Mechanisms and models for industry engagement in collaborative research in commercial fisheries

Data and insights from fishers are essential sources of information to advance understanding of fishery and ecosystem dynamics. Incorporating fisher and industry knowledge holds prospects for improving marine science and fisheries management. We address cooperative research in the context of collaboration between fishers, scientists, industries, universities, and agencies to develop applied research to understand marine ecosystems, inform fishery management, enhance sustainability, govern resource use, and investigate social-economic dynamics. We leverage the insights of more than 100 research scientists, fisheries managers, industry representatives, and fishers to outline actionable recommendations for effective approaches and mechanisms to integrate industry data, perspectives, and insights in fisheries science. We also highlight opportunities and address challenges and limitations to such collaboration.

1 Introduction

“You can’t look at a problem with knowledge of only one aspect of it. The best group to solve problems will have experience from different perspectives.”

Cooperative research (CR) in fisheries and marine science refers to scientific research conducted in partnership with communities, fishers, or the fishing industry (NRC, National Research Council, 2004). In the latter instance, this integration of industry perspectives, equipment, and skills with scientific approaches, applications, and processes has proven effective for compiling fisheries data (Johnson and van Densen, 2007; Hind, 2015), addressing data gaps (Heimann et al., 2023), generating knowledge (Hartley and Robertson, 2008; Jones et al., 2022), monitoring ecosystems (Olsen et al., 2023), engaging stakeholders (Mackinson et al., 2011 Calderwood et al., 2023), and informing management (Wilson, 2003; Baker et al., 2014; Gray and Catchpole, 2021; Mackinson et al., 2023). Science-industry collaboration in fisheries research is gaining further momentum (Steins et al., 2022) and there is increased effort to provide policy recommendations toward facilitating industry contributions to science and management (Murphy et al., 2022; Baker et al., In Press; Steins et al., In Press).

Here we present findings and recommendations from more than 100 fishermen, industry representatives and research scientists participating in panel discussions at the Lowell Wakefield Fisheries Symposium on Cooperative Research – strategies for integrating industry perspectives and insights into fisheries science (Baker et al., 2019a; https://alaskaseagrant.org/events/wakefield-fisheries-symposium). Symposium participants included scientists from government agencies, academics, research institutes, and industry, as well as fishermen and fishing industry representatives from 17 industries in 11 large marine ecosystems. These industries include large-scale fisheries in the commercial sector and collectively represent 26% of global commercial landings and 14% of global commercial fishing landings value (2.45 million metric tonnes and $2.77 billion USD; DDPO, 2023; FAO, 2022; NOAA, 2023; NZRLIC, 2023). Case studies that highlighted industry-led presentations and science-industry teams provided concrete examples of effective collaboration and identified best practices and lessons learned (Figure 1). This symposium aimed to identify challenges, highlight opportunities, and outline actionable recommendations for facilitating effective CR to inform fishery science and management.

FIGURE 1

Figure 1 Cooperative research efforts in fisheries detailed in case studies in the Lowell Wakefield Symposium, including (A) New Zealand rock lobster fisheries, (B) North Sea small pelagic fisheries for herring, smelt and sandeel, (C) Northwest Atlantic scallop fisheries, and (D) Alaska groundfish and crab fisheries. Photo credits: D.R. Sykes, C.R. Sparrevohn, B. Eilertsen, and M.R. Baker.

In the following sections, we define challenges and opportunities to effective CR in industrialized commercial fisheries and outline actionable recommendations. All quotes are from the scientists, fishers, and industry leads listed here as authors, extracted from discussions at the symposium.

2 Policy options and implications

2.1 Outlining frameworks for finances and funding

“It’s incumbent upon everyone who uses the resource, to pay to play. In some cases, that’s funding, in some cases that’s just participating in the research.”

One of the challenges in navigating effective CR is establishing processes for funding and resources. Investment, either by government or industry, raises questions related to responsibilities, priorities, and mechanisms. Most governments with jurisdiction to manage fisheries invest in science. There is often a legal obligation on the government to invest in research to inform decisions related to the use and disposition of a public trust resource (Criddle, 2008). Important questions emerge – How does supplemental funding or financing by industry collaboratives complement government-supported science? To what extent does the funding source help or get in the way? When does it replace it? What are the frameworks that reduce barriers to investment?

