OECD Review of Fisheries 2025

Good fisheries management is fundamental to every aspect of fisheries sector performance be it economic, social or environmental. Healthy, and productive fish stocks ensure profitability for fishers and play a key role in global food security. Well-managed, abundant fish stocks allow fishers to maximise the food or value produced in a sustainable way (i.e. a productive stock). Improving fish stock health through better fisheries management can also help reduce the sector’s greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), as less effort (and fuel) is needed to catch the same volume of fish. However, without effective management, overfishing and illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing can reduce fish abundance below levels which allow for optimal productivity (i.e. unproductive stocks), and in extreme cases to levels from which the fish stock cannot recover (i.e. collapsed stocks (Chapter 3 for a more detailed discussion) (Hutchings, 2000[1]).

Evidence suggests that fisheries management works: well-managed fisheries have been shown to be more sustainable, productive and profitable (Hilborn et al., 2020[2]; Costello et al., 2016[3]). To be effective, fisheries management must be science based, context specific and monitored, to ensure not only that the plan is being adhered to, but also that it is working as intended. In this way, stock assessments (Chapter 3) are a vital component of fisheries management because they provide both the scientific basis for taking management decisions and information on whether the management plans are effectively ensuring the sustainability and productivity of the resource base. Feedback stock assessments provide essential information to ensure performance failures can be identified and addressed early.

While ensuring the health and productivity of stocks is the most important objective of management, fisheries management is not limited to managing the biological resources. Fisheries management should also consider the socio-economic context of the fisheries (e.g. the fishers and community that rely on it), to ensure management plans can achieve environmental, social and economic goals. Correspondingly, management plans should be developed in conjunction with the relevant stakeholders so that their views can be adequately represented in the process, thereby contributing to its legitimacy and effective implementation (Pita, Graham and Theodossiou, 2010[4]). Finally, good fisheries management requires effective monitoring and enforcement, otherwise the management plans ability to achieve their goals will be undermined by IUU fishing.

Fisheries are complex ever-changing systems where the impacts of several different pressures on fish stock health and productivity, such as fishing, pollution, environmental conditions, and climate change, can make outcomes hard to predict. Consequently, fisheries management must have built-in mechanisms for understanding how underlying resources change and adapt management actions accordingly, even when the mechanisms driving this change are not fully understood or are hard to measure. This issue will become more complicated under climate change, as changes in ocean temperatures, acidity and marine heatwaves increase both the speed and magnitude of the changes to fish stocks (Barange, 2018[5]) (Chapter 4).

The challenge facing fisheries managers is therefore not only to create an effective system for managing a particular fishery, but also to integrate sufficient flexibility in that system so it can adapt as the fishery changes over time. Data from Chapter 3 show that 81% of conclusively assessed fish stocks are healthy and only 59% are at levels that allow for optimal productivity, so there is clearly room to improve the performance of management systems.

This chapter first explores how the most important commercial fisheries are managed across the 31 countries and territories covered in this report for which management data were available,1 with a specific focus on the use of total allowable catch limits (TACs) and quota systems. Key statistics on the use of management tools are presented either at the level of “all countries and territories”, which refers to the 41 countries and territories covered in the report where management data were provided, or at the level of “the OECD Members” and “the non-Members” among them. The chapter then goes on to explore some of the impacts of climate change on fisheries management, before considering how fisheries management can contribute to both climate change adaptation and mitigation in the sector.

As part of the OECD Review of Fisheries, the OECD regularly collects data on how countries and economies manage their most valuable harvested species. The OECD Fisheries Management Indicators database covers each country’s five most valuable species (as per 2020 data), and data are reported at the stock level (i.e. if different stocks of one species are managed differently the information is reported for each stock of that species individually). For each stock, detailed information is provided on the different management tools, covering both:

• Input controls, which regulate fleet and gear characteristics (e.g. vessel size and power, gear type and configuration), along with where and when fishing can take place (e.g. with spatial or temporal restrictions).

• Output controls, which set harvesting limits either at the level of a fishery, with TACs that cap the total quantity of an individual stock that can be harvested, or at the level of individuals or communities, with specific quotas (e.g. individual transferable quotas, individual quotas or community quotas). Specific quota systems usually define the conditions under which quotas can be sold and exchanged (or not). Output controls also include regulations on minimum fish sizes, which regulate catch attributes rather than the overall level of catch.

The OECD Fisheries Management Indicators database contains information from 379 stocks of the most commercially valuable species for the countries and territories included in this chapter. On average, these stocks represented 62% of production by volume and by value across all countries and territories in the database and for more than 50% of the production by value in 21 of them. At the level of individual countries and territories, the relative importance of the most valuable species significantly varies, ranging from a high of 96% of production by value in Finland to a low of 26% in Colombia. This is due to different levels of species diversity in catches.

TACs are used to manage the vast majority of stocks (72%) from the most commercially important species. Other quota systems are used much less frequently, with the most commonly applied being individual transferable quota (ITQs) which are used in 37% of stocks. However, in the stocks where TACs are used, other quota systems such as ITQs, non-transferable quotas and community managed quotas are used in the majority (70%) of cases.

