Search

The Working Group on Social Indicators seeks to improve the integration of social sciences in ICES Ecosystem Overviews and Integrated Ecosystem Assessments through the development of culturally relevant social indicators. To advance progress on this, WGSOCIAL has broadly discussed the context of the social di-mension of fishing. This has led to coordination with other working groups within ICES and outside ICES with the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries Expert Work-ing Group Social and with the Regional Coordination Group on Economics Issues. WGSOCIAL develops methods for qualitative and quantitative approaches. It has also continued providing input to the updating of ecosystem overviews finalising those of the Celtic Seas and North Sea. WGSOCIAL has advanced work on the definition and context of trade-offs and trade-off analy-sis in the social context of fisheries. To assess social and cultural significance of commercial fishing, WGSOCIAL members have ad-vanced case studies in a number of ICES member countries: two regions in Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway. Each case study tackles a different approach with a different context. In addition, WGSOCIAL has advanced work on the topic of what a fishing community is and how the definition can change in different contexts. Lastly, WGSOCIAL has developed a database of social and economic indicators for evaluating fisheries management and identified a comprehensive list of categories and sub-categories of social and economic indicators that could be used to structure the selection of social indicators that inform fisheries managers. As a nest step, WGSOCIAL will identify key social indicators and data gaps for selected ICES member countries with recommendations for approaches to close the gaps. To support integrated socio-ecological evaluations in ecosystem-based management, WGSOCIAL has contributed to the development of work on the impacts of wind farms on com-mercial fishing ac

WKSTIMP supports the ICES Stakeholder Engagement Strategy, through drafting elements for ICES Implementation Plan. The report defines a suit of actions to make the ICES Strategy work. If implemented successfully, a diverse and representative pool of competent, reliable and committed stakeholders will engage with ICES. All stakeholders will be able to contribute effectively based on a clear understanding of the process and what is expected from them. ICES will become a natural place for stakeholders to engage and collaborate, delivering better science and advice by integrating essential knowledge and providing arenas for meaningful dialogues. And, the engagement process will be fully traceable, and its monitoring and evaluation outcomes inform decision-making and organizational learning. The WKSTIMP participants represented a plurality of profiles and backgrounds including natural and social scientists, representatives from the fisheries sector, NGOs, Advisory Councils, ICES Head of SCICOM and ACOM and ICES staff. The analysis and reflective thinking on the Strategy set the basis for exploring actions within the ICES system (Expert Groups, Advice Drafting Groups, MIACO and MIRIA meetings) and across topics (research ethics, data protection, informed consent, conflicts of interest, transparency). The discussion in WKSTIMP highlighted the centrality of stakeholders as data, information and knowledge providers, and highlighted how two complementary ICES initiatives reinforce the Strategy: firstly, the development of guidelines for ensuring the integrity of scientific information submitted to ICES by data providers (e.g., WKENSURE); and secondly, the accountability for fishers and other stakeholders’ perceptions (forthcoming Workshop on perceptions on the dynamics of fish stocks in ICES advice, WKAFPA). Furthermore, participants discussed risks associated with opportunistic behaviour in the engagement processes (creative and created blindness and advice shopping), tailor

Commission Decision of 25 February 2016 setting up a Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, C(2016) 1084, OJ C 74, 26.2.2016, p. 4–10. The Commission may consult the group on any matter relating to marine and fisheries biology, fishing gear technology, fisheries economics, fisheries governance, ecosystem effects of fisheries, aquaculture or similar disciplines. This report builds on earlier EWG results (19-03, 20-14, 22-14) and further develops the methodologies for the collection and analysis of social data in fisheries. In particular it addresses the development of National Fisheries Profiles (NFP) and advocates the development of a web based version of the NFP. In addition, it reflects on policy questions generated by DG MARE and indicates how social data could assist in answering these policy questions. Finally, the report evaluates responses of the Member States towards the European Commission’s (EC) questionnaire about the implementation of Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

