Do not shoot the messenger: ICES advice for an ecosystem approach to fisheries management in the European Union

Abstract

The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) occupies a central role in the advice system to support the implementation of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management (EAFM) in the European Union (EU). Despite improvements, its capacity to deliver ecosystem advice seems to be far from a fully functional operational framework. To what extent availability of appropriate scientific advice is a barrier for a more widespread use of an EAFM in Europe remains an open question. Building on the findings of a large research project, this article explores what advice ICES can provide. The article concludes that: (i) ICES has taken a leading role in generating an EAFM framework in which management decisions can operate; (ii) the advice “suppliers” and the advice “users” agree on the feasibility of using existing knowledge to “do EAFM now”; (iii) ICES can address a range of shortcomings, but some of the present bottlenecks demand concerted action between the advisory system and the political realm. The implementation of an EAFM requires consistency between science and management. ICES appears as well-suited to facilitate the dialogue on applying an EAFM in the EU, but it is unrealistic to expect ICES to produce all the answers.

Common Fisheries Policy, ecosystem advice, ecosystem approach to fisheries management, ecosystem-based management, fisheries management, Marine Strategy Framework Directive

Introduction

In recent years, the debate about the ecosystem approach to fisheries management (EAFM) has shifted from the definition of the concept towards implementation (Link and Browman, 2014). Researchers have analysed the challenges and barriers related to the scientific knowledge base (Frid et al., 2006; Symes and Hoefnagel, 2010; Österblom, et al., 2011) and the institutional framework in the European Union (EU) (Jennings and Rice, 2011; Ramírez-Monsalve, et al., 2016b). However, challenges associated with how the advice system has embedded an EAFM have proven more difficult to address. This article explores the advisory process developed by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to support an EAFM in EU policies. By analysing the ICES mandate, implementation strategy, and users’ demands, we aim to investigate to what extent the scientific advice is either slowing down or facilitating progress in the application of an EAFM.

ICES is a global network organization, enabling the coordination and research efforts of near 700 marine institutes in its twenty member countries, five affiliates and multiple international initiatives. The organization facilitates the framework within which more than 5000 individual scientists work together to provide the scientific basis for advice (figures from ICES’ website, July 2017). ICES provides biological advice on fisheries resources and ecosystems of the North-East Atlantic to diverse clients, including nation states and international bodies. Besides the EU, several major clients are pursuing an ecosystem approach (EA) in different ways (see O’Boyle and Jamieson, 2006; Olsen et al., 2007; Sígurjónsson, 2008; Pitcher et al., 2009; Link et al., 2011; Levin et al., 2014; Dolan et al., 2016; Gullestad et al., 2017; Harvey et al., 2017; ICES, 2016a). Although beyond the scope of this article, it is therefore clear that ICES needs procedures that do not only accommodate the EU.

For most nation state clients, legal responsibilities are historically divided between a body in charge of the marine environment and another responsible for fisheries. This division is also apparent in the EU Commission with the Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE), responsible for the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), and the Directorate General for Environment (DG-ENV), responsible for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). A similar divide is present among clients in the shape of international organizations. In the fisheries domain, it includes the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), which is the regional fisheries management organization (RFMO) for the area, and the Joint Russian-Norwegian Fisheries Commission, responsible for management of fisheries on joint stocks in the Barents Sea. And, in the marine environment domain, the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic (OSPAR) and the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission–Helsinki Commission (HELCOM), which are cooperation bodies for governments regarding marine environment matters in the North East Atlantic and the Baltic respectively.

Concerning the EU, ICES occupies a central role by providing scientific advice to primarily the CFP through the Commission/DG MARE, which has the power to initiate fisheries policies, propose new legislation to be considered by decision-makers, implement decisions, oversee member states’ (MS) implementation, etc. In addition, ICES provides advice to DG-ENV and EU MS regarding the MSFD, which aims at securing the protection of the marine environment, setting a goal of achieving good environmental status (GES) by 2020.

The relationship between ICES and the EU constitutes part of an advisory landscape comprising other bodies. Formally, the Commission acts on input from its Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF), a group of commissioned external experts. Therefore the “external” scientific advice received by the Commission is reviewed by STECF. As shown in Figure 1, this relates to scientific advice received from ICES, but also to advice from the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean and from science committees of RFMOs to which the EU is contracting party.

Figure 1.

Main aspects of the advisory system of the CFP. “?” indicates request for advice. “!” indicates delivery of advice. The figure draws on Hegland (2006), Wilson (2009), and ICES (2016c). SCs RMFOS are the scientific committees of the RFMO; Reg. MS Groups are the Regional Groups of the MS. Note: Not depicted in Figure 1 is the regular commissioning and use by the Commission of tenders and research projects, and—later in the legislative process—the European Parliament’s commissioning of reports and use of parliamentary hearings to strengthen the knowledge base ahead of decisions.

The Advisory Councils (ACs), in contrast, provide experience-based knowledge and stakeholders opinions (fisheries sector organizations, environmental organizations, and others) in the form of advice on particular fisheries or specific regional seas, often drawing on science. The ACs are discussion arenas designed for favouring consensus among multiple interests from different stakeholders, and their roles in the advisory process have been intensively studied (see e.g. Coers et al., 2012; Hatchard and Gray, 2014; Linke and Jentoft, 2014).

