Search

Trends towards a more participatory agenda in policy-relevant science imply that the roles and work tasks of scientists become more multifaceted. In Europe, the increased use of multiannual plans creates a need for fishery scientists to contribute with their expertise in a wide variety of situations. We identify and characterize four roles for scientists as developers, reviewers, judges, and messengers in arenas where management plans are produced and evaluated. Using examples of producing and evaluating management plans for pelagic fish stocks in Europe, we present different scientific roles and how they may intertwine. The examples illustrate that fishery scientists increasingly interact with advisory councils and industry stakeholders when performing roles as developers and messengers. The roles as reviewers and judges are typically affiliated with evaluation processes carried out under the auspices of the marine science and advisory organization International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). While it may be difficult to separate the roles in practice, we argue that it must be emphasized to be aware of their different requirements to ensure that scientific credibility is not compromised. By asking the question “What hat are you wearing?”, we encourage individual fishery scientists, their employers, and ICES as a network organization of expertise to reflect on roles, affiliations, mandates, and possible consequences of wearing different “hats”.

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.

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, B_lim and B_pa, and the target reference point for fishing mortality, F_0.1. 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.

Harvest control rules (HCRs) have been implemented for many fisheries worldwide. However, in most instances, those HCRs are not based on the explicit feedbacks between stock properties and economic considerations. This paper develops a bio-economic model that evaluates the HCR adopted in 2004 by the Joint Norwegian-Russian Fishery Commission to manage the world's largest cod stock, Northeast Arctic cod (NEA). The model considered here is biologically and economically detailed, and is the first to compare the performance of the stock's current HCR with that of alternative HCRs derived with optimality criteria. In particular, HCRs are optimized for economic objectives including fleet profits, economic welfare, and total yield and the merging properties are analyzed. The performance of these optimal HCRs was compared with the currently used HCR. This paper show that the current HCR does in fact comes very close to maximizing profits. Furthermore, the results reveal that the HCR that maximizes profits is the most precautionary one among the considered HCRs. Finally, the HCR that maximizes yield leads to unprecautionary low levels of biomass. In these ways, the implementation of the HCR for NEA cod can be viewed as a success story that may provide valuable lessons for other fisheries.

The inherent conflicts between objectives in fisheries management (e.g. MSY vs. conservation interests) are a hurdle for managers and scientists. However, some objectives may be compatible (e.g. economic yield and ecosystem preservation, Hilborn 2007) and could promote stakeholder consensus. The purpose of this study is to explore the zone of new consensus as outline by Hilborn (2007) and to develop a formal and quantitative approach to defining fisheries management objectives through stakeholder-specific utility functions. First, multiple objectives are reflected in a clearly defined utility function for each stakeholder group. Second, simulations are run to find the resulting stakeholder groups' utility. The preliminary results illustrate a formal route towards deriving appropriate management regimes with focus on compatible management goals to promote a new paradigm of stakeholder consensus, incentives, and success in fishery management.

Unidad de excelencia María de Maeztu CEX2019-000940-M, Salmon aquaculture is a growing industry with increasing challenges of feed sustainability and availability. This global sustainability issue has led to calls for novel feeds. Aquafly, a Norwegian research project, has performed small-scale tests using the black soldier fly as an ingredient in salmon diet. However, in order for insect feeds to become a reality on the industrial scale, workable scientific, technical and political solutions have to be envisioned in tandem. In this study, we studied, elicited and assessed sociotechnical imaginaries in the Aquafly research consortium, using the approaches of concomitant ELSA research, the Ethical Matrix and Quantitative Story-Telling. We show how the sociotechnical imaginaries develop together with the scientific trajectory of the project, and how this also affects the assessment of the ethical and environmental impacts of the technology, including issues of food and feed safety and security, fish health and welfare, pollution and efficient use of waste streams. We show how there are intrinsic challenges when dealing with global sustainability issues in the research project. For instance, overcoming the problem of salmon feed scarcity may aggravate the challenges caused by intensive aquaculture. We report the results of a Quantitative Story-Telling exercise that indicates that Aquafly can be seen as part of a larger economy of technological promise, and discuss if and how this critique can be employed and integrated into scientific and technical imagination in a research project, contributing to Responsible Research and Innovation.