The use of management strategy evaluation (MSE) to support fisheries decision-making has increased worldwide over the last thirty years. Management strategy evaluation fits well within the advisory process, providing stability and consistency with long-term management objectives. If successfully implemented, it allows understanding and assessing of the consequences of management options, makes trade-offs explicit, identifies strategies that work reasonably well in favourable and challenging times, and balances competing objectives. The depth and breadth of a given MSE approach fit in a continuum between desk MSEs and full MSEs, based on the degree of stakeholder and analyst participation required. Evidence shows that for MSE to deliver in the real world, participatory processes are a critical component exhibiting opportunities for improvement. In 2022, the Spanish Institute of Oceanography launched a research project ¿New tools for mathematical modelling in the scientific advice of Spanish fisheries (Math4Fish)¿. While the main goal is improving stock assessment models, it includes MSE developments for three species ¿ European hake (Merluccius merluccius), European anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) and common sole (Solea solea). During the implementation, it became evident that readiness for MSE influences outcomes. How ready managers, scientists and stakeholders are to use the MSE framework is somehow taken for granted. Readiness, however, goes beyond process design, technical expertise and models¿ fitness to encompass context-dependent attributes. This talk explores the critical features of the management system and the actors involved that need to be addressed. Building on the preliminary findings from the Math4Fish project, the notion of readiness assessment before developing MSE is introduced.

For future sustainable management of fisheries, we anticipate deeper and more diverse information will be needed. Future needs include not only biological data, but also information that can only come from fishers, such as real-time ‘early warning’ indicators of changes at sea, socio-economic data and fishing strategies. The fishing industry, in our experience, shows clear willingness to voluntarily contribute data and experiential knowledge, but there is little evidence that current institutional frameworks for science and management are receptive and equipped to accommodate such contributions. Current approaches to producing knowledge in support of fisheries management need critical re-evaluation, including the contributions that industry can make. Using examples from well-developed advisory systems in Europe, United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, we investigate evidence for three interrelated issues inhibiting systematic integration of voluntary industry contributions to science: (1) concerns about data quality; (2) beliefs about limitations in useability of unique fishers’ knowledge; and (3) perceptions about the impact of industry contributions on the integrity of science. We show that whilst these issues are real, they can be addressed. Entrenching effective science-industry research collaboration (SIRC) calls for action in three specific areas; (i) a move towards alternative modes of knowledge production; (ii) establishing appropriate quality assurance frameworks; and (iii) transitioning to facilitating governance structures. Attention must also be paid to the science-policy-stakeholder interface. Better definition of industry’s role in contributing to science will improve credibility and legitimacy of the scientific process, and of resulting management.

The objective of the Workshop on accounting for fishers and other stakeholders’ perceptions of the dynamics of fish stocks in ICES advice (WKAFPA) was to identify where and how stakeholder information could be incorporated in the ICES fisheries advice process. It adopted an operational definition of the concept of perception, where perceptions result from observations, interpreted in light of experience, that can be supported by data, information and knowledge to generate evidence about them. Stakeholder information can be either structured (e.g. routinely collected information in a standardized format) or unstructured (e.g. experiential information) and either of those can inform decisions made during the production of ICES advice. Most notably, the group identified there was a need to engage with stakeholders earlier in the process, i.e. before benchmarks meetings take place and before preliminary assessment results are used as the basis to predict total allowable catches for upcoming advice (Figure 4.2). It was therefore recommended to include in the ICES process the organisation of pre-benchmark/roadmap workshops where science and data needs of upcoming benchmarks can be identified, followed by making arrangements how scientists and stakeholders can collaborate to access, prepare for use (where relevant) and document the structured and unstructured information well ahead of the benchmark meetings. It was also recommended to organise ‘sense-checking’ sessions with stakeholders when preliminary assessments are available but not yet used as the basis for advisory production. This would allow stakeholders and assessment scientists to verify available knowledge and data against stock perceptions and provide additional considerations relevant for the production of TAC advice. Next to these two additional activities, it is recommended that communication on differences in stakeholder perception or data derived perceptions are communicated within the ICES assessment repo