Internally in the Commission, DG MARE draws on support from the Joint Research Centre, a supplier of various services related to science to the different directorates. Finally, following the latest CFP reform (EU, 2013), cooperative regional (organized by sea basin) member state groups have been established to submit joint recommendations for inter alia multiannual management plans. Recommendations from these groups shall draw on advice from the ACs, though the approach for doing so appears underdeveloped or unclear in some regions (Eliasen et al., 2015; WEAF, 2016).

Over the past 15 years, ICES has gone through major reforms, driven by a need to improve efficiency and respond to the evolution of policy and science (Stange et al., 2012). The result is an organization focused on delivering science and advice to meet sector-specific requirements while considering cross-cutting issues such as the EA, maritime spatial planning and climate change. ICES progress to the EA has been analysed in Wilson (2009) and Stange et al., (2012) while this article discusses the most recent developments related to the EU.

In a context of knowledge politicization and scientification of politics (Carter, 2013), ICES advice has evolved from an exploratory role towards a normative one through the implementation of the precautionary approach (Hoydal, 2007). Considering the main changes in the form of advice provided by the Advisory Committee (ACOM; see Table 1) to recipients of ICES advice, the EA has posed the biggest challenge (see Wilson, 2009 for an overview of ICES past advice and the tensions between comprehensive vs. particularistic approaches to an EAFM). For the EU, an initial core dilemma in this process was the lack of legal frameworks, which could trigger requests for EA advice. Subsequently, after both the CFP and the MSFD included relevant law, the absence of a formalized process for an integrated advice into management provided a challenge.

Table 1.

Dominant forms of ICES advice in the ACOM^a

Period	Policy basis	Dominant forms of advice	Assumptions
1980s	Long-term optimization of harvest	Stock advice	Predictability
2000s	Precautionary approach regarding harvest from single stocks	Stock advice Mixed-species advice	Uncertainty
2010s	Precautionary and integrated approach regarding fish stocks in the ecosystem	Stock advice Fishery Advice Ecosystem Advice	Interdependency

a

See Wilson (2009), Lassen et al. (2014), and Wenzel (2017) for an overview of ICES advice.

Despite the improvement in the ICES capacity to deliver ecosystem advice (see Rice and Rogers, 2006) it appears far from a fully functional operational framework for fisheries management. This article intends to increase the understanding on what advice ICES can, in fact, provide to the EU.

With this objective in mind, we review the developments in ICES towards providing ecosystem advice for fisheries to the EU. First, we summarize the policy context that shapes the EU demands for advice. Second, we analyse the scope of the advice framework agreed between the EU and ICES for 2016 and what ICES is currently delivering. Third, based on qualitative research at EU level (Table 2), we outline what actors and stakeholders expect from ecosystem advice. Finally, we identify main shortcomings and discuss how ICES could address them.

Table 2.

Description of the methods used for the collection of primary data for this article.

Method	Research focus	Topics	Participants
Focus Group, June 2014	Gain information from the interaction between participants, which discuss issues in their terms, revealing normative as well as substantive perceptions	To identify the advice generated within the ACs.To explore alternatives for ACs to provide EAFM advice.	ACs secretariats from the North Sea AC (NSAC), the North Western Waters AC (NWWAC), Pelagic AC (PAC), and Mediterranean AC (MEDAC)
Informant interviews, July to October 2014	In depth-interviews with selected (non-random) group of experts.	To identify ACs constraints in terms of resources, scope and processes.	NSAC, NWWAC, PAC, MEDAC, and the secretariats from the South Western Waters and the Baltic (BSAC)
Round Table Discussion, January 2015.	Panel of participants covering a particular subject.	To analyse the challenges regarding the EAF in the CFP.To explore operational options on how to set-up the EAF process	DG MARE, ICES, STECF, and The European Fisheries and Aquaculture Research Organizations (EFARO)
Case study meetings (19) in seven case studies in all EU sea basins	Multi-stakeholders platform to develop a decision-support framework for implementing an EAFM	To define a fisheries management problem, to identify alternative management scenarios, and to advance in providing support for the development of a management plan.	NSAC, PELAC, MEDAC, NWWAC, BSAC, policy-makers at regional and national level, research organizations
Online surveya, October–December 2015	Standard set of questions	To gather structured information on stakeholders views about EAFM advice and participation	Members of the seven ACs (Industry, NGOs, other organizations)
Workshop on the EAF Advice in the EU October 2016	Interactive session combining qualitative research, brainstorming and problem-solving.	To review the current advisory process and discuss possible changes in scoping processes and regionalization	DG-MARE, ACs, STECF, ICES, Fishing industry representatives, NGOs

a

The response rate to the survey was low (11%). The survey data were used for qualitative analysis.

The policy context in the EU: between healthy fish stocks and healthy marine ecosystems

The delivery of science-based advice from ICES to the EU has since 1987 been managed through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) (Since 2017 the official designation is “Administrative Arrangement.”) between the two organizations. Notably, ICES was ahead of EU policies—and the policies of other ICES clients—in pointing out the need for scientific advice on the ecosystem context (see Rice, 2005). Since 1992 the ICES Working Group on Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activities has considered the framework and application of the EA, providing leadership in the development of major concepts, such as those underlying the MSFD and the use of indicators to inform assessment and management actions. The ICES’ Strategic plans included the approach (e.g. in 1999 and 2001) promoting the adaptation of the organizational structure (e.g. creating the Advisory Committee on Ecosystems on Ecosystems in 2001).

