Managing fisheries to meet social, economic and ecological objectives is a fundamental problem encountered in fisheries management worldwide. In Australia, fisheries management involves a complex set of national and sub-national policy arrangements, including those designed to deliver against ecologically sustainable development (ESD) objectives. The complex policy framework makes ensuring policy coherence and avoiding unintended consequences difficult, particularly where potential trade-offs are not made explicit. Coherence, or potential policy weakness, of Australian fisheries management in relation to ESD objectives was examined in a subset of Australian wild capture fisheries, at national and jurisdictional scales. Coherent policy frameworks with ESD objectives were found to be more likely at the legislative-level across jurisdictions (horizontal coherence), than other levels of implementation. Many fisheries had problems demonstrating coherence between legislation and management plans due to lack of inclusion of ESD policy themes at management and operational levels. Case studies revealed substantial variation in the likelihood for horizontal and vertical coherence between fisheries policy frameworks managing the same species. The lack of explicit ESD objectives observed in many Australian fisheries suggests a high likelihood of incoherence in fisheries management, or alternatively that managers may be informally persuing higher levels of policy coordination and coherence than can be detected. Lack of detectability of coherence is problematic for demonstrating accountability and transparency in decision-making and public policy. Furthermore, use of discretion by managers when developing management plans, in order to overcome policy weakness, may lead to drifts in individual management direction within a jurisdiction.

Fisheries subsidies regulation lies at the intersection of international fisheries and international trade governance regimes. Although eradicating harmful fisheries subsidies cannot be a panacea for illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, it is an essential first step to confront the problem head-on. The multilateral Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies, adopted by the World Trade Organization (WTO) in June 2022, provides an impetus for sovereign states to steer fisheries subsidies reform towards commonly agreed legality, sustainability and transparency benchmarks. This legal and policy investigation aims to give increased attention to the ultimate responsibility of national governments to exercise active fisheries jurisdiction over the identification and sanction of IUU fishing activities. With or without WTO prior judgements, a level of jurisdictional coherence is warranted to trigger a comprehensive and effective ban on IUU fisheries subsidies in as timely a manner as possible.

This U4 briefing paper provides a short overview of corruption and the exploitation of marine resources in Africa. This paper argues that the most effective and realistic way of countering corruption appears to be through strengthening transparency and accountability, and that African civil society has an important role to play in scrutinising fisheries access agreements, tracking court cases and monitoring government budgets.<br /><br />Policy reforms that may reduce incentives and opportunities for corruption in fisheries&rsquo; management are also discussed.&nbsp; These include:<br /> placing corruption on the international agenda is a necessary first step in reforming the governance of fisheries and reducing the opportunities for corrupt activities fisheries departments should be encouraged to publish details of license agreements, including information on payments, taxes and fines at a national level, multi&ndash;stakeholder committees could be employed to oversee licensing decisions, instead of this role being undertaken by a single official or department only. At an international level, African states could benefit from negotiating access agreements with foreign fishing nations collectively, rather than alone African civil society organisations should be scrutinising access agreements, tracking court cases and monitoring government budgets. However, few countries have strong civil society organisations that work on fisheries, and those organisations that do exist tend to lack capacity and training experience from other resource sectors suggests the need for independent audits of government departments because tracking revenue flows and government expenditures can be complex and civil society organisations tend to lack the necessary expertise or credibility reforms relating to greater transparency, accountability and public oversight could be joined together<br />through an equivalent of the&nbsp;Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI).

There is some uncertainty in the fisheries science–policy interface. Although progress has been made towards more transparency and participation in fisheries science in ICES Areas, routine use of state-of-the-art quantitative and qualitative tools to address uncertainty systematically is still lacking. Fisheries science that gives advice to policy-making is plagued by uncertainties; the stakes of the policies are high and value-laden and need therefore to be treated as an example of "post-normal science" (PNS). To achieve robust governance, understanding of the characteristics and implications of the scientific uncertainties for management strategies need to come to the centre of the table. This can be achieved using state-of-the-art tools such as pedigree matrices and uncertainty matrices, as developed by PNS scholars and used in similar science–policy arenas on other complex issues. An explicit extension of the peer community within maritime systems will be required to put these new tools in place. These new competences become even more important as many countries within the ICES Area are now embarking on new policies.

Independence of science and best available science are fundamental pillars of the UN-FAO code of conduct for responsible fisheries and are also applied to the European Union (EU) Common Fishery Policy (CFP), with the overarching objective being the sustainable exploitation of the fisheries resources. CFP is developed by DG MARE, the department of the European Commission responsible for EU policy on maritime affairs and fisheries, which has the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) as consultant body. In the Mediterranean and Black Sea, the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (FAO-GFCM), with its own Scientific Advisory Committee on Fisheries (GFCM-SAC), plays a critical role in fisheries governance, having the authority to adopt binding recommendations for fisheries conservation and management. During the last years, advice on the status of the main stocks in the Mediterranean and Black Sea has been provided both by GFCM-SAC and EU-STECF, often without a clear coordination and a lack of shared rules and practices. This has led in the past to: i) duplications of the advice on the status of the stocks thus adding confusion in the management process and, ii) a continuous managers’ interference in the scientific process by DG MARE officials hindering its transparency and independence. Thus, it is imperative that this stalemate is rapidly resolved and that the free role of science in Mediterranean fisheries assessment and management is urgently restored to assure the sustainable exploitation of Mediterranean marine resources in the future.