Stakeholder engagement has become mainstream in participatory research and policy processes in the marine realm. This has been driven by the paradigm of governance and the advances towards new modes of producing science. Nowadays, we have a myriad of guides, best practices, lessons learned and recommendations for a successful implementation of participatory processes. These build on empirical findings and comparative analyses across fields, sectors and geographical levels. Nonetheless, engagement with stakeholders remains a multi-layered and challenging component of the scientific process. The evidence available has prompted new scientific questions that call for collective thinking – questions that are well-placed also in the ICES realm where engagement is practiced in increasingly many forms. The findings are particularly relevant for implementing the ICES Stakeholder Engagement Strategy, integrating knowledge systems in the provision of science and advice and as a countervailing power to the increased discredit in science.

Commission Decision of 25 February 2016 setting up a Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, C(2016) 1084, OJ C 74, 26.2.2016, p. 4–10. The Commission may consult the group on any matter relating to marine and fisheries biology, fishing gear technology, fisheries economics, fisheries governance, ecosystem effects of fisheries, aquaculture or similar disciplines. This report further develops the methodologies for the collection and analysis of social data in fisheries. In particular it addresses alignment of the use of social indicators between STECF reporting and alignment with other developments such as in PGC ECON and ICES WGSOCIAL. The report details the development of an analytical framework for social data, such as community- and national profiles, and introduces criteria for social notions as social justice, vulnerability and dependence. Additionally, the report evaluates responses of the Member States towards the European Commission’s (EC) questionnaire of January 12th, 2022 about the implementation of Articles 16 (6) and 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.

Management strategy evaluation (MSE) generally involves defining a decision problem, specifying objectives, and simulating the managed system to help evaluate uncertainties, risks, and trade-offs of management alternatives. Stakeholders' involvement is a core component of MSE to design pragmatic and applicable management strategies that are robust to uncertainty and balance ecological, economic and social objectives. Knowledge advances and computational capabilities allow fisheries scientists to generate evidence practically and transparently. Transparency is a cornerstone fisheries management principle with inherent paradoxes (Wilson, 2009). For instance, assessment models can be used to build political options into the models as alternatives. Hence, scientists can deliver advice that makes explicit the trade-offs and consequences of policy objectives. Under this perspective, the Math4Fish project involves natural and social scientists , managers (Spanish General Secretariat for Fisheries) and representatives of the fishing sector to jointly define management strategies to be simulated in MSE environments for the European hake, Merluccius merluccius (Linnaeus, 1758), southern stock in the Iberian Peninsula (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea divisions 8c9a). Workshops were held to introduce the fishing sector and managers mathematical modelling tools to evaluate management strategies for hake, as well as to propose information to explore/simulate different scenarios. During our experience, the allocation of quotas based on selectivity criteria between fishing gears has emerged as a scenario worth exploring. The redistribution of resources between the different fleet segments is a sensitive issue that causes tensions. Scientifically, quota redistribution simulations can be carried out, and the results analysed and compared with the current situation, highlighting the scope and limitations of the analysis. This would benefit a structured dialogue on

The objective of the Workshop on accounting for fishers and other stakeholders’ perceptions of the dynamics of fish stocks in ICES advice (WKAFPA) was to identify where and how stakeholder information could be incorporated in the ICES fisheries advice process. It adopted an operational definition of the concept of perception, where perceptions result from observations, interpreted in light of experience, that can be supported by data, information and knowledge to generate evidence about them. Stakeholder information can be either structured (e.g. routinely collected information in a standardized format) or unstructured (e.g. experiential information) and either of those can inform decisions made during the production of ICES advice.Most notably, the group identified there was a need to engage with stakeholders earlier in the process, i.e. before benchmarks meetings take place and before preliminary assessment results are used as the basis to predict total allowable catches for upcoming advice (Figure 4.2). It was therefore recommended to include in the ICES process the organisation of pre-benchmark/roadmap workshops where science and data needs of upcoming benchmarks can be identified, followed by making arrangements how scientists and stakeholders can collaborate to access, prepare for use (where relevant) and document the structured and unstructured information well ahead of the benchmark meetings.It was also recommended to organise ‘sense-checking’ sessions with stakeholders when preliminary assessments are available but not yet used as the basis for advisory production. This would allow stakeholders and assessment scientists to verify available knowledge and data against stock perceptions and provide additional considerations relevant for the production of TAC advice. Next to these two additional activities, it is recommended that communication on differences in stakeholder perception or data derived perceptions are communicated within the ICES assessment report