Overall, 12.6  million tonnes of landings worth USD 11.4 billion were produced from species fully covered by TACs (i.e. all the stocks of these species were covered by a TAC in 2022). This corresponds to 85% of the production volume and 60% of the production value (Figure 5.1). A further 445 000 tonnes (USD 2.3 billion) came from species where some but not all the stocks were covered by TACs (i.e. a partial TAC). Species not covered by TACs at all accounted for 12% of production of the most commercially important species by volume (1.8  million tonnes) and 28% by value (USD 5.3 billion). Across the OECD Members, the majority of production (83% by volume and 62% by value) came from stocks that were fully subject to a TAC in 2022, while, in the non-Members, these proportions were of 87% of production by volume and 55% by value.2 The value of production associated with stocks not managed using TACs is substantial, but while the clarity offered by TACs means their use is generally considered the preferred way of avoiding overfishing, in some circumstances they can be difficult to utilise effectively. Overall, the proportion of production covered by TACs is very similar to previous years (it was 80% by volume and 61% by value in 2020).

Using a TAC in fisheries allows managers to control the amount of fish caught and ensure it stays below the levels set in the management plan. In theory, further dividing and distributing the TAC into individual or community quotas allows fishers to maximise their profits by removing the ‘race to fish’ and instead optimise the timing and duration of fishing activity. Where ITQs have been implemented they are generally associated with an increase in abundance of the target species, and removal of excess capital and labour from the fleet (Merayo et al., 2018[6]; Hoshino et al., 2020[7]; Costello, Gaines and Lynham, 2008[8]). However, the implementation of quota systems has been associated with negative social outcomes if the initial quota allocation process was perceived as being inequitable, or fleet concentration leads to a less equal distribution of fisheries profits in coastal communities (Hoshino et al., 2020[7]).

In some fisheries, implementing TACs can be challenging. First, and perhaps most importantly, it is not possible to implement an effective TAC for an unassessed stock, because without a good scientific understanding on the biomass level, fisheries managers do not know how much can be harvested without risking fish stock health and productivity, and hence cannot set a limit, further underlining the importance of regular stock assessments.

Second, TACs and other quota systems can be difficult to implement in multi-species fisheries, i.e. where fishers target more than one species simultaneously, which notably includes many warm water and tropical fisheries. In multispecies fisheries, output controls can create issues if the quota of one species is full before the quotas of the other species. In these cases, fishers could discard the species with a full quota to continue fishing others, but this is problematic for fisheries management as these discards are typically not counted in statistics, meaning real fishing pressure is higher than reported pressure (Dickey-Collas, Pastoors and van Keeken, 2007[9]). However, if fishers instead land everything they catch this then creates the issue of “choke” species, which are relatively rare species with small quotas that fill quickly, preventing fishers from filling other quotas and reducing catches (Rihan, 2018[10]). Consequently, the more diverse the fishery, the more challenging it is to implement TACs. In these fisheries managers can use a mix of input controls to restrict where, when and how fish are caught.

On average, 5.5 different tools were used to manage the stocks in the database. But the number or tools used to manage different stocks varies from 0 to 12. Different fisheries require different tools and no two management regimes are identical, thus the variation in the number and type of management tools used across fisheries is expected. It also likely reflects that management capacity can and does vary across countries.

Gear restrictions are the most commonly used input control (and the most used management tool overall) in the data set and are applied in 82% (311) of stocks of the most valuable species. This is perhaps unsurprising, given the range of different gear available to fishers, and it’s differing specificity and impacts on the wider marine environment. Gear restrictions, therefore, are not only used to control the impacts of fishing on target species, but also to ensure the gears used do not have an outsized impact on non-target species and other aspects of ocean ecosystems.

Several other management tools are used to manage the majority of stocks in the database: area restrictions (used in 58% of stocks, or 221 stocks), minimum fish sizes (57%, 215 stocks) and harvest capacity limits (53%, 201 stocks). Area restrictions and minimum fish sizes are both tools designed to reduce the impact of fishing on biological processes, for example by protecting spawning areas and juvenile fish, while harvest capacity limits can address issues with the make-up of the fleet and reduce overexploitation more generally.

Generally, the mix of management tools has not changed significantly since 2019, with gear restrictions and TACs remaining the most widely applied by fisheries managers. So, while there is still room for improvement, in many cases this will come from improving the evidence base for management decisions (i.e. better stock assessments) and improved enforcement rather than dramatic changes in the types of management tools. Understanding the links between stock health and productivity, the management tools used and the landings from the stock will be important to help inform fisheries managers about what is working and what is not. Further work to link these sources of data, would be a valuable addition to the evidence available to fisheries managers.

As discussed in Chapter 4, climate change is already affecting fisheries. This will pose two major challenges for fisheries managers: 1) understanding how changes in ocean conditions might affect specific fish stocks and fisheries; and 2) translating this knowledge (including uncertainty on the nature and magnitude of impacts) into effective policy responses to address the fisheries management and socio-economic challenges they pose (Barange, 2018[5]; IPBES, 2019[11])

Broadly speaking, the measures needed for climate adaptation in fisheries largely align with fisheries management good practices. They include scientific and regulatory measures to ensure healthy and resilient stocks; governance measures to ensure co-operation between different jurisdictions; and socio-economic measures to help fishers, fish industries and dependent communities adjust to changing circumstances. The next section explores some of these challenges as well as the opportunities for fisheries management to contribute to climate change adaption and mitigation.

Healthy and resilient fish stocks are a pre-condition for addressing the negative effects of climate change on fisheries. While climate change is a significant danger for the health of fish stocks, fishing pressure remains the single largest threat to fisheries sustainability on a global scale (IPBES, 2019[11]). Not only does excessive fishing pressure reduce catches and profits for fishers over the long term, overfished stocks are also more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Addressing the impacts of overfishing can therefore be a win-win situation, improving the health of stocks and raising returns for fishers while increasing their resilience to climate change.