2.2 Responsibilities for investment

“The public contribution is the baseline. The money from the industry is designed to enhance that investment. But it’s really hard to push back on that tendency to take that additional funding for granted, to rely on that funding, and put any new funding in some other area that doesn’t have organizational capacity to provide supplemental private funding. All of a sudden, now we’re funding what used to be a government mandate. How do you go backwards?”

Engaging stakeholders in informing management for the sustainable use of living marine resources is critical. Sometimes, that may mean directly financing the science that informs management. However, the caveats are numerous. A common concern for the industry is ambiguity in whether they are getting involved or taking over. Finding the line where government responsibilities end and opportunities for external investment start may be challenging. In the context of management, a core mission of government science should be funding the minimum information needed to manage stocks and set fishing at levels that maintain a fishery into the future. Beyond that, the industry may be well positioned to refine biomass estimates, improve understanding of stock distribution, or inform of how environmental conditions or market variability may influence stocks and markets. There are also devolved approaches to achieving these objectives. In New Zealand, the approach is to specify performance metrics for research and open a process for bids on contracts to conduct the research. A related example would be when agencies contract with Tribes, communities, consulting firms, or university research institutes to undertake studies or maintain data monitoring programs that provide information needed for management. Devolved approaches may be particularly important in regions where government capacity is limited or is costly or impractical for centralized research programs.

Another common concern is that industry investments in CR will result in government funds being re-allocated to other areas. In that case, the industry may be burdened with continuing to support research that was formerly the responsibility of the management agency. The risk is that, when the industry steps in to provide the funding, it will later be difficult to get the government to resume funding in the future.

2.3 Managing conflict of interest

“There are always external influences and internal biases. If the optics look bad, extra time should be devoted to ensure the process is rigorous, the science is sound, that we’re following first principles.

There are inherent dilemmas in industry participation in fisheries science (Jacobsen et al., 2012; Sparrevohn et al., 2019). The aim is to enhance science and increase legitimacy without jeopardizing credibility (de Boois et al., 2021). Questions arise as to whether joint efforts represent collaboration or collusion (Sykes, 2019). These challenges may be recognized and explicitly addressed through contracts, performance metrics, quality-control processes and other mechanisms to ensure transparency and oversight. In many regions, including New Zealand, Europe, Canada, the northwest Atlantic, the northeast Pacific, and Alaska, there appears to be evidence of a paradigm change in how fishery, science and advice are interacting (Ma et al., 2019; Mercer et al., 2019; Sheridan and Templin, 2019; Sparrevohn et al., 2019; Sykes, 2019). Challenges include – how to increase industry confidence in the research and how to adapt scientific processes to incorporate the knowledge and insights of fishers. To maintain stakeholder support, research processes must be clearly articulated, well-substantiated, impartially applied, and respectful of sources of knowledge and ways of knowing. Core components to success have been clear protocols for information sharing (early and often), strong frameworks for coordination, communication and response, and a priority on increasing stakeholder trust in processes and outcomes. Transparency in the engagement process is critical to internal and external audiences, and effective implementation and application to management requires a thorough understanding of stakeholder motivations for participation. Finally, submitting the research to rigorous external peer-review will often address perceptions of bias or concerns about conflicts of interest.

“There’s a number of people who have said, ‘we shouldn’t have industry involved at all.’ Why are we not conducting science in a manner that allows us to follow the math, identify the biases, spot flaws in the process, and identify where the outcome has been driven by a particular input?”

3 Actionable recommendations

“OK, we’ve got to do something.”

CR is often conducted on a large scale through organized mechanisms that incentivize involvement. Successful examples include research set-aside programs, cost recovery, fisheries collaboratives, and cooperative research institutes and programs. We discuss each in the following sections.

3.1 Models for industry-financed science

“Government investments change over time, and we may be left with data gaps that hurt industry. There are risks with industry taking over the funding, but there are also huge benefits to ensuring that we have the information and data that we need.”

In the New Zealand Rock lobster fishery, where industry leads research, industry stakeholders gain confidence that funding will be directed toward issues most critical to the fishery (Sykes, 2019). Similar results have been noted in fisheries collaboratives in Alaska (Behnken and Sylvester, 2019; Oliver et al., 2019) and New England (Mercer et al., 2019; Stokesbury and Eilertsen, 2019), where formal agreements between industry, scientists, community stakeholders, research institutes, and management authorities result in collaboratives able to address budget shortfalls and ensure sufficient resources to manage fisheries in an informed manner.

