Jukuri, open repository of the Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) 
   
 
   
All material supplied via Jukuri is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. Duplication 
or sale, in electronic or print form, of any part of the repository collections is prohibited. Making electronic 
or print copies of the material is permitted only for your own personal use or for educational purposes.  For 
other purposes, this article may be used in accordance with the publisher’s terms. There may be 
differences between this version and the publisher’s version. You are advised to cite the publisher’s 
version. 
 
This is an electronic reprint of the original article.  
This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail. 
 
Author(s): Petri Suuronen 
Title: Understanding perspectives and barriers that affect fishers’ responses to bycatch 
reduction technologies 
Year: 2022 
Version: Published version 
Copyright:   The Author(s) 2022 
Rights: CC BY 4.0 
Rights url: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 
 
Please cite the original version: 
Petri Suuronen, Understanding perspectives and barriers that affect fishers’ responses to bycatch 
reduction technologies, ICES Journal of Marine Science, 2022;, fsac045, 
https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsac045. 
ICES Journal of Marine Science, 2022, 0, 1–9
DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsac045
Food for Thought
Understanding perspectives and barriers that affect fishers’
responses to bycatch reduction technologies
Petri Suuronen
Natural Resources Unit, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9, FI-00790 Helsinki, Finland
*Corresponding author: tel:+358 50 5763908; e-mail: petri.suuronen@luke.fi.
Reducing the capture of non-target species and juvenile fishes through a variety of gear modifications and bycatch reduction devices are pre-
sumed to provide long-term biological and socioeconomic benefits and improve the reputation of fisheries. The adoption of these technologies
by fisheries, however, has been low compared to research and development efforts. Research has focused on technical design and catch rate
responses to these technological interventions with a limited focus on assessing fishers’ attitudes towards these technologies. This essay gives
a personal reflection, based on an extensive collaboration with fishers, of the perspectives and barriers that may affect their responses. I also
provide suggestions on how to genuinely engage fishers in the process that could lead to agreeable solutions. Above all, change should be
approached from the perspective of those whose behavior one is seeking to influence, acknowledging the heterogeneity among fisheries and
fishers. The essential element for the success is fishers’ motivation and readiness to the change. Fishers need a clear vision of what the changes
mean for their livelihood and evidence that the technology to minimize bycatch performs sufficiently well in various conditions.
Keywords: attitudes, credibility, dialogue, incentives, motivation, participation, trust.
Introduction
Over the last 40 years there has been vast progress to develop
gear modifications and devices (hereafter collectively called
bycatch reduction technologies) that have been demonstrated
to reduce the unintentional capture of non-target species and
juvenile fish, generally called as bycatch (e.g. Hall et al., 2000;
Valdemarsen and Suuronen, 2003; Madsen, 2007; Suuronen
and Sarda, 2007a; He and Pol, 2010; Rose et al., 2010;
Gilman, 2011; Clarke et al., 2014; Winger et al., 2016; Ken-
nelly and Broadhurst, 2021; Poisson et al., 2021). Reduction
of bycatch provides various potential benefits such as less
waste of valuable natural resources, reduced sorting time, bet-
ter product quality, and reduction of stakeholder conflicts. It
may also improve market access and public respect.
There have been some remarkable successes in the use of
bycatch reduction technologies. For instance, the introduction
of turtle excluder devices (TEDs) in shrimp trawls in the Gulf
of Mexico has dramatically reduced the bycatch mortality of
endangered sea turtles (reviewed by Jenkins, 2012). The de-
clines of finfish bycatches in many shrimp trawl fisheries have
largely been the result of the sorting grids and selection pan-
els introduced in these fisheries (Isaksen et al., 1992; Broad-
hurst, 2000). Changes in the construction and operation of
tuna purse seines have significantly reduced the mortality of
dolphins that are incidentally captured (Hall, 1996; Gjertsen
et al., 2010).
Nonetheless, despite the progress made in the development
of bycatch reduction technologies, bycatch continues to be a
major problem inmany fisheries worldwide (Read et al., 2006;
Komoroske and Lewison, 2015; Gray and Kennelly, 2018;
Dias et al., 2019; Gilman et al., 2020; Savoca et al., 2020;
Moore et al., 2021). Fishers have often been slow to adopt
new bycatch reduction strategies, and there are many fisheries
where the uptake of bycatch reduction technologies has been
weak or non-existent (e.g. Suuronen and Sarda, 2007b; Eayrs
et al., 2015; Eayrs and Pol, 2019; Suuronen et al., 2020).Obvi-
ously, reduction of bycatch by technological solutions requires
more than just the development of technology and proof of its
efficacy.
Research on bycatch reduction technologies has focused on
technical design with a limited focus on assessing fishers’ atti-
tudes towards these technologies. Apparently, there is a wide-
ranging belief among fisheries scientists and gear technologists
that the adoption of bycatch reduction technology will follow
almost automatically as soon the technology has been devel-
oped and fishers are guided to use it. Hence, relatively little is
known of the sentiments of fishers towards bycatch reduction
technologies. Nonetheless, there has recently emerged promis-
ing new research activities on this topic (e.g. Campbell and
Cornwell, 2008; Jenkins, 2015; Eayrs and Pol, 2019; Barz et
al., 2020; Calderwood et al., 2021).
This essay gives a personal reflection, based on wide collab-
oration with fishers, of the perspectives and barriers that may
affect their responses to bycatch reduction technologies. I have
40 years of experience working with fishers in Europe, Asia,
Africa, and Latin America. My work has focused on the re-
duction of bycatch mortality in trawl fisheries (e.g. Suuronen
and Millar, 1992; Suuronen, 1995; 2005), but I have worked
also with gillnet, long-line, and trap-net fisheries (Tschernij et
al., 1993; Suuronen et al., 2006; 2012; Gilman et al., 2016).
In 2009–2017, when I worked at the Fisheries and Aquacul-
ture Department of the Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations (FAO), my first task was to draft the In-
ternational Guidelines on Bycatch Management and Reduc-
tion of Discards (FAO, 2011). My further responsibilities at
FAO included the promotion of bycatch reduction in tropical
Received: October 25, 2021. Revised: January 17, 2022. Accepted: January 17, 2022
C© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. This is an Open Access
article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted
reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
D
ow
nloaded from
 https://academ
ic.oup.com
/icesjm
s/advance-article/doi/10.1093/icesjm
s/fsac045/6555700 by N
atural R
esources Institute Finland (Luke) user on 01 April 2022
2 P. Suuronen
trawl fishing where the bycatch and sustainability challenges
are particularly difficult to resolve (Suuronen et al., 2020). In
2015–2017, I coordinated the preparation of the FAO Third
Assessment of Global Marine Fisheries Discards (Pérez Roda
et al., 2019).
I describe my own experiences about the complex reality
faced by fishers in the face of change and discuss how to pos-
itively engage them in the process of reducing the bycatch
through technological means. I argue that fishers in general
are aware of the basic requirements for the sustainability of
fishing. Harsh circumstances, however, often make it a com-
plex and challenging undertaking. Furthermore, goals and so-
lutions defined by fisheries scientists and managers do not al-
ways meet the reality faced by fishers. I emphasize the critical
importance of fishers’ motivation and readiness to take up by-
catch reduction technologies. Fishers’ fears and doubts should
be taken seriously, and the objectives and solutions must be
meaningful to them.Otherwise, it is difficult to make progress.