Evidence-informed decision-making is in increasing demand given growing pressures on marine environments. A way to facilitate this is by knowledge exchange among marine scientists and decision-makers. While many barriers are reported in the literature, there are also examples whereby research has successfully informed marine decision-making (i.e., 'bright-spots'). Here, we identify and analyze 25 bright-spots from a wide range of marine fields, contexts, and locations to provide insights into how to improve knowledge exchange at the interface of marine science and policy. Through qualitative surveys we investigate what initiated the bright-spots, their goals, and approaches to knowledge exchange. We also seek to identify what outcomes/impacts have been achieved, the enablers of success, and what lessons can be learnt to guide future knowledge exchange efforts. Results show that a diversity of approaches were used for knowledge exchange, from consultative engagement to genuine knowledge co-production. We show that diverse successes at the interface of marine science and policy are achievable and include impacts on policy, people, and governance. Such successes were enabled by factors related to the actors, processes, support, context, and timing. For example, the importance of involving diverse actors and managing positive relationships is a key lesson for success. However, enabling routine success will require: 1) transforming the ways in which we train scientists to include a greater focus on interpersonal skills, 2) institutionalizing and supporting knowledge exchange activities in organizational agendas, 3) conceptualizing and implementing broader research impact metrics, and 4) transforming funding mechanisms to focus on need-based interventions, impact planning, and an acknowledgement of the required time and effort that underpin knowledge exchange activities.

For future sustainable management of fisheries, we anticipate deeper and more diverse information will be needed. Future needs include not only biological data, but also information that can only come from fishers, such as real-time ‘early warning’ indicators of changes at sea, socio-economic data and fishing strategies. The fishing industry, in our experience, shows clear willingness to voluntarily contribute data and experiential knowledge, but there is little evidence that current institutional frameworks for science and management are receptive and equipped to accommodate such contributions. Current approaches to producing knowledge in support of fisheries management need critical re-evaluation, including the contributions that industry can make. Using examples from well-developed advisory systems in Europe, United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, we investigate evidence for three interrelated issues inhibiting systematic integration of voluntary industry contributions to science: (1) concerns about data quality; (2) beliefs about limitations in useability of unique fishers’ knowledge; and (3) perceptions about the impact of industry contributions on the integrity of science. We show that whilst these issues are real, they can be addressed. Entrenching effective science-industry research collaboration (SIRC) calls for action in three specific areas; (i) a move towards alternative modes of knowledge production; (ii) establishing appropriate quality assurance frameworks; and (iii) transitioning to facilitating governance structures. Attention must also be paid to the science-policy-stakeholder interface. Better definition of industry’s role in contributing to science will improve credibility and legitimacy of the scientific process, and of resulting management.

Evidence-informed decision-making is in increasing demand given growing pressures on marine environments. A way to facilitate this is by knowledge exchange among marine scientists and decision-makers. While many barriers are reported in the literature, there are also examples whereby research has successfully informed marine decision-making (i.e., 'bright-spots'). Here, we identify and analyze 25 bright-spots from a wide range of marine fields, contexts, and locations to provide insights into how to improve knowledge exchange at the interface of marine science and policy. Through qualitative surveys we investigate what initiated the bright-spots, their goals, and approaches to knowledge exchange. We also seek to identify what outcomes/impacts have been achieved, the enablers of success, and what lessons can be learnt to guide future knowledge exchange efforts. Results show that a diversity of approaches were used for knowledge exchange, from consultative engagement to genuine knowledge co-production. We show that diverse successes at the interface of marine science and policy are achievable and include impacts on policy, people, and governance. Such successes were enabled by factors related to the actors, processes, support, context, and timing. For example, the importance of involving diverse actors and managing positive relationships is a key lesson for success. However, enabling routine success will require: 1) transforming the ways in which we train scientists to include a greater focus on interpersonal skills, 2) institutionalizing and supporting knowledge exchange activities in organizational agendas, 3) conceptualizing and implementing broader research impact metrics, and 4) transforming funding mechanisms to focus on need-based interventions, impact planning, and an acknowledgement of the required time and effort that underpin knowledge exchange activities.