Maintaining healthy and productive fish stocks – i.e. not overfished and with biomass at levels that allow for maximising the sustainable harvest – can improve resilience to climate change-related mortality events such as marine heatwaves or disruptions to recruitment (i.e. how many fish successfully enter the fishery each year). Stronger stocks mean that reductions in biomass due to climate related events are less likely to result in stock numbers falling below safe limits and fishing can continue without (or with less) disruption. Stronger stocks with a larger spawning biomass can also recover more quickly from mortality events or recruitment disruption, resulting in quicker returns to higher catches. For example, it has been estimated that in major European Union fisheries, maintaining fish stocks at a level corresponding to maximum sustainable yields (MSY) would improve resilience to climate change in the majority of cases, with less disruption to fishing and faster recoveries from negative shocks (Bastardie, 2022[12]).

Measures to increase the health of stocks not only help to mitigate the negative effects of climate change; implementing best practice fisheries management could also lead to higher biomass for the majority of global fish stocks under all but the most severe climate change scenarios, as shown in Table 5.1 (Gaines et al., 2018[13]).

It is important that management measures designed to build or maintain stocks are updated regularly in response to climate-induced and other changes. In the absence of effective measures to constrain catches, reduced productivity in one stock can have a potentially cascading effect on other stocks as fishing effort shifts to new stocks, leading to progressive depletion of multiple stocks (Beckensteiner, Boschetti and Thébaud, 2023[14]). A continued focus on ensuring that fish stocks are managed at healthy and productive levels is the best way to ensure long-term sustainability, improve economic outcomes for fishers and prepare for the impacts of climate change in the future.

For fisheries, building resilience to climate change not only means ensuring that fish stocks are healthy and productive but also that the ecosystems on which they depend are healthy. Shifting towards ecosystem-based fisheries management systems can help improve the health of the wider environment and further build resilience to climate change. However, significant challenges and research gaps remain.

When ocean conditions vary due to climate change, the parameters used to calibrate the fishing pressure to ensure sustainable harvesting of stocks can become obsolete. The multidimensional nature of how climate change impacts fisheries could also reduce the usefulness of some existing single species stock assessment models, which are based solely on catch or abundance surveys, meaning that more ecosystem influences should be considered (Peterson and Griffis, 2021[15]; Fulton et al., 2018[16]). Indeed, climate change can affect all the aspects of an ecosystem that are typically considered in fisheries management decisions including:

• water temperature

• the abundance of predator and prey species

• the quality of habitats

• the strength of currents

• prevailing winds, rainfall and freshwater flows.

The challenge for fisheries managers when including climate and ecosystem effects in management decisions is to understand the key relationships between climate and outcomes for fish stocks. This can significantly complicate the task facing fisheries managers. For example, attempts to include climate and ecosystem effects quantitatively in stock assessments can have mixed outcomes – improving predictions in some cases, but also increasing the range of uncertainty and error by making models more complicated. Furthermore, ecosystem relationships may not be stable over time, and this has sometimes led to poor estimates in some years (Skern‐Mauritzen et al., 2015[17]). Table 5.2 summarises some examples of where including climate change and eco-system considerations in the stock assessment process led to useful lessons for better management.

Sources: Skern-Mauritzen et al. (2015[17]); Tommasi et al. (2017[18]); FAO (2021[19]); CSIRO (2020[20]); Arthun et al. (2018[21]).

Consequently, ecosystem-based fisheries management remains a relatively rare feature of fisheries management systems worldwide, hampering their ability to respond effectively to the challenges posed by climate change. A study of 1 250 global fisheries concluded that only 24, or 2%, included ecosystem factors in the quantitative aspect of their management plans or stock assessments (Skern‐Mauritzen et al., 2015[17]). Qualitative consideration of ecosystem effects in stock assessments or management plans is more common. For example, according to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, in 2019, ecosystem factors were included qualitatively in 31% of stock assessments in Canada and quantitatively in 21% (DFO, 2019[22]; DFO, 2019[23]). The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) reports that just under 50% of its stock assessments considered ecosystem factors in some way (Trenkel et al., 2023[24]).

For fisheries management systems to be effective under climate change they need to be able to detect changes in conditions and adapt on an appropriate timescale. These challenges are likely to be further exacerbated as fish stocks move across national boundaries and in and out of the jurisdiction of different institutions. Therefore, to adequately address the impacts of climate change, management institutions at both national and international levels need to be able to make changes in a timely manner.

However, regulatory systems for fisheries tend to lack the flexibility needed to adapt to the changing climate conditions. For example, the ICES does not have a framework for incorporating climate change into its scientific advice on fisheries management (ICES, 2022[25]). Rapid implementation and adjustment of management parameters in response to climate change is essential to avoid unsustainable fishing and minimise losses for those in the fishery. These adjustments could mean altering TACs, the dates for fishing seasons, the delimitations of no-harvest zones, or minimum harvest sizes. Research shows that management intervention within the first five years of recorded stock declines kept populations stable, and avoided, on average, a 40% decline in harvest (Beckensteiner, Boschetti and Thébaud, 2023[14]; Brown et al., 2012[26]) Reforms to institutional and regulatory arrangements may therefore be required where there is insufficient flexibility to respond to climate change, such as in the example of the North East Atlantic mackerel (Box 5.1).

Where stocks straddle exclusive economic zones and high seas jurisdictions, regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs) and other types of agreements must address any redistribution of fish to areas which not all fishers may be able to access, as well as make adjustments to overall TACs (OECD, 2011[28]). A high-level review of 12 RFMOs’ readiness to adapt to climate change noted the biggest challenges are likely to be the sharing of moving fish stocks across political boundaries and enforcing agreements. However, it also found that these organisations were well equipped to adapt as needed (Pentz et al., 2018[31]). Improved mechanisms for taking decisions on access to stocks that cross political boundaries would better prepare RFMOs for the effects of climate change. A review of the effectiveness of RFMO decision making during COVID-19 disruptions noted that RFMOs could benefit from measures such as reviewing decision timelines, establishing efficient voting protocols and objection procedures, or formalising extraordinary processes such as introducing special clauses or frameworks for disruptive events in the future (OECD, 2021[32]).