I hope my insights and suggestions will give some new per-
spectives to advance the understanding on the topic.
Why the uptake of bycatch reduction
technology is low?
Fishers frequently have a different perspective on the magni-
tude and impact of bycatch than other stakeholders. In gen-
eral, fishers do not believe that their fishery poses a marked
threat to the species caught as bycatch. They may see the util-
ity of reducing bycatch of juveniles of commercially valuable
species but are less convinced of the need to reduce the by-
catch of species that lack commercial value (see also Campbell
and Cornwell, 2008). This is especially the case when the by-
catch rate of a species is relatively low. Fishers may not be fully
aware that bycatch of species with low resilience to increased
mortality can have profound impact on affected populations
(Gilman et al., 2019).
Moreover, fishers often consider that the legitimacy of their
livelihood is called into question by bycatch issues and feel
that the claims demanding stricter regulations are often poorly
documented. In their view, bycatch should not be held any
more important issue than their right to pursue their liveli-
hood and provide food for people.
Fishers commonly have concerns that the use of bycatch
reduction technologies causes a loss of marketable catch and
thereby loss of income (e.g. Tschernij et al., 2004; Suuronen et
al., 2007; Campbell and Cornwell, 2008). Many fisheries and
fishers operate at low economic margins; losing even a small
amount of marketable catch can be extremely problematic for
them. Especially in many fisheries in tropical regions, catch
losses and the immediate reduction of income due to improved
selectivity is often considered too high by the fishers (Suuronen
et al., 2020). The problem is exacerbated by the highly multi-
species nature of these fisheries. In reality, the effective mesh
size of codend has decreased at the same pace as fish stocks
are dwindling although the legal mesh size has been increased
(e.g. Suuronen et al., 2020).
Commercial fishing by its nature targets species and sizes
that yield the highest economic returns (e.g. Breen et al.,
2016). Fishers are concerned that regulations dealing with by-
catches may unnecessarily weaken their ability to compete
and may create benefits to other fisheries which are subject
to a less restrictive bycatch management framework. That is,
those fishers who are making the sacrifices and carrying the
costs, are afraid they may not benefit from these actions (e.g.
Tschernij and Suuronen, 2002). The mere suspicion of un-
fair sharing of burden may lead to a reluctance by fishers to
adopt bycatch reduction technologies (Suuronen et al., 2007).
Clearly, the potential reallocation of economic benefits (and
burdens) among fisher groups should be addressed before new
regulations are imposed. Otherwise, fishers may feel being
treated unfairly and refuse to comply with the rules.
It is also noteworthy that in any given fishery, the amount
and composition of bycatch varies depending on the fisher and
vessel. The reputation of the whole fleet may be stained by
a few fishers who ignore the responsible behavior. Fishers in
general do not like to be the victims of other fishers’ omissions.
Collective responsibility in general does not improve the mo-
tivation and may work poorly in fisheries management.
Furthermore, fishers often note that there is little evi-
dence that the calculated long-term biological and socioeco-
nomic benefits of bycatch reduction are realized as predicted
(for these predictions, see for instance Kuikka et al., 1996;
Kvamme and Frousa, 2004; Bahamon et el., 2007; Coll et
al., 2008). Unfortunately, there are very few follow-up assess-
ments of the effects of the uptake of a bycatch reduction tech-
nology. It is a challenging task because of many factors affect-
ing simultaneously on fish populations and fisheries. Besides,
bycatch reduction technologies are often designed to address
problems within one species group although several species
are captured. This may exacerbate bycatch of more vulnerable
species leading to potentially conflicting mitigation outcomes
(e.g. Garcia et al., 2012; Gray and Kennelly, 2018; Gilman et
al., 2019; Swimmer et al., 2020). Gilman et al. (2019) chal-
lenge the piecemeal bycatch management paradigms, which
often reduce the mortality of one taxon of conservation con-
cern at the (unintended) expense of others.
An additional complication is the potential mortality of an-
imals that escape the gear with the help of bycatch reduction
technology. Although there are studies on this subject (e.g.
Suuronen et al., 1996, 2005; Broadhurst et al., 2006; Gilman
et al., 2013; Uhlmann and Broadhurst, 2015; Yochum et al.,
2015; Tenningen et al., 2019), and it is well demonstrated that
some species groups have a high survival, the fate of animals
that escape the gear under highly variable fishing conditions is
often poorly known. Fishers can rightly ask whether it makes
sense to use a certain technology in case there is little evidence
that the organism will survive.
There is often a lack of confidence among fishers regard-
ing the practicality of bycatch reduction technologies devel-
oped by scientific organizations or other third parties. Fish-
ers frequently note that experiments are conducted on a small
number of vessels under conditions that do not adequately
mimic the variable conditions and diversity of fishing gear de-
signs and practices encountered under commercial fishing (see
also Cox et al., 2007; Hall et al., 2007). Furthermore, factors
such as economic viability, social acceptance, and safety of
bycatch reduction technologies are seldom properly assessed.
Fishers often see technical bycatch solutions as cumbersome,
impractical, time-consuming, and imposed with little involve-
ment from the fishing sector. They do not want to lose any
control of their fishing operations due to inadequate bycatch
reduction technologies.
Taking all the potential factors into account it is not sur-
prising that commercial fishers are unconvinced about the pre-
dicted benefits from the adoption of bycatch reduction tech-
nologies. From fishers’ point of view the use of a bycatch
D
ow
nloaded from
 https://academ
ic.oup.com
/icesjm
s/advance-article/doi/10.1093/icesjm
s/fsac045/6555700 by N
atural R
esources Institute Finland (Luke) user on 01 April 2022
Understanding perspectives and barriers that affect fishers’ responses to bycatch reduction technologies 3
Table 1. Summary of effects, challenges, and potential development actions of various measures and approaches in building a bycatch mitigation program
that uses technological solutions.
Measure/factor Potential effect Challenges and potential development actions
Economic
incentive
 Uptake is encouraged by economic benefit (e.g.
higher catch rate, improved price, better market
access, preferential access to a fishing ground)
 Market-based mechanisms establish a situation in
which fishers consider it is in their economic
interest to reduce bycatch
 Benefits often inadequate to inspire a change in
behaviour
 May not affect the intrinsic motivation that is
the key in achieving a permanent change in
behaviour
 Attention may not focus to the desired output
Social incentive  Encourages individuals to behave in a socially
valued and approved manner
 Helps to gain a positive social reputation
 Builds confidence in mutually agreed objectives and
foster acceptance
 Critically important where top-down regulation is
not feasible and economic incentives are absent
 Role of social incentives is under-appreciated,
poorly understood and often ignored
 Social incentives can have a significant effect in
reinforcing non-compliancy or strengthening
the compliancy
 Social and cultural meanings that fishers attach
on their fishing practices should be considered
carefully in bycatch management.
