Developing a frame of reference for fisheries management and conservation interventions.

Effective implementation of management interventions is often limited by uncertainty, particularly in small-scale and developing-world fisheries. An effective intervention must have a measurable benefit, and evaluation of this benefit requires an understanding of the historical and socio-ecological context in which the intervention takes place. This context or 'frame of reference' should include the baseline status of the species of interest, as well as the most likely counterfactual (a projected scenario indicating what would have occurred in the absence of the intervention), given recent trends. Although counterfactuals are difficult to estimate and so are not widely specified in practice, an informative frame of reference can be developed even in data-poor circumstances. We demonstrate this using a case study of the Bangladesh hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha) fishery. We combine qualitative and some quantitative analyses of secondary datasets to explore ecological trends in the hilsa fishery, as well as patterns of social, economic, institutional, and physical change relevant to its management over the last ∼50 years. We compile all available information on the key parameters that determine hilsa abundance and distribution (movement, reproduction, growth, and mortality), as well as all available information on stock status. This information is used to produce a baseline and qualitative counterfactual which can be used to guide decision-making in this complex, data-poor fishery. A frame of reference provides a systematic way to break down potential drivers of change in a fishery, including their interactions, reducing the potential for unexpected management outcomes. Critical evaluation of contradictions and commonalities between a set of potential counterfactuals, as well as the reliability of sources, allows the identification of key areas of uncertainty and information needs. These can then be incorporated into fisheries management planning.

Compound climate risks threaten aquatic food system benefits.

Aquatic foods from marine and freshwater systems are critical to the nutrition, health, livelihoods, economies and cultures of billions of people worldwide, but climate-related hazards may compromise their ability to provide these benefits. Here, we estimate national-level aquatic food system climate risk using an integrative food systems approach that connects climate hazards impacting marine and freshwater capture fisheries and aquaculture to their contributions to sustainable food system outcomes. We show that without mitigation, climate hazards pose high risks to nutritional, social, economic and environmental outcomes worldwide-especially for wild-capture fisheries in Africa, South and Southeast Asia, and Small Island Developing States. For countries projected to experience compound climate risks, reducing societal vulnerabilities can lower climate risk by margins similar to meeting Paris Agreement mitigation targets. System-level interventions addressing dimensions such as governance, gender equity and poverty are needed to enhance aquatic and terrestrial food system resilience and provide investments with large co-benefits towards meeting the Sustainable Development Goals.

Evaluating the ecological and social targeting of a compensation scheme in Bangladesh.

Conservation payments are increasingly advocated as a way to meet both social and ecological objectives, particularly in developing countries, but these payments often fail to reach the 'right' individuals. The Government of Bangladesh runs a food compensation scheme that aims to contribute to hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha) conservation by improving the socioeconomic situation of households affected by hilsa sanctuary fishing bans. Analysing data from a household survey of compensation recipients and non-recipients, we identify the current correlates of compensation distribution and explore perceptions of fairness in this distribution. We find that distribution is largely spatial rather than based on the household characteristics that are supposed to determine eligibility for compensation, indicating political influence in the distribution process. We also find the compensation scheme is widely perceived to be unfair, which could be undermining its potential to compensate vulnerable fishers while improving compliance with fishing bans. The spatial distribution of compensation would shift substantially under alternative targeting scenarios that are likely to improve the cost-effectiveness of the scheme, such as targeting those who are most dependent on fishing for their livelihood. This study highlights a challenge for conservation payment schemes that aim to achieve the dual objectives of poverty reduction and ecological sustainability, particularly large-scale public schemes, and suggests that more effective targeting and transparency about the basis of payment distribution are prerequisites for schemes to be both cost-effective and socially acceptable.