The reform of the CFP in 2002 called for a progressive implementation of an EAFM, but it was not until the approval of the MSFD (2008) and the latest CFP reform (2013) that the approach can be considered embedded in the policy framework. The EU understands the MSFD as the general basis for implementing an EA to the marine environment “which fully benefit sustainable fisheries by ensuring integrative management of all human, environmental and economic interactions in the maritime field” (EC, 2008b: 4). The CFP narrows the scope of the EA to the fisheries realm. A review of the implications of the different focus and locus in both policies has been presented by Ramírez-Monsalve et al. (2016b), whereas broader governance issues are addressed in Garcia et al. (2014).

The conceptual debate on the EA has been lively and can within the ICES community be traced through workshops and strategic plans (ICES, 2000, 2004a; Wenzel, 2017). At a certain stage, there was a conceptual distinction between ecosystem-based and EA, where “based” was considered to be about ecosystem engineering and “approach” was interpreted to mean precautionary. Currently, the terms ecosystem-based management and EA have been generalized (as in e.g. Fanning et al., 2011; Link and Browman, 2017). A proposed differentiation between EAFM and EBFM is based on whether the focus is on single stocks or multiple fisheries within an ecosystem (see Dolan et al., 2016). But the European policy has somehow blurred the lines by using ecosystem-based approach in the MSFD and EAFM in the fisheries policy (Prellezo and Curtin, 2015).

In this article the term EAFM will be used, and the ICES’ EBFM should be read as a synonym. However, the artificial boundary around the EAFM concept—used for analytical purposes—should recognize the fundamental need for an appropriate level of integration among all the sectors operating in the marine ecosystem (see ICES, 2004b; Cowan et al., 2012).

Formally, ICES’ advice is developed within a specific organizational structure responding to concrete client demands within a set advisory process. Hence, in the EU the ICES’ advisory process is caught in a dilemma between the limitation of the single-sector scope of EA within the CFP and an understanding that EA by its very nature must be cross-sectoral. In practice, the inclusion of ecosystem considerations in fisheries advice has been stated in general terms in several MoUs and described as an incremental inclusion of knowledge:

“The advice shall be based on an ecosystem approach. This will be implemented incrementally so that any information on the interactions between fisheries, the fish stocks and the marine ecosystem is considered and incorporated in the advice as it becomes available” (MoU, 2007).

Other fisheries related clients used a similar language. However, the CFP (as many fisheries policies) still had its main focus on the single stock total allowable catch. Serving this need, the advisory focus remained on single stock fishing opportunities. The integration of ecosystem considerations into the final stock advice was rather small (e.g. referring to escapement biomass to support predators) due to limitations of the underlying science and management framework. Other pieces of advice, which may be regarded as elements of an EAFM, included advice on avoidance of bycatches of mammals and on area closures to protect bottom habitats. These illustrate the tension between the extremes of, at one end, managing fisheries with the aim to restore or create specific properties of marine ecosystems, and at the other end to manage fisheries with a general aim of a minimal unwanted impact, such as expressed in the precautionary approach. The former may emphasize the use of various measures regarding how fishing is performed concerning location, timing and gear properties such as mesh size and bottom contact, while the latter may emphasize the overall extent of the impact such as the total outtake relative to populations in the ecosystem. In practice, both sets of tools are relevant in both cases.

A more formalized and policy-linked inclusion of EAFM in the EU was introduced in 2007 (see Wilson, 2009 for previous stages) with the preparation of the MSFD and ICES started to receive requests for fisheries advice including considerations of this part of EU policy. The policy landscape for ICES advice also includes the Water Framework Directive (2000), the Birds Directive (2009), the Habitat Directive (1992), the EU Research Programmes and the overarching framework of the Integrated Maritime Policy (2007), which directly addresses the EA as a principle to guide EU action.

A consequence of the formalized introduction of EAFM in the EU was that the formal requirements for integrating ecosystem considerations on fisheries advice became different for ICES clients. For the EU it was critical to ensure that there was no conflict between the advice given regarding fisheries and regarding marine environmental policy as specified in the MSFD and other directives. For other fisheries clients, the linkage was different. For instance, for NEAFC reference was made to various United Nations (UN) agreements regarding the environmental impact of high sea fisheries while for the Joint Russian-Norwegian Fisheries Commission there was no parallel joint marine environmental policy to refer to. When advice could not be given separately to these clients, such as for stocks which are relevant to more than one client, it was necessary to ensure that the clients concerned would have a common understanding of how an EAFM was to be understood in each case. In practice, this took place in discussions on the annual meeting between ICES and the advice clients.

Another problem was that clients have different interpretations of the UN Stocks Agreement (1995) requirement regarding Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). Although MSY was introduced at a time and in a context when the focus was entirely on single stocks, it shall be reinterpreted in an ecosystem context to address issues such as food web integrity. From a science perspective, this requires incorporation of biological species interactions in the ecosystem as well as the issue that most fisheries catch several species simultaneously. Mixed fisheries advice became a priority (see Wilson 2009: 161–166; Reeves et al., 2009), but it shows the impossibility of the objective of MSY for all stocks. This issue is interpreted differently by diverse clients and has, specifically in the EU context, caused a policy tension regarding how to deal with the trade-off between fishing opportunities on various stocks.