Participation  Potential to enhance the quality of decisions by
more comprehensive information inputs
 Potential to facilitate the incorporation of local
knowledge
 Potential to build ownership and reduce suspicions
and scepticism
 Little evidence that ensures adoption
 Fishers often not sufficiently motivated to
engage
 Participation structure can easily erode
 Fishers not willing to give their detailed
knowledge because it may compromise their
business
 Needs a highly skilled facilitator
Legal framework  Command and control approach which has a
penalty for violation
 When successful may lead to compliance
 Potential to create a level playing field that benefits
responsible fishers
 Legitimacy of rules may act as an incentive for
compliance
 Does not affect internal motivation and may not
inspire—does not build a cultural change
 Efficacy highly dependent on enforcement
capacity of regulatory agency
 May result to micromanagement and cause
unnecessary cost
 May result in inappropriate manipulation of
gear
 May deny fishers the flexibility required to
innovate and adopt new technologies
 May freeze the technological development
Trust building  Enables constructive dialogue among scientists,
fishers, and managers
 Reduces the impact of incorrect information
 Reduces misunderstandings and helps fishers to
accept the goals and solutions
 Reduces unnecessary tension
 Building trust is time-consuming and requires
good understanding of fishers’ attitudes, hopes
and hidden emotions
 Trust is complex by nature and is lost easily
 Facilitation requires special skills-setting and
education
reduction technology often appears a costly and even risky
investment, more as a problem than a solution. If we want to
better understand how fishers think about a bycatch reduc-
tion technology, it could be helpful to stand in the shoes of
a fisher and try to think as if we were that fisher ourselves.
What would motivate us to make a change when we firmly
believe that the outcome would be highly uncertain, and the
costs would be burdensome?
How to improve uptake?
In the following sections I discuss of the potential role of var-
ious types of incentives and actions aimed in facilitating a
change. I also provide suggestions on how to engage fishers in
this process for finding agreeable solutions. Table 1 summa-
rizes the effects, challenges and potential development actions
of various measures and approaches in building a bycatch mit-
igation program that uses technological solutions.
The role of economic and social incentives
Economic incentives, which include some types of financial
benefit, often are assumed necessary for fishers to adopt mod-
ifications to their fishing gear or fishing operation (e.g.Hall
and Mainprize, 2005; Gjertsen et al., 2010). An example of
a positive economic incentive is a case where the fishing effi-
ciency increases by reducing the bycatch with a suitable tech-
nology. For instance, in some longline fisheries where the by-
catch reduces the hooks available for the target species, the
reduction of bycatch would transfer to a higher catch and in-
come (Gilman et al., 2005; Hall et al., 2007). Similarly, the use
of a sorting grid in shrimp trawlmay result in a clean and high-
quality catch, and markedly reduce the sorting work on deck
(Broadhurst, 2000). In such an ideal situation, fishers may vol-
untarily switch to a technology that reduces bycatch, although
there are no guarantees for that.
Nonetheless, financial benefit is rarely a sufficient stimulus
for fishers to make a voluntary change in their gear (Camp-
bell and Cornwell, 2008; Eayrs and Pol, 2019). Fishers often
D
ow
nloaded from
 https://academ
ic.oup.com
/icesjm
s/advance-article/doi/10.1093/icesjm
s/fsac045/6555700 by N
atural R
esources Institute Finland (Luke) user on 01 April 2022
4 P. Suuronen
consider the economic rewards projected too small and uncer-
tain to motivate a change in their behaviour. A large enough
economic reward might be effective to launch a change, but
it would not necessarily affect the intrinsic motivation that is
the key in achieving a permanent change in behaviour. Besides,
it is possible that the effect of any economic incentive would
fade over time and as a result, the motivation to continue the
use of a modified practice would require an additional eco-
nomic reward. Clearly, both the magnitude and the frequency
of the economic incentive should be sufficient to have an en-
during effect, and even then, fishers may overlook the benefits
and have little motivation to a change.
Market-based mechanisms are based on establishing a sit-
uation in which fishers are convinced that it is in their inter-
est to make desirable choices for instance in relation to by-
catch reduction (De Young and Charles, 2007). These mecha-
nisms promote desired behaviour and penalize undesirable be-
haviour (e.g. by loss of market access). Certification schemes
and eco-labelling belong to market-based measures and in
general have been effective at helping major seafood buyers
and consumers make informed decisions, potentially improv-
ing market position of the products coming from low-bycatch
fisheries. Although there is little evidence that ecolabels lead
to higher prices for seafood (e.g. Stemle et al., 2016), fishing
fleets may have an incentive to obtain these labels only to en-
sure that they will continue to maintain their current market
access. A fishery where end-markets do not differentiate be-
tween eco-certified and non-certified products, does not ben-
efit from certification.
Evidence is mounting that non-economic factors can play
a crucial role in motivating fishers to a change. Social incen-
tives are rewards and motivations that inspire people to be-
have in a socially approved manner. Social and cultural fac-
tors can build confidence in mutually agreed objectives within
fishing communities and may be highly influential in shaping
the compliancy although they are still largely ignored in by-
catch management (e.g. Hall and Mainprize, 2005; Campbell
and Cornwell, 2008; Stephenson et al., 2016, 2019;Mackay et
al., 2020; Brehm et al., 2021). Apparently, social interactions
may strengthen or inhibit the acceptance of almost any change
and are critically important where top-down regulation is not
feasible and economic incentives are absent. Clearly, the so-
cioeconomic context of a given fishery should be understood
and taken in account in the introduction of a new bycatch
reduction technology.
Participation as a means to incentivize acceptance
Most of the research and development work on bycatch reduc-
tion technology has been done by research organizations and
other organizations, which have the human resources, capital,
and expertise needed for such work. Although fishers have ex-
tensive practical expertise with fishing gears and operations,
their interest in these development activities has not always
been as great as would have been desirable.Nonetheless, some
of themost widely adopted bycatch reduction technologies are
those where the idea originated with fishers (Valdemarsen and
Suuronen, 2003; Hall et al., 2007). One well-known example
of such a technical solution is the Nordmøre grid that was
originally developed by a Norwegian fisher. This grid physi-
cally inhibits the passage of larger fish into the trawl codend
but allows the smaller shrimp to pass through. Its use has been
mandatory in almost all North Atlantic cold-water shrimp
and many other fisheries (Graham, 2006), and the principle
has been the basis for many other successful solutions.
There can be several reasons for the relatively small interest
by fishers. They may consider the objectives to be unimpor-
tant, unattainable, or even controversial, and may lack the in-
terest and time needed for such work. Fishers can be fatigued
by the constant changes. They may also feel that by partici-
pating in a development project they are risking their standing
among other fishers. Besides, fishers are often assumed to do-
nate their time and expertise without compensation. Fishers’
enthusiasm may diminish quickly if their input is not properly
compensated. To become inspired in the development process,
fishers need to understand and accept the problem and believe
that there is a functional and affordable solution.
Furthermore, fishers may suspect that by sharing their de-
tailed knowledge of their bycatches, the consequence may be
further restrictions of their fishing operations. Hence, they
may limit the amount of knowledge that they want to share.
Fishers may also become increasingly dissatisfied when their
views are not given enough weight (see also Silver and Camp-
bell, 2005; Reed, 2008). They may consider their participation
as merely symbolic rather than a genuine collaboration where
their views have influence on the final gear design and its im-
plementation. Furthermore, fishers in general are more will-
ing to participate in development activities that are conducted
by practical actors (e.g. respected gear designers or manufac-
turers) who have close ties to the fishing sector. Fishers prefer
quick and practical projects that reflect their core interests and
concerns.