3.2 Research set-aside programs

“We started out with 1% of our total allocation. And that 1% would go out for bids. Science organizations could write proposals. There was a panel to review proposals and award bids to support research. The captain, the crew, the owner – would get a smaller percentage, but with a return. And now we’ve increased it to 2%. The industry drove that, the industry wanted it.”

Research Set-Aside (RSA) programs provide a mechanism to fund research and compensate vessel owners participating in research through the sale of fish harvested under a research quota. The New England Council (and until recently, also the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council) set-aside is awarded through a competitive grant process managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA), with priorities established by the Councils. Solicitations for RSA proposals are posted at www.grants.gov and distributed widely through the Councils and NOAA Fisheries public relations channels. In New England and the western Atlantic region, RSA programs have a demonstrated track record for supporting applied research that informs fishery management decisions and improves stock assessments. RSA programs have been applied to the Atlantic Sea Scallop, Atlantic Herring, and Monkfish Fishery Management Plans. Examples of research include habitat analyses and evaluation of fishing impacts (Stokesbury and Harris, 2006).

3.3 Cost recovery

“The investment in rock lobster fishery science has partial cost recovery. The rough rule of thumb is 75% of the cost of research has to be recovered by the industry. And because we are paying, we have a say in what is funded.”

Another approach is cost recovery. While most countries use general tax revenues to fund fisheries research, others levy the commercial fishing industry to recover research costs. In this context, research costs are shared between the sector and taxpayers. A more direct relationship between the primary beneficiaries of fisheries management (i.e., fishermen) may lead to more efficient interventions. Fishers may be more incentivized to pressure governments for services that meet needs in an efficient manner (e.g., Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Wallis and Flaaten, 2000). Cost recovery is applied in Canadian and New Zealand fisheries (Dewees, 1998). In British Columbia, this occurs through community-based self-management and government-community co-management cost-sharing arrangements (Thompson et al., 2019). In New Zealand, quota owners pay resource rents on the quota through a cost-recovery regime. The rationale is to (1) secure revenue to offset fisheries management costs; (2) encourage greater industry responsibility to reduce regulation and costs; (3) provide industry voice in the development and delivery of fisheries management; and (4) match levies to resource rent (Harte, 2007).

3.4 Fisheries collaboratives

“Institutions enable cooperative research, but people conduct cooperative research.”

Fisheries collaboratives are agreements between industry, communities, agencies, and other actors with vested interest in a particular fishery. In Alaska, the Bristol Bay fisheries collaborative (https://www.bbsri.org/bbfc) includes the state management agency and a federally-authorized regional community development quota program, representing local fishermen, villages, and municipalities. The formal agreement commits the signatories to contribute and raise funding from the fishing industry and other stakeholders to ensure that fishery managers have sufficient resources to manage salmon for the benefit of all users. Benefits include a consolidated and reliable funding mechanism and a more coordinated research approach, that simultaneously examines multiple projects and their potential to maximize benefits to the fishery.

3.5 Industry-led cooperative research institutes and foundations

“In collaborative research, sometimes it is stakeholders who lead the way.”

There are many examples of industry-led research cooperatives that advance CR. The Pollock Conservation Cooperative Research Center is industry-funded, but managed through an academic partner, the University of Alaska Fairbanks, which supports peer-reviewed competitive research grants. Research priorities are recommended by an advisory board that includes industry representatives, university leads, and representatives from a federal or state management agency. Priorities include research to improve biological data and statistical models of stock status, analyses of incidental catch and discard mortality, ecosystem considerations, management strategy, and sustainability of protected species (Criddle, 2019). The Bering Sea Fisheries Research Foundation (BSFRF) is another industry group representing commercial fishing interests, particularly crab. BSFRF has partnered with NOAA in CR related to king, snow, and Tanner crab surveys assessments, and estimates of crab handling mortality (Foy and Goodman, 2019). Research projects are prioritized by a joint agreement between BSFRF and NOAA within a framework set by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. Cooperative projects include analyses on trawl efficiency in the NOAA bottom trawl survey. Other examples include the Aleutian Longline Fishermen’s Association Fishery Conservation Network (Behnken and Sylvester, 2019).

