From shared socio-economic pathways (SSPs) to oceanic system pathways (OSPs): Building policy-relevant scenarios for global oceanic ecosystems and fisheries

Global Environmental Change 45 (2017) 203–216

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Global Environmental Change journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha

From shared socio-economic pathways (SSPs) to oceanic system pathways (OSPs): Building policy-relevant scenarios for global oceanic ecosystems and fisheries

MARK

⁎

O. Maurya,b, , L. Camplingc, H. Arrizabalagad, O. Aumonte, L. Boppf,g, G. Merinod, D. Squiresh, W. Cheungi, M. Goujonj, C. Guivarchk, S. Lefortf, F. Marsaca,b, P. Monteagudol, R. Murtuguddem, H. Österblomn, J.F. Pulveniso, Y. Yep, B.J. van Ruijvenq IRD – UMR 248 MARBEC, Av Jean Monnet CS 30171, 34203 SETE cedex, France IRD – International Laboratory ICEMASA, Department of Oceanography, University of Cape Town, Private Bag X3, Rondebosch 7701, Cape Town, South Africa School of Business and Management, Queen Mary University of London, UK d AZTI. Herrera Kaia portualdea z/g. 20110 Pasaia, Gipuzkoa, Spain e UMR 7159 LOCEAN, IPSL, Boîte 100, 4 place Jussieu, 75252 PARIS Cedex 05, France f LSCE/IPSL, CNRS/CEA/UVSQ, Orme des Merisiers, CE Saclay, 91191 Gif s/Yvette, France g Departement Geosciences, Ecole Normale Supérieure, 24 rue Lhomond, 75005 Paris, France h University of California, San Diego, USA i Nippon Foundation-Nereus Program & Changing Ocean Research Unit, Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z4, Canada j ORTHONGEL, 11 Rue des Sardiniers, 29900 Concarneau, France k CIRED, Ecole des Ponts ParisTech,45bis avenue de la Belle Gabrielle, 94736 Nogent-sur-Marne, France l OPAGAC, c/Ayala 54, 28001 Madrid, Spain m ESSIC, university of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA n Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden o IATTC, La Jolla Shore Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037-1508, USA p Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy q National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR),1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO, 80205, USA a

b c

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Scenarios Oceanic fisheries Shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) Oceanic system pathways (OSPs) Economy Management Governance

There is an urgent need for developing policy-relevant future scenarios of biodiversity and ecosystem services. This paper is a milestone toward this aim focusing on open ocean fisheries. We develop five contrasting Oceanic System Pathways (OSPs), based on the existing five archetypal worlds of Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) developed for climate change research (e.g., Nakicenovic et al., 2014 and Riahi et al., 2016). First, we specify the boundaries of the oceanic social-ecological system under focus. Second, the two major driving forces of oceanic social-ecological systems are identified in each of three domains, viz., economy, management and governance. For each OSP (OSP1 “sustainability first”, OSP2 “conventional trends”, OSP3 “dislocation”, OSP4 “global elite and inequality”, OSP5 “high tech and market”), a storyline is outlined describing the evolution of the driving forces with the corresponding SSP. Finally, we compare the different pathways of oceanic social-ecological systems by projecting them in the two-dimensional spaces defined by the driving forces, in each of the economy, management and governance domains. We expect that the OSPs will serve as a common basis for future modelbased scenario studies in the context of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

1. Introduction The world’s oceans cover more than 70% of the Earth’s surface and provide major ecosystem services. Oceanic ecosystems, the pelagic

⁎

ecosystems located in the open ocean, are responsible for most of the carbon transfer to the deep ocean, thus having a major influence on atmospheric CO2 and climate. They host a rich biodiversity with emblematic large predatory fishes whose extraction supports livelihoods

Corresponding author at: IRD – UMR 248 MARBEC, Av Jean Monnet CS 30171, 34203 SETE cedex, France. E-mail address: [email protected] (O. Maury).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.06.007 Received 15 December 2016; Received in revised form 21 June 2017; Accepted 25 June 2017 0959-3780/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Global Environmental Change 45 (2017) 203–216

O. Maury et al.

5. Based on assigned driving forces, modelling teams quantify the indicators of the scenarios. 6. The modelling teams report on the quantification of the scenarios and the scenario panel revises the storylines. 7. Steps 4, 5 and 6 are repeated until an acceptable draft of storylines and quantification is achieved. 8. The draft scenarios are distributed for general review. 9. The scenario team and scenario panel revise scenarios based on general review. 10. The final scenarios are published and distributed.

and supplies vital animal proteins and other nutrients for hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Tunas and tuna-like species contribute the most with annual catches of 7.7 million tonnes (FAO, 2016) and a market value conservatively estimated to be over 10 billion USD (dock value) and over 40 billion USD (end value) (Galland et al., 2016). As the global demand for seafood continues to increase (Barange et al., 2014), the productivity of marine fisheries is expected to be a key component of future food security and economic development (Béné et al., 2015). However, many of the world's open ocean fisheries are in a precarious condition (FAO, 2016). In addition to the well-known and pressing fishery management issues, economic globalization is connecting oceanic fisheries beyond the frontiers of the organizations responsible for their management (Havice and Campling, 2017; Österblom et al., 2015; OECD, 2010). Moreover, climate change is modifying oceanic ecosystems at an accelerating pace; pushing them towards states not ever seen before with a risk of dramatic and irreversible changes (Pörtner et al., 2014). Achieving sustainability for oceanic social-ecological systems in this context is a crucial issue, and there is an urgent need for clear political strategies toward this aim (Maury et al., 2013) in accordance with Sustainable Development Goal 14 on the conservation and sustainable use of oceans, seas and marine resources (UN, 2015). Long-term visions and goals are necessary to design such policies, focus investment and technological development, and induce societal responses (IPBES, 2016). Scientific scenarios integrating these social and ecological phenomena can be helpful for:

The present paper describes steps 2 and 3, which consist of establishing goals and outlining scenarios, and constructing the first iteration of qualitative storylines. The main objectives of this paper are to present the adaptation of the SAS methodology to a sector where the approach was not used previously, and to detail the outcomes. Five contrasting qualitative storylines, which we named Oceanic System Pathways (OSPs), were developed and are presented in this paper. Since climate change is expected to become the major driver of oceanic ecosystem changes (e.g. Bopp et al., 2013; Cheung et al., 2009; Lefort et al., 2015) and have major impacts on oceanic fisheries (e.g. Lehodey et al., 2012; Dueri et al., 2014), the OSPs are based on the existing Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs, e.g., Nakicenovic et al., 2014 and Riahi et al., 2016). SSPs have indeed primarily been developed for climate change research. They characterize possible trajectories of global human societies (e.g. O’Neill et al., 2016) to complement the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) used for driving climate models (Moss et al., 2010). Our work in developing a “sectoral extension” of the SSPs took the following steps (the bracketed numbers indicate the section in the following where that element is addressed):

i Projecting the future trajectories of ecosystems, biodiversity and the associated ecological services according to different possible trends of climate change and other anthropogenic drivers. ii Understanding how key drivers might interact and shape the future. iii Assessing the vulnerability of various components and regions of social systems depending on open oceans. iv Assessing a priori the effectiveness of alternative governance strategies and designing adaptation policies. v Envisioning ambitious political reform for sustainability.

(1) Review existing global scenarios, initiatives and identify the relevant ones that will form the outline of the OSPs (step 2 of the SAS methodology3) (§2.1.). (2) Define the boundaries of the oceanic social-ecological system that constitute the scope of the OSPs (step 2 of the SAS methodology3), and identify the external driving factors (§2.2.). (3) Identify the major domains of the oceanic social system considered (step 3 of the SAS methodology3) (§2.3. and §3.). (4) Identify the key drivers of oceanic social-ecological systems for each of the domains retained from (3), i.e. economy, management and governance (step 3 of the SAS methodology3) (§3.1., §3.2. and §3.3.). (5) Translate SSPs to the oceanic realm and design “Oceanic System Pathways” narratives for the drivers identified in (4) (step 3 of the SAS methodology3) (§4.). (6) Compare the five OSPs to identify relative positions, potential overlaps and gaps to sharpen the OSP storylines as a set (step 3 of the SAS methodology3) (§5).

Such long-term scenarios are not currently used in the fisheries sector, where oceanic fisheries management is mainly based on the quantitative assessment of the present condition of fish stocks and short term projections (1–10 years) of fisheries catches. Current approaches normally only consider fishing effort as a driver and often disregard the complexity of the social-ecological dynamics at stake and long-term sustainability issues (e.g. Maury et al., 2013). The present work initiates the development of such scenarios for oceanic systems. The initiative was launched during a workshop organized in UNESCO-IOC under the auspices of the CLimate Impacts on Oceanic TOp Predators (CLIOTOP http://www.imber.info/Science/Regional-Programmes) and EuroMarine (http://www.euromarinenetwork.eu) programmes during late 2013. The workshop involved scientists from a variety of fields, as well as representatives from the European fishing industry and international organizations. It laid foundations for a longer term CLIOTOP “Scenario Task Team” aiming at an in-depth multidisciplinary effort to develop model-based scenarios in marine systems. The CLIOTOP Scenario Task Team adopted the Story And Simulation (SAS) approach proposed by Alcamo (2008) as a guiding principle for its work. The SAS approach is a methodology for combining qualitative and quantitative approaches to developing scientifically sound scenarios. It includes the following suite of logically articulated steps (from Alcamo, 2008):

In future work, the five OSPs will be translated quantitatively in terms of the forcing variables (step 4 of the SAS methodology) of coupled social-ecological models (e.g., Dueri et al., 2016; Mullon et al., 2009; Merino et al., 2012). Coupled social-ecological simulations can then be made for each OSP to progress toward establishing quantitative scenarios, as proposed in the SAS methodology (steps 5 and 6). Overall, the process is expected to deepen our understanding of the impacts of climate change on oceanic social-ecological systems and the services they provide to societies, as well as the effectiveness of alternative management strategies, in the contexts of five possible future worlds. Ultimately, it is expected that these pathways will serve as tools to help factoring in long-term dynamics into decision-making. To this end, they are expected to contribute to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) endeavours, through the

1. A scenario team and a scenario panel are established. 2. The scenario team proposes goals and outline of scenarios. 3. The scenario panel revises goals and outline of scenarios, and constructs a first draft of storylines. 4. Based on draft storylines, the scenario team quantifies the driving forces of scenarios. 204

