OECD Review of Fisheries 2025

Fisheries are at the forefront of climate change impacts as the resource base on which they rely is directly affected by climate-induced changes to the ocean such as warming and acidification. Understanding how fisheries are and will increasingly be impacted by climate change is fundamental for effective climate adaptation. At the same time, fisheries, like all economic sectors, are under pressure to reduce emissions from production and contribute to efforts to achieve net zero emissions at national and international levels.

This chapter explores the challenges that climate change adaptation and mitigation pose for the capture fisheries sector. It reviews what is known about the effects of climate change on fish stock health and their location in the ocean, and the climate footprint of the fisheries sector, while also underscoring where information is missing and flagging areas that need more research. This chapter builds on the findings of an expert workshop on climate and fisheries organised by the OECD Fisheries Committee in November 2023.1 Extending the analysis to fully capture implications on aquaculture will be a priority for future work.

Fisheries are already, and will increasingly be, affected by climate change in a number of ways. In 2019, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecasted that mean sea surface temperatures will increase by between 0.33°C and 1.29°C by 2050, relative to 1986-2005 averages, under scenarios designed to represent what were seen, at the time, as “best-case and worst-case scenarios” in terms of GHG concentration in the atmosphere (Box 4.1). They also predicted that such increases in sea surface temperatures will be associated with gradual changes in ocean currents and increasing acidification (that is, a decrease of ocean pH), leading to changes in where fish are found as well as their size, growth rates and survival, that is, the productivity of the stocks (IPCC, 2019[1]). In addition, climate change is leading to more frequent and more severe weather events, notably marine heatwaves, which have more immediate impacts on fishers’ incomes and the risks they take during fishing activities and pose specific challenges to fisheries managers.

The years 2023 and 2024 were the hottest on record for global sea surface temperatures (Figure 4.1), according to data from the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service (Copernicus, 2025[2]), and 2023 was described as unprecedented and extraordinary by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO, 2023[3]).

What follows discusses the impacts from climate change on fisheries starting with two of the main gradual impacts of climate change on fisheries, i.e. changes in the abundance of fish stocks and changes in where fish stocks are found, then turning to marine heatwaves, the aspect of climate change which has had the most noticeable impacts on commercial fisheries to date, and finishing with ocean acidification, which is one of the least documented aspects of climate change impacts.

Almost all fishing regions are likely to experience reductions in the abundance of fish and sustainable capture fishing potential in the future due to climate change-driven influences, notably increases in ocean temperatures and ocean acidification (Hilmi et al., 2015[4]; IPCC, 2019[1]). The only exception is some higher latitude regions, where the abundance of commercially exploited fish may increase (Lotze et al., 2019[5]; Blanchard et al., 2012[6]). These predictions are notably guided by Cheung et al.’s (2010[7]) model forecasts, which estimate that tropical regions could see a decrease in abundance of around 40% while high latitude regions could see an increase between 30 and 70%. As a result of these trends, the IPCC estimates that global fisheries catches could decrease by between 3.4% and 24.1% by the end of the century under its best- and worst-case emissions scenarios.

The composition of species in capture production is also expected to change, with decreases in cold water species and increases in warm water species, and these trends are expected to be stronger in higher latitude regions (IPCC, 2019[1]). The sum of local species extinctions and expansions is known as species turnover and describes the rate at which species change in an ecosystem. Higher species turnover means ecosystems are changing faster, which may lead to decreased catches and fisheries closures for some species and increased catches and new fisheries for others, complicating the task facing fisheries managers and increasing the need for adaptive management. Under its worst-case emissions scenario, the IPCC predicts species turnover will increase by up to 39% in tropical waters and 48% in higher latitude regions by 2100 relative to 2019.

It remains difficult to predict the timing, magnitude and location of potential changes to fisheries production in the future. All forecast models are characterised by high degrees of uncertainty and there are multiple, sometimes contradictory, forecasts of the potential effects of climate change on fisheries. For example, under the lowest warming scenario, RCP 2.6, there is disagreement between different models as to whether overall catches will increase or decrease in regions that are important to OECD fisheries, such as the Mediterranean, the north-west Atlantic and the Southern Ocean.2 Under the highest warming scenario, the direction of forecast trends in catches are clearer; however, there is still some uncertainty in the Mediterranean and waters around New Zealand as to whether catches may increase or decrease as oceans warm. It also remains difficult to separate the effects of environmental change from the impacts of fishing pressure on stocks (IPCC, 2019[1]).

