Applying an ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) approach requires a shift from traditional single-species fisheries management to a more complex model, encompassing multi-species interactions, environmental forcing, habitat status, and socio-economic activities. EBFM recognises the need to acknowledge the effects of fishing on the whole ecosystem, considering ecological, economic, and social trade-offs and ensuring a balance between food security and healthy seas. The concept of EBFM is prioritized in EU policies including the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), and the Marine Spatial Planning Directive (MSPD). At the international level, the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) was the first to endorse an ecosystem approach in the mid-1990s, and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) strongly promotes an ecosystem approach to fisheries.
In practice, however, there are still limitations in the development and implementation of EBFM due to gaps in the data required for assessing ecosystem status, uncertainty in ecosystem modelling, and missing socio-economic components in the models. Novel assessment methods for data-poor fisheries, including non-commercial species, as well as for biodiversity and the conservation status of protected megafauna, are required to assess the status of ecosystem components. New technologies have been developed for evaluating the environmental, anthropogenic, and climatic impacts on ecosystems and fisheries and new approaches are being incorporated into ecosystem models in order to address uncertainty, and deep uncertainty. Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) ecosystem models form the basis for testing and evaluating various management and policy scenarios and allow users to explore the impact of very tangible management options, within the context of climate change, marine ecosystem health, and fisheries profitability. In order to make these tools and their outputs fit for purpose, insights on end-users, stakeholders’ and societal expectations are needed. Involving stakeholders in the design and development of the new tools, performing foresight exercises and undertaking surveys to gauge societal expectations for EBFM can address this unmet need.
The second volume of the Research Topic aims to: (i) promote the use of new e-tools that will support decision making in EBFM; (ii) assess the status of marine ecosystems under different fisheries management scenarios within the context of climate change; (iii) contribute towards capacity building in EBFM; (iv) analyse social-economic data relevant for decision making in EBFM; and (v) promote the incorporation of new data sets in EBFM models.
Keywords:
Ecocentric Management, Sustainable Fisheries, Marine Ecosystems, Ecosystem Health, EcoScope, Environmental Sustainability
Important Note:
All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.
Applying an ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) approach requires a shift from traditional single-species fisheries management to a more complex model, encompassing multi-species interactions, environmental forcing, habitat status, and socio-economic activities. EBFM recognises the need to acknowledge the effects of fishing on the whole ecosystem, considering ecological, economic, and social trade-offs and ensuring a balance between food security and healthy seas. The concept of EBFM is prioritized in EU policies including the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), and the Marine Spatial Planning Directive (MSPD). At the international level, the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) was the first to endorse an ecosystem approach in the mid-1990s, and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) strongly promotes an ecosystem approach to fisheries.
In practice, however, there are still limitations in the development and implementation of EBFM due to gaps in the data required for assessing ecosystem status, uncertainty in ecosystem modelling, and missing socio-economic components in the models. Novel assessment methods for data-poor fisheries, including non-commercial species, as well as for biodiversity and the conservation status of protected megafauna, are required to assess the status of ecosystem components. New technologies have been developed for evaluating the environmental, anthropogenic, and climatic impacts on ecosystems and fisheries and new approaches are being incorporated into ecosystem models in order to address uncertainty, and deep uncertainty. Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) ecosystem models form the basis for testing and evaluating various management and policy scenarios and allow users to explore the impact of very tangible management options, within the context of climate change, marine ecosystem health, and fisheries profitability. In order to make these tools and their outputs fit for purpose, insights on end-users, stakeholders’ and societal expectations are needed. Involving stakeholders in the design and development of the new tools, performing foresight exercises and undertaking surveys to gauge societal expectations for EBFM can address this unmet need.
The second volume of the Research Topic aims to: (i) promote the use of new e-tools that will support decision making in EBFM; (ii) assess the status of marine ecosystems under different fisheries management scenarios within the context of climate change; (iii) contribute towards capacity building in EBFM; (iv) analyse social-economic data relevant for decision making in EBFM; and (v) promote the incorporation of new data sets in EBFM models.
Keywords:
Ecocentric Management, Sustainable Fisheries, Marine Ecosystems, Ecosystem Health, EcoScope, Environmental Sustainability
Important Note:
All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.