Global Environmental Change 45 (2017) 203–216

O. Maury et al.

definition of common scenario bases for other groups involved in the inter-comparison of social-ecological models, such as the marine ecosystems and fisheries sector (FISHMIP, Tittensor et al. in review) of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISI–MIP, Warszawski et al., 2014). 2. Methods: from world-scale scenarios to “Oceanic system pathways” (OSPs) 2.1. Broad-scope world-scale scenarios and the shared socio-economic pathways To deal with uncertainty, past global environmental assessments have used multiple scenarios to explore alternative possible futures (e.g., Pereira et al., 2010). These scenarios are not meant to provide predictions of the future, but offer alternative plausible and consistent storylines against which policies can be evaluated and assessed. Since the pioneering work of Meadows et al. (1972), such scenarios have been produced by the Global Scenario Group (e.g.: Gallopin et al., 1997; Raskin et al., 1998, 2002), the UNEP Global Environmental Outlook (UNEP, 2007, 2012), the CBD Global Biodiversity Outlook (Leadley et al., 2010), the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Carpenter et al., 2005), the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (Nakicenovic et al., 2000) and others (e.g. PBL, 2012). van Vuuren et al. (2012) present an overview of these scenarios and a classification into six families: Conventional Markets/Economic Optimism, Reformed Markets, Global Sustainable Development, Regional Competition, Regional Sustainable Development and Business as Usual. All the scenario studies mentioned above have been sequential, in that they started from a variety of socioeconomic conditions leading to global environmental changes that in turn influence societies. Other studies adopted backcasting approaches, working backwards from desirable endpoints (Robinson et al., 2011), and focusing on what actions need to be taken to reach sustainability goals in the future (UNEP, 2012). In recent years, climate-related research has experimented with a parallel approach for developing scenarios. This examines societal and environmental changes at the same time in an effort to reduce the time span for full scenario exercises (Ebi et al., 2014; Moss et al., 2010). Outputs in this vein include the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), designed to serve as input to climate models (van Vuuren et al., 2012), and the Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs), which represent alternate futures for human society (O’Neill et al., 2016). The RCPs and the SSPs can be combined in a matrix (van Vuuren et al., 2014) in which the SSPs are associated with different climate policies (Kriegler et al., 2012) to reproduce emission scenarios matching the RCPs. This enables consistent analysis of the implications of mitigation, adaptation and residual impacts under different future socioeconomic scenarios at different levels of climate change. As the original context for the SSPs was to enable climate change research, they have been developed along two axes of future climaterelated uncertainty: socioeconomic challenges to mitigation and socioeconomic challenges to adaptation (cf. Fig. 1). SSP1 represents a world with low socioeconomic challenges to both adaptation and mitigation, whereas SSP3 represents a future with strong challenges for both dimensions. SSP2 represents an intermediate situation, with both adaptation and mitigation challenges at a medium level. In SSP4 and SSP5, adaptation or mitigation challenges dominate, respectively. A short overview of characteristics of each SSPs is provided in Table 1 and a detailed description can be found in O’Neill et al. (2016).

Fig. 1. The position of the five SSPs in the challenge space and the names of pathways (from O’Neill et al., 2016).

globalization that transformed social-ecological interactions in the oceans. Since then, world fisheries have experienced tremendous developments that have led to a dramatic increase of fishing power and geographic ranges of fleet (in particular in the high seas), massive industrialization of the supply chains and globalization of the seafood markets (Smith, 2000; Österblom et al., 2015; OECD, 2010). After one century of unprecedented increase, global fish catch reached an annual plateau of around 90 million tonnes in the late 1980s, remaining stable since then, despite the continuous increase of global fishing effort. Such stability, despite the continuous increase of the global fishing effort, reflects the prevalence of overfishing. In 2016, the FAO estimated that 31% of fish stocks were fished at biologically unsustainable levels (FAO, 2016). Aquaculture has thus been responsible for the impressive growth in the supply of fish for human consumption, which totalled 170 million tonnes in 2014 (FAO, 2016). The global increase of fish consumption has been driven by the combination of global population increase and the increasing taste for seafood products, mostly in rich countries. This overall picture should not mask the important diversity of the fisheries sector and the multiplicity of trajectories (FAO, 2016). Fisheries span the full spectra of capitalization and spatial scale, from subsistence fisheries catching coastal resources with minimal technologies to commercial fisheries targeting offshore and distant water resources at industrial scales. The extraction of diverse species requires very different fishing gears and social organizations of fishers ranging, amongst many other examples, from small pelagic species (e.g.: sardines and anchovies) fished by purse-seiners in coastal upwellings, to large pelagics (e.g. tunas and billfishes) harvested by longliners in oceanic waters, from neretic species inhabiting very shallow habitats and harvested by on-foot gatherers to deep-sea species caught by deepsea trawlers, coral-reef species exploited using driftnet, benthic species caught using traps on the continental plateau or demersal species trawled on the sea-shelves. Given that the resources exploited are themselves extremely diverse, human and natural impacts are highly differentiated and shaped by the specific response of species to environmental variability and the intensities, logics and regulation of human extraction (e.g. from small-scale artisanal fishers catching fish for direct consumption to transnational companies catching to supply global supply chains at a profit (Ommer et al., 2011)). Given this immense heterogeneity, the potential future trajectories of global marine capture fisheries will also very likely be diverse and thus difficult to capture all at once. As a first step toward addressing this complexity, the present paper focuses on oceanic fisheries, excluding coastal fisheries. Oceanic fisheries target mostly large pelagic fish species that are living in open waters, both in EEZs and high seas. These are mostly constituted by the valuable tuna and tuna-like species (billfish species, sharks); an iconic group of species in the popular consciousness, a prominent set of products in supermarkets and the

2.2. Scope of the present study Marine capture fisheries have developed and diversified as a vital source of protein and nutrients for millennia. While some coastal species were depleted by humans centuries ago (e.g. Jackson et al., 2001; Pauly et al., 2005), it is the industrialization of fishing and its 205

Relatively Low

High in LICs, MICs; medium in HICs Moderate

Connected markets, regional production Low growth in material consumption, low-meat diets, first in HICs Effective

Population growth

Economic growth (pc) International trade

Globalization

206

Effective at national and international levels Rapid

Improving conditions over time

Institutions

Technology development

Environment

Policy orientation

Improved management of local and global issues; tighter regulation of pollutants Toward sustainable development

Environmental policy

International cooperation

Consumption & diet

SSP1

SSP element

Continued degradation

Medium, uneven

Uneven, modest effectiveness

Serious degradation

Weak global institutions/natl. govts. dominate societal decision-making Slow

Oriented toward security

Low priority for environmental issues

Concern for local pollutants but only moderate success in implementation Weak focus on sustainability

Weak, uneven

Material-intensive consumption

Semi-open globalized economy Material-intensive consumption, medium meat consumption Relatively weak

De-globalizing, regional security

Medium, uneven Moderate

SSP3 Low in OECD, high in other countries Slow Strongly constrained

Medium

SSP2

Table 1 Characterization of the five SSPs in terms of major global issues (from O’Neill et al., 2016).