Fisheries managers also need to consider the impacts of climate change on the socio-economic performance of the fisheries. The decline in catches driven by climate change will have negative socio-economic impacts on fishers, the downstream industry and the communities which rely on fishing. However, the impacts of climate change on fisheries will not be evenly distributed, with some areas likely to experience larger declines than others, while some regions will see increases. Targeted support programmes can be used to address economic impacts and ensure vulnerable communities do not suffer unduly from climate induced reductions in catches. To efficiently and proactively understand where such support might be needed, several governments have assessed the vulnerability of certain fisheries and their communities to climate change.

Vulnerability assessments for climate impacts, and decadal forecasts of climate change, can provide useful predictions of how climate may affect specific fish stocks and show fisheries managers the priority areas for management and research effort. However, these assessments are generally associated with significant uncertainty. Various national agencies and other organisations have developed vulnerability ratings for fisheries in response to climate change. These include both effects on fish stocks and the economic vulnerability of fishers and communities (FAO, 2021[33]; Barange, 2018[5]). Notable examples include:

• Australia: The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) has conducted a climate sensitivity and vulnerability assessment of 101 species in 24 fisheries (Fulton et al., 2018[16]). Similar to the results of the NOAA assessments, the most vulnerable species in all regions were those with specific habitat needs and high commercial value. These included abalone, lobster, bêche-de-mer (sea cucumber) and fish and prawns living between salt and freshwater habitats. The assessment process has now been described in a user-friendly format that can be regularly applied to different fisheries. The process begins with a science-based assessment of the potential ecosystem and fisheries impacts of climate change. This is followed by in-depth consultation with fishers and fisheries managers to see how fishers might respond to potential changes. Finally, a suite of policy responses is available which can be tailored to each of the individual situations. The policy handbook is available from CSIRO (CSIRO, 2020[34]).

• European Union: There are various studies on vulnerability, including social and economic factors, in European Union fisheries. Most notable are the Climate change and European aquatic RESources (Peck et al., 2020[35]) and Horizon ATLAS projects (Payne et al., 2021[36]; ATLAS, 2020[37]; European Commission, 2020[38]; European Parliament, 2020[39]). Recent studies, such as an investigation of the 17 most important commercial species in the Mediterranean by Hilmi et al. (2023[40]), increasingly take into account not only ecological factors, but also economies’ dependence on fishing and their ability to adapt. Another study, as part of the Horizon ATLAS project, conducted a climate risk analysis for 157 species across the European Union, considering lifespan, habitat, species mobility and temperature sensitivity, along with which fishers and regions would then be most vulnerable economically (Payne et al., 2021[36]). The study suggests that three main aspects define fishing regions most at risk from climate change: 1) high dependence on fishing for employment; 2) high dependence on a small number of species; and 3) low profitability of parts of the fishing fleet.

• Korea: The Korean Maritime Institute has assessed the climate vulnerability of aquaculture, including social and economic factors (Kim, Brown and Kim, 2019[41]; Lee, Kim and Cho, 2011[42]). Fourteen species were assessed for their vulnerability to sea temperature changes and climate related disasters. The assessment also considered the ability of producers to adapt and the impact on their financial viability. The results showed that species with high temperature sensitivity and where producers have little control over the different growing stages, such as seaweeds and molluscs, were most vulnerable. Finfish aquaculture was less vulnerable due to their lower temperature sensitivity and the ability of producers to control some aspects of the farming environment.

• New Zealand: The national fisheries management agency, Fisheries New Zealand, has used expert assessments of three major species with good data availability to rate them for vulnerability to climate change from low to very high. The vulnerability of the three species – paua (abalone), snapper and hoki – was respectively assessed as very high, moderate and low. The assessment process can be applied to any species where sufficient data are available and considers factors such as stock status; life-cycle and growth; habitat requirements; predator and prey relationships; mobility; and sensitivity to changing water temperature, quality and conditions (Cummings et al., 2021[43]).

• United States: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is undertaking climate vulnerability assessments for major species in six regions, taking into consideration social and economic factors (Peterson and Griffis, 2021[15]). The key goal of these assessments is to better understand the mechanisms by which climate change affects key species, and the flow-on effects to communities.

Policy responses to climate-related fisheries impacts can also occur after an adverse event, such as a marine heatwave, to limit its damage or avoid a repeat. Policy tools employed across OECD Members and non-Members have included financial support for fishers, new regulations to support changing catches and increased monitoring and forecasting. For example, after a heatwave off the coast of Australia in 2011, fisheries managers responded by increasing the network of temperature monitors, due to the success of the original network in revealing the links between the heatwave and impacts on commercial stocks (Pearce, 2011[44]). They also increased monitoring of invasive species known to live in warmer waters, as well as of affected commercial species. This led to changes to management plans and TACs. After the “Blob” heatwave off the west-coast of the United States in 2015, responses included financial support to affected fishers and changed management for affected stocks.

Fisheries will increasingly be required to contribute to the transition to net zero emissions, and fisheries management also has a key role to play in this process.