Finally, while global scale modelling can provide an overarching picture of trends, information is needed at a local level to inform management decisions for specific fisheries. This information on changes in local climate conditions and how they affect specific fisheries is still lacking for many stocks and fisheries and new research is needed to refine our understanding of the relationship between climate, ecosystems and fisheries.

Some fish stocks are already moving as a result of climate change. However, as of 2023, most climate-driven range shifts3 have been small and slow. For example, Poloczanksa et al. (2013[8]) found that the marine species which had undergone range shifts between 1950 and 2009 had on average either expanded 72 km per decade or contracted by 15 km per decade.

Only a few large-scale range shifts have been observed because temperatures have not yet increased to the point of driving large, sustained changes in species ranges but also due to a lack of data on climate-driven shifts (Fiechter et al., 2021[9]; Chang et al., 2021[10]; Palacios‐Abrantes et al., 2022[11]; IPCC, 2019[1]). One example of a more significant observed change in range driven by climate change is the expansion in the range of short- and long-finned squid4 in the North Sea by around 500 km² over the last 35 years due, in part, to warmer waters in winter (Kooij, Engelhard and Righton, 2016[12]).5

Mechanisms for monitoring the impacts of changing ocean temperatures on the location of fish are fragmented and unevenly distributed globally. However, regional initiatives are developing. For example, the Distribution Mapping and Analysis Portal (DisMAP) project is a collaboration between the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Rutgers University, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada and aims to track long-term movements in the range and depth profile of species over several decades.6

Shifts in the ranges of marine species are expected to continue at a rate of between tens and hundreds of kilometres per decade for affected species, with faster range shifts expected under higher emissions scenarios (Jones and Cheung, 2014[13]; IPCC, 2019[1]). Further, by 2030, 23% of transboundary stocks are expected to shift, impacting 75% of the world’s economic exclusive zones (Palacios‐Abrantes et al., 2022[11]). This could undermine fisheries’ sustainability by reducing the effectiveness of existing management measures and create a need for new co-management arrangements.

Climate-driven shifts in species ranges have, in fact, already led to significant changes to both regional and international management arrangements for the OECD Member fisheries. As commercial species continue to move due to warming waters, fisheries managers will need to ensure they have mechanisms in place to accommodate future changes, as lack of adaptation in co-operation arrangements could lead to overfishing and detrimental impacts on fishing communities (see Chapter 5 for more details).

Marine heatwaves, which consist of extreme and short-lived episodes of increased sea temperature, are mostly caused by climate change.7 Frölicher, Fischer and Gruber (2018[14]) estimate that 87% of heatwaves observed today can be attributed to human-induced climate change. They have occurred in most ocean regions in the last two decades (Figure 4.2) and are expected to become more frequent and longer lasting. Studies estimate that annual marine heatwave days doubled between 1982 and 2016, with increases in both the frequency and duration (Oliver et al., 2018[15]; Frölicher, Fischer and Gruber, 2018[14]). The IPCC forecasts that this trend will continue, with the global average number of marine heatwave days increasing to 4-12 times current levels by 2100. The largest increases are expected in Arctic and tropical waters (IPCC, 2019[1]).

Marine heatwaves are already altering ecosystems and impacting fisheries in ways that over a matter of days or weeks can generate significant and long-lasting adverse impacts for the welfare of fishers and dependent communities. Major marine heatwaves have been documented as having led to shifts in species range, destruction of habitat and even the collapse of commercial fisheries in recent years (Smith et al., 2021[18]; Sen Gupta et al., 2020[19]; Oliver et al., 2021[17]). As a result, governments have spent  millions supporting those affected (Holbrook et al., 2020[20]; Oliver et al., 2021[17]).

Examples of documented economic losses from marine heatwaves include an estimated loss of USD 3  million linked to the closure of the swimmer crab fishery off the west coast of Australia for 18 months during a 2011 heatwave (Smith et al., 2021[18]); and the USD 141  million in government support to compensate fishers for losses related to the 2014-16 heatwave that hit the west coast of North America (Free et al., 2023[21]). The latter example was extensively studied and provides an illustration of the range impacts marine heatwaves can have on fisheries (Box 4.2).

Marine heatwaves are expected to be one of the main drivers of climate change impacts on fisheries in the short and medium terms. The IPCC (2019[1]), for example, notes that the impacts of marine heatwaves will be more important for fisheries than the slow rise in average sea temperature over the next 10-30 years. Because they can develop quickly and be hard to anticipate, marine heatwaves pose specific challenges for fisheries managers and may require specific policy responses, highlighting the importance of addressing them in climate change adaptation strategies for fisheries.