In the following, the specific remits for ICES advice are explored by analysing the EU-ICES MoU for 2016. The EU aims for a long-term ideal of managing marine ecosystems with a full cross-sectoral integration. However, the institutional structures for doing this are far from being in place (see Ramirez et al., 2016a, b; Patrick and Link, 2015b). A marine EA across EU policies (CFP, MSFD, and the other directives above) appears currently unfeasible and politically unmanageable (RTD, 2015).

The scope of EAFM advice in the MoU

The ICES-EU MoU provides the framework for the provision of services and scientific advisory deliverables in support of the management of activities affecting the marine ecosystem. Recurring advice has a direct financial agreement on a budget and covers: (i) marine ecosystems and human impacts; (ii) fisheries and their impact on the ecosystem; and (iii) fish stocks. The MoU also enables specific agreements, including payment for cost, to be set up between the EU and ICES about other issues –the so-called non-recurring advice. In the 2016 MoU, this includes inter alia advice about other aspects of the MSFD. The MoU without the detailed budget is publicly available on the ICES website (http://www.ices.dk/explore-us/Documents/Cooperation agreements/EU/2016_MoU_EC_ICES_web.pdf).

The ecosystem advice requested by the EU

Currently, the science aspect of an EA to fisheries in the MoU appears to be defined as (i) the consistency between the CFP and the MSFD and (ii) that fish stocks advice should consider biological interactions between fish stocks. The request for consistency is relaxed for ecosystem deliverables by setting an incremental implementation “as information on the interactions between fish stocks and the marine ecosystem becomes available” (MoU, 2016: 12). Therefore

“The recurring advisory deliverables shall be based on an ecosystem approach consistent with the targets and objectives of Good Environmental Status where these have been fixed under the MSFD. This will be implemented incrementally…”

The demands from the MSFD include proposals for reference points for descriptors and assessments of fisheries disturbance of marine ecosystems where reference levels have been established. Reference levels are set by EU MS in an interactive process with the Commission within the MSFD; individual MS may choose to act on scientific advice from national sources or advice obtained through intergovernmental bodies such as OSPAR, HELCOM, or ICES (see ICES, 2012b).

In addition

“ICES will inform the EU of any notable impact of other factors on and imbalances in ecosystem structure that may prejudice the stocks of commercially valuable species and their long term exploitation” (MoU, 2016: 12).

Regarding fish stocks

“The advice should be prepared taking into account the biological interactions between the fish stocks, such as predation or competition” (MoU, 2016:14).

The process of an EAFM in the MoU

The MoU does not specify a process for conducting an EAFM. Although it includes requirements for transparency to stakeholders and to the EU itself, it does not identify dialogues or processes by which interaction with stakeholders and policy makers may help scientist to identify societal choices regarding an EAFM in more detail than what is stated in policy documents. The process is thus in the MoU largely seen as a one-way information stream from science to stakeholders where stakeholders may be observers to the process and documentation and data are made public. Commission officials have generally held the view that stakeholders’ engagement, beyond transparency in the scientific process, is the sole responsibility and competence of government bodies, through which information on societal choices is mediated to scientists.

However, for many issues concerning an EAFM, it is not feasible to specify beforehand—in sufficient detail—which choices of risks and trade-offs are most pertinent for scientific analysis. In the absence of a clear delineation between stakeholders’ knowledge and stakeholders’ preferences, ICES has two options: (i) to make its best guess, which may result in advice being seen as less relevant for subsequent policy discussions and may be perceived as scientists overstepping their role by making policy choices; or (ii) set up its own process to engage with stakeholders and policy makers as required for each specific request for advice. ICES has in practice chosen to do the latter (e.g. ICES, 2017a). The Commission has not opposed this, and direct costs for organizing such processes can normally be financially covered under the MoU.

Resourcing EAFM through the MoU

The MoU includes a financial agreement where the EU pays ICES to provide recurrent advice on annual fishing opportunities through a set budget and non-recurrent advice on an advice-by-advice basis. In both cases, the managing process, including costs of meetings and supporting staff in the ICES Secretariat is covered, whereas the core resource—the time of the scientists doing the analysis and developing the advice– is not covered by the MoU. Thus, the availability of scientists depends on either governments’ funding for scientists to directly participate in the ICES advisory work; or those individual scientists and the organizations for which they work agree to support their participation.

This has created resource problems for an EAFM as the government funding of expertise targeted to support ICES advice tends to be aligned to the policies of yesteryear. In most EU (and ICES non-EU) countries there are specific institutes funded to support annual fish stock assessments. These may either be institutes receiving core funding or university departments, which have a contract to deliver advice support to fisheries policy. Other institutes typically receive some financial support to participate in the advisory process through the Data Collection Framework Directive (EC, 2008a). There are generally no similar arrangements for marine ecologists or social scientists, both of which are in high demand whenever processes for EAFM are set up. The result is a bias in the availability of the ICES process to develop and implement an EAFM, including in some cases that relevant and necessary expertise regarding specific subjects may not be available to ICES. It could be argued that this represents a resourcing issue at the national institutes’ level. However, if an EAFM is a priority, resources to support it should be allocated across all levels.

What is ICES currently delivering?