Restoring overfished stocks to biomass levels that allow for catches to be maximised sustainably and maintaining all harvested stocks at these levels while encouraging efficient fishing, can be an effective way of reducing emissions, particularly in overfished stocks (Hornborg and Smith, 2020[45]). Management measures to increase biomass can reduce emissions by increasing the catch per unit of fishing effort in fisheries with effective effort limitation and no excess capacity. By increasing the density and/or size of the stocks, search times are reduced and fishers can reduce the effort, and fuel, used to catch the same amount of fish (Bastardie et al., 2022[46]).

An OECD literature review showed that, in many cases, economically optimising management (e.g. the implementation of quotas systems) could be the most effective emissions reduction policy to date (OECD, 2013[47]). For example, Duy et al. (2014[48]) estimated that optimising fisheries management to achieve MSY would reduce fuel consumption by 29% and increase economic returns by 100%. Applying emissions taxes and trading systems to the optimised fishery would result in relatively modest additional reductions to fuel use of between 0.2% and 11.3%.3 In general, management measures have a higher potential for fuel savings than technical and behavioural interventions (Figure 5.3).

There is significant scope to rebuild stocks and implement management plans to increase fishing efficiency and reduce emission (Chapter 3) as only 62% of assessed stocks were healthy and 31% were meeting productivity targets. Stock rebuilding plans are generally successful. In many cases they require fishing effort reductions, usually during the first 12 months, and can see biomass increase or stabilise over the following 4-26 years. The average rebuilding plan shows benefits after approximately a decade (Costello et al., 2012[56]; FAO, 2018[57]; Melnychuk et al., 2021[58]; Sumaila et al., 2012[59]).

A recent example of increased CPUE through stock rebuilding plans is a small area of a scallop fishery around the Isle of Man (United Kingdom), which was closed for three years to allow depleted stocks to recover. On re-opening, a territorial rights management system was introduced to stop competitive fishing and reduce overexploitation. This area of the fishery saw a fourfold increase in CPUE after reopening, with a corresponding 75% drop in fuel intensity. Neighbouring areas of the fishery which did not change management practices saw no change in CPUE or fuel use intensity over this time (Bloor et al., 2021[60]). Another example is the implementation of a transferable quota system in Icelandic fisheries in 1991, which allowed depleted fish stocks to rebuild. Stocks of cod – the most important species in Icelandic fisheries, representing around 45% of total value in 2019 – have consistently increased following the introduction of quota management. A 2021 study showed that fuel use in Icelandic fisheries decreased by 40% between 1997 and 2008, mostly due to higher CPUE from rebuilt fish stocks (Kristofersson, Gunnlaugsson and Valtysson, 2021[61]).

The target for effective stock rebuilding can vary depending on the fishery. While MSY is widely accepted as the minimum biological target for sustainable stocks, a biomass higher than that required to support MSY can also result in higher CPUE, reduced costs and reduced emissions intensity.4 The extent to which increased biomass will lead to reduced emissions depends on both the biological characteristics of the stock and the economic and technical aspects of individual fishing operations, such as vessel capacity and overall operating costs. In some fisheries, measures reducing the overall fishing effort to rebuild stocks and increase CPUE may lead to fishers leaving the fishery, or catches decreasing, at least in the short term, while other fishers may expand their operations, and change their business structures. For example, in the Nordic fisheries, the transition to optimal fisheries management was accompanied by a 45% decrease in the number of fishing vessels (Duy et al., 2014[48]). The political economy dimension of economically optimal management may thus need to be addressed upfront.

Fisheries managers could consider implementing specific policies to ensure these changes do not have adverse impacts on particular groups of fishers or their communities. Social safety nets, training support to develop alternative activities and adjustment programmes, such as carefully designed licence buyouts, have proven successful in addressing the distributional impacts of changes in fisheries conditions in several COFI Member and Partner fisheries. Such policies may be helpful to address the impacts of climate change mitigation policies, but need to be accompanied by significant and effective management reform addressing the underlying reasons for existing overcapacity, to ensure that effort does not leak back into the fisheries system (Teh, Hotte and Sumaila, 2017[62]; Squires, 2010[63]; Melnychuk et al., 2021[58]; Squires, Joseph and Groves, 2006[64]; FAO, 2018[57]; Graff Zivin and Mullins, 2015[65]). Such programmes could increasingly feature in the support policy mixes (Chapter 6).

It is also important to note that management measures may need to be adapted to take into account new behaviours stemming from increased fuel prices or fuel efficiency. For example, fishers in multi-species fisheries have been observed to change their fishing grounds to fish closer to port and target higher value species in response to higher fuel prices (Abernethy et al., 2010[66]). On the other hand, increased fuel efficiency can lead to increased effort in fisheries where catch is not constrained.

Finally, while improved fisheries management can be an effective method for reducing emissions in many fisheries, there may be some exceptions, as not all stocks will see a strong relationship between CPUE and fuel-use intensity (Bastardie et al., 2022[46]; FAO, 2018[57]; Bastardie et al., 2022[67]). For example, this is the case for species where dense aggregations allow for high rates of catchability even as populations decline. Notable examples include Atlantic cod in Canada (Rose et al., 2000[68]) and orange roughy in Australia and New Zealand (AFMA, 2022[69]). For both these stocks, density and CPUE remain steady, even as stocks grow or decline; reducing emissions would therefore require technological innovation or even a change in fishing practices.5

A fundamental question facing policy makers is the type of policy intervention and the sequence in which they should be applied to most effectively reduce GHG emissions from fisheries while limiting any adverse distributional impacts. However, there is no one-size-fits-all solution and the specific context of individual fisheries will dictate the extent to which a set of energy-saving techniques and practices can reduce emissions. In extreme cases, for which policies may not be able to reduce emissions cost-effectively, managers may also want to consider whether continuing with a specific fishing activity is in line with broader economy-wide climate change objectives.

