Shin, Y-J., Shannon, L. J., Bundy, A., Coll, M., Aydin, K., Bez, N., Blanchard, J. L., Borges, M. F., Diallo, I., Diaz, E., Heymans, J. J., Hill, L., Johannesen, E., Jouffre, D., Kifani, S., Labrosse, P., Link, J. S., Mackinson, S., Masski, H., Möllmann, C., Neira, S., Ojaveer, H., ould Mohammed Abdallahi, K., Perry, I., Thiao, D., Yemane, D., and Cury, P. M. 2010. Using indicators for evaluating, comparing, and communicating the ecological status of exploited marine ecosystems. 2. Setting the scene. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67: 692–716. Background is provided to the selection of ecological indicators by the IndiSeas Working Group, and the methodology adopted for analysis and comparison of indicators across exploited marine ecosystems is documented. The selected indicators are presented, how they are calculated is explained, and the philosophy behind the comparative approach is given. The combination of selected indicators is intended to reflect different dynamics, tracking processes that display differential responses to fishing, and is meant to provide a complementary means of assessing marine ecosystem trends and states. IndiSeas relied on inputs and insights provided by the local experts from participating ecosystems, helping to understand state and trend indicators and to disentangle the effect of other potential ecosystem drivers, such as climate variability. This project showed that the use of simple and available indicators under an ecosystem approach can achieve a real, wide-reaching evaluation of marine ecosystem status caused by fishing. This is important because the socio-economics of areas where fishing activities develop differs significantly around the globe, and in many countries, insufficient data are available for complex and exhaustive analyses.

This document is a U.S. government work and is not subject to copyright in the United States. IndiSeas ("Indicators for the Seas") is a collaborative international working group that was established in 2005 to evaluate the status of exploited marine ecosystems using a suite of indicators in a comparative framework. An initial shortlist of seven ecological indicators was selected to quantify the effects of fishing on the broader ecosystem using several criteria (i.e., ecological meaning, sensitivity to fishing, data availability, management objectives and public awareness). The suite comprised: (i) the inverse coefficient of variation of total biomass of surveyed species, (ii) mean fish length in the surveyed community, (iii) mean maximum life span of surveyed fish species, (iv) proportion of predatory fish in the surveyed community, (v) proportion of under and moderately exploited stocks, (vi) total biomass of surveyed species, and (vii) mean trophic level of the landed catch. In line with the Nagoya Strategic Plan of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2011-2020), we extended this suite to emphasize the broader biodiversity and conservation risks in exploited marine ecosystems. We selected a subset of indicators from a list of empirically based candidate biodiversity indicators initially established based on ecological significance to complement the original IndiSeas indicators. The additional selected indicators were: (viii) mean intrinsic vulnerability index of the fish landed catch, (ix) proportion of non-declining exploited species in the surveyed community, (x) catch-based marine trophic index, and (xi) mean trophic level of the surveyed community. Despite the lack of data in some ecosystems, we also selected (xii) mean trophic level of the modelled community, and (xiii) proportion of discards in the fishery as extra indicators. These additional indicators were examined, along with the initial set of IndiSeas ecological indicators, to evaluate whether adding new biodiversity indicators provided useful additional information to refine our understanding of the status evaluation of 29 exploited marine ecosystems. We used state and trend analyses, and we performed correlation, redundancy and multivariate tests. Existing developments in ecosystembased fisheries management have largely focused on exploited species. Our study, using mostly fisheries independent survey-based indicators, highlights that biodiversity and conservation-based indicators are complementary to ecological indicators of fishing pressure. Thus, they should be used to provide additional information to evaluate the overall impact of fishing on exploited marine ecosystems.

No abstract

Fisheries have had major negative impacts on marine ecosystems, and effective fisheries management and governance are needed to achieve sustainable fisheries, biodiversity conservation goals and thus good ecosystem status. To date, the IndiSeas programme (Indicators for the Seas) has focussed on assessing the ecological impacts of fishing at the ecosystem scale using ecological indicators. Here, we , 2017, 18, 412-439 explore fisheries 'Management Effectiveness' and 'Governance Quality' and relate this to ecosystem health and status. We developed a dedicated expert survey, focused at the ecosystem level, with a series of questions addressing aspects of management and governance, from an ecosystem-based perspective, using objective and evidence-based criteria. The survey was completed by ecosystem experts (managers and scientists) and results analysed using ranking and multivariate methods. F I S H and F I S H E R I E SResults were further examined for selected ecosystems, using expert knowledge, to explore the overall findings in greater depth. Higher scores for 'Management Effectiveness' and 'Governance Quality' were significantly and positively related to ecosystems with better ecological status. Key factors that point to success in delivering fisheries and conservation objectives were as follows: the use of reference points for management, frequent review of stock assessments, whether Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) catches were being accounted for and addressed, and the inclusion of stakeholders. Additionally, we found that the implementation of a long-term management plan, including economic and social dimensions of fisheries in exploited ecosystems, was a key factor in successful, sustainable fisheries management. Our results support the thesis that good ecosystem-based management and governance, sustainable fisheries and healthy ecosystems go together.

Fisheries provide nutrition and livelihoods for coastal populations, but many fisheries are fully or over-exploited and we lack an approach for analysing which factors affect management tool performance. We conducted a literature review of 390 studies to assess how fisheries characteristics affected management tool performance across both small-scale and large-scale fisheries. We defined success as increased or maintained abundance or biomass, reductions in fishing mortality or improvements in population status. Because the literature only covered a narrow set of biological factors, we also conducted an expert elicitation to create a typology of broader fishery characteristics, enabling conditions and design considerations that affect performance. The literature suggested that the most commonly used management tool in a region was often the most successful, although the scale of success varied. Management tools were more often deemed successful when used in combination, particularly pairings of tools that controlled fishing mortality or effort with spatial management. Examples of successful combinations were the use of catch limits with quotas and limited entry, and marine protected areas with effort restrictions. The most common factors associated with inadequate biological performance were 'structural' issues, including poor design or implementation. The expert-derived typologies revealed strong local leadership, high community involvement and governance