3.6 Cooperative research programs and development agreements

“It came from talking to each other and then working together. Now, the average fisherman is in direct collaboration with enforcement – the guys who were there to shut us down with regulations that we just couldn’t follow. We went from complete breakdown to being able to work together.”

Several research-based institutions have also developed CR programs to foster direct engagement and collaboration between industry and scientists (Table 1). Examples in the US include North Pacific Research Board (NPRB) and NOAA science center initiatives (Baker et al., 2019b; Chandler, 2019; Foy, 2019). Partnerships between fishing fleets and the science community can bring many benefits, including enhanced data access, information sharing, economic efficiency, and societal empowerment.

TABLE 1

Table 1 Established platforms for Cooperative Research and Industry-led initiatives in North America.

NPRB strongly encourages CR with industry (Baker and Smith, 2018; Baker et al., 2019b) and funds research in the North Pacific that addresses stock assessment, gear modification, electronic monitoring of fleet activity, monitoring for marine disturbance, tracking and movement studies, marine mammal depredation on fishing gear, and bycatch reduction. These efforts not only support marine observations, but often address pressing management needs and improve understanding between the research community, management agencies, and industry.

NOAA Fisheries’ Cooperative Research Program involves regional partnerships with a broad range of external stakeholders, including state and tribal managers and scientists, fishing industry participants, and academic institutions (Chandler, 2019). Benefits include increased quantity and quality of data, inclusion of stakeholder knowledge in science and management, improved relevance of research to fisheries management, and reduced costs. Other benefits include shared understanding of science, stakeholder buy-in, improved relationships with constituents, and incorporation of industry knowledge, local knowledge, and traditional knowledge in a representative framework (Foy, 2019).

In New England, the Commercial Fisheries Research Foundation was founded and led by members of the fishing community to provide fishermen with opportunities to contribute to the science and management of key fisheries resources (Mercer et al., 2019). The CFRF develops practical solutions to scientific and supply chain challenges, providing fishermen with specialized apps to collect biological and environmental data and developing scientific products (e.g., digital maps of the seafloor) to inform fishery management. CFRF initiatives have been successful in reducing bycatch through conservation engineering, improving data for stock assessments, and growing markets and consumer awareness of underutilized species (Mercer et al., 2019). Research includes fisheries-based research fleets for lobster (Homarus americanus), Jonah crab (Cancer borealis), quahog (Mercenaria mercenaria) and black sea bass (Centropristis striata).

3.7 Forums for discussion and engagement

“What I’ve seen is, you get people in the same room. At the outset, you have a dialogue. Over time, you’re exposed to information through some of the same people. And eventually you realize, ‘wait a minute, they’re actually doing something that makes sense.’ Also, ‘here’s how to improve that.’”

Much of fisheries management occurs in public forums such as local, regional, or national fishery management council meetings (e.g., US regional fishery management councils http://www.fisherycouncils.org/; ICES regional and advisory areas, https://www.ices.dk/) or commissions developed to focus on specific target species (e.g., International Halibut Commission, https://iphc.int/, Pacific Salmon Commission, https://www.psc.org/). These forums provide a framework for regular meetings including research scientists, fishery managers, fishermen, and community members and representatives. This is intended to ‘allow regional, participatory governance by knowledgeable people with a stake in fishery management’ (http://www.fisherycouncils.org/). Plans and management measures (e.g., fishing seasons, quotas, bycatch regulations, closed areas) are constituted following public review and discussion of scientific advice.

At the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), stakeholders ‘sense test’ the science, develop ideas for process reform, solicit priorities for the strategic plans, participate in advisory forums, and engage in meetings to guide research programs (Ballesteros and Dickey-Collas, 2021). ICES principles, policies, and strategic plan require stakeholder engagement and identified pathways for participation include expert groups and workshops, consultation or scoping exercises, and participatory research and co-creation of knowledge (Dankel et al., 2016; ICES, 2023).

While these meetings and associated workshops create platforms for fishermen to contribute to management processes, Councils and regulatory authorities determine allocation and limits; other more targeted forums may be more successful in fostering and incentivizing CR projects and innovation. Many other institutions integrate perspectives of fishermen, fishery managers and scientists (Table 1) to determine priorities for research, identify mechanisms for collaboration, discuss ideas on how to improve what is known about fish stocks and marine systems, and determine how to conserve the resource and optimize management.