As well as increasing in temperature, the ocean is becoming more acidic as it absorbs CO₂ from the atmosphere (OECD, 2021[27]), with potentially negative consequences for fisheries. This trend will continue into the future (Table 4.2). The effects of ocean acidification will vary between regions, with ocean currents and local geography leading to faster increases in acidity in some areas than in others. Hilmi et al. (2015[4]) note that increased ocean acidity will negatively impact the ability of certain plankton and molluscs to build their shells and other structures, especially during juvenile stages. This will, in turn, affect finfish through reduced availability of plankton as food. However, the extent of these flow-on impacts remains somewhat uncertain due to difficulties in predicting how organisms and food webs may adapt to any changes. Finfish growth and survival are also likely to be directly affected by the changing water chemistry. Finally, the negative effects of acidification are also exacerbated by other stressors such as increased water temperatures due to climate change. The overall effects of acidification on fisheries remain uncertain and depend on both the capacity of species to adapt to changing pH levels and the role of affected species in the food chain. More research is required to better understand the potential impacts of acidification on fisheries (Hilmi et al., 2015[4]).

Source: IPCC (2019[1]).

In general, fish from wild catch or aquaculture have a lower GHG emissions intensity of production than other animal products, both by live weight and by gramme of protein (Figure 4.3). Although there has been a global increase in capture fisheries’ emissions intensity in recent decades (the extent of which is detailed below), average emissions from fish production (both from capture fisheries and aquaculture) are lower than for most other animal protein sources (IPCC, 2023[28]).8

From a nutritional perspective, while plant-based proteins are less emissions-intensive (in CO₂‑eq/kg of protein) than almost all animal products, the lowest emissions-intensive fish, such as small pelagics, are comparable to the emissions intensity of plant-based protein. Aside from protein, fish is also an important source of essential vitamins, minerals and fatty acids. Some recent studies – such as Hallström (2019[29]) – compare fisheries emissions based on an overall nutrition rating.9 This decreases the relative emissions intensity of some highly nutritious species, such as small pelagic fish and oysters, while increasing it for some finfish species with very high salt content. Finally, if emissions are considered on the basis of landed value rather than production weight (e.g. CO₂-eq/USD), crustaceans are less emissions-intensive than land‑based animal products in most cases (Parker and Tyedmers, 2014[30]; Parker et al., 2015[31]).

Indicators of GHG emissions intensity and food life-cycle carbon emissions assessments, however, are highly influenced by methodological choices, so standardisations across products compared are needed. For example, Gephart et al. (2021[34]) provide a harmonised comparison of fish and chicken, which confirms that many fed aquaculture groups outperform industrial chicken, the most efficient major terrestrial animal-source food. They find that capture fisheries vary widely in their GHG emissions, with some species having a higher GHG emissions intensity than chicken, notably demersal flatfish and crustaceans, which can have relatively high emissions because of the fuel-intensive fishing methods used (namely bottom trawling and boats using pots and traps) and some lower.

Together, these findings suggest that both capture fisheries and aquaculture should feature in discussions on low-carbon food systems as shifts in the balance of production across food sub-sectors could be part of mitigation strategies by consumers, food actors or governments.

Overall, the emissions intensity of capture fisheries has increased in recent decades. Parker et al. (2018[33]) estimated that global fisheries emissions increased by 1.2% annually between 1990 and 2011, while catches remained steady.

The increase in emissions is explained by changes in the nature of fishing activities, notably:

• higher catches in fuel-intensive crustacean fisheries

• increased fuel use per kilogramme (kg) of landed catch in large pelagic fisheries, primarily tuna10

• increased fuel use per kg of landed catch in bottom trawl fisheries (Parker et al., 2018[33])11

• growing motorisation of the global fleet (Greer et al., 2019[35]).

Despite the overall increase in emissions from fisheries, since 1990 some individual fisheries have experienced a substantial decline in emissions intensity and total emissions, largely due to increased fuel efficiency from improved technology or healthier stocks, highlighting the potential of sustainable management to also reduce emissions intensity. Consequently, fishers have been able to catch the same amount of fish with less fishing effort, and therefore with lower GHG emissions (Parker and Tyedmers, 2014[30]).