ICES provides the scientific basis for ecosystem-based decision making for the management of fisheries and other sectors in the ICES area. It delivers knowledge to explore trade-offs and uses its network, data centre, and advisory role to provide the scientific basis for operational management. As the process is incremental, ICES hopes to respond appropriately to the changing demands of a developing policy landscape and dynamic ecosystem.

Notwithstanding the formal provisions of the MoU, the consolidated framework to support DG-MARE for three decades contrasts with the absence of a similar set-up to provide advice to DG-ENV (but see e.g. ICES, 2004b; Wilson, 2009). Proactively, ICES has instigated an expert group to report out on the potential rationale for ICES ecosystem/environmental advice. In the meantime, the advice is developed in an ad hoc manner with different processes based on specific users’ demands.

ICES provides advice on criteria and methodological standards for GES descriptors of the MSFD (EC, 2008c; Annex I), which describe GES in more detail. These include: D1 (Biodiversity, e.g. ICES, 2016b), D3: Populations of commercially exploited fish and shellfish (e.g. ICES, 2017b), D4 (Food webs, e.g. ICES, 2015a), D6 (Seafloor integrity, e.g. ICES, 2015b), and D11 (Energy, including water noise, e.g. ICES, 2014).

In practice, ICES generates operational information products to underpin the exploration of what can be called the safe-operational space for trade-offs (constrained optima). Some spatial management and regional priorities are addressed through the advice being given by ecoregion, which reflects both biogeography and the management of the area by national and regional authorities.

Three main outputs support an EAFM:

• Advice on fishing opportunities (see e.g. ICES, 2016c) can be viewed as the “traditional” ICES product. The specific advice text is based on agreed management plans, where such exist and are recognized by ICES as having been evaluated as sustainable. Where such plans do not exist the advice text is based on MSY, an approach which has been agreed between ICES and the fisheries advice clients. However, it has evolved from a focus on single species catch options to include an assessment of the stock status, the exploitation rate concerning MSY and projections of the consequences of fisheries actions for each stock impacted by fisheries in the European area. The assessments are a mixture of analytical and knowledge-limited (proxy) approaches which encompass target species, bycatch species, and deep sea and elasmobranch fisheries. Researchers are encouraged to consider the evidence of productivity changes in the ecosystem or fish stocks, and their implications for management. Advice on fishing opportunities is based on rules, with associated reference points, which reflect policy objectives. Mixed fisheries considerations address the consequences of technical interactions in multi-stock, multi-gear fisheries. The advice is currently available for the North Sea and is under development for the other ecoregions.

ICES’ approach is to integrate the EA in the reference points whenever there is sufficient information to do so. Such information includes knowledge about the current state of the ecosystem and any effects of the ecosystem on stock dynamics. Where appropriate, estimates of the temporal variation of natural mortality are built into the stock assessments to consider the implications for fish for top predators or density effects on stock dynamics. ICES builds precautionarity into its advice by estimating buffers on biomass limit reference points (lower limits of stocks). For short-lived species, an “escapement” approach is used, that accounts for the need to maintain a certain biomass for sustainability and ecosystem functioning.

• The fisheries overviews (e.g. ICES, 2017c), of which first examples were released in 2017, include: a summary of the activities and impacts of the fleets fishing in the ICES area; a regional assessment of the performance of fisheries management regarding targets, as well as an assessment of GES for MSFD descriptor 3 (ICES, 2012a); a description of the fleets and their interactions with the ecosystem; a description of the consequences and options for management of mixed fisheries; maps of the distributions of fishing by gear type and maps of the impact on the seabed of trawled fishing gear; and a risk assessment by gear of the impact of bycatch on endangered, protected, or threatened species.

• The ecosystems overviews (e.g. ICES, 2017d; see Wilson, 2009: 184) place fishing into a broader context alongside other activities that exert pressure on the marine system, as well as the trends and status of the marine ecosystem as a whole. ICES may regard this as a way to highlight the need for a cross-sectoral perspective, but the actual use by policy makers remains to be seen. Using qualitative methods, the overviews identify and focus on the top five priority human activities and resulting pressures that can be locally managed within each ecoregion. Quantitative methods to further assess these pressures are currently being developed. In many ecoregions, ICES considers that fishing contributes to major anthropogenic pressures on the ecosystem. The approach of assessing activities, pressures, and state of the ecosystem provides the flexibility to monitor for cumulative effects of the pressures on the ecosystem and to accommodate impacts of climate change as they become apparent.

In addition to the above, ICES is regularly asked to provide tailored advice on issues relating to the EA (e.g. ICES, 2017e). In recent years, methods have been devised to assess the status of “information poor” stocks, monitor recreational fishing, and explore MSY as a range of catch rather than as a point estimate. The latter is, however, more triggered by the institutional requirements within the EU than by a genuine wish by policy makers to fully address the problems inherent in the use of the MSY in legal text and implementation. ICES advice relating to MSY therefore similarly still falls short of transgressing a concept like single-stock MSY.

The EU has also requested ICES advice on distributional shifts of fish stocks (ICES, 2017g). Likewise, advice has been issued on the impact of aquaculture (ICES, 2016d). The ICES data centre also hosts and maintains the OSPAR and HELCOM impulsive noise register (http://www.ices.dk/marine-data/data-portals/Pages/underwater-noise.aspx), marine litter datasets (collected in conjunction with other coordinated surveys), a biodiversity portal (aimed at seal and bird populations; http://www.ices.dk/marine-data/data-portals/Pages/Biodiversity.aspx) and the North Atlantic vulnerable marine ecosystem (VME) portal (http://www.ices.dk/marine-data/data-portals/Pages/vulnerable-marine-ecosystems.aspx).