Despite all the obstacles, it is widely assumed that greater
integration of fishers’ knowledge and perspectives has a po-
tential to result in more practical and acceptable solutions that
could lead to more successful outcomes during the implemen-
tation. Nonetheless, there is little solid evidence that partici-
pation guarantees eventual adoption of these solutions (Eayrs
and Pol, 2019). There is some evidence that fisher participa-
tion may help to incorporate valuable local knowledge in the
process which may foster a sense of ownership and increase
the credibility and acceptance of the decisions taken (Cox et
al., 2007; Hall et al., 2007; Holm and Soma, 2016; Stephenson
et al., 2016; Oyanedel et al., 2020). Reed (2008) and Thomp-
son et al. (2019) emphasize that early involvement is funda-
mental to foster a sense of ownership and to make fishers feel
valuable to the process. Unfortunately, the early involvement
is rarely met.
Do legal frameworks act as incentives?
Fishers (as all people) are seldom enthusiastic about a regula-
tion that would require a specific change in their routine prac-
tices or behavior. Forcing fishers to use a certain gear modifica-
tion or bycatch reduction device is often difficult (e.g. Suuro-
nen et al., 2007; 2020). Nonetheless, in many fisheries there
is a regulatory framework that contains requirements to use
specified types of bycatch reduction technology or minimum
mesh size, and there is a penalty structure for violations of
rules. A penalty in the form of fines, catch and gear seizures,
or loss of fishing license is assumed to “incentivize” fishers to
comply.
Apparently, when a fishery is profitable and fishers have a
high interest to continue fishing, they are more likely to follow
the requirements conscientiously and responsibly (Campbell
and Cornwell, 2008). Likewise, when non-compliance threat-
D
ow
nloaded from
 https://academ
ic.oup.com
/icesjm
s/advance-article/doi/10.1093/icesjm
s/fsac045/6555700 by N
atural R
esources Institute Finland (Luke) user on 01 April 2022
Understanding perspectives and barriers that affect fishers’ responses to bycatch reduction technologies 5
ens the access to a fishing ground, there may be a motivation
to follow the rules. If fishing is not particularly profitable or
there is a small likelihood of getting caught in breaking the
rules, interest in complying with the rules may be low. In many
fisheries fishers ignore the rules simply because they have lit-
tle to lose, penalties are not severe enough, or rules do not
appear meaningful. Fishers are very skilful in finding ways to
effectively circumvent technical rules related to their fishing
gear.
Management systems usually require that all fishers in-
volved in a fishery follow the rules; free riders may cause an
erosion of compliance throughout the fishery (Nielsen and
Mathiesen, 2003; Hall and Mainprize, 2005). Fisheries agen-
cies often do not have adequate resources to effectively con-
duct surveillance and enforce regulations, and in some situ-
ations, fishers are not even familiar with the rules and regu-
lations (e.g. Suuronen et al., 2020). Proper monitoring of by-
catch reduction practices often requires extensive at-sea in-
spection which is difficult and expensive. Rapidly developing
electronic technologies, however, provide new opportunities
and lower costs for at sea compliance monitoring (e.g. Suuro-
nen and Gilman, 2020). Even then, intentional manipulation
of a bycatch reduction technology can go unnoticed. Fishers
are skilled at evading the monitoring systems.
The EU Landing Obligation (LO), better known as EU
discard ban, is an example of a regulation that aims to re-
duce discarding by incentivizing fishers to employ more selec-
tive fishing gear to avoid bycatch of unwanted species and
sizes of fishes subject to the measure. The implementation
of LO, however, has faced various problems such as broad-
scale non-compliance, and discarding has not markedly de-
creased (Catchpole et al., 2017; Karp et al., 2019; Borges,
2021; Calderwood et al., 2021; Madsen et al., 2021). Clearly,
when the acceptance of a measure is weak, attaining the ade-
quate level of compliance (and potential benefits) will be chal-
lenging to achieve.
It is noteworthy, however, that a discard ban enforced in
Norway over several decades has had relatively good indus-
try support and is well integrated into the management system
(Graham et al., 2007; Gullestad et al., 2015). This may at least
partly depend on the fact that the adoption of bycatch reduc-
tion devices has allowed fishers to continue fishing in areas
which would have otherwise been placed off-limits, and fish-
ers have been given enough time to adjust. It may well be that
in the long run also the EU Landing Obligation will show bet-
ter results. That may require of testing the concepts used in for
instance in Norway such as making closed areas conditionally
accessible to fishers who can demonstrate appropriate use of
bycatch reduction technologies.
It is apparent that top-down technical regulation has a poor
chance of success in case fishers fail to understand the ratio-
nale. It is essential that the regulations address the issues for
which they are intended, and the justification is clear and fair.
Moreover, poorly designed regulations may freeze the devel-
opment and innovation and may also cause extra costs for
the fishing sector (see also Lent and Squires, 2017). It is im-
portant that fishers are allowed to retain at least some degree
of flexibility in their fishing operations and gear rigging so that
they can utilize their experience and skills to reduce bycatch.
Flexibility is also needed in responding to changes in fishing
conditions. A well-designed regulatory framework creates a
fair playing field, encourages innovation, and benefits all re-
sponsible actors.
Constructive dialogue as a tool to build trust
and readiness
I have attended numerous meetings where fishers and their
representatives discuss of bycatch management with fisheries
managers, scientists, and other stakeholders. These meetings
do not always meet the definition of a good dialogue. Debate
may be underpinned by tenacious beliefs and distorted inter-
pretations of others’ views. Fishers often find the conversa-
tion blaming but sometimes they use unnecessarily harsh lan-
guage towards other participants. There are frequently a wide
range and often opposite views around the problem and the
potential solutions, and sometimes misleading and intentional
misunderstandings.What fishers hear in the meetings may not
match what others hear. Clearly, the lack of constructive inter-
action may effectively prevent a meaningful exchange of ideas
and undermines the trust between stakeholders.
Fishers and their organizations often have strong percep-
tions of the issues under discussion. It is not uncommon that
they are skeptical of new proposals. They may be frustrated
by the earlier measures that have restricted their fishing and
reduced the flexibility of their activities. The roots of mis-
trust may originate in some historical disappointment that has
nothing to do with the issue that is the current focus. There
can be strong suspicions about everything that is said. This is
where fisheries scientists and managers, or a facilitator, should
be able to help. Interventions should correct negative inter-
pretations and highlight issues for which there is evidence. A
good start is to discuss together why there are disagreements.
An accurate and truthful picture of the situation is helpful and
should be framed in an impartial and clear vision. It creates
the foundation for a constructive debate.
To build trust, fishers need to become convinced that scien-
tists, managers, and other key stakeholders understand their
concerns and needs, and value their input. The process must
be transparent and understandable to fishers. Trust is highly
dynamic and multidimensional by nature, and it can be lost
easily (see also Reed et al., 2014; Stern and Coleman, 2015;
Lacey et al., 2018; Cvitanovic et al., 2021). Furthermore, even
when the attitudes of fishers are positive and there appears to
be a good element of trust, it does not necessarily mean that
they are prepared to adopt the proposed change. Fishers are
not a homogeneous group where everyone has the same per-
ceptions and aspirations (see also Calderwood et al., 2021).
Fishers are often competitors and their views and attitudes
may differ greatly depending on the issue. There is seldom a
consensus about the problem, and what should be done about
it.