The shifting policy focus towards Ecosystem Based Management in Fisheries (EBFM) requires the integration of knowledge and disciplines and the engagement of stakeholders to support decision-making processes. Scientists contribute to this through (i) participatory research projects, (ii) stakeholder partnerships and (iii) institutional scientific advice processes. Understanding the role of scientists in such processes, the nature of the interactions between scientists, stakeholders and managers in knowledge integration and the link between science and policy is an emerging field of research addressing transdisciplinary challenges. In 2018, Ifremer-UMR AMURE organized the workshop ‘Science, Partnership and Decision-support in Fisheries’ bringing together international scientists from natural and social sciences to conduct a review based on twenty concrete case studies. Findings indicate that science-stakeholder-manager partnerships for decision-support in fisheries can play an essential role in the transition to EBFM. To foster this transition, eight recommendations are presented that cover the roles of the different participants, the expectations of partnerships, capacity building, the integration of the social sciences, and funding structures. Further, it is recommended that future research and innovation framework programmes into sustainable fisheries and other ocean uses should explicitly include mechanisms to foster transdisciplinary approaches and the development of best practices. Building-up networks and developing reflexive approaches to review experiences and practices for transdisciplinary approaches in EFBM decision-support will contribute to design the next generation transdisciplinary platforms and generating actionable knowledge towards EBFM.

The ICES Workshop on Stakeholder Engagement Strategy (WKSHOES) met online 22-24 June 2021 with the objective to organize the background information needed for SCICOM and ACOM to develop a formal ICES Stakeholder Engagement Strategy. Stakeholder engagement has taken an increasingly important role in ICES. There was a strong consensus in the workshop that stakeholder engagement is essential to ICES’ work, as has been captured by the most recent ICES Strategic, Science, and Advisory Plans. The question is how to do it best. While WKSHOES recognized the essential nature of stakeholder engagement for addressing environmental challenges, understanding human impacts and values, the group discussed the valid concern that if stakeholder engagement is done incorrectly, it could compromise the perceived objectivity of ICES science and its independence. Workshop participants challenged the idea of objective or “pure” science, but also recognized the practical need to have ICES advice be transparent and science-based. Participants also understand that when providing advice, tradeoffs have to be made that are informed by the different weights that stakeholders place on various management objectives. A key question related to a potential stakeholder engagement strategy is “Who is a stakeholder?” This report discusses several definitions and roles. A central challenge for ICES is recognizing that the network of stakeholders is a subset of the people impacted by ICES science and advice. The Stakeholder Engagement Strategy should therefore primarily focus on ensuring that people who are part of the ICES network have clear roles and responsibilities and that ICES performs its work fairly and transparently. However, participants also recognize the need to increase opportunities for diverse resource users and citizens to have clear avenues to engage with the different aspects of the ICES network. Considering and promoting diversity and inclusion and avoiding implicit bias are crucial in

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 analyses 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 (e.g. 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.

The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) is unique in its role as a marine science organization that develops science and advice to support the sustainable use of the seas and oceans. Boundary issues in the marine science for policy arena are at the core of ICES. Keeping boundaries between science and policy maintains credibility, while spanning boundaries facilitates agreements over what questions are being addressed, what evidence and expertise are used, and what processes are followed to ensure legitimacy and saliency. During the evolution of ICES, stakeholders have been used to sense test the science, build momentum for change in reforming processes, gather input for the strategic plans, participate in workshops to reform the advisory system, and engage in dialogue meetings to discuss research programmes and the basis for scientific advice. Now, ICES principles, policies, and strategic plan require stakeholder engagement. The current paths for participation are regulated (e.g. observers policy), voluntary (e.g. expert groups or workshops), incentivized by client requests (e.g. consultation or scoping exercises), or even advocated by paradigms of knowledge production (e.g. participatory research and co-creation). This report documents the time-line of opening up to increased stakeholder engagement, and includes an explanation of the current governance mechanisms of ICES, as a resource to contextualize the opening-up. It focuses on dialogue meetings, memoranda of understanding, grant agreements, engagement in science, and development of the observer policy.