Poster presentado a la ICES Annual Science Conference celebrada entre el 11 y el 14 de septiembre de 2023 en Bilbao. | 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 policy options and reinforce transparency. However, spotlighting trade-offs is not always well received by policy makers and the fishing sector. Efforts to engage the public and lessons learned will be discussed and detailed. | This study is a contribution of the proyect financed by the European Union-Next Generation EU. Component 3. Investment 7. Agreement between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food and the State Agency Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) M.P.- through the Spanish Institute of Oceanography to promote fisheries research as a basis for sustainable fisheries management. Eje 6, Math4Fish: New tools for mathematical modeling in fisheries scientific advice Spain.

How can uncertain fisheries science be linked with good governance processes, thereby increasing fisheries management legitimacy and effectiveness? Reducing the uncertainties around scientific models has long been perceived as the cure of the fisheries management problem. There is however increasing recognition that uncertainty in the numbers will remain. A lack of transparency with respect to these uncertainties can damage the credibility of science. The EU Commission's proposal for a reformed Common Fisheries Policy calls for more self-management for the fishing industry by increasing fishers' involvement in the planning and execution of policies and boosting the role of fishers' organisations. One way of higher transparency and improved participation is to include stakeholders in the modelling process itself. The JAKFISH project (Judgment And Knowledge in Fisheries Involving StakeHolders) invited fisheries stakeholders to participate in the process of framing the management problem, and to give input and evaluate the scientific models that are used to provide fisheries management advice. JAKFISH investigated various tools to assess and communicate uncertainty around fish stock assessments and fisheries management. Here, a synthesis is presented of the participatory work carried out in four European fishery case studies (Western Baltic herring, North Sea Nephrops, Central Baltic Herring and Mediterranean swordfish), focussing on the uncertainty tools used, the stakeholders' responses to these, and the lessons learnt. It is concluded that participatory modelling has the potential to facilitate and structure discussions between scientists and stakeholders about uncertainties and the quality of the knowledge base. It can also contribute to collective learning, increase legitimacy, and advance scientific understanding. However, when approaching real-life situations, modelling should not be seen as the priority objective. Rather, the crucial step in a science–stakeholder collaboration is the joint problem framing in an open, transparent way.

Myanmar Fisheries Partnership (2016) Myanmar | The Myanmar Fishery Partnership (MFP) is a new initiative being established to assist the Myanmar government in strengthening effective collaboration for the sustainable development of Myanmarâ??s fisheries and aquaculture sector. Four policy briefs have been developed by the Myanmar Fisheries Partnership to help the government address the most challenging issues facing fisheries in Myanmar. The political transition period provides a window of opportunity for the Myanmar government to revitalize the fisheries sector through actions such as recovering fish stocks and habitats, ensuring decent employment and labour conditions, and providing transparency in revenue raising and licensing. Sustained engagement by government agencies has the potential to transform the sector and to allow the fisheries sector to fully contribute to Myanmarâ??s development. The purpose of this set of briefs is to contribute to the national dialogue and strategic development as the government shapes a new vision for the fisheries and aquaculture sectors. If fisheries are to function in a more sociably equitable way, the status quo is unacceptable. The briefs also provide guidance on the integration of national fisheries obligations into wider regional and international planning processes and frameworks

How can uncertain fisheries science be linked with good governance processes, thereby increasing fisheries management legitimacy and effectiveness? Reducing the uncertainties around scientific models has long been perceived as the cure of the fisheries management problem. There is however increasing recognition that uncertainty in the numbers will remain. A lack of transparency with respect to these uncertainties can damage the credibility of science. The EU Commission's proposal for a reformed Common Fisheries Policy calls for more self-management for the fishing industry by increasing fishers' involvement in the planning and execution of policies and boosting the role of fishers' organisations. One way of higher transparency and improved participation is to include stakeholders in the modelling process itself. The JAKFISH project (Judgment And Knowledge in Fisheries Involving StakeHolders) invited fisheries stakeholders to participate in the process of framing the management problem, and to give input and evaluate the scientific models that are used to provide fisheries management advice. JAKFISH investigated various tools to assess and communicate uncertainty around fish stock assessments and fisheries management. Here, a synthesis is presented of the participatory work carried out in four European fishery case studies (Western Baltic herring, North Sea Nephrops, Central Baltic Herring and Mediterranean swordfish), focussing on the uncertainty tools used, the stakeholders' responses to these, and the lessons learnt. It is concluded that participatory modelling has the potential to facilitate and structure discussions between scientists and stakeholders about uncertainties and the quality of the knowledge base. It can also contribute to collective learning, increase legitimacy, and advance scientific understanding. However, when approaching real-life situations, modelling should not be seen as the priority objective. Rather, the crucial step in a science–stakeholder collaboration is the joint problem framing in an open, transparent way.