Elites: high consumption lifestyles; Rest: low consumption, low mobility Effective for globally connected economy, not for vulnerable populations Focus on local environment in MICs, HICs; little attention to vulnerable areas or global issues Toward the benefit of the political and business elite Effective for political and business elite, not for rest of society Rapid in high-tech economies and sectors; slow in others Highly managed and improved near high/ middle-income living areas, degraded otherwise

Globally connected elites

Low in OECD, relatively high in other countries Low in LICs, medium in other countries Moderate

SSP4

Highly engineered approaches, successful management of local issues

Materialism, status consumption, tourism, mobility, meat-rich diets Effective in pursuit of development goals, more limited for environmental goals Focus on local environment with obvious benefits to well-being, little concern with global problems Toward development, free markets, human capital Increasingly effective, oriented toward fostering competitive markets Rapid

High High, with regional specialization in production Strongly globalized, increasingly connected

High in OECD, low in other countries

SSP5

O. Maury et al.

Global Environmental Change 45 (2017) 203–216

Global Environmental Change 45 (2017) 203–216

O. Maury et al.

Fig. 2. global integrative coupled social-ecological system from physics to economy forced by external driving factors. RCPs prescribe the environmental driver (atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration) and OSPs prescribe the socio-economic drivers (economy, governance, management strategies).

explored using coupled oceanic physical-ecological models (e.g.: Lehodey et al., 2012; Dueri et al., 2014). These studies have mostly focused on the effect of anthropogenic climate change and have relied on the use of climate model projections forced by RCPs (Taylor et al., 2012). Anticipated changes due to global warming suggest a global redistribution of catch potential, with increases in fisheries yield and revenues in high-latitude regions, and large decreases in the tropics (Lehodey et al., 2012; Dueri et al., 2014; Cheung et al., 2009, 2012; Lefort et al., 2015; Lam et al., 2016). But the associated confidence of these changes remains low, both in terms of magnitude and direction of the potential changes (Pörtner et al., 2014). Recent studies have attempted to project the coupled social-ecological system in an integrated way. For instance, Pauly et al. (2003) used the scenarios from UNEP’s Global Environmental Outlook 3 (UNEP, 2002) to create fisheries scenarios and Alder et al. (2007) contributed to the UNEP GEO-4 scenarios and used them to simulate marine biodiversity under different futures. Dueri et al. (2016) studied the combined effects of climate change and changes in skipjack tuna demand and fishing costs on the relative performance of alternative fisheries management strategies. To do so, they used an integrated model representing the entire oceanic system from climate to markets and forced it using both RCPs carbon concentration and macro-economic variables extracted from SSPs. Similarly, Mullon et al. (2016) coupled a simple model of global tuna population dynamics to a model of the global tuna supply chain to illustrate how global bio-economical models can study future scenarios, such as the SSPs. Teh et al. (2016) have used the SSPs to analyse fisheries scenarios for Canada. While integrated social-ecological models can represent the dynamics of the coupled system under consideration (typically atmosphere-ocean-biogeochemistry-ecosystems-fisheries-markets), forcing variables must be specified to run simulations (Fig. 2). Since the future evolution of these variables is essentially unknown, scenarios have to be used. The RCPs can be used to specify the possible range of future carbon content of the atmosphere that controls the dynamics of the modelled climate system (atmosphere-ocean-biogeochemistry) and which impacts ecosystems. Similarly, the SSPs provide alternative narratives describing the future development of demography, economy, institutions, technology and environment. These factors are needed to constrain the fisheries and market components of the modelled socialecological system, which are impacting ecosystems through fishing (Fig. 2). However, they are not detailed enough to be directly usable as boundary conditions for existing and future oceanic social-ecological models. SSPs provide only general context. In particular, they do not provide information about key drivers of oceanic systems such as wild fish demand, fishing costs, the convergence of national interests for

food service industry all over the world, and a major source of revenue and employment, especially for developing coastal states (Hamilton et al., 2011; Miyake et al., 2010). Total catches of tuna and tuna-like species reached almost 8 million tonnes in 2014 (FAO, 2016), representing roughly 10% of total marine landings. However, their economic importance is disproportionately higher, with a market value conservatively estimated to be over 40 billion USD (end value) (Galland et al., 2016), thus representing up to 30% of total fish trade value (including capture fisheries and aquaculture), which was estimated to be 135 billion USD in 2015 (FAO, 2016). Some species such as skipjack tuna are mostly fished for low-cost mass-production of canned products while others are targeted for extremely valuable markets such as for bluefin and other sashimi grade tuna in Japan. Tuna markets have become increasingly globalized, with substantial international trade of tuna, and a large share of the harvests taken by industrial Distant Water Fishing Nation (DWFN) fleets (Hamilton et al., 2011; OECD, 2010). However, while industrial fisheries target rich countries markets, artisanal fisheries are of vital importance in terms of food-security and livelihoods in developing countries, especially in the Indian Ocean where they represent roughly 50% of total tuna catches. The governance of oceanic ecosystems presently rests on myriad organizations, treaties and policy processes operating at different scales, with various objectives and levels of perceived legitimacy. At the core of this complex governance system are intergovernmental advisory Regional Fishery Bodies (RFBs) providing advice to member governments, and Regional Fishery Management Organizations (RFMOs) tasked with management of international fisheries spanning national and international jurisdictions, from regional to ocean basin scales. Collectively, their purview covers the entire ocean surface. These international organizations assume the responsibility of compiling international fisheries data, negotiating management objectives and implementing regulatory measures and international instruments. They have made significant contributions towards reaching the goal of responsible fisheries, but their effectiveness needs to be improved in assessing all exploited resources and ecosystems, avoiding fleet overcapacity, minimising bycatch and preventing illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing (e.g. Cullis-Suzuki and Pauly, 2010; Flothmann et al., 2010; however, see Österblom and Bodin, 2012; Österblom and Sumaila, 2011). Social scientists have also been studying the business and politics of tuna fisheries, particularly in regards to the role of transnational corporations in governing global supply chains in tuna, and the associated limits and potential of these businesses in enhancing the sustainability of the industry (e.g. Campling, 2012; Havice and Campling, 2017; Österblom et al., 2015). So far, the future evolution of open-ocean resources has been 207