Fuel use during fishing is the main source of emissions from capture fisheries. It is estimated to account for 60-90% of emissions up to the point of landing (Parker et al., 2018[33]; Tyedmers, 2004[36]; FAO, 2015[37]).12 Further, several studies estimate that up to the point of retail sale, fishing activities altogether account for 75-95% of overall GHG emissions, with transport, processing and storage accounting for the rest (Ziegler et al., 2016[38]). Fuel costs are also significant for many fishers, typically accounting for 5-45% of operating costs (STECF, 2022[39]; Parker et al., 2015[31]; Greer et al., 2019[35]).

A number of factors influence fuel-use intensity, measured in litres of fuel used per kilogramme of catch. The most important of these are vessel and gear type; the characteristics of target species, with some fish more “catchable” than others – which itself is influenced by the stock abundance and management system. As a result, emissions intensity varies widely across fisheries. Noting these differences, and understanding how policies can influence them, can help fisheries managers to prioritise policy and management effort to achieve GHG emissions reduction objectives.

Bottom trawl fisheries and pot/trap fisheries have some of the highest emissions intensities (measured by GHG emissions per kg of captured fish). The picture is different if emissions intensity is measured relative to value, not weight. However, even by this measure, higher value trawl-caught flatfish and pot and trawl-caught crustaceans still have the highest emissions intensity, although the difference is smaller (Parker and Tyedmers, 2014[30]). Bottom trawl fishing is emissions-intensive due to the resistance of dragging nets through the water, while pot and trap fishing is highly emissions-intensive due to the long distances travelled between crustacean pots and traps compared to the relatively low weight of catches (Bastardie et al., 2022[40]). These gear types also account for a large share of fishing emissions globally (Parker and Tyedmers, 2014[30]). Together, pot and trawl fisheries for crustaceans are estimated to account for around 6% of global catches but 22% of emissions (Parker et al., 2018[33]). Purse seine, gillnet and pelagic trawl fisheries, on the other hand, are significantly less emissions-intensive. As a comparison, purse seine and pelagic trawl fisheries targeting small pelagics account for around 20% of global catches but only 2% of emissions.

There are important local differences in the emissions intensity of different gear types, even within and between fisheries using the same gear. These differences are driven by a variety of factors, including species characteristics, fishing practices or management measures that influence fishing practices (Table 4.3) (Ziegler and Hornborg, 2014[41]; Waldo and Paulrud, 2016[42]; Driscoll and Tyedmers, 2010[43]; CEFAS, 2022[44]; Parker et al., 2015[31]; Bastardie et al., 2022[40]). As a result, it is possible for the emissions intensity of production for one fisher to be double that of another despite using the same gear and targeting the same species (Table 4.4).13 Where differences are explained by factors that can be influenced by management measures, such as stock abundance, vessel type or fishing style, fisheries managers have an opportunity to bring down emissions.

In addition to emissions from fuel use, bottom trawling fisheries also release CO₂ from sediments on the sea floor (Sala et al., 2021[45]). While some authors have estimated these emissions to be of a similar scale to all other emissions from fishing, further data and research are needed before drawing conclusions. Indeed, the magnitude of these releases, and the fraction released into the atmosphere, remain subject to debate because of uncertainties around the theoretical assumptions underpinning the estimates (Hiddink et al., 2023[46]; Atwood et al., 2023[47]). Epstein et al. (2022[48]) compare various studies on emissions released from sediments during trawling, with some showing emissions increases, others showing decreases, and still others showing no change, depending on the location and study methods.

There is a large body of evidence for the impacts that climate change is having and will have on fisheries globally. However, there is often a gap between the scale at which predictions are made (e.g. regional and global) and the scale at which impacts are felt (e.g. individual fisheries and fishers). Consequently, it is difficult for policymakers to know what specific challenges the sector will face in each fishery, making it difficult to plan for the future. With climate change, fisheries management systems will come under increasing pressure in both the short and long term. It is therefore important to ensure these systems are able to both adapt to the challenges in the short and long terms while supporting the sector as it tries to reduce emissions.

Finally, to further increase the contribution of fisheries and aquaculture to development of low-carbon, sustainable and resilient food systems more investment is required. Specifically, investing in better understanding the implications of climate change on key fisheries, and aquaculture production systems and the relative carbon-efficiency of different fish production systems is important to clarify the role that they can play in climate mitigation strategies.

[25] Alaska Department of Fish and Game (2023), 2020 Gulf of Alaska Pacific Cod Fishery Disaster Relief Fund Final Spend Plan, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=fishing.2020_goa_pcod_disaster_relief_fund.