Respect for the views of the other parties is needed to build
trust and move the debate forward constructively. When peo-
ple trust each other, difficult topics can be raised more easily,
and the expression of a dissenting opinion is not perceived
as threatening. Empathy helps to build mutual trust. A well-
facilitated and open debate assists the participants to recog-
nize what is behind others’ thinking. Thompson et al. (2019)
have created a useful list of best practices for collaboration.
Their list includes factors such as meaningful involvement of
all parties; trust, respect, and commitment; and consensus on
objectives. Eayrs and Pol (2019) suggest the use of change
management models to facilitate the process.
It is noteworthy that effective change often requires cham-
pions among the fishing sectors. These cooperative individu-
als can help others to understand the true situation and the
D
ow
nloaded from
 https://academ
ic.oup.com
/icesjm
s/advance-article/doi/10.1093/icesjm
s/fsac045/6555700 by N
atural R
esources Institute Finland (Luke) user on 01 April 2022
6 P. Suuronen
need for change. If influential fishers adopt a solution, there
is a good chance that others will follow. The timetable of a
change is often critical for the fishing sector; step-by-step ap-
proach may work better than one massive leap.
Language is important element in any dialogue. Scientific
concepts easily produce failures to comprehend for other par-
ticipants and may lead to a de facto exclusion from the pro-
cess. It is noteworthy that fishers are usually highly interested
in seeing underwater videos that demonstrate the operation
of the new technology in real conditions. Such a video can
markedly increase the interest in and credibility of the sug-
gested solution, and the acceptance can thereby dramatically
improve. Furthermore, examples of successful introduction of
similar type of bycatch reduction technologies in some other
fisheries may help to find acceptance in situations where fish-
ers have little faith in the functionality and meaningfulness
of the proposed technology. Likewise, truthful presentations
of non-successful solutions may increase the credibility in the
process.
One example of a successful initiative that I often used
during my FAO projects was the first tropical shrimp trawl
fishery that in 2011 achieved the MSC certification in Suri-
name (http://suriname-seabob-stories.msc.org/). The certifica-
tion allowed this fishery to markedly expand its market access
which was a major benefit. Like many trawl fisheries, this fish-
ery initially did not have proper measures in place for manag-
ing interactions with endangered species and other bycatch in
the area. Fishers and vessel owners, however, recognized that
collaborating with scientists, the government and other stake-
holders would be critical to success, and little by little they
achieved the requirements of certification (see also Southall et
al., 2011; Willems, 2016). Trawls were equipped with turtle
exclusion devices and escape panels to minimize the bycatch.
Since becoming certified, this fishery has worked hard to fur-
ther improve its operations to maintain the certificate.
Finally, in social media people often express their views
without much hindrance and extreme opinions often gain
large visibility.When distorted and false information is spread
through social media, it can erode trust in institutions andmis-
represent research. Clearly, some basic rules should be agreed
on how stakeholders communicate in social media. It is also
good to keep in mind that social media can be utilized in a
positive and constructive way such as issuing joint statements.
Conclusions
Research into bycatch reduction technologies has made signif-
icant progress during the last decades. Nonetheless, there are
still major barriers to the adoption of these technologies by
commercial fisheries. Obviously, in case fishers’ attitudes and
motivation are not favourable, there is little hope that they
would accept a technology, no matter how good this technol-
ogy may be. The adoption requires willingness and readiness
of fishers to accept a change.
Clearly, fishers’ perspectives and attitudes have not been
taken adequately into account. Better understanding of the
attitudes and motivation could help to predict fishers’ likely
response towards these technologies and could assist in find-
ing successful solutions. Furthermore, it is important to keep
in mind that fishers are those whose behavior one is seeking
to influence. Fishers should not feel alienated nor underesti-
mated.
When there is a need to enforce a regulation on by-
catch reduction technology, it is important to understand
that the motivation of each individual fisher strongly af-
fects the potential degree of compliance. Several factors may
influence motivation, including market pressures, status of
fisheries resources, and feeling of fairness. Solutions pro-
posed must be meaningful in the socioeconomic context of a
given fishery. Furthermore, rules on bycatch reduction tech-
nologies should not be enforced without adequate assess-
ment of the likely benefits, costs, and other consequences.
Besides, there should be a follow-up monitoring of these
consequences.
It is also worth realizing that bycatch reduction solutions
often must balance many conflicting goals in widely varying
conditions. Decisions inevitably require trade-offs to be made
between ecological, economic, social and sustainability crite-
ria. No single measure or technology is likely to attain all the
goals, and there is no single best way to mitigate bycatch prob-
lem (see also Sigurðardóttir et al., 2015;McConnaughey et al.,
2020). There can be many alternative approaches that may
produce adequate results. For instance, avoidance of bycatch
hot-spots or a reduction of excessive fishing effort may work
better in some cases although it is obvious that all solutions
face some types of acceptance and compliancy challenges. Of-
ten a combination of actions is needed.
There is a growing public interest in the sustainability of
fisheries, including the mitigation of problematic bycatch. It
is likely that ever stricter targets will be set to eliminate by-
catches. To improve the credibility, fishing sector needs to
act effectively and transparently in reducing bycatches. Sec-
tor must accept the monitoring of their fishing actions as a
necessary condition of operation. At the same time, the sec-
tor needs more recognition of the achievements it has made.
A fisher who is respected and trusted by the society, and who
believes in a positive future, is more likely to act responsibly
and sustainably. At the end, fishers hold the key to solve the
bycatch problem.
It is important also to realize that approaches available in
the developed world are not always applicable to fisheries in
the developing world. It is not just a question of fishers’ atti-
tudes and motivation, but also of the larger systems present
in those regions. Conditions there do not always support sus-
tainable and profitable fishing. Clearly, experts and fishers in
the developing nations require assistance that is tailored to
their needs. They need to be motivated to come up with the
solutions that are practical and functional for them. At the
same time, conditions must be created to make their fishing
less vulnerable to changing conditions. Only through such ac-
tions is it possible to achieve sustainability goals in bycatch
reduction.
The key lessons I have gained duringmy years working with
commercial fishers is that fishers need a clear vision of what
the suggested technologies means for their livelihood and evi-
dence that these technologies perform sufficiently well in var-
ious conditions. The essential element for a change is fishers’
motivation and readiness. While research can tell which mea-
sures can lead to a particular outcome, fishers’ attitudes deter-
mine what the final outcome is.
Data availability
There are no new data associated with this article.
D
ow
nloaded from
 https://academ
ic.oup.com
/icesjm
s/advance-article/doi/10.1093/icesjm
s/fsac045/6555700 by N
atural R
esources Institute Finland (Luke) user on 01 April 2022
Understanding perspectives and barriers that affect fishers’ responses to bycatch reduction technologies 7
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Rob Stephenson, Don “Montana”Gun-
derson, Mike Pol, Bob McConnaughey, Pekka Salmi, and
Jaakko Erkinaro for interesting and inspiring discussions on
human component in fisheries management. I also would like
to thank all those numerous fishers who have educated me on
their perspectives in bycatch management. All those discus-
sions have greatly contributed to the content of this essay.
References
Bahamon, N., Sardà, F., and Suuronen, P. 2007. Potential benefits from
improved selectivity in the northwest mediterranean multispecies
trawl fishery. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64: 757–760.
Barz, F., Eckardt, J., Meyer, S., Kraak, S.B.M., and Strehlow, H.V.