The ability of different measures to reduce emissions is likely to depend on the initial health and productivity of the harvested stocks, the type of vessels used and the fishing activity taking place, the availability of low emissions technologies, as well as the management and support policies in place. For example, older vessels with less modern equipment are likely to have greater scope to increase efficiency through technical improvements. However, these vessels may have a shorter useful life over which to benefit from investment in fuel savings. The opportunity for quick improvements to reduce emissions may be greater in some fisheries, while in others further innovation will be required. In many cases there are also trade-offs that may limit the adoption of effective measures. For example, the uptake of speed limitation strategies may be limited by increased labour costs due to longer fishing days offsetting any fuel savings (Ziegler and Hornborg, 2023[70]). Understanding these trade-offs will be important for designing effective incentive policies.

To prioritise policy interventions and measure their effectiveness, it is necessary to accurately measure fuel use in fisheries. Currently, global measures of fuel use are lacking (Parker and Tyedmers, 2014[71]). However, many jurisdictions are making progress on collecting fuel data. A notable example is the European Union, which publishes up-to-date fuel use data by country and type of fishing gear as part of its Blue Economy Observatory (European Commission, 2023[72]).

Fisheries managers face a set of challenges, which will only increase in complexity as climate change increasingly impacts stocks. First and foremost, fisheries management must be based on accurate and timely scientific information. The ability to accurately assess stock status is essential to set harvest limits that do not lead to declines in the resource base, and ideally maximise production volume or value (and minimise emissions). But even when TACs are not applied to fisheries, understanding the impacts of the current management system on the underlying stocks is crucial to ensure fishing impacts are sufficiently constrained. With climate change, the importance of regular accurate stock assessments is going to increase as they will be needed to inform the adaptive management required by the sector. Investing in stock assessments to ensure accurate and timely information is therefore crucial to all aspects of fisheries management. Further, better data collection in general, including on the socio-economic aspects of fisheries will be required to identify and adapt to the broader impacts of climate change on the sector.

At a fishery level, implementing TACs in conjunction with other quota systems more broadly can help address both environmental sustainability and capacity issues in fisheries. Implementing ITQs, in particular has had positive impacts on target species biomass, profitability and capacity in fisheries, but despite this they are not widely used in the stocks of the most commercially valuable species. Investigating where and how TACs and quotas might be applied could have a positive impact on the sector. Although the design and allocation of quotas need to be carefully considered to avoid negative social impacts, and there are some fisheries where TACs will not be practical.

Finally, rebuilding stocks though better management will reduce fishery emissions, but climate change will continue to impact stocks. Therefore, adaptation should be more explicitly considered in fisheries management policy at both domestic and international levels. There are many existing examples of climate adaptation at the domestic level, but the importance of early intervention in averting more pronounced impacts, means there needs to be a continued focus on the early identification of issues. By more explicitly considering the impacts of climate change in fisheries management both domestic and international institutions can identify where reform is required before serious issues occur.

[66] Abernethy, K. et al. (2010), “Fuelling the decline in UK fishing communities?”, ICES Journal of Marine Science, Vol. 67/5, pp. 1076-1085, https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsp289.

[69] AFMA (2022), Orange Roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) Stock Rebuilding Strategy, Australian Fisheries Management Authority, https://www.afma.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-02/orange-roughy-rebuilding-strategy-2022.pdf.

[49] Arnason, R. (2010), Saving Fuel in Fisheries the Painless Way.

[21] Arthun, M. et al. (2018), “Climate based multi-year predictions of the Barents Sea cod stock”, PLOS ONE, Vol. 13/10, p. e0206319, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206319.

[37] ATLAS (2020), A transatlantic assessment and deep-water ecosystem-based spatial management plan for Europe, https://www.eu-atlas.org/index.html.

[5] Barange, M. (2018), “Impacts of climate change on fisheries and aquaculture: synthesis of current knowledge, adaptation and mitigation options. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 627”, FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 627, https://www.fao.org/3/i9705en/i9705en.pdf.

[12] Bastardie, F. (2022), Climate change and the Common Fisheries Policy: adaptation and building resilience to the effects of climate change on fisheries and reducing emissions of greenhouse gases from fishing., European Commission, https://doi.org/10.2926/155626.

[46] Bastardie, F. et al. (2022), “Ten lessons on the resilience of the EU common fisheries policy towards climate change and fuel efficiency - A call for adaptive, flexible and well-informed fisheries management”, Frontiers in Marine Science, Vol. 9, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.947150.

[67] 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.

[14] Beckensteiner, J., F. Boschetti and O. Thébaud (2023), “Adaptive fisheries responses may lead to climate maladaptation in the absence of access regulations”, npj Ocean Sustainability, Vol. 2/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s44183-023-00010-0.

[60] Bloor, I. et al. (2021), “Boom not bust: Cooperative management as a mechanism for improving the commercial efficiency and environmental outcomes of regional scallop fisheries”, Marine Policy, Vol. 132, p. 104649, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104649.

[50] Brandt, S. (1999), “Productivity and Industrial Structure Under Market Incentives and Traditional Regulation”, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, CUDARE Working Papers, https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/198683.

[26] Brown, C. et al. (2012), “How long can fisheries management delay action in response to ecosystem and climate change?”, Ecological Applications, Vol. 22/1, pp. 298-310, https://doi.org/10.1890/11-0419.1.

[8] Costello, C., S. Gaines and J. Lynham (2008), “Can Catch Shares Prevent Fisheries Collapse?”, Science, Vol. 321/5896, pp. 1678-1681, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1159478.