Global Environmental Change 45 (2017) 203–216

O. Maury et al.

Fig. 3. Summary of the two key drivers identified in the three domains: Economy, Governance and Management.

multilateral fisheries’ governance, the fairness and equity of fisheries (Hanich et al., 2015), the concentration and influence of transnational seafood companies, accounting sustainability in fisheries management, and countries’ capacity and willingness to comply with international management. The focus of the rest of the paper is on the adaption of SSPs to the open ocean realm in order to design more specific “Oceanic System Pathways” (OSPs) that can be used to force oceanic social-ecological models. This includes a presentation of our methodology and some indication of how OSPs can be used. Given that oceanic fisheries are heavily influenced by human factors that interact in complex and specific ways, the OSPs have to integrate the domains of human activities that influence most oceanic systems, and the alternative ways these might possibly change in the future in the five alternative worlds described by SSPs. They have to comprehend all the forcing factors required by integrated models to run simulations. It is also important to consider domains that can provide levers to alternative policies and that can therefore be useful for comparing strategies. In this multiple perspective, three complementary, and potentially overlapping, key domains were selected by the CLIOTOP Scenario Task Team: (1) the economy of oceanic fisheries, (2) their governance, and (3) the efficiency of fisheries management. Their situation in SSPs and their complementarity with RCPs are depicted Fig. 2. Their importance in structuring oceanic fisheries is detailed in Section 3.

storylines (Alcamo, 2008). The methodology developed and deployed to characterize the key attributes of the Oceanic System Pathways in each of the three economic, management and governance domains includes the five following steps (JRC, 2007). They were all achieved through expert discussions during a one-week meeting of the multidisciplinary CLIOTOP Scenario Task Team composed of scientists from a range of disciplines and fields (climate science, ocean biogeochemistry, marine ecology, ecosystem modelling, fishery science, economy, economical modelling, political economy, law of the sea, governance.) working on various aspects of oceanic social-ecological systems, as well as representatives of the French and Spanish purse seine industry associations (Orthongel and Opagac) and international organizations (Representatives of the UN FAO and tuna RFMOs). 1. The major domains of the oceanic social system were first identified: economic, management and governance. 2. This was followed by identifying the key driving forces in each domain. Two or three most important but uncertain driving forces were selected whereas those considered as unimportant and predictable were disregarded (for now). These important but uncertain drivers constitute the structuring variables of each domain. They constitute the main axes of the OSP narratives. They were selected to be orthogonal (independent drivers), so that each pathway can be unambiguously positioned in two-dimensional spaces in each domain. 3. OSPs are sectoral extensions of SSPs. Therefore, for every SSP, a clear and synthetic storyline adapted to the oceanic system was developed for each of the three domains and their drivers. Five criteria were considered in writing the narratives (JRC, 2007): plausibility (non-null probability), differentiation (their differences are greater than simple variations of the same case), consistency (absence of internal contradictions that would undermine the credibility of the pathway), utility (provide insights about future

2.3. Methodology used to establish the OSP storylines As explained in the introduction, this paper presents a critical milestone in the elaboration of model-based scenarios for the global oceanic social-ecological system. More specifically, it describes the second and third steps of the Story and Simulation approach proposed by Alcamo (2008) that was adopted as a methodological guideline by the CLIOTOP Scenarios Task Team. These second and third steps consist in outlining the scenarios and constructing a first set of qualitative 208

Global Environmental Change 45 (2017) 203–216

O. Maury et al.

3.2. The structure of the global governance domain

consequences of today’s decisions), and challenge (against the conventional wisdom about the future). 4. The pathway’s narratives were written: what might happen and what are the reasons for the future situation described. These include a descriptive title and compelling story lines explaining how events might unfold in the future in the three domains. 5. Finally, the different pathways were compared by projecting them in the economy, management and governance spaces.

Following O’Neill et al. (2016), Pinnegar et al. (2006) and others, the SSP prospects for the “structure of global governance” domain runs along a continuum from inward-looking regionalisation to global-local integration; and from countries (given that the SSPs – and our OSPs – include possible societal collapse and possible societal utopia, the political form that human communities may take may not be ‘nations’ or ‘countries’ as we understand them now. However, with this caveat in mind, for the sake of clarity we use this contemporary terminology) that are collapsed, dislocated and competing through to those that are coordinated and collaborative. This initial framing combines the geo-political and the geo-economic, which are co-constitutive, historical and multi-scalar. However, for the purpose of developing OSPs, we have identified the two most dynamic and unpredictable drivers of global marine fisheries governance as (1) inter-state relations and (2) the global reach of firms.

3. Results: structuring forces in each OSP domain 3.1. The economy domain The two major driving economic forces chosen to structure the OSPs are (1) the demand for oceanic living resources, (2) the costs of harvesting, processing, and transporting these resources and associated products (Fig. 3).

