulating over time. Consequently, FIE may alter the utility derived from fish stocks, which in turn can modify the monetary value living aquatic resources provide to society. Quantifying and predicting the evolutionary effects of fishing is therefore important for both ecological and economic reasons. An important reason this is not happening is the lack of an appropriate assessment framework. We therefore describe the evolutionary impact assessment (EvoIA) as a structured approach for assessing the evolutionary consequences of fishing and evaluating the predicted evolutionary outcomes of alternative management options. EvoIA can contribute to EAF by clarifying how evolution may alter stock properties and ecological relations, support the precautionary approach to fisheries management by addressing a previously overlooked source of uncertainty and risk, and thus contribute to sustainable fisheries.

Fishers' knowledge research (FKR) aims to enhance the use of experiential knowledge of fish harvesters in fisheries research, assessment, and management. Fishery participants are able to provide unique knowledge, and that knowledge forms an important part of “best available information” for fisheries science and management. Fishers' knowledge includes, but is much greater than, basic biological fishery information. It includes ecological, economic, social, and institutional knowledge, as well as experience and critical analysis of experiential knowledge. We suggest that FKR, which may in the past have been defined quite narrowly, be defined more broadly to include both fishery observations and fishers “experiential knowledge” provided across a spectrum of arrangements of fisher participation. FKR is part of the new and different information required in evolving “ecosystem-based” and “integrated” management approaches. FKR is a necessary element in the integration of ecological, economic, social, and institutional considerations of future management. Fishers' knowledge may be added to traditional assessment with appropriate analysis and explicit recognition of the intended use of the information, but fishers' knowledge is best implemented in a participatory process designed to receive and use it. Co-generation of knowledge in appropriately designed processes facilitates development and use of fishers' knowledge and facilitates the participation of fishers in assessment and management, and is suggested as best practice in improved fisheries governance.

Heino, M., Baulier, L., Boukal, D. S., Ernande, B., Johnston, F. D., Mollet, F. M., Pardoe, H., Therkildsen, N. O., Uusi-Heikkilä, S., Vainikka, A., Arlinghaus, R., Dankel, D. J., Dunlop, E. S., Eikeset, A. M., Enberg, K., Engelhard G. H., Jørgensen, C., Laugen, A. T., Matsumura, S., Nusslé, S., Urbach, D., Whitlock, R., Rijnsdorp, A. D., and Dieckmann, U. 2013. Can fisheries-induced evolution shift reference points for fisheries management? – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 70: 707–721. Biological reference points are important tools for fisheries management. Reference points are not static, but may change when a population's environment or the population itself changes. Fisheries-induced evolution is one mechanism that can alter population characteristics, leading to “shifting” reference points by modifying the underlying biological processes or by changing the perception of a fishery system. The former causes changes in “true” reference points, whereas the latter is caused by changes in the yardsticks used to quantify a system's status. Unaccounted shifts of either kind imply that reference points gradually lose their intended meaning. This can lead to increased precaution, which is safe, but potentially costly. Shifts can also occur in more perilous directions, such that actual risks are greater than anticipated. Our qualitative analysis suggests that all commonly used reference points are susceptible to shifting through fisheries-induced evolution, including the limit and “precautionary” reference points for spawning-stock biomass, Blim and Bpa, and the target reference point for fishing mortality, F0.1. Our findings call for increased awareness of fisheries-induced changes and highlight the value of always basing reference points on adequately updated information, to capture all changes in the biological processes that drive fish population dynamics.

This paper comparatively reviews several commercially important fish stocks, their state and their management in various regions of the world including Japanese anchovy, Bay of Biscay anchovy, North Sea sandeel, North Sea herring, Icelandic cod, Barents Sea cod, South African cape hakes, sockeye salmon, chinook salmon, southern bluefin tuna, Pacific halibut, Greenland halibut and Patagonian toothfish. The reviewed fish stocks are systemized in three categories: (1) stock properties and status; (2) management structure and objectives; and (3) management advice. We gather evidence to outline qualities of management regimes that are recommended and highlight those that most often fail. Robust management, biological limits (reference points), implementation and consensus are critical points that separate successful and unsuccessful management regimes. We evaluate each fish stock's management performance relative to its management objectives and current conservation issues. Furthermore, we point out the importance of stakeholder involvement in fisheries management as well as the problems that international fisheries commissions face through examples from the case studies. Management successes tended to be single-nation and single-stock fisheries with capacity control and clear stakeholder involvement. Fisheries with fleet overcapacity, unclear objectives and illegal activity characterized the case studies with management problems.

Dankel, D. J., Aps, R., Padda, G., Röckmann, C., van der Sluijs, J. P., Wilson, D. C., and Degnbol, P. 2012. Advice under uncertainty in the marine system. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 69: 3–7. There is some uncertainty in the fisheries science–policy interface. Although progress has been made towards more transparency and participation in fisheries science in ICES Areas, routine use of state-of-the-art quantitative and qualitative tools to address uncertainty systematically is still lacking. Fisheries science that gives advice to policy-making is plagued by uncertainties; the stakes of the policies are high and value-laden and need therefore to be treated as an example of “post-normal science” (PNS). To achieve robust governance, understanding of the characteristics and implications of the scientific uncertainties for management strategies need to come to the centre of the table. This can be achieved using state-of-the-art tools such as pedigree matrices and uncertainty matrices, as developed by PNS scholars and used in similar science–policy arenas on other complex issues. An explicit extension of the peer community within maritime systems will be required to put these new tools in place. These new competences become even more important as many countries within the ICES Area are now embarking on new policies.