[56] Costello, C. et al. (2012), “The Economic Value of Rebuilding Fisheries”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 55, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5k9bfqnmptd2-en.

[3] Costello, C. et al. (2016), “Global fishery prospects under contrasting management regimes”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 113/18, pp. 5125-5129, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1520420113.

[34] CSIRO (2020), Adaptation of fisheries management to climate change handbook, https://www.frdc.com.au/sites/default/files/products/2016-059-Climate_Adaptation_Handbook_Updated_June11_2021_WEB.pdf.

[20] CSIRO (2020), Regional Projection for the Kerguelen Plateau (Heard Island and MacDonald Islands), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, https://research.csiro.au/cor/wp-content/uploads/sites/282/2021/07/Summary-of-Regional-projections-Kerguelen-Plateau-v3.pdf.

[43] Cummings, V. et al. (2021), “Assessment of potential effects of climate-related changes in coastal and offshore waters on New Zealand’s seafood sector”, New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 261, https://fs.fish.govt.nz/Doc/24891/AEBR-261-Assessment-Of-Potential-Effects-Of-Climate-Change-On-Seafood-Sector-3389.pdf.ashx.

[22] DFO (2019), Framework for incorporating climate change considerations into fisheries stock assessments. DFO Canada Science Advisory Secretariat Science advisory report 2019/029, https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2019/mpo-dfo/fs70-6/Fs70-6-2019-029-eng.pdf.

[23] DFO (2019), Incorporating climate, oceanographic and ecological change considerations into population assessments: A review of Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s science advisory process, https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2020/mpo-dfo/fs70-5/Fs70-5-2019-043-eng.pdf.

[9] Dickey-Collas, M., M. Pastoors and O. van Keeken (2007), “Precisely wrong or vaguely right: Simulations of noisy discard data and trends in fishing effort being included in the stock assessment of North Sea plaice”, ICES Journal of Marine Science, Vol. 64/9, pp. 1641-1649, https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsm155.

[55] 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] Duy, N. et al. (2014), Reducing Climate Impact from Fisheries: A Study of Fisheries Management and Fuel Tax Concessions in the Nordic Countries, TemaNord, Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen K, https://doi.org/10.6027/TN2014-533.

[72] European Commission (2023), Fishing fleet fuel analysis, https://blue-economy-observatory.ec.europa.eu/fishing-fleet-fuel-analysis_en.

[38] European Commission (2020), European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet), https://emodnet.ec.europa.eu/en/map-week-%E2%80%93-predicted-climate-change-impact-atlantic-cod-habitat.

[39] European Parliament (2020), Draft report on the consequences of rising seawater temperatures for fish stocks and fisheries (2019/2163(INI)), https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PECH-PR-660174_EN.pdf.

[19] FAO (2021), Adaptive Management of Fisheries in Response to Climate Change, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, https://doi.org/10.4060/cb3095en.

[33] FAO (2021), Recent advances in climate change vulnerability/risk assessments in the fisheries and aquaculture sector, FAO, https://doi.org/10.4060/cb4585en.

[57] FAO (2018), Rebuilding of marine fisheries. Part 1: Global review, https://www.fao.org/3/ca0161en/ca0161en.pdf.

[16] Fulton, E. et al. (2018), Decadal scale projection of changes in Australian fisheries stocks under climate change, https://www.frdc.com.au/sites/default/files/products/2016-139-DLD.pdf.

[13] Gaines, S. et al. (2018), “Improved fisheries management could offset many negative effects of climate change”, Science Advances, Vol. 4/8, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aao1378.

[65] Graff Zivin, J. and J. Mullins (2015), “Vessel buybacks in fisheries: The role of auction and financing structures”, Marine Policy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.10.004.

[2] Hilborn, R. et al. (2020), “Effective fisheries management instrumental in improving fish stock status”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 117/4, pp. 2218-2224, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1909726116.

[40] Hilmi, N. et al. (2023), “Climate change impacts on Mediterranean fisheries: A sensitivity and vulnerability analysis for main commercial species”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 211, p. 107889, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107889.

[45] Hornborg, S. and A. Smith (2020), “Fisheries for the future: greenhouse gas emission consequences of different fishery reference points”, ICES Journal of Marine Science, https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsaa077.

[7] Hoshino, E. et al. (2020), “Individual transferable quotas in achieving multiple objectives of fisheries management”, Marine Policy, Vol. 113, p. 103744, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103744.

[1] Hutchings, J. (2000), “Collapse and recovery of marine fishes”, Nature, Vol. 406/6798, pp. 882-885, https://doi.org/10.1038/35022565.

[30] ICES (2024), ICES Advice 2024. ICES Advice Publications. Collection., https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.c.6976944.v56.

[25] ICES (2022), Joint ICES/ NMTT Workshop launching the Nordic Climate Change Forum for Fisheries and Aquaculture (WKNCCFFA), International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.10036.

[51] IMARES (2009), Energy Saving in Fisheries, (ESIF) FISH/2006/17 LOT3-Final Report, https://edepot.wur.nl/3509.

[11] IPBES (2019), Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem, https://zenodo.org/records/6417333.

[41] Kim, B., C. Brown and D. Kim (2019), “Assessment on the vulnerability of Korean aquaculture to climate change”, Marine Policy, Vol. 99, pp. 111-122, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.10.009.

[61] Kristofersson, D., S. Gunnlaugsson and H. Valtysson (2021), “Factors affecting greenhouse gas emissions in fisheries: evidence from Iceland’s demersal fisheries”, ICES Journal of Marine Science, https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsab109.

