This report aims to improve understanding of how flexibility can be introduced into the fisheries management cycle in order to foster adaptation to climate change. This work contributes to the overall scope of improving the resilience of fisheries, reducing their vulnerability to climate change, and enabling managers to respond in a timely manner to the projected changes in the dynamics of marine resources and ecosystems. The findings build on the conclusions of previous FAO publications that highlighted the lack of evaluations of adaptation success. Thirteen case studies from different locations across the globe are analysed: Myanmar, the Northeast Atlantic, South Africa, Uruguay, south-eastern Australia, Belize, the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, the Philippines, the Mediterranean, Canada (east and west coasts) and Peru. They provide details on the challenges presented by climate-driven impacts to fisheries with a widely varied range of socio-ecological contexts, governance systems, data availability (data-poor to data-rich), geographical locations and scales, fishery types and species, and adaptation responses. Understanding the general impacts of climate change on marine ecosystems and fisheries is a first step towards developing climate-adaptive fisheries management measures. Indeed, understanding the potential impacts on any specific system provides the background information necessary for selecting adaptation measures for that system. Based on the case studies presented, the most common impacts of climate change are shifts in species distributions, changes to productivity, and changes to species composition. A 'good practice' chapter pulls out the lessons learned from the case studies on how to adaptively manage fisheries in the face of climate change; it highlights the importance of adaptive and participatory management along with foundational principles of fisheries management. An effective fisheries management system is the first foundation of climate-resilient fisheries. The second foundation is stakeholder participation, whether it entails one-way flows of information (passive participation) or self-mobilization of stakeholders with independent community control of management. The third foundation relates to uncertainty and risk; a set of precautionary actions that can be taken in the planning and implementation phases of the fisheries management cycle are identified to assist decision-makers in addressing uncertainty and risk arising from climate impacts. Finally, the fourth foundation of climate-resilient fisheries is adaptive management: this recognizes the impossibility of determining the perfect management strategy and calls for management strategy evaluation, with periodic monitoring of status indicators and revision of management measures. Criteria are included to assist with selecting good practice adaptation measures, to ensure they meet minimum standards. There are three mandatory good practice criteria and two additional criteria that are considered beneficial. The mandatory criteria are: (i) the adaptation measure explicitly addresses climate-related risk(s) (with a clear objective); (ii) there is sufficient evidence to infer/assess effectiveness or robustness; and (iii) the adaptation measure must be a win-win or lose-win option. The two beneficial criteria are that the measure is: (iv) flexible or responsive; and (v) socially acceptable. For wider use, it is acknowledged that these criteria identify adaptation measures likely to be effective generally and do not assess their suitability for all specific local contexts. Moreover, good practice measures will only be effective when implemented rigorously and appropriately to the local context. When screened against the good practice criteria, the 13 fisheries case studies demonstrate 15 good practice adaptation measures in response to climate change. These are each linked to one or more of the three common climate-related impacts on fisheries resources (distributional change; productivity change; and species composition change) that can serve as practical entry points to guide decision-makers in identifying adaptation measures suitable for their local context. This information provides the basis for a framework that applies the good practice criteria to assist fishery practitioners in identifying suitable climate adaptation measures. The framework provides a means to track how the good practices are identified, and assess the likely effectiveness and suitability of the adaptation measures. To help ensure that good practice adaptation measures are relevant to each local context, local management capacity requirements are indicated: low (L), medium (M) or high (H). A number of challenges remain for the effective implementation of climate adaptation measures in fisheries management; they relate to political will, governance capacity and structures, uncertainty, rights disputes, and inflexible legal frameworks. The report identifies potential solutions for these challenges. It also recommends ways in which it may in future be possible to move from 'good practices' to '(normative) guidelines' in climate-adaptive fisheries management. These include the development of a catalogue of examples of successful adaptation, using a common template to facilitate their analysis. Another recommended area of work is the downscaling of climate projections -- including social and economic scenarios -- to match scales at which fisheries management occurs, with special attention on low-capacity regions, countries and areas. In addition to the need for more detailed information on localized climate impacts, identifying the (local) enabling conditions that help foster and accelerate the development and uptake of climate-adaptive measures is essential. Finally, future research could include the assessment of good practices for climate-adaptive management of inland fisheries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]