The shifting policy focus towards Ecosystem Based Management in Fisheries (EBFM) requires the integration of knowledge and disciplines and the engagement of stakeholders to support decision-making processes. Scientists contribute to this through (i) participatory research projects, (ii) stakeholder partnerships and (iii) institutional scientific advice processes. Understanding the role of scientists in such processes, the nature of the interactions between scientists, stakeholders and managers in knowledge integration and the link between science and policy is an emerging field of research addressing transdisciplinary challenges. In 2018, Ifremer-UMR AMURE organized the workshop 'Science, Partnership and Decision-support in Fisheries' bringing together international scientists from natural and social sciences to conduct a review based on twenty concrete case studies. Findings indicate that science-stakeholder-manager partnerships for decision-support in fisheries can play an essential role in the transition to EBFM. To foster this transition, eight recommendations are presented that cover the roles of the different participants, the expectations of partnerships, capacity building, the integration of the social sciences, and funding structures. Further, it is recommended that future research and innovation framework programmes into sustainable fisheries and other ocean uses should explicitly include mechanisms to foster transdisciplinary approaches and the development of best practices. Building-up networks and developing reflexive approaches to review experiences and practices for transdisciplinary approaches in EFBM decision-support will contribute to design the next generation transdisciplinary platforms and generating actionable knowledge towards EBFM.

Commission Decision of 25 February 2016 setting up a Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, C(2016) 1084, OJ C 74, 26.2.2016, p. 4–10. The Commission may consult the group on any matter relating to marine and fisheries biology, fishing gear technology, fisheries economics, fisheries governance, ecosystem effects of fisheries, aquaculture or similar disciplines. This report further develops the methodologies for the collection and analysis of social data in fisheries, to be applied for the collection of social data for the data call 2021 and the subsequent analysis and use of these data. Additionally, the report assesses the impact of the Common Fisheries Policy Regulation and the implementation of its Articles 5.2 (access to waters) and 16 and 17 (fishing opportunities) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 on the social situation of small-scale coastal fishers and their communities.

Any ecosystem based fisheries management system is necessarily faced with the problem of multiple objectives that trade-off against one another. Typically, objectives such as the maximization of yield, employment or profit or minimizing environmental impacts will be optimized in different parts of the decision space, which is formed of the fishing mortality rates that can be applied to the various species, given the constraints imposed by the mixed species nature of many fishing fleets. Since objectives cannot be simultaneously achieved, managers need to consider how such objectives trade-off against one another in order to choose a balanced strategy. Normally, they also have to consider the views of different groupings of stakeholders, who often favour widely different and conflicting objectives. This is particularly difficult if stakeholders are reluctant to expose their negotiating positions. This article explores two possible approaches to developing a Decision Support Framework for the North Sea. The first is a classic Multi- Criteria Analysis (MCA) approach that was developed in cooperation with North Sea stakeholders. The implementation went smoothly for the definition of suitable scenarios, decision trees and criteria, but failed in facilitating consensus on how to set priorities at the stakeholder level. However, it remains a possible approach for higher level management to adopt. Consequently, to aid effective decision-making a simpler approach was designed to visualise stakeholders concerns both to themselves and to the managers in charge of actual decision-making. Rather than trying to achieve some joint optima of the objectives that stakeholders wish to achieve this approach seeks to avoid the solutions various stakeholder groups resent the most. This ‘N dimensional potato approach’ proposed here treats the decision space as analogous to a partially rotten potato that has to be prepared for the table: each group of stakeholders cut away those parts of t