2020. `Boats don’t fish, people do´ - how fishers’ agency can in-
form fisheries-management on bycatch mitigation of marine mam-
mals and sea birds. Marine Policy 122, 104268. https://doi.org/10.1
016/j.marpol.2020.104268.
Borges, L. 2021. The unintended impact of the european discard ban.
ICES Journal of Marine Science, 78: 134–141.
Breen, M., Graham, N., Pol., M., He, P., Reid, D.G., and Suuronen, P.
2016. Selective fishing and balanced harvesting. Fisheries Research,
184: 2–8.
Brehm, J.M., Bulengela, G., and Onyango, P. 2021. Beyond rules and
regulations: understanding the cultural and social significance of
beach seine fishery on lake tanganyika, Tanzania. Maritime Studies,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-021-00249-8.
Broadhurst, M. K., Suuronen, P., and Hulme, A. 2006. Estimating col-
lateral mortality from towed fishing gear. Fish and Fisheries, 7: 180–
218.
Broadhurst, M.K. 2000. Modifications to reduce bycatch in prawn
trawls: a review and framework for development. Reviews in Fish
Biology and Fisheries, 10: 27–60. https://doi.org/10.1023/A: 1008
936820089.
Calderwood, J., Pedreschi, D., and Reid, D.G. 2021. Technical and tac-
tical measures to reduce unwanted catches in mixed fisheries: do the
opinions of irish fishers align with management advice? Marine Pol-
icy, 123, 104290.
Campbell, L.M., and Cornwell, M.L. 2008. Human dimensions
of bycatch reduction technology: current assumptions and di-
rections for future research. Endangered Species Research, 5:
325–334.
Catchpole, T.,Ribeiro-Santos,A.,Mangi, S.C.,Hedley,C., and Gray,T.S.
2017. The challenges of landing obligation in EU fisheries. Marine
Policy, 82: 76–86.
Clarke, S., Sato,M., Small, C., Sullivan, B., Inoue, Y., and Ochi, D. 2014.
Bycatch in longline fisheries for tuna and tuna-like species: a global
review of status and mitigation measures. FAO Fisheries and Aqua-
culture Technical Paper No. 588. Rome, FAO. 199pp.
Coll,M., Bahamon,N., Sardà, F., Palomera, I., Tudela, S., and Suuronen,
P. 2008. Improved trawl selectivity: effects on the ecosystem in the
south catalan sea (NW mediterranean). Marine Ecology Progress
Series, 355: 131–147.
Cox, T.M., Lewison, R.L., Zydelis, R., Crowder, L.B., Safina, C., and
Read, A.J. 2007. Comparing effectiveness of experimental and im-
plemented bycatch reduction measures: the ideal and the real. Con-
servation Biology, 21: 1155–1164.
Cvitanovic, C., Shellock, R.J., Mackay, M., van Putten, E.I., Karcher,
D.B., Dickey-Collas, M., and Ballesteros, M. 2021. Strategies for
building and managing `trust´ to enable knowledge exchange at the
interface of environmental science and policy. Environmental Sci-
ence & Policy, 123: 179–189.
De Young, C., and Charles, T. 2007. Creating incentives for the ecosys-
tem approach to fisheries management: a portfolio of approaches
for consideration in the benguela current large marine ecosystem. Pp
189–205. In: Report of the Third Regional Workshop, Cape Town,
South Africa, 30 Oct –3 Nov 2006. Project LMR/EAF/03/01, Report
Nr 4: 225 p. FAO, Rome.
Dias, M.P., Martin, R., Pearmain, E.J., Burfield, I.J., Small, C., Phillips,
R.A., Yates, O. et al. 2019. Threats to seabirds: a global assessment.
Biological Conservation, 237: 525–537.
Eayrs, S., Cadrin, S.X., and Glass, C.W. 2015.Managing change in fish-
eries: a missing key to fishery-dependent data collection? ICES Jour-
nal of Marine Science, 72: 1152–1158.
Eayrs, S., and Pol, M. 2019. The myth of voluntary uptake of
proven fishing gear: investigations into the challenges inspir-
ing change in fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 76:
392–401.
FAO. 2011. International Guidelines on Bycatch Management and Re-
duction of Discards. Rome, FAO, 73pp.
Garcia, S.,Kolding, J.,Rice, J.,Rochet,M-J.,Zhou, S.,Arimoto,T., Beyer,
J. E. et al. 2012. Reconsidering the consequences of selective fish-
eries. Science 335: 1045–1047.
Gilman, E. 2011. Bycatch governance and best practice mitiga-
tion technology in global tuna fisheries. Marine Policy, 35:
590–609.
Gilman, E., Brothers, N., and Kobayashi, D.R. 2005. Principles and ap-
proaches to abate seabird by-catch in longline fisheries. Fish and
Fisheries, 6: 35–49
Gilman, E., Chaloupka, M., Dagorn, L., Hall, M., Hobday, A., Mu-
syl, M., Pitcher, T. et al. 2019. Robbing peter to pay paul: re-
placing unintended cross-taxa conflicts with intentional tradeoffs
by moving from piecemeal to integrated fisheries bycatch man-
agement. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 29: 93–123.
DOI/10.1007/s11160-019-09547-1.
Gilman, E., Chopin, F., Suuronen, P., and Kuemlangan, B. 2016. Aban-
doned, lost or otherwise discarded gillnets and trammel nets. Meth-
ods to estimate ghost fishing mortality, and the status of regional
monitoring and management. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Tech-
nical Paper No. 600. Rome, Italy. 79pp. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5
051e.pdf
Gilman, E., Pérez Roda, M.A., Huntington, T., Kennelly, S.J., Suuronen,
P., Chaloupka, M., and Medley, P.A.H. 2020. Benchmarking global
fisheries discards. Scientific Reports,10, 10. Article number 14017.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-71021-x.
Gilman, E., Suuronen, P., Hall, M., and Kennelly, S. 2013. Causes and
methods to estimate cryptic sources fishingmortality. Journal of Fish
Biology, 83: 766–803.
Gjertsen, H., Hall, M., and Squires, D. 2010. Incentives to address
bycatch issues. In Conservation and Management of Transna-
tional Tuna Fisheries. Chapter 14, pp. 225–248. Ed. by R.
Allen, J. Joseph, and D. Squires. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford (UK).
doi:10.1002/9780813820262.ch14
Graham, N. 2006. Trawling: historic development, current status and
future challenges. Marine Technology Society Journal 40: 20–24.
https://doi.org/10.4031/002533206787353231.
Graham, N., Ferro, R.S.T., Karp, W.A., and MacMullen, P. 2007.
Fishing practice, gear design, and the ecosystem approach – three
case studies demonstrating the effect of management strategy on
gear selectivity and discards. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64:
744–750.
Gray, C., and Kennelly, S. 2018. Bycatches of endangered, threatened
and protected species in marine fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology
and Fisheries, 28: 521–541.
Gullestad, P., Blom, G, Bakke, G., and Bogstad, B. 2015. The ”Discard
ban package”: experiences in efforts to improve the exploitation pat-
tern in norwegian fisheries. Marine Policy, 54: 1–9.
Hall, M.A. 1996. On bycatches. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries,
6: 319–352.
Hall, M.A., Alverson, D.L., and Metuzals, K.I. 2000. Bycatch: problems
and solutions. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 41: 204–219.