[24] Alaska Department of Fish and Game (2023), Final Spend Plan for Funds Appropriated to Address the 2020 Gulf of Alaska Pacific Cod Fishery, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/fishing/pdfs/2020_goa_pcod_final_spend_plan.pdf.

[47] Atwood, T. et al. (2023), “Reply to: Quantifying the carbon benefits of ending bottom trawling”, Nature, Vol. 617/7960, pp. E3-E5, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06015-6.

[40] Bastardie, F. et al. (2022), “Reducing the fuel use intensity of fisheries: Through efficient fishing techniques and recovered fish stocks”, Frontiers in Marine Science, Vol. 9, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.817335.

[6] Blanchard, J. et al. (2012), “Potential consequences of climate change for primary production and fish production in large marine ecosystems”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Vol. 367/1605, pp. 2979-2989, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0231.

[44] CEFAS (2022), Carbon Emissions in UK Fisheries: Recent Trends, Current Levels, and Pathways to Net Zero, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, https://www.cefas.co.uk/media/x2wh5q45/final-report-zero-carbon-fisheries-final.pdf?e=v3pgcZ.

[10] Chang, Y. et al. (2021), “Evaluation of the impacts of climate change on albacore distribution in the South Pacific Ocean by using ensemble forecast”, Frontiers in Marine Science, Vol. 8, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.731950.

[22] Chasco, B. et al. (2022), “Evidence of temperature-driven shifts in market squid doryteuthis opalescens densities and distribution in the California current ecosystem”, Marine and Coastal Fisheries, Vol. 14/1, https://doi.org/10.1002/mcf2.10190.

[7] Cheung, W. et al. (2010), “Large-scale redistribution of maximum fisheries catch potential in the global ocean under climate change”, Global Change Biology, Vol. 16/1, pp. 24-35, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01995.x.

[2] Copernicus (2025), “The Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S), implemented by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF)”, https://pulse.climate.copernicus.eu/.

[43] Driscoll, J. and P. Tyedmers (2010), “Fuel use and greenhouse gas emission implications of fisheries management: The case of the New England Atlantic herring fishery”, Marine Policy, Vol. 34/3, pp. 353-359, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2009.08.005.

[48] Epstein, G. et al. (2022), “The impact of mobile demersal fishing on carbon storage in seabed sediments”, Global Change Biology, Vol. 28/9, pp. 2875-2894, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16105.

[16] European Union, Copernicus Marine Service Information (2023), “Marine heatwaves”, Mercator Ocean, https://marine.copernicus.eu/explainers/phenomena-threats/heatwaves.

[37] FAO (2015), Fuel and Energy Use in the Fisheries Sector: Approaches, Inventories and Strategic Implications, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, https://www.fao.org/3/i5092e/i5092e.pdf.

[9] Fiechter, J. et al. (2021), “Projected shifts in 21st century sardine distribution and catch in the California current”, Frontiers in Marine Science, Vol. 8, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.685241.

[21] Free, C. et al. (2023), “Impact of the 2014-2016 marine heatwave on US and Canada west coast fisheries: Surprises and lessons from key case studies”, Fish and Fisheries, Vol. 24/4, pp. 652-674, https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12753.

[14] Frölicher, T., E. Fischer and N. Gruber (2018), “Marine heatwaves under global warming”, Nature, Vol. 560/7718, pp. 360-364, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0383-9.

[34] Gephart, J. et al. (2021), “Environmental performance of blue foods”, Nature, Vol. 597/7876, pp. 360-365, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03889-2.

[35] Greer, K. et al. (2019), “Global trends in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fuel combustion in marine fisheries from 1950 to 2016”, Marine Policy, Vol. 107, p. 103382, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.12.001.

[29] Hallström, E. et al. (2019), “Combined climate and nutritional performance of seafoods”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 230, pp. 402-411, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.229.

[46] Hiddink, J. et al. (2023), “Quantifying the carbon benefits of ending bottom trawling”, Nature, Vol. 617/7960, pp. E1-E2, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06014-7.

[4] Hilmi, N. et al. (eds.) (2015), Bridging the Gap Between Ocean Acidification Impacts and Economic Valuation: Regional Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Fisheries and Aquaculture, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland, https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2015.03.en.

[20] Holbrook, N. et al. (2020), “Keeping pace with marine heatwaves”, Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, Vol. 1/9, pp. 482-493, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0068-4.