1. Our structuring variable for the first driver of inter-state relations is the shape of the “geopolitical triangle” (Fig. 3), which seeks to capture the relationships among three categories of states with interests in fisheries: ‘developed’, ‘emerging’ and ‘developing’ (e.g. Adolf et al., 2016; Havice and Campling, 2010; Campling and Havice, 2013; Havice and Campling 2013; Schurman 1998; Tarte 2014; Campling, 2016). The geopolitical triangle represents the geopolitical convergence/divergence of states according to their level of economic development. In this framework, the three summits of the triangle represent ‘developed’, ‘emerging’ and ‘developing’ states. A short distance between two summits of the triangle represents a strong convergence of interests between the corresponding states while a long distance represents a strong divergence of interests. Therefore, a wide triangle corresponds to a world characterized by a strong divergence of interests between country categories, leading to potential conflicts and governance difficulties. A strongly asymmetrical triangle with two long sides and a short one corresponds to a bi-polar and unstable world characterized by convergence of interests of two poles with potential alliances against the third divergent pole. Finally, a small and symmetrical triangle corresponds to high convergence of interests for all and equitable relationships between countries leading to efficient global governance, coordination, collaboration and stability. For the purposes of developing the OSP narratives, the three country categories can be further characterized and sub-divided into OSP-specific components. First, ‘developed’ countries incorporate (a) distant-water fishing nations (DWFNs) which tend to command spheres of relative geo-political influence and (b) principal markets for oceanic products − the countries in these two sub-categories may or may not cross-over. Second, ‘emerging’ countries are powerful in their own continent and (sub)-regional ocean and are able to influence geopolitically developing countries and/or act as a source of countervailing power to developed countries. Emerging countries may be resource-holding countries or resource-seeking countries (the ‘resource’ here being control over access to oceanic fisheries). Finally, ‘developing’ countries include all other coastal and island states with interests in oceanic fisheries, as a major source of government revenue, food security, and/or employment. 2. The second driver – the global reach of firms – is captured by the structuring variable the ‘influence of multinational enterprises (MNEs)’, which sits on a continuum from no influence to total control. In developing the OSP narratives, the following components of this variable will be considered: 3. more or less corporate concentration (i.e., from perfect competition to monopoly) in particular nodes or segments of global value chains in fish (e.g., branding or fishing and processing, etc.) and the associated ability to exert control over resources and prices (e.g., the creation of scarcity) (Österblom et al., 2015; Havice and Campling,

(1) Demand is important because the size and strength of a final consumption market is fundamental to the volume of fish harvested and processed and the market prices (Guillotreau et al., 2016). Demand for wild oceanic resources, in line with food demand in general, changes according to external factors, such as global population growth, affluence (GDP per capita), tastes and preferences of consumers (e.g., diet patterns), availability and prices of substitute alternative animal protein sources, quality, and availability of product, and more recently due to eco-labeling (Deaton and Muellbauer, 1980; Teisl et al., 2002). Historically, the distribution network has been increasingly capable of delivering high quality products to areas that were otherwise not part of global consumption, expanding the final market. Today, expected growth rates for tuna products are highest in lower and middle-income countries, since demand for canned tuna, the major product form, is stable or even declining in high-income countries’ markets (FAO GLOBEFISH, 2017). Demand for higher value fresh or quick frozen products, such as sashimi-grade tuna, is expected to grow in highincome markets across the globe (Guillotreau et al., 2016). (2) Costs are important because they underpin harvests of tuna and subsequent supply of tuna to the rest of the supply chain, including processors, and consumer markets (Guillotreau et al., 2016). Because of a highly competitive market structure, costs of harvesting and processing are very important, particularly at processing locations. Pressure to lower prices, which exerts considerable influence on all parties to contain and even more importantly to continuously lower costs, emanates from higher in the concentrated markets of the supply chain, where only a limited number of firms control the world market for canned tuna (Österblom et al., 2015; Havice and Campling, 2017). Production costs vary according to external factors, such as the prices of oil, labour (crew), and capital (interest rates for financing, prices of fishing gear, supplies, vessel machinery), maintenance and repairs, insurance, technological progress, access rights, and at-sea transhipment. Processing costs change according to prices of energy, labour, raw material, and cans and other supplies. Costs are often compensated by subsidies however. This diminishes the importance of costs, in particular in developed countries (Sumaila et al., 2015). Because present supply chains span the globe, with decentralized production and processing, transportation costs are directly changing according to the prices of energy and indirectly by the location of different processing locations in the global tuna supply chain. Costs condition the structure of the global tuna industry and its change over time. The canned tuna supply chain increasingly outsources processing operations to low-cost coastal countries closer to the fishing grounds. Processors either directly receive landed fish or buy from large trading companies (Hamilton et al., 2011).

209

Global Environmental Change 45 (2017) 203–216

O. Maury et al.

empirical evidence shows that compliance more often than not follows, Barrett, 2003), benefits from free riding on the compliance of others, and costs of compliance. The continuum in this dimension ranges from the absence of compliance, where management recommendations are not practically implemented, to a point where fisheries management principles are efficiently implemented through management action plans and control.

2017); 4. symmetrical through to asymmetrical inter-firm relations in global value chains (Havice and Campling, 2017). This could include full vertical integration through to open-market relations via quasivertical integration such as via contracts and/or informal inter-firm ‘captive’ chain governance (For example, in captive inter-firm relations a highly concentrated fish trading or processing firm may be able to influence fishers access to markets; or a lead firm may set private standards −environmental, social, quality, process requirements- that act as a condition of access to the market). 5. the political power of firms such as lobbying and/or elite-networks (Barclay and Koh, 2008; Havice and Campling, 2010). In addition to more obvious geo-political relations such as firms influencing external resource access policy, this component includes the ability of MNEs to influence the rules of the geo-economic game such as industrial policy, trade law and public standards. 6. more or less inter-firm competition or collaboration (e.g., industry associations) (Haward and Bergin, 2000, 2001; Havice and Campling, 2017).

4. Results: the OSP narratives 4.1. Oceanic system pathway 1: « sustainability first » 4.1.1. Economy in OSP1 Under this OSP, which extends from SSP1, there is increased global awareness and implementation of sustainable practices. The demand for fish is high, despite the relatively low world population. This is the result of high economic growth, especially in developing countries and a shift in diet. Consumers demand high quality fish with emphasis on taste, quality, and sustainability. At the same time, fishing costs increase due to increased energy costs (as result of taxes and regulationdriven transitions to cleaner energy sources) and higher wages. Markets are globally connected by price and sometimes product flows, but the latter are largely regional because of high sea freight and refrigeration costs. While international cooperation means that trade barriers are reduced, private social and environmental standards are high as buyers mitigate risks of selling non-compliant products to a savvy customer base; products are increasingly certified and bear third-party eco-labels. This excludes those fishers that cannot meet the costs of demonstrating compliance with standards.