[42] Lee, B., B. Kim and Y. Cho (2011), “A Study on Vulnerability Assessment to Climate Change in Regional Fisheries of Korea”, The Journal of Fisheries Business Administration, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264100286_A_Study_on_Vulnerability_Assessment_to_Climate_Change_in_Regional_Fisheries_of_Korea.

[58] Melnychuk, M. et al. (2021), “Identifying management actions that promote sustainable fisheries”, Nature Sustainability, Vol. 4/5, pp. 440-449, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00668-1.

[6] Merayo, E. et al. (2018), “Are individual transferable quotas an adequate solution to overfishing and overcapacity? Evidence from Danish fisheries”, Marine Policy, Vol. 87, pp. 167-176, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.08.032.

[32] OECD (2021), “COVID-19 and multilateral fisheries management”, OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cc1214fe-en.

[47] OECD (2013), Green growth and energy use in fisheries and aquaculture, https://one.oecd.org/document/TAD/FI(2012)2/FINAL/En/pdf.

[28] OECD (2011), OECD Economic Surveys: Iceland 2011, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/eco_surveys-isl-2011-en.

[27] Østhagen, A., J. Spijkers and O. Totland (2020), “Collapse of cooperation? The North-Atlantic mackerel dispute and lessons for international cooperation on transboundary fish stocks”, Maritime Studies, Vol. 19/2, pp. 155-165, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-020-00172-4.

[73] 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.

[71] 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.

[36] Payne, M. et al. (2021), “Climate risk to European fisheries and coastal communities”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 118/40, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2018086118.

[44] Pearce, A. (2011), The “marine heat wave” off Western Australia during the summer of 2010/11. Fisheries Research Report No. 222, Department of Fisheries, Western Australia, https://www.fish.wa.gov.au/documents/research_reports/frr222.pdf.

[35] Peck, M. et al. (2020), Climate Change and European Fisheries and Aquaculture: ‘CERES’ Project Synthesis Report, https://ceresproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/CERES-Synthesis-Report-18-05-2020_format.pdf.

[31] Pentz, B. et al. (2018), “Can regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) manage resources effectively during climate change?”, Marine Policy, Vol. 92, pp. 13-20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.01.011.

[15] Peterson, J. and R. Griffis (2021), NOAA Fisheries Climate Science Strategy, NOAA Fisheries, https://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/TMSPO228.pdf.

[4] Pita, C., J. Graham and I. Theodossiou (2010), “Stakeholders’ participation in the fisheries management decision-making process: Fishers’ perceptions of participation”, Marine Policy, Vol. 34/5, pp. 1093-1102, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010.03.009.

[52] Repetto, R. (2001), “A natural experiment in fisheries management”, Marine Policy, Vol. 25/4, pp. 251-264, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0308-597x(01)00018-5.

[10] Rihan, D. (2018), Research for PECH Committee: Landing Obligation and Choke Species in Multispecies and Mixed Fisheries: The North Waters, European Parliament, Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies, Brussels, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/23a21c1c-af6e-11e8-99ee-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.

[68] Rose, G. et al. (2000), “Distribution shifts and overfishing the northern cod (Gadus morhua): a view from the ocean”, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Vol. 57/3, pp. 644-663, https://doi.org/10.1139/f00-004.

[53] Sigler, M. and C. Lunsford (2001), “Effects of individual quotas on catching efficiency and spawning potential in the Alaska sablefish fishery”, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Vol. 58/7, pp. 1300-1312, https://doi.org/10.1139/f01-074.

[17] Skern‐Mauritzen, M. et al. (2015), “Ecosystem processes are rarely included in tactical fisheries management”, Fish and Fisheries, Vol. 17/1, pp. 165-175, https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12111.

[29] Spijkers, J. and W. Boonstra (2017), “Environmental change and social conflict: the northeast Atlantic mackerel dispute”, Regional Environmental Change, Vol. 17/6, pp. 1835-1851, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1150-4.

[63] Squires, D. (2010), “Fisheries buybacks: a review and guidelines”, Fish and Fisheries, Vol. 11/4, pp. 366-387, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2010.00365.x.

[64] Squires, D., J. Joseph and T. Groves (2006), Buybacks in fisheries, FAO, https://www.fao.org/3/a1338e/a1338e14.pdf.

[59] Sumaila, U. et al. (2012), “Benefits of Rebuilding Global Marine Fisheries Outweigh Costs”, PLoS ONE, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040542.

[62] Teh, L., N. Hotte and U. Sumaila (2017), “Having it all: can fisheries buybacks achieve capacity, economic, ecological, and social objectives?”, Maritime Studies, Vol. 16/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40152-016-0055-z.

[18] Tommasi, D. et al. (2017), “Managing living marine resources in a dynamic environment: The role of seasonal to decadal climate forecasts”, Progress in Oceanography, Vol. 152, pp. 15-49, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2016.12.011.

[24] Trenkel, V. et al. (2023), “The rationale for heterogeneous inclusion of ecosystem trends and variability in ICES fishing opportunities advice”, Marine Ecology Progress Series, Vol. 704, pp. 81-97, https://doi.org/10.3354/meps14227.

[54] Wilson, J. (1999), “Fuel and financial savings for operators of small fishing vessels”, FAO Fisheries technical papet 383, https://www.fao.org/3/x0487e/x0487e.pdf.

[70] Ziegler, F. and S. Hornborg (2023), Decarbonising the fishing sector: Energy efficiency measures and alternative energy solutions for fishing vessels, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2023/740225/EPRS_STU(2023)740225_EN.pdf.