Transparency, adaptation, and inclusiveness are guiding principles for ICES (2013a). Transparency is at the core of science and means that ICES science processes, documentation, and products must be open to observation and scrutiny for the users of the science and advice. The evidence base and methodologies used to provide knowledge products are openly accessible in the highest resolution that the underlying data sources allow. Adaptation—a suitable response to changes in the marine science and policy landscape—and inclusiveness are as well essential to an EA. ICES engages with the users of its science and advice to define the issues of concern, understand interests, bring in other sources of knowledge, and ensure that advice relates to societal choices. Inclusiveness is implemented through multiple pathways, from scoping exercises to benchmark processes. In fact, the benchmark process to decide on the most appropriate assessment methodology (see ICES, 2013b) is now widely used throughout ICES to enable stakeholder input into method development and knowledge acquisition. The Industry-science partnerships also feed information through to ICES products. ICES works hard to ensure the legitimacy and credibility of its advice, an effort widely recognized by the ACs (ACs, 2014). Nonetheless, the use of experience-based knowledge in ICES advice appears to be rather limited and anecdotic (see Mackinson et al., 2011: 21), calling for both further research and strategic actions.

Notwithstanding the advances in the knowledge foundations to support an EAFM for EU policies, there are some gaps regarding the content and processes of what ICES is currently delivering:

• Lack of consideration of limits to the carrying capacity of the system. Such approaches are applied elsewhere e.g. in Alaskan fisheries (Dicosimo et al., 2010) when setting the total catch limit, and for New England Fisheries where the newly developed Fishery Ecosystem Plans for the George Banks Ecological Productivity Units is being proposed for mixed fisheries management (NEFMC, 2016).

• A framework for the provision of advice on ecosystem aspects is missing (but see Wilson, 2009), except for catch opportunities. Nevertheless, ICES has provided advice for the Ecologically or Biologically Sensible Areas process (Rice et al., 2014) and has created a tool to show how assessments are made when delineating VMEs in the NEAFC area (see ICES Data Portals).

• Lack of a suite of indicators (except precautionary and MSY reference points) to quantitatively assess the state of the marine system and the effectiveness of management action. The national scientists that form the so-called “ICES community” have advanced research on the use of indicators (ICES, 2005; Link, 2005; Samhouri et al., 2009; Rochet and Trenkel, 2009; Shin et al., 2010; Thorpe et al., 2016) but validation issues hamper their implementation. Fisheries and ecosystem overviews would benefit from an increase in the use of quantitative methods, although this is not necessarily a task for ICES. Any exploration of the trade-offs required for the management of marine activities will probably require intersections with knowledge providers on fishing activity and the impact of fisheries.

• The ecosystem overviews have been perceived to be descriptive with limited capability to inform actual short-term decision-making. However, they have deliberatively kept an informative nature after a thoughtful analysis of their role in the advisory process (ICES, 2013c). Advice on management options and trade-offs when meeting targets for the state of the environment are excluded from the overviews. The design aims to “highlight ICES capacity to provide integrated advice that is expected to meet the future needs of client commissions” (ICES, 2013c: 2). Using the ecosystem overviews in the policy process would imply the EU to request a tailored analysis of management options linked to the overview outputs. The formulation of concrete operational management objectives so far is policy linked (CFP and MSFD respectively).

• Advances in scientific knowledge are focused on exploring tool gaps (models, indicators, etc.) and potential applications. However, before such applications can be applied in the ICES advisory process, they need to be discussed and agreed to be found useful. Within the EU there is a debate on whether the scope of ICES is enough to provide EAFM advice or if there are some components that should be placed elsewhere in the advisory system (e.g. in STECF, see Figure 1). Undoubtedly, issues related to societal choices, as well as to the economic and social considerations are critical to an EAFM process.

• The move towards regional management poses a challenging for the advisory system, as it requires a broader scope. To accommodate this challenge, a first attempt to establish a suitable process was presented to the ICES ACOM in September 2016, which is currently being reformulated (ICES, 2016, pers. comm.). If successfully designed and carried out, this would allow for science and knowledge to build up using a participatory approach. Nevertheless, the output of any scoping exercise would have still a long way to be linked to policy implementation.

What do the EU stakeholders expect?

Throughout the MareFrame project (Co-creating Ecosystem-based Fisheries management solutions) a total of 22 stakeholders events were organized at EU (3) and case study level (19) covering all the EU sea basins from the Baltic to the Black Sea (www.mareframe-fp7.org). The participants included decision-makers, scientists and representatives from fisheries organizations, e-NGOs, and EU advisory bodies (ICES, STECF, ACs). Qualitative research techniques were used to support structured dialogue on an EAFM and are summarized in Table 2.

The stakeholders’ insights provide valuable information on how they perceive fisheries advice framed within the EA as well as how they understand their role in the process.

Rather than seeking to understand everything to implement an EAFM, the stakeholder community favours a more focused dialogue. The debate could start by addressing a list of “big issues”: trade-offs for mixed fisheries, the impact of fisheries on the seafloor, biodiversity and the food web as well as climate change and its impact on ecosystem resilience. These aspects not only need to be addressed because of impacts associated with fishing but also because they may affect the viability of fishing activities (RTD, 2015). However, this list does not always match the list of “acute problems” perceived by some stakeholders, particularly concerning resource allocation and the multiple uses of the marine space (AC, 2014).