“In the North Pacific, fishery management and the annual development of stock assessment plans has processes that directly engage industry through plan teams and other processes that enable a back-and-forth with the scientists. This is one avenue for increased engagement. The data are often straightforward but the interpretation is challenging”

4 Discussion – best practices and principles of cooperative research

“So what’s the best way forward?”

Initial success is often achieved through finding common ground and staying simple. Longterm success is often achieved by maintaining momentum, carefully examining processes, and repeating what works. Continued collaboration means constantly refreshing and revisiting aims and objectives, and refining the approach. Best practices distilled from multiple regions resulted in a set of principles for effective and sustainable CR (Table 2). Crucial elements focus on how CR should be collaborative, robust, relevant, cost-effective, timely, directed, and involve dedicated and engaged partners. Recognizing expertise and integrating disciplines and perspectives can provide opportunities to build trust. Open communication and exchange maintain integrity and focus. Clarifying roles and responsibilities confirm commitments and mitigate potential conflict. Sharing data and publishing together strengthen relationships, promote transparency, and ensure results are well-positioned to inform management.

TABLE 2

Table 2 Guidelines and Best Practices.

“Find success, and from that, benefits flow. Early on, find projects that are small, tractable, maybe pilot work that has a high chance of success. Get a win and get momentum. Over the years, you form relationships; it helps to have that trust.”

Author contributions

MB: Symposium Convenor, Steering Committee, Presenter, Conceptualization, Writing, Editing. RA: Panel. RC: Panel. KC: Presenter. DE: Keynote Speaker, Panel. RF: Keynote Speaker, Panel. JG: Steering Committee. SG: Keynote Speaker, Panel. LH: Panel. BH: Symposium Convenor. NK: Keynote Speaker, Panel. AM: Presenter. EP: Panel Moderator. MR: Panel Moderator. JR: Panel. RS: Panel. CS: Keynote Speaker, Panel. KS: Keynote Speaker, Panel, Editing. DS: Keynote Speaker, Panel. All authors contributed to the ideas presented here. All authors were invited speakers, panelists, and/or symposium convenors at the 2019 Lowell Wakefield Fisheries Symposium on cooperative research. This manuscript was organized and developed by the lead author (Symposium Chair) and reflects insights and perspectives of listed contributing authors, developed in panel discussions, invited presentations, and subsequent correspondence and exchange. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Funding

Publication costs were provided through Alaska Sea Grant.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Wakefield family and the University of Alaska Sea Grant Program for sponsorship of the Lowell Wakefield Fisheries Symposium and support of this publication, in partnership with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, North Pacific Fishery Management Council, and North Pacific Research Board. In particular, we thank Ginny Eckert, Tara Borland, Jesse Coleman, Dave Partee, and Bradley Moran, and the following institutions for their contribution and participation: Participating Industry Partners: Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Association, Alaska Whitefish Trawlers Association, Bering Sea Crab Vessels Bering Sea Fisheries Research Foundation, Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation, Center for Coastal Studies, Commercial Fisheries Research Foundation, Danish Pelagic Producers, Fishing Vessel Owners’ Association, New Zealand Rock Lobster Industry Council, Nordic Inc., North Pacific Fisheries Research Foundation, Pacific Seafood Processors, Pollock Conservation Cooperative Research Center, Seafood Harvesters of America, Silverbay Seafoods and United Catcher Boats. Wakefield Symposium Scientific Steering Committee: Matthew Baker (Chair); Paula Cullenberg, John Gauvin, Brad Harris, Keith Criddle, Chris Siddon, Diana Stram; and Noelle Yochum.

Conflict of interest

Author DE was employed by Liberty, Nordic Inc. Author MR was employed by the company Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation.

The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Barbeaux S., Dorn M., Honkalehto T., von Szalay P. (2019). Seventeen Years of Acoustic Data from Vessels of Opportunity in the North Pacific (Lowell Wakefield Symposium, Anchorage, AK). Available at: https://alaskaseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Abstract-Book-Wakefield-Symposium-2019.pdf.

Google Scholar

Baker M. R., Brandon H., Eckert G., Gauvin J., Harris B., Criddle K., et al. (2019a). Strategies for integrating industry perspectives and insights in fisheries science (Alaska Sea Grant: Lowell Wakefield Fisheries Symposium). Available at: https://alaskaseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Abstract-Book-Wakefield-Symposium-2019.pdf.

