Search

The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) occupies a central role in the advice system to support the implementation of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management (EAFM) in the European Union (EU). Despite improvements, its capacity to deliver ecosystem advice seems to be far from a fully functional operational framework. To what extent availability of appropriate scientific advice is a barrier for a more widespread use of an EAFM in Europe remains an open question. Building on the findings of a large research project, this article explores what advice ICES can provide. The article concludes that: (i) ICES has taken a leading role in generating an EAFM framework in which management decisions can operate; (ii) the advice "suppliers" and the advice "users" agree on the feasibility of using existing knowledge to "do EAFM now"; (iii) ICES can address a range of shortcomings, but some of the present bottlenecks demand concerted action between the advisory system and the political realm. The implementation of an EAFM requires consistency between science and management. ICES appears as well-suited to facilitate the dialogue on applying an EAFM in the EU, but it is unrealistic to expect ICES to produce all the answers.

Targets and limits for long-term management are used in fisheries advice to operationalize the way management reflects societal priorities on ecological, economic, social and institutional aspects. This study reflects on the available published literature as well as new research presented at the international ICES/Myfish symposium on targets and limits for long term fisheries management. We examine the inclusion of ecological, economic, social and institutional objectives in fisheries management, with the aim of progressing towards including all four objectives when setting management targets or limits, or both, for multispecies fisheries. The topics covered include ecological, economic, social and governance objectives in fisheries management, consistent approaches to management, uncertainty and variability, and fisheries governance. We end by identifying ten ways to more effectively include multiple objectives in setting targets and limits in ecosystem based fisheries management.

While international agreements and legislation call for incorporation of four pillars of sustainability, the social (including cultural), economic and institutional aspects (the â € human dimension') have been relatively neglected to date. Three key impediments have been identified: a relative lack of explicit social, economic and institutional objectives; a general lack of process (frameworks, governance) for routine integration of all four pillars of sustainability; and a bias towards biological considerations. Practical integration requires a systems' approach with explicit consideration of strategic and operational aspects of management; multidisciplinary or transdisciplinary evaluations; practical objectives for the four pillars of sustainability; appropriate participation; and a governance system that is able to integrate these diverse considerations in management. We challenge all involved in fisheries to immediately take five practical steps toward integrating ecological, economic, social and institutional aspects: (1) Adopt the perspective of the fishery as a system' with interacting natural, human and management elements; (2) Be aware of both strategic and operational aspects of fisheries assessment and management; (3) Articulate overarching objectives that incorporate all four pillars of sustainability; (4) Encourage appropriate (and diverse) disciplinary participation in all aspects of research, evaluation and management; and (5) Encourage development of (or emulate) participatory governance.

While international agreements and legislation call for incorporation of four pillars of sustainability, the social (including cultural), economic and institutional aspects (the ‘human dimension’) have been relatively neglected to date. Three key impediments have been identified: a relative lack of explicit social, economic and institutional objectives; a general lack of process (frameworks, governance) for routine integration of all four pillars of sustainability; and a bias towards biological considerations. Practical integration requires a ‘systems’ approach with explicit consideration of strategic and operational aspects of management; multidisciplinary or transdisciplinary evaluations; practical objectives for the four pillars of sustainability; appropriate participation; and a governance system that is able to integrate these diverse considerations in management. We challenge all involved in fisheries to immediately take five practical steps toward integrating ecological, economic, social and institutional aspects: (1) Adopt the perspective of the fishery as a ‘system’ with interacting natural, human and management elements; (2) Be aware of both strategic and operational aspects of fisheries assessment and management; (3) Articulate overarching objectives that incorporate all four pillars of sustainability; (4) Encourage appropriate (and diverse) disciplinary participation in all aspects of research, evaluation and management; and (5) Encourage development of (or emulate) participatory governance.

During the last decade the co-management concept has gained increasing acceptance as a potential way forward to improve fisheries management performance. It has, however, at the same time become increasingly evident that the co-management concept is not clearly defined and means very different things to different people. In this article, we attempt to document experience available from a recent study on fisheries co-management that has researched case studies of various implementations of co-management arrangements in coastal and freshwater fisheries in South East Asia and Southern Africa, and to present a more comprehensive understanding of co-management and to summarise the experiences with both the positive outcomes and the problems in actual implementation.