3.2.1. The management domain The management of oceanic fisheries is a key component of oceanic social-ecological system’s dynamics, aiming at optimizing fisheries production while conserving marine ecosystems (Merino et al., 2011). “Good” fisheries management is in particular expected to be instrumental to achieve sustainability (Garcia and Rosenberg, 2010). In contrast, when poorly managed, fisheries have the potential to cause biodiversity loss and resource depletion, to be economically unprofitable and to jeopardize sustainability (Merino et al., 2011; Burkhard, 2010). In the framework developed in this study, the two major independent yet complementary forces that are driving the management domain of OSPs are (1) the importance of sustainability in management objectives and (2) the degree of compliance with management by the different actors of the oceanic system.

4.1.2. Governance in OSP1 Governance of the seas as “commons” is improved due to global cooperation between countries and societal awareness of long-term issues. With increased ecological awareness, environmental costs are internalized through both voluntary and mandated actions resulting in reduced demand for fragile species such as sharks or products from fisheries that have a high ecological footprint. While reduced international trade in these sensitive species has negative economic implications for some developing countries, high levels of global economic cooperation improves these countries’ access to technology to catch other species with lower costs and lower losses in biodiversity, reducing the influence of multinational corporations. Convergence among the three categories of countries (a compact geopolitical triangle) reduces geo-political competition for fisheries access in developing country waters.

(1) High sea fisheries are presently managed through Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs), which, in agreement with the United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), have traditionally targeted Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY), i.e. the maximization of fisheries production. The progressive adoption of the Precautionary Approach and the Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management aim at reconciling yield maximization, economic profitability and biodiversity conservation objectives. Understanding how the balance of these distinct objectives will shape future oceanic fisheries management is paramount to anticipate how and whether oceanic fisheries will play an important role in the future (Barange et al., 2014; Merino et al., 2012). The continuum in this dimension ranges from management focusing on short-term profitability to management focusing on long-term sustainability and balancing social (food security and livelihood of fishery communities), economic and ecological objectives. (2) The second key driver of oceanic fisheries management is the compliance of fisheries actors. It determines how effectively management objectives will be implemented. Compliance is generally a voluntary cooperation in international agreements, since there are few external enforcement mechanisms. In practice, the implementation of measures aiming at achieving management objectives, and more broadly cooperation, will be limited by the selfinterest, economic incentives (costs of non-compliance and benefits from compliance), custom (i.e., what is currently done as practice), intrinsic motivation of the various actors involved (Barrett 2003, 2005) as well as their capacity to implement measures (Garcia and Rosenberg, 2010). Compliance is also determined by the state of international law, whether or not actors participate in agreements (participation is the key decision, because once a treaty is made,

4.1.3. Management in OSP1 In this pathway, fisheries management is orientated towards sustainability on all three domains (economic, food security and biodiversity). Concretely, it aims at balancing catch and profitability of fisheries with conservation of resources. It also considers the impact of fisheries on ecosystems in a holistic perspective, which includes biodiversity and ecosystem functioning within management objectives. Fisheries management in OSP1 adopts precautionary thresholds in management directives and plans. The overall production of fisheries is slightly lower than the estimated MSY for individual fish stocks, but the probability to avoid the undesirable outcomes of excessive harvesting is high. Long-term sustainability objectives prevail over short-term profit maximization strategies. Management actions are well implemented, and there are no delays in responding to natural and social dynamics thanks to a proactive political will and substantial scientific understanding. In this pathway, high demand for sustainable marine products and binding management measures towards the reduction of biodiversity losses promote the development of environmentally friendly technological developments in fisheries, processing industries and management. These technological developments contribute to better 210

Global Environmental Change 45 (2017) 203–216

O. Maury et al.

cooperation. There is high demand for fish because it is a major source of protein in many countries, especially in developing countries where population is high. Costs for fisheries diverge between regions, as oil producers have access to cheaper energy than oil importers and subsidize industries. Few other countries can afford subsidizing large capital-intensive fishing vessels and most host small/cheap vessels’ fisheries. Wages are low as a result of low economic growth and crewing shifts to developing countries but technology development is stagnant as well. Markets are functional at the local and sometime regional levels, but major trade barriers exist between global regions. Previously widely distributed commercial species are no longer available outside of the region of extraction because of the collapse of global value chains. This contributes to lower product quality and higher price.

monitoring and compliance through information technology. International cooperation generates agreements that prioritize the sustainability of resources instead of competitive strategies. 4.2. Oceanic system pathway 2: « conventional trends » 4.2.1. Economy in OSP2 This OSP is characterized by a continuation of current trends. It corresponds to a medium increase in demand for fish products as a result of both a slow increase of population and wealth in the developed world and rapidly increasing affluence, growing populations and changing tastes in emerging and developing countries. This is combined with a low increase in fishing costs relative to other OSPs, mostly because rising energy costs are countered by technological progress in finding and catching fish. Markets are functional and global, but with pockets of protectionism largely using public standards rather than tariffs. Overall, marine capture fisheries production is stable. All increases in fish consumption come from aquaculture, which is increasingly fed by vegetable protein, contributing to a premium on wildcaught fish with higher perceived quality. Developed countries remain the leading final-product markets and are import-dependent, with fish products now almost entirely processed by developing and emerging countries. Wild-caught tuna and tuna-like species are increasingly a product of elite consumption.