Google Scholar

Baker M. R., Gauvin J., Tibbles M. (2019b). North Pacific Research Board—Investments in cooperative research with industry (Lowell Wakefield Symposium, Anchorage, AK). Available at: https://alaskaseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Abstract-Book-Wakefield-Symposium-2019.pdf.

Google Scholar

Baker M. R., Pastoors M. A., Steins N. A., Neuenfeldt S., de Boer J., de Frees M., et al. A new era for science-industry research collaboration – a view towards the future. Front. Mar. Science.

Google Scholar

Baker M. R., Schindler D. E., Essington T. E., Hilborn R. (2014). Accounting for escape mortality in fisheries: implications for stock productivity and optimal management. Ecol. Appl. 24 (1), 55–70. doi: 10.1890/12-1871.1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Baker M. R., Smith B. (2018). North Pacific Research Board Science Plan (North Pacific Research Board, Anchorage), 132. Available at: https://lccn.loc.gov/2018911595978-0-9772670-2-6.

Google Scholar

Ballesteros M., Dickey-Collas M. (2021). The process in ICES of opening up to increased stakeholder engagement, (1980–2020). ICES Cooperative Res. Rep. 353, 26. doi: 10.17895/ices.pub.8516

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Behnken L., Sylvester T. (2019). Alaska longline fishermen’s Association Fishery Conservation Network (Lowell Wakefield Symposium, Anchorage, AK). Available at: https://alaskaseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Abstract-Book-Wakefield-Symposium-2019.pdf.

Google Scholar

Calderwood J., Pedreschi D., Ó Cuaig M., Reid D. G. (2023). Reflecting on the importance of open communication and social capital for the co-creation of knowledge in Irish fisheries. Front. Mar. Sci. 9. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2022.1081616

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chandler M. (2019). NOAA Fisheries Cooperative Research Program (Lowell Wakefield Symposium, Anchorage, AK). Available at: https://alaskaseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Abstract-Book-Wakefield-Symposium-2019.pdf.

Google Scholar

Criddle K. R. (2008). “The legal context of US fisheries management and the evolution of rights-based management in Alaska,” in Case Studies in Fisheries Self-Governance. Eds. Townsend R., Shotton R., Uchida H. (FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 504. Rome, FAO), 369–382. Available at: https://www.fao.org/3/a1497e/a1497e01.pdf.

Google Scholar

Criddle K. (2019). The Pollock Conservation Cooperative Research Center (PCCRC): a successful model of industry–university cooperative research (Lowell Wakefield Symposium, Anchorage, AK). Available at: https://alaskaseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Abstract-Book-Wakefield-Symposium-2019.pdf.

Google Scholar

Dankel D. J., Strange K., Nielsen K. N. (2016). What hat are you wearing? On the multiple roles of fishery scientists in the ICES community. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 73 (2), 209–216. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsv199

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

de Boois I. J., Steins N. A., Quirijns F. J., Kraan M. (2021). The compatibility of fishers and scientific surveys: increasing legitimacy without jeopardizing credibility. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 78, 1769–1780. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsab079

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dewees C. M. (1998). Effects of individual quota systems on New Zealand and British Columbia fisheries. Ecol. Appl. 8, S133–S138.

Google Scholar

DPPO (2023) Facts and figures. Danish Pelagic Producers Organisation. Available at: https://www.dppo.dk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Fiskeri-i-tal-2023-editing-4.pdf.

Google Scholar

Dykstra C. L., Loher T., Stewart I. J., Hicks A. C., Planas J. V. (2019). Electronic Monitoring Applications in the Directed Pacific Halibut Longline Fishery (Lowell Wakefield Symposium, Anchorage, AK). Available at: https://alaskaseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Abstract-Book-Wakefield-Symposium-2019.pdf.

Google Scholar

FAO (2022). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022 (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). doi: 10.4060/cc0461en

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Foy R. (2019). Cooperative research at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center: a requirement for sustainable fisheries management and protected resource conservation (Lowell Wakefield Symposium, Anchorage, AK). Available at: https://alaskaseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Abstract-Book-Wakefield-Symposium-2019.pdf.