[26] Hulson, P. et al. (2022), “Chapter 2: Assessment of the Pacific cod stock in the Gulf of Alaska”, https://apps-afsc.fisheries.noaa.gov/Plan_Team/2022/GOApcod.pdf.

[28] IPCC (2023), “Cross-sectoral Perspectives”, in Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.001.

[1] IPCC (2019), IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, Pörtner et al. (eds.), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/3/2019/12/SROCC_FullReport_FINAL.pdf.

[13] Jones, M. and W. Cheung (2014), “Multi-model ensemble projections of climate change effects on global marine biodiversity”, ICES Journal of Marine Science, Vol. 72/3, pp. 741-752, https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsu172.

[12] Kooij, J., G. Engelhard and D. Righton (2016), “Climate change and squid range expansion in the North Sea”, Journal of Biogeography, Vol. 43/11, pp. 2285-2298, https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12847.

[5] Lotze, H. et al. (2019), “Global ensemble projections reveal trophic amplification of ocean biomass declines with climate change”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 116/26, pp. 12907-12912, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1900194116.

[23] NOAA Fisheries (2023), “Looking back at the Blob: Record warming drives unprecedented ocean change”, news, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/looking-back-blob-record-warming-drives-unprecedented-ocean-change.

[27] OECD (2021), “Adapting to a changing climate in the management of coastal zones”, OECD Environment Policy Papers, No. 24, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b21083c5-en.

[17] Oliver, E. et al. (2021), “Marine heatwaves”, Annual Review of Marine Science, Vol. 13/1, pp. 313-342, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-032720-095144.

[15] Oliver, E. et al. (2018), “Longer and more frequent marine heatwaves over the past century”, Nature Communications, Vol. 9/1324, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03732-9.

[11] Palacios‐Abrantes, J. et al. (2022), “Timing and magnitude of climate‐driven range shifts in transboundary fish stocks challenge their management”, Global Change Biology, Vol. 28/7, pp. 2312-2326, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16058.

[33] Parker, R. et al. (2018), “Fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions of world fisheries”, Nature Climate Change, Vol. 8/4, pp. 333-337, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0117-x.

[31] Parker, R. et al. (2015), “Environmental and economic dimensions of fuel use in Australian fisheries”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 87, pp. 78-86, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.081.

[30] Parker, R. and P. Tyedmers (2014), “Fuel consumption of global fishing fleets: Current understanding and knowledge gaps”, Fish and Fisheries, Vol. 16/4, pp. 684-696, https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12087.

[49] Parker, R., I. Vázquez-Rowe and P. Tyedmers (2015), “Fuel performance and carbon footprint of the global purse seine tuna fleet”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 103, pp. 517-524, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.017.

[8] Poloczanska, E. et al. (2013), “Global imprint of climate change on marine life”, Nature Climate Change, Vol. 3/10, pp. 919-925, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1958.

[32] Poore, J. and T. Nemecek (2018), “Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers”, Science, Vol. 360/6392, pp. 987-992, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216.

[45] Sala, E. et al. (2021), “Protecting the global ocean for biodiversity, food and climate”, Nature, Vol. 592/7854, pp. 397-402, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03371-z.

[19] Sen Gupta, A. et al. (2020), “Drivers and impacts of the most extreme marine heatwave events”, Scientific Reports, Vol. 10/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-75445-3.

[18] Smith, K. et al. (2021), “Socioeconomic impacts of marine heatwaves: Global issues and opportunities”, Science, Vol. 374/6566, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abj3593.

[39] STECF (2022), 2022 Annual Economic Report on the EU Fishing Fleet (STECF 22-06), Publications Office of the European Union, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/120462.

[36] Tyedmers, P. (2004), “Fisheries and energy use”, in Encyclopedia of Energy, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/b0-12-176480-x/00204-7.

[42] Waldo, S. and A. Paulrud (2016), “Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in fisheries: The case of multiple regulatory instruments in Sweden”, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 68/2, pp. 275-295, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-016-0018-2.

[3] WMO (2023), “Air and sea surface temperatures hit new records”, news, https://wmo.int/media/news/air-and-sea-surface-temperatures-hit-new-records.

[41] Ziegler, F. and S. Hornborg (2014), “Stock size matters more than vessel size: The fuel efficiency of Swedish demersal trawl fisheries 2002-2010”, Marine Policy, Vol. 44, pp. 72-81, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.06.015.

[38] Ziegler, F. et al. (2016), “Expanding the concept of sustainable seafood using life cycle assessment”, Fish and Fisheries, Vol. 17/4, pp. 1073-1093, https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12159.