Hall, M.A., Nakano, H., Clarke, S., Thomas, S., Molloy, J., Peck-
ham, S.H., Laudino-Santillán, J. et al. 2007. Working with fishers
to reduce By-catches. In By-catch Reduction in the World’s Fish-
eries. pp 235–288. Ed. by S. Kennelly. Springer, The Netherlands,
288pp.
D
ow
nloaded from
 https://academ
ic.oup.com
/icesjm
s/advance-article/doi/10.1093/icesjm
s/fsac045/6555700 by N
atural R
esources Institute Finland (Luke) user on 01 April 2022
8 P. Suuronen
Hall, S.J., and Mainprize, B.M. 2005. Managing bycatch and discards:
how much progress are we making and how can we do better? Fish
and Fisheries, 6: 134–155.
He, P., and Pol, M. 2010. Fish behavior near gillnets: capture pro-
cess and influencing factors. In Behavior of Marine Fishers – Cap-
ture Processes and Conservation Challenges, pp. 183–203. Ed. by
P. He. Wiley-Blackwell, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, The Netherlands,
375pp.
Holm, P., and Soma, K. 2016. Fisher’s information in governance – a
matter of trust. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,
18: 115–121. Doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2015.12.005
Isaksen, B., Valdemarsen, J.W., Larsen, R.B., and Karlsen, L. 1992. Re-
duction of fish bycatch in shrimp trawls using a solid separator grid
in the aft belly. Fisheries Research, 13: 335–352.
Jenkins, L. 2012. Reducing sea turtle bycatch in trawl nets: A history
of NMFS turtle excluder device (TED) research. Marine Fisheries
Review, 74: 26–44.
Jenkins, L.K. 2015. From conflict to collaboration: the role of expertise
in fisheries management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 103: 123–
133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.10.006.
Karp, W.A., Breen, M., Borges, L., Fitzpatrick, M., Kennelly, S.J., Kold-
ing, J., Nielsen, K.N. et al. 2019. Strategies used throughout the
world to manage fisheries discards – lessons for implementation
of the EU landing obligation. In The European Landing Obli-
gation. Reducing Discards in Complex, Multi-Species and Multi-
Jurisdictional Fisheries, pp. 3–26. Ed. by S.S. Uhlmann, C. Ul-
rich, and S.J. Kennelly. Springer Open Publication, Springer Nature
Switzerland AG, Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland. 978-
3-030-03308-8, (Chapter 1) (eBook), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-030-03308-8.
Kennelly, J.M., and Broadhurst, M.K. 2021. A review of bycatch reduc-
tion in demersal fish trawls. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries,
31(1) DOI: 10.1007/s11160-021-09644-0
Komoroske, L.M., and Lewison, R.L. 2015. Addressing fisheries by-
catch in a changing world. Frontiers in Marine Science 2, Article
83. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2015.00083
Kuikka, S., Suuronen, P., and Parmanne, R. 1996. The impacts of in-
creased codend mesh size on the northern baltic sea herring fishery:
ecosystem and market uncertainties. ICES Journal of Marine Sci-
ence, 53: 723–730.
Kvamme, C., and Frousa, K.G. 2004. Assessing the effects on stocks of
selectivity changes in a fishery. Fisheries Research, 69: 283–292.
Lacey, J., Howden, M., Cvitanovic, C., and Colvin, R.M. 2018. Under-
standing and managing trust at the climate science–policy interface.
Nature Climate Change, 8: 22–28.
Lent, R., and Squires, D. 2017. Reducing marine mammal by-
catch in global fisheries: an economics approach. Deep Sea Re-
search Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 140: 268–277.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2017.03.005
Mackay, M., Yamazaki, S., Jennings, S., Sibly, H., van Putten, I.E., and
Emery, T.J. 2020. The influence of nudges on compliance behaviour
in recreational fisheries: a laboratory experiment. ICES Journal of
Marine Science, 77: 2319–2332. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsz020
Madsen, N. 2007. Selectivity of fishing gears used in the baltic sea cod
fishery. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 17: 517–544.
Madsen, N., Ingólfsson, O.A., Nilsson, H., and Suuronen, P. 2021. Im-
proving species and size selectivity in the baltic cod trawl fishery
with two new codend designs. Fisheries Research, 236: 105846.
McConnaughey, R.A., Hiddink, J.G., Jennings, S., Pitcher, C.R., Kaiser,
M.J., Suuronen, P. et al. 2020. Choosing best practices for managing
the impacts of trawl fishing on seabed habitats and biota. Fish and
Fisheries, 21: 319–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12431
Moore, J.E., Heinemann, D., Francis, T.B., Hammond, P.S., Long, K.J.,
Punt,A.E.,Reeves,R.R. et al.2021. Estimating bycatchmortality for
marine mammals: concepts and best practices. Frontiers in Marine
Science, 8: 752356. doi:10.3389/fmars.2021.752356
Nielsen, J.R., and Mathiesen, C. 2003. Important factors influencing
rule compliance in fisheries lessons from denmark. Marine Policy,
27: 409–416.
Oyanedel, R., Gelcich, S., and Milner-Gulland, E.J. 2020. Mo-
tivations for (non-)compliance with conservation rules by
small-scale resource users. Conservation Letters, 13: e12725.
doi.org/10.1111/conl.12725
Pérez Roda, M.A., Gilman, E., Huntington, T., Kennelly, S.J., Suuronen,
P., Chaloupka,M., andMedley, P. 2019. A third assessment of global
marine fisheries discards. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical
Paper No. 633. Rome, FAO. 78pp.
Poisson, P., Budan, P., Gilman, E., Kojima, T., Musyl, M., and Takagi, Y.
2021. New technologies to improve bycatch mitigation in industrial
tuna fisheries. Fish and Fisheries, DOI: 10.1111/faf.12631
Read, A.J., Drinker, P., and Northridge, S. 2006. Bycatch of marine
mammals in U.S. and global fisheries: bycatch of marine mammals.
Conservation Biology, 20: 163–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1
523-1739.2006.00338.x.
Reed,M.S. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental manage-
ment: a literature review. Biological Conservation, 141: 2417–2431.
Reed, M.S., Stringer, L.C., Fazey, I., Evely, A.D, and Kruijsen, J.H.D.
2014. Five principles for the practice of knowledge exchange in en-
vironmental management. Journal of Environmental Management,
146: 337–345.
Rose, C. S., Gauvin, J. R., and Hammond, C. F. 2010. Effective herding
of flatfish by cables with minimal seafloor contact. Fishery Bulletin,
108: 136–144.
Savoca, M.S., Brodie, S., Welch, H., Hoover, H., Benaka, L.R., Bograd,
S.J., and Hazen, E.L. 2020. Comprehensive bycatch assessment in
US fisheries for prioritizing management. Nature Sustainability, 3:
472–480.
Sigurðardóttir, S., Stefánsdóttir, E.K., Condie, H., Margeirsson, S.,
Catchpole, T.L, Bellido, J.M., Eliasen, S.Q. et al. 2015. How can dis-
cards in european fisheries be mitigated? Strengths, weaknesses, op-
portunities and threats of potential mitigation methods.Marine Pol-
icy, 51: 366–374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.09.018
Silver, J.J., and Campbell, L.M. 2005. Fisher participation in research:
dilemmas with the use of fisher knowledge. Ocean & Coastal Man-
agement, 48: 721–741.