Google Scholar

Foy R., Goodman S. (2019). Bering Sea Crab Research: A case study on the results of a Successful cooperative research program (Lowell Wakefield Symposium, Anchorage, AK). Available at: https://alaskaseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Abstract-Book-Wakefield-Symposium-2019.pdf.

Google Scholar

Gauvin J., Zagorski S., John Gruver J., Yochum Y., Rose C. (2019). Collaboration to Develop a Salmon Excluder for the Pollock Fishery (Lowell Wakefield Symposium, Anchorage, AK). Available at: https://alaskaseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Abstract-Book-Wakefield-Symposium-2019.pdf.

Google Scholar

Gray T. S., Catchpole T. L. (2021). The relation between fisheries–science partnerships and co-management: a case study of EU discards survival work sustainability. Sustainability 13 (6), 3108. doi: 10.3390/su13063108

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Harte M. (2007). Funding commercial fisheries management: Lessons from New Zealand. Mar. Policy 31 (4), 379–389. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2006.11.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hartley T. W., Robertson R. A. (2008). Stakeholder collaboration in fisheries research: integrating knowledge among fishing leaders and science partners in northern New England. Soc. Natural Resour. 22 (1), 42–55. doi: 10.1080/08941920802001010

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Heimann T., Verkamp H., McNamee J., Bethoney N. D. (2023). Mobilizing the fishing industry to address data gaps created by shifting species distribution. Front. Mar. Sci. 10. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2023.1043676

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hind E. J. (2015). A review of the past, the present, and the future of fishers' knowledge research: a challenge to established fisheries science. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 72, 341–358. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsu169

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

ICES (2023). ICES Stakeholder Engagement Strategy. ICES Convention, policies, and strategy. Report. doi: 10.17895/ices.pub.21815106.v1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jacobsen R. B., Wilson D. C., Ramirez-Monsalve P. (2012). Empowerment and regulation – dilemmas in participatory fisheries science. Fish Fisheries 13, 291–302. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-29799.2011.00434.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Johnson T. R., van Densen W. L. T. (2007). Benefits and organization of cooperative research for fisheries management. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 64, 834–840. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsm0144

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jones A. W., Burchard K. A., Mercer A. M., Hoey J. J., Morin M., Gianesin G., et al. (2022). Learning from the Study Fleet: maintenance of a large-scale reference fleet for northeast U.S. fisheries. Front. Mar. Sci. 8. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2022.869560

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ma B., Siegle M., Michielsens C., Morley R., Nelitz M. (2019) Improving In-Season Acquisition of Sockeye Catch-per-Set Information from Commercial Seine Fisheries in CANADA. Available at: https://alaskaseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Abstract-Book-Wakefield-Symposium-2019.pdf.

Google Scholar

Mackinson S., Brigden K., Craig J., Clarke E. D., Angus C., Pert C. C. (2023). The road to incorporating Scottish pelagic industry data in science for stock assessments. Front. Mar. Sci. 10. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2023.1075345

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mackinson S., Wilson D. C., Galiay P., Deas B. (2011). Engaging stakeholders in fisheries and marine research. Mar. Policy 35, 18–24. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2010.07.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Malecha M., Lunsford C. (2019). Cooperative Research on the Alaska Fisheries Science Center’s Longline Survey (Lowell Wakefield Symposium, Anchorage, AK). Available at: https://alaskaseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Abstract-Book-Wakefield-Symposium-2019.pdf.

Google Scholar

McDermott S., Rand K., Bryan D. (2019). Alaska Fisheries Science Center Tagging Studies: 20 Years of Cooperative Research (Lowell Wakefield Symposium, Anchorage, AK). Available at: https://alaskaseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Abstract-Book-Wakefield-Symposium-2019.pdf.

Google Scholar

Mercer A. M., Mattera F., Spencer D., Ellertson A. (2019). The Commercial Fisheries Research Foundation: engaging fishermen to support science (Lowell Wakefield Symposium, Anchorage, AK). Available at: https://alaskaseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Abstract-Book-Wakefield-Symposium-2019.pdf.

Google Scholar

Murphy J., Downs M., Wolf N., Harris B. P. (2022). Guiding principles for integrating stakeholder-based data into marine fisheries decision-making with a focus on USA fisheries management. Fish Fisheries 00, 1–9. doi: 10.1111/faf.12656

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

NOAA (2023) Fisheries of the UNITED STATES. Available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/foss/.