The stakeholders commonly agreed that EAFM advice is primarily seen as an element for policy dialogue for the mid-term (e.g. to support a possible coming reform of the CFP likely in 2022/23) rather than as a basis for immediate decisions (e.g. to set fishing opportunities). Other players than those of scientific advisory bodies could lead such dialogues (WEAF, 2016). Hence, underlying tensions in the science-policy interface become explicit (RTD, 2015): On the one hand, science tends to provide a form of advice that policy makers are not fully prepared to utilize, confronting them with complicated policy processes by making explicit the trade-offs and consequences of their objectives. Although transparency is central to inclusive democracy, fundamental changes in the processes are viewed as threatening by many policy makers. On the other hand, science often assumes that policy makers have decided what is socially desirable; policy makers aggregate social preferences and those may or may not be addressing the perceived critical issues from an ecosystem perspective (e.g. protection of iconic species). Furthermore, we know from a political science perspective that this assumption is flawed and that the social system is considerably more complex.

In this light, it might be more relevant if EAFM advice respond to “what if” questions as part of a focused process supported by risk assessments (see e.g. Fletcher 2005; Williams et al., 2011; Cormier et al., 2013; Piet et al., 2015), defining the potentially most significant disturbance for a given ecosystem, as well as testing social objectives and acceptability (RTD, 2015). The use of qualitative approaches by ICES for the ecosystem overviews addresses such issues. Apparently, suppliers and receivers of the advice agree that neither the constant demand for more research and development of new methods nor the identification of knowledge gaps should restrain actors from “doing EAFM now”. However reasonable these demands may seem, they should never postpone the provision of the best possible advice here and now, based on existing knowledge (RTD, 2015; Patrick and Link, 2015a; see e.g. STECF, 2010; ICES, 2016a). Moreover, an open attitude towards any advance should be taken, instead of focusing on whether the target has been reached or not (WEAF, 2016).

What ICES is currently delivering to support the implementation of an EAFM could be used selectively. For example, single-stock advice used to set the baseline, fisheries advice to integrate at a metiér level, and ecosystem advice to assess the impact. These approaches are complementary, not contradictory. Therefore, ecosystem advice may provide the broader framework and limits within which fisheries and single stock advice are necessary for day-to-day management (RTD, 2015).

Regarding the process, ICES’ engagement with stakeholders is perceived positively by all stakeholder profiles (ACs, 2014; RTD, 2015; WEAF, 2016). Some ideas for improvements were, however, brought to the table, for instance on the best way of involving stakeholders in identifying the problems to be tackled (WEAF, 2016). Scoping processes appear as a way to structure meaningful participation, ensuring inclusiveness through a flexible approach in the setting of objectives, a course of action and scientific methodology; inclusiveness refers from the outset to both participants and scientific disciplines (natural and social science). Stakeholders indicate their preference for an ongoing process—rather than a one-time scoping exercise—attached to a work plan. This could help to remove scepticism regarding the nature of advice and to build more trust between the scientists, their ecosystem models, and the fisheries sector (ACs, 2014).

Participation within the ICES advisory process and through the advisory system requires an organizational structure that enables stakeholders to participate at “the right scale”. Regionalization, to be consistent with an EAFM, involves not only regional (sea basin) but also sub-regional and supra-regional approaches. Specific topics benefit from an integrated approach rather than an artificial sub-division at regional levels to adjust them to a specific management structure (WEAF, 2016). Furthermore, ACs (2014) highlighted the lack of regional frameworks and forums for managing marine ecosystems. The Regional Groups under the CFP (see Figure 1) may have been a step in that direction. However, there is a need for further transparency (WEAF, 2016) and they are to some extent resorting to informal advice generated by national scientists, which could jeopardize the overall system (RTD, 2015; WEAF, 2016). Stakeholders supported the independent advisory system already in place to avoid redundancy in scientific advice and to ensure independence from decision makers (WEAF, 2016).

Setting reasonable expectations

Ironically, EAFM becomes the almighty panacea (Cardinale and Svedäng, 2008: 245) that ultimately avoids uniform recipes for success in fisheries management.

Already in 2004 an ICES Dialogue meeting addressed the provision of scientific advice for an EAFM, considering three aspects: (i) making it coherent across management of human activities that impact on marine ecosystems; (ii) making it operational; and (iii) making it more credible (which involves research resources, transparency, clear and effective communication, quality assurance, and inclusiveness in the decision-making process) (ICES, 2004a). At the meeting, it was agreed that “the scientific, administrative and institutional capacity was insufficient to implement the complex ecosystem approach” (ICES, 2004a: 14).

Our analysis shows that ICES has been guided by an incremental perspective, including knowledge gradually as it has been generated by the scientific community. This has led to a reformulation of the type of advice delivered and of how this advice has been communicated through processes and procedures to foster integrity and transparency. There are underlying tensions owed to the range of advice clients that keep shaping ICES’ developments. In the context of the EU, the policy framework has aggravated the tension between an EAFM focus on the process and the aim to make it operational in the actual management measures, placing ICES between a rock and a hard place. An EAFM focus on the process should have prompted the Commission to request for non-recurrent, long-term (vs. case-by-case) advice for setting policy objectives. A focus on a functional operational framework should have provided consistency between the EU policies and integrate biological interactions between fish stocks in the fish stock advice.