Southall, T., Pfeiffer, N., and Singh-Renton, S. 2011. MSC sustainable
fisheries certification - Suriname Atlantic Seabob shrimp. Public Cer-
tification Report. Food Certification International LTD, Findhorn
House, Dochfour Business Centre, Inverness, Scotland, UK
Stemle, A., Uchida, H., and Roheim, C.A. 2016. Have dockside
prices improved after MSC certification? Analysis of multiple fish-
eries. Fisheries Research, Special Issue: Fisheries Certification and
Eco-labeling: Benefits, Challenges and Solutions, 182: 116–123.
doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2015.07.022
Stephenson, R. L., Paul, S., Pastoors, M. A., Kraan,M., Holm, P., Wiber,
M., Mackinson, S. et al. 2016. Integrating fishers’ knowledge re-
search in science and management. ICES Journal of Marine Science,
73: 1459–1465. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsw025
Stephenson, R.L., Wiber, M., Paul, S., Angel, E., Benson, A., Charles,
A., Chouinard, O. et al. 2019. Integrating diverse objectives for
sustainable fisheries in canada. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences, 76: 480–496. doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2017-
0345.
Stern, M.J., and Coleman, K.J. 2015. The multidimensionality
of trust: applications in collaborative natural resources man-
agement. Society & Natural Resources, 28: 117–132. DOI:
10.1080/08941920.2014.945062
Suuronen, P. 1995. Conservation of young fish by management of trawl
selectivity. Finnish Fisheries Research, 15: 97–116.
Suuronen, P. 2005.Mortality of fish escaping trawl gears. FAO Fisheries
Technical Paper No. 478, FAO, 72p.
Suuronen, P., Chopin, F., Glass, C., Løkkeborg, S., Matsushita, Y.,
Queirolo, D., and Rihan, D. 2012. Low impact and fuel efficient
fishing - looking beyond the horizon. Fisheries Research, 119-120:
135–146.
Suuronen, P., and Gilman, E. 2020. Monitoring and managing fisheries
discards: new technologies and approaches. Marine policy, 116:
103554. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103554
D
ow
nloaded from
 https://academ
ic.oup.com
/icesjm
s/advance-article/doi/10.1093/icesjm
s/fsac045/6555700 by N
atural R
esources Institute Finland (Luke) user on 01 April 2022
Understanding perspectives and barriers that affect fishers’ responses to bycatch reduction technologies 9
Suuronen, P., Lehtonen, E., and Jounela, P. 2005. Escape mortality of
trawl-caught baltic cod (Gadus morhua) – the effect of water tem-
perature, fish size and codend catch. Fisheries Research, 71: 151–
163.
Suuronen, P., and Millar, R.B. 1992. Size-selectivity of diamond and
square mesh codends in pelagic herring trawls: only small herring
will notice the difference. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences, 49: 2104–2117.
Suuronen, P., Perez-Comas, J.A., Lehtonen, E., and Tschernij, V. 1996.
Size-related mortality of herring (Clupea harengus L.) escaping
through a rigid sorting grid and trawl codend meshes. ICES Jour-
nal of Marine Science, 53: 691–700.
Suuronen, P., Pitcher, C.R.,McConnaughey, R.A., Kaiser,M.J., Hiddink,
J.G., and Hilborn, R. 2020. A path to a sustainable trawl fishing in
southeast asia. Reviews in Fisheries Science &Aquaculture 28: 499–
517. doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2020
Suuronen, P., and Sarda, F. 2007. The role of technical measures in eu-
ropean fisheries management and how to make them work better.
ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64: 751–756.
Suuronen, P., and Sarda, F. 2007a. Bycatch reduction techniques
in european fisheries - traditional methods and potential new
innovations. In By-catch Reduction in the World´s Fisheries,
pp. 37–74. Ed. by S. Kennelly. Springer, The Netherlands,
288 pp.
Suuronen, P., Siira, A., Kauppinen, T., Riikonen, R., Lehtonen, E., and
Harjunpää,H. 2006.Reduction of seal-induced catch and gear dam-
age by modification of trap-net design: design principles for a seal-
safe trap-net. Fisheries Research, 79: 129–138.
Suuronen, P., Tschernij, V., Jounela, P., Valentinsson, D., and Larsson,
P-O. 2007. Factors affecting rule compliance with mesh size regula-
tions in the baltic cod trawl fishery. ICES Journal of Marine Science,
64: 1603–1606.
Swimmer, Y, Zollet, E.A., and Gutierrez, A. 2020. Bycatch miti-
gation of protected and threatened species in tuna purse seine
and longline fisheries. Endangered Species Research, 43: 517–542.
doi.org/10.3354/esr01069
Tenningen, M., Pobitzer, A., Handegard, N. O., and Jong, K. 2019. Es-
timating purse seine volume during capture: implications for fish
densities and survival of released unwanted catches. ICES Journal
of Marine Science, 76: 2481–2488.
Thompson, S.A, Stephenson, R.L., Rose,G.A., and Paul, S.D. 2019. Col-
laborative fisheries research: the canadian fisheries research network
experience. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 76:
671–681. doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2018-0450
Tschernij, V., Lehtonen, E., and Suuronen, P. 1993. Behaviour of
baltic herring in relation to a poundnet and the possibilities
of extending the pound-net season. ICES Mar. Sci. Symp. 196:
36–40.
Tschernij, V., and Suuronen, P. 2002. Improving trawl selectivity in the
Baltic – Utökning av trålselektion i Östersjön. TemaNord 2002: 512,
56pp.
Tschernij, V., Suuronen, P., and Jounela, P. 2004. A modelling approach
for assessing short-term catch losses of a mesh size increase. Fisheries
Research, 69: 399–406.
Uhlmann, S.S., and Broadhurst, M.K. 2015. Mitigating unaccounted
fishingmortality from gillnets and traps. Fish and Fisheries, 16: 183–
229
Valdemarsen, J.W., and Suuronen, P. 2003. Modifying fishing gear to
achieve ecosystem objectives. In Responsible Fisheries in the Marine
Ecosystem. Pp. 321–341. Ed. by M. Sinclair, and G. Valdimarsson.
FAO and CABI International Publishing, Italy and England. 426 p.
Willems, T. 2016. An ecosystem approach to fisheries manage-
ment: the Atlantic seabob shrimp (Xiphopenaeus kroyeri) in Suri-
name. Thesis, Ghent University, The Netherlands, 310pp. DOI:
10.13140/RG.2.1.2048.1525
Winger, P., Lokkeborg, S., and Pol,M. 2016. Fish capture by baited pots.
A review of fish behaviour. Journal of Ocean Technology 11: 1–12.
Yochum, N., Rose, C.S., and Hammond, C.F. 2015. Evaluating the
flexibility of a reflex action mortality predictor to determine by-
catch mortality rates: a case study of tanner crab (Chionoecetes
bairdi) bycaught in alaska bottom trawls. Fisheries Research, 161:
226–234.
Handling Editor: Howard Browman
D
ow
nloaded from
 https://academ
ic.oup.com
/icesjm
s/advance-article/doi/10.1093/icesjm
s/fsac045/6555700 by N
atural R
esources Institute Finland (Luke) user on 01 April 2022