Google Scholar

NRC, National Research Council (2004). Cooperative research in the National Marine Fisheries Service (Washington, D.C: National Academies Press).

Google Scholar

NZRLIC (2023). Industry size and economic value (New Zealand Rock Lobster Industry Council). Available at: https://nzrocklobster.co.nz/fishery-facts/industry-economics/.

Google Scholar

Oliver C., Gauvin J., Concepcion E., Mason B. (2019). Reducing Halibut Bycatch Mortality through Industry/Government Cooperative Research (Lowell Wakefield Symposium, Anchorage, AK). Available at: https://alaskaseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Abstract-Book-Wakefield-Symposium-2019.pdf.

Google Scholar

Olsen N. A., Bahr F., Bethoney N. D., Mercer A. M., Gawarkiewicz G. (2023). Integrating fishers’ knowledge with oceanographic observations to understand changing ocean conditions in the Northeast United States. Front. Mar. Sci. 10. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2023.1144178

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rodgveller C., Lunsford C. (2019). The Evolution of the Sablefish Fishery Logbook Program in Alaska (Lowell Wakefield Symposium, Anchorage, AK). Available at: https://alaskaseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Abstract-Book-Wakefield-Symposium-2019.pdf.

Google Scholar

Sheridan T., Templin W. (2019). Alaska Hatchery Research Project: collaborative salmon fishery research in Alaska (Lowell Wakefield Symposium, Anchorage, AK). Available at: https://alaskaseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Abstract-Book-Wakefield-Symposium-2019.pdf.

Google Scholar

Sparrevohn C. R., Pastoors M., Mackinson S. (2019). Reflections on industry engagement in science and science engagement in industry—experiences from Europe (Lowell Wakefield Symposium, Anchorage, AK). Available at: https://alaskaseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Abstract-Book-Wakefield-Symposium-2019.pdf.

Google Scholar

Steins N., Baker M. R., Brooks K., Mackinson S., Stephenson R. L. Co-creating knowledge with fishers: integrating fisher knowledge contributions into marine science. Front. Mar. Science.

Google Scholar

Steins N. A., Mackinson S., Mangi S. C., Pastoors M. A., Stephenson R. L., Ballesteros M., et al. (2022). A will-o’-the-wisp? On the utility of voluntary contributions of data and knowledge from the fishing industry to marine science. Front. Mar. Sci. 9. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2022.954959

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Stewart I., Loher T., Simeon A., Erikson L., McCarthy O., Dykstra C., et al (2019). Sex Marking at Sea by the Directed Pacific Halibut Fleet (Lowell Wakefield Symposium, Anchorage, AK). Available at: https://alaskaseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Abstract-Book-Wakefield-Symposium-2019.pdf.

Google Scholar

Stokesbury K. D. E., Eilertsen D. (2019). Collaborative research in the New England scallop and groundfish fisheries (Lowell Wakefield Symposium, Anchorage, AK). Available at: https://alaskaseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Abstract-Book-Wakefield-Symposium-2019.pdf.

Google Scholar

Stokesbury K. D. E., Harris B. P. (2006). Impact of limited short-term sea scallop fishery on epibenthic community of Georges Bank closed areas. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 307, 85–100. doi: 10.3354/meps307085

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sykes D. R. (2019). Collaboration, or Collusion? The New Zealand Rock Lobster fisheries experience (Lowell Wakefield Symposium, Anchorage, AK). Available at: https://alaskaseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Abstract-Book-Wakefield-Symposium-2019.pdf.

Google Scholar

Thompson S. A., Stephenson R. L., Rose G. A., Paul S. D. (2019). Collaborative fisheries research: the Canadian fisheries research network experience. Can. J. Fisheries Aquat. Sci. 76 (5), 671–681. doi: 10.1139/cjfas-2018-045

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wallis P., Flaaten. O. (2000). “Fisheries management costs: concepts and studies,” in Microbehavior and Macroresults: Proceedings of the Tenth Biennial Conference of the International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade, Corvallis, Oregon, USA. Available at: https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/conference_proceedings_or_journals/37720d576.

Google Scholar

Wilson D. C. (2003). “Fisheries co-management and the knowledge base for management decisions,” in The fisheries co-management experience (Springer, Dordrecht), 265–279.

Google Scholar