For a constructive debate, it should be noted that the tendency to equate EAFM implementation to the setting of actual management measures (particularly annual fishing opportunities) is misleading; as it would be to read any stand-alone ecosystem component consideration in the advice process as the implementation of an EAFM. In a framework characterized by policy tensions, plural actors and institutional vacuum at the regional level, ICES has taken a leading role aiming to get the best out of the process.

In doing so, ICES has somehow contributed to generating an EAFM framework for its clients, as it has been done previously by ICES in the environmental realm (see ICES, 2004b). The underlying debate about the attributes of the advice needed for an EAFM is far from being closed. Pathways have been explored (Rice, 2005; Wilson, 2009; Stange et al., 2012; Lassen et al., 2014; Dickey-Collas, 2014; Link and Browman, 2014; Marshak et al., 2017) and the rationale for the alternatives discussed within the ICES community (see e.g. ICES, 2008).

Our review of what ICES is delivering to an EAFM has identified three types of shortcomings, of which ICES itself can remedy some:

• Shortcomings that can be addressed by ICES within the current set-up include: (a) to integrate the ecosystem carrying capacity in the advice, which will better delineate the sustainability space within which stakeholders can explore options; (b) to integrate ecosystem status on stock dynamics (presently limited to a minority of stocks), which will provide evidence of the effectiveness of management measures and the need for management intervention; (c) to elaborate the dialogue with policy makers and stakeholders through iterative scoping exercises, which should be integrative both in terms of participants’ profiles and the scientific disciplines involved.

• Shortcomings that can be partially addressed by ICES: The allocation of funds for research needed for ecosystem advice is a major constraint for how integrative EAFM becomes. As discussed, all the streams depend heavily on national funding. ICES might press for the MoU with the Commission to be better balanced between short term demands for fisheries advice and the longer term research needs for EAFM advice. It is also feasible to broaden the scope of science processes, optimizing resources from research programs and agreements (e.g. H2020 or the Galway Statement on Atlantic Ocean Cooperation; see ICES, 2016a). Additionally, EAFM advice requires further efforts in the integration of the fisheries advice system (Figure 1), namely between ICES and STECF to avoid piecemeal advice on individual sustainability dimensions. Although there are complementarities, the presence of overlaps raises the question of whether there is a need for two separate advisory bodies. The answer is far from straightforward due to the nature of the STECF (a body within the Commission) and its geographical scope (covering all EU waters, including the Mediterranean and the Black Sea.) As a starting point, coordination should ensure the optimization of resources between the two bodies (RTD, 2015). As stated by ICES (2004a), advice will not necessarily come from a single source, increasing the need for interaction between the science and management process and a solid dialogue among the necessary disciplines.

• Shortcomings that are beyond the control of ICES: Currently there is an inconsistency between the CFP and the MSFD, and—at present—the advice assessing the GES of a given fish stock for the environmental policy does not feed management decisions for the fisheries policy and vice versa. This reflects the difficult integration between the two policies, in part due to the multi-level competence (EU for fisheries and the MS for environmental policy), the policy focus, and the absence of a regional level that could make the advice operational (AC, 2014; RTD, 2015, Van Hoof, 2015). Similar problems emerge when policies differ between external clients for ICES advice. No matter how creative ICES has become, addressing this gap calls for concerted actions from its clients in the political realm.

In summary, in the EU context ICES is struggling to develop a structured process within which EAFM advice can fit in appropriately. The actions promoted at the macro level (e.g. regional scoping exercises) are essential but perceived as cumbersome and distant from operational needs; the actions carried out at the micro level (e.g. exploring tools and indicators) are pertinent but driven by science challenges rather than by the management challenges. At a global level, the discussion of the extent to which current ICES advisory policies and practices provide the right foundation for an EA should continue within and beyond the ICES community. The focus on the advances may have concealed a more critical overview of the involutions derived from political processes (e.g. sectoral vs. integrated advice). Moving forward will also require a better understanding of the interconnections among the multiple players involved in a cross-sectoral approach.

To succeed in an inherently chaotic system (Dickey-Collas, 2014) ICES pushes not only to increase its capacity to produce and evaluate knowledge; in the process, it is generating answers to the questions of “for whom” the EAFM advice is generated and “for what purposes”. However, operating under a full cost recovery system, the capability to provide advice above and beyond what clients are asking is rather limited. The proactive role of ICES in filling the gaps has raised unreasonable expectations of what it could and should deliver and somehow increased the responsibilities placed on scientists to generate a fully functional operational framework. ICES is most likely a suitable organization to facilitate advances for an operational EAFM in the EU, enabling interaction and dialogue platforms between the sciences, but it is unrealistic to expect ICES also to produce all the answers.

Acknowledgements

We remain grateful to all organizations and stakeholders who made this research possible through their active involvement. We are likewise thankful to all project partners, especially the Case Study leaders and the Advisory Councils. The ICES availability for iterative dialogue and consultation during the development of this research is highly appreciated. The authors express a particular gratitude to the editor and the three reviewers for improving and enriching earlier versions of the article. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme Project MareFrame: Co-creating Ecosystem-based Fisheries Management Solutions under Grant Agreement no. 613571.