Search for: All records

Both the ecological and social dimensions of fisheries are being affected by climate change. As a result, policymakers, managers, scientists and fishing communities are seeking guidance on how to holistically build resilience to climate change. Numerous studies have highlighted key attributes of resilience in fisheries, yet concrete examples that explicitly link these attributes to social‐ecological outcomes are lacking. To better understand climate resilience, we assembled 18 case studies spanning ecological, socio‐economic, governance and geographic contexts. Using a novel framework for evaluating 38 resilience attributes, the case studies were systematically assessed to understand how attributes enable or inhibit resilience to a given climate stressor. We found population abundance, learning capacity, and responsive governance were the most important attributes for conferring resilience, with ecosystem connectivity, place attachment, and accountable governance scoring the strongest across the climate‐resilient fisheries. We used these responses to develop an attribute typology that describes robust sources of resilience, actionable priority attributes and attributes that are case specific or require research. We identified five fishery archetypes to guide stakeholders as they set long‐term goals and prioritize actions to improve resilience. Lastly, we found evidence for two pathways to resilience: (1) building ecological assets and strengthening communities, which we observed in rural and small‐scale fisheries, and (2) building economic assets and improving effective governance, which was demonstrated in urban and wealthy fisheries. Our synthesis presents a novel framework that can be directly applied to identify approaches, pathways and actionable levers for improving climate resilience in fishery systems.

Knowledge co-production offers a promising approach to design effective and equitable pathways to reach development goals. Fisheries Strategies for Changing Oceans and Resilient Ecosystems by 2030 (FishSCORE), a United Nations Ocean Decade programme, will co-produce knowledge that advances solutions for climate resilient fisheries through networks and partnerships that include scientists, stakeholders, practitioners, managers, and policy experts. FishSCORE will establish (1) a global network that will develop broadly relevant information and tools to assess and operationalize climate resilience in marine fisheries and (2) local and regional partnerships that will apply those tools to identify and forward context-specific resilience strategies. FishSCORE's activities will be guided by a set of core principles that include commitments to inclusivity, equity, co-leadership, co-ownership, and reciprocity. FishSCORE will focus on identifying solutions for climate resilient fisheries, and it will also advance goals associated with capacity, power, and agency that will support iterative, pluralistic approaches to decision-making in fisheries experiencing ongoing climate-driven changes. This process of co-producing knowledge and strategies requires considerable investments of time from all partners, which is well aligned with the Ocean Decade. However, secure funding must be prioritized to support and implement co-production activities over this long time horizon.

The role of spatial management, including marine protected areas, in achieving fisheries outcomes alongside conservation goals is debated. In fisheries that fail to meet fishing mortality targets, closed areas are sometimes implemented to reduce fishing mortality. However, fisheries with stronger management, including rights‐based approaches that can address overcapacity and overfishing problems, often employ spatial management as well. Here, we compare the objectives, design, and performance of spatial management in nine temperate demersal fisheries in North America, Oceania, Europe, and Africa that employ rights‐based systems. Common objectives of spatial management included protecting habitat, juveniles, and spawners and reducing discards. Recovering age structure and creating scientific reference sites were less common objectives, despite being widely cited benefits of spatial management. Some fisheries adopted single closures to achieve single objectives, whereas others adopted diverse networks to achieve multiple objectives. Importantly, many spatial protections are implemented primarily through industry initiatives. Environmental change compromised the efficacy of spatial management in some cases, suggesting the need to design spatial management systems that are robust to changing ocean conditions. Fisheries with diverse and extensive spatial management systems have generally healthier fish stocks. Whether this implies that spatial management contributed substantially to fishery performance is unclear due to an absence of large‐scale, long‐term studies aimed at discerning different drivers of success. Although these targeted monitoring studies of closed areas are limited, such studies are necessary to help resolve the ongoing debate and to enable more purposeful design of spatial management for fisheries and conservation.