Search

With increasing activities of multiple sectors in marine spaces, management of marine social–ecological systems requires more holistic approaches. Adopting such an approach, however, presents difficult institutional and disciplinary challenges. Here, we use the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) as a case study on the implementation of ecosystem-based management (EBM) and integrated ecosystem assessments (IEAs). ICES includes EBM and IEAs in its Science Priorities and established IEA Working Groups (WGs) to carry out regional IEAs. But to what degree does this IEA WG work follow best practices? We examine policy documents, academic literature, and interview data from chairs of all IEA WGs. Results indicate mixed success. All groups acknowledge the holistic goals of IEA, and many use the IEA model as laid out by Levin et al. However, we found a significant variation in the degree to which the full model is applied. We identified two primary areas for improvement: (1) integration of social and economic issues and (2) involvement of stakeholders. We offer examples of how WGs have been making progress towards full IEAs, discuss how ICES can further support this transition, and suggest lessons with respect to the adoption of EBM and IEAs more broadly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discard bans have been proposed as part of management policies aimed at balanced harvest (BH). Nationwide discard bans exist in several countries, including Chile, the European Union, Norway, and New Zealand. Weanalysed experiences from these countries to determine whether or not discard bans are in contradiction with BH, based on six aspects: policy objectives, species/sizes applicability, accompanying technical measures, atsea monitoring and control, and possible impacts. When discard bans are fully implemented, fishing operations change to more selective fishing, typically targeting bigger individuals of main commercial species. This is consistent with the primary objective of many discard policies, i.e. to reduce unwanted catch. In contrast, proponents of BH argue that broader catch diversity, a product of a widespread harvest strategy, should be sought to avoid major impacts on the ecosystem. Our analysis demonstrates that the scope of discard bans is often limited to main commercial species, although usually they can be extended to include more ecosystem components. Some of the policies examined also prohibit the use of unwanted catches for human consumption, thus limiting their effective use. However, the implementation of discard bans requires high levels of at-sea monitoring and effective control, and/or strong incentives to fish more selectively, neither of which applied in most cases examined. Weconclude that if discard bans were set differently, they could contribute to fishery management policies aiming at BH. Their goals should be in line with BH, i.e. to reach a wider global harvest pattern, or at least be established within management regimes that promote high compliance. Finally, the extent to which a discard ban contributes to achieve BH depends also on the relative importance of the ecosystem benthic and megafauna components. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Schwach, V., Bailly, D., Christensen, A-S., Delaney, A. E., Degnbol, P., van Densen, W. L. T., Holm, P., McLay, H. A., Nielsen, K. N., Pastoors, M. A., Reeves, S. A., and Wilson, D. C. 2007. Policy and knowledge in fisheries management: a policy brief. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64: 798–803.The EU project Policy and Knowledge in Fisheries Management investigated the use of biological knowledge in various parts of the fisheries system, using North Sea cod as a case study. The project examined the way scientific advice was generated from technical and institutional perspectives, as well as the way claims about science appeared in both policy-setting and in public debate through the press. The results suggested that many people involved in the system want a new way to reflect about science in management. People from all major stakeholder groups are calling for a more interactive system of producing a common knowledge base. Such a system could bring uncertainty from its current marginal role as the leftovers of certainty to the heart of the science process. It would require stakeholders to help address uncertainty and to negotiate a more realistic placement of burden of proof. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]