4.3.2. Governance in OSP3 Geopolitics is highly fragmented and industry governance is largely a unilateral act by individual countries that are decreasingly compliant with international treaties and norms. Access to fisheries is a product principally of geopolitical spheres of influence, where regional powers (developed or emerging countries) exclude fishing interests from outside of ‘their’ region due to fishing grounds lying within their waters. Industry is organized regionally by highly concentrated private monopolies, established by virtue of political connections to largely authoritarian regimes. Regionally powerful corporations block competing firms and the lack of global trade governance permits commercial discrimination. Fisheries access in developing countries is dominated by regional hegemons, interspersed with episodes of domestic resource nationalism by developing country resource-holders, further destabilizing price and supply.

4.2.2. Governance in OSP2 Global governance is weak due to a lack of cooperation between countries in general and between developed and emerging countries in particular (wide and asymmetrical geopolitical triangle). This leads to gradual decline in biomass for the most profitable species. For those species that are more localised, it is accompanied by a countervailing tendency in some oceanic (sub)regions where property rights to access stocks are privatised. Due to increased affluence in developed countries, private fishing quotas are highly sought-after (regularly traded) contributing to product price increases. Products are increasingly certified and/or eco-labeled. Firms from developed and emerging countries dominate the industry. Imperfect markets, substantial economies of scale in processing and distribution, combined with light-touch antitrust policy contribute to the emergence of corporate oligopolies, which engage in profit- and market-sharing with negative implications for suppliers who are squeezed by lead firms.

4.3.3. Management in OSP3 Fisheries management is driven by (i) food security objectives in order to meet growing demand from an expanding population and employment of impoverished fishery communities and (ii) lack of cooperation between countries and regions despite the shared nature of highly migratory oceanic resources. Fisheries management focuses on short-term and maximization of local food supplies combined with reducing unemployment as much as possible. There are very few shared stocks managed through international cooperation, and there are seldom objectives beyond catching as much as possible as quickly as possible. Compliance is low due to the weak levels of economic development insufficient to implement measures toward sustainable fishing and slow technological development that jeopardize monitoring of fishing fleets and the development of fishing technologies with low impact on the environment. The overall degradation of the marine environment and decline of fish stocks is dramatic and global.

4.2.3. Management in OSP2 Fisheries management is driven by the competitive behaviour of the industry, and therefore oriented towards short-term maximization of catch or profits in developing countries and maximization of profits in developed countries. Management capabilities are uneven, those countries and companies capable of adapting to the competition for resources prevail. Few global fisheries agreements are achieved. The developed and richer emerging countries focus on local management plans that aim for conservation objectives that locally counterbalance firm strategies towards short-term profit maximization. In contrast, developing countries are unable to take effective management action, let alone guarantee its implementation. The science necessary for adequate fisheries management, including data and capacity building is possible only in developed and richer emerging countries. Overall, but in developing countries in particular, due to the lack of influence of conservation objectives, there is a tendency towards the degradation of the marine environment, despite attempts to keep fish stocks at safe levels to allow high productivity.

4.4. Oceanic system pathway 4: « global elite and inequality » 4.4.1. Economy in OSP4 This OSP is characterized by the emergence of a globally connected and technically advanced elite and a large unskilled part of society that is left behind in relative poverty. Demand for fish in general is low despite relatively high population growth in developing countries because the poor cannot afford fish and because low quality substitution products (such as fishmeal and processed vegetable-based or fully artificial products) are available to them. However, elite consumption is typified by increasing demand for high quality fish with high costs and high ecological footprints (less demand for canned products and more demand for fresh and fresh-frozen fish such as sashimi). Fishing costs are increasing slowly, but are largely irrelevant because the elite is able to afford high-quality fish at any price. Markets are global with heavy vertical integration in global value chains.

4.3. Oceanic system pathway 3: « dislocation » 4.3.1. Economy in OSP3 This OSP is characterized by strong rivalries between regions, including regional food security problems and deteriorating global

4.4.2. Governance in OSP4 Global economic governance is organized by highly concentrated 211

Global Environmental Change 45 (2017) 203–216

O. Maury et al.

growing global middle class (in SSP5, the high economic growth is shared among broad groups in society and a global middle class develops and largely drives the high economic growth; this would be a reversion of current trends where the size of the middle class is decreasing in developed countries), including in some emerging countries, puts a premium on market-based environmentalism (including sustainable fish products), and better market information is available to fishers improving their negotiation potential. Reduced information asymmetries and consumer activism reduces corporate concentration and thus MNE power; instead the industry is typified by a large number of small but networked firms, ensuring stability of quality and volume supply to markets. However, tensions co-exist with these positive developments. Those excluded from the digital divide are prey to predatory business practices. The limits of market-environmentalism in producing sustainable outcomes are met as consumers focus on price and weak global governance means that shared stocks do not meet certification criteria.

and politically powerful MNEs that operate as global oligopolies. Two geo-political tendencies in fisheries relations undulate together: the first (dominant) tendency is typified by cross-national ownership of MNEs where rents are captured by transnational elites across countries, easing fisheries access negotiations; and the other where elites temporarily protect ‘national’ fishing fleets and fish stocks in order to pacify domestic popular opposition to perceived global elite dominance (‘rally around the flag’) and to project national power. The latter introduces a degree of unpredictability in global fisheries industry governance, but the norm is for benefits to regularly accrue to a tiny minority of people concentrated in developed and certain emerging countries. Developing countries are largely excluded from decision-making in relation to industry governance and are in a dependent relation with the alliance of developed and emerging country elites. 4.4.3. Management in OSP4 The main aspect of fisheries management in this pathway is that it is extremely uneven. Corporate profits, both long- and-short term prevail in the developed world, whilst short-term maximization of a mixture of catch and profits drive fisheries in developing areas. The marine environment is generally well preserved in areas of interest to the wealthiest that aim for a clean and healthy environment for leisure. The fishing industry self-organizes its management. Where of interest to elite concerns in developed regions, self-management results in high levels of compliance and the implementation of measures towards sustainable fisheries. But where outside of the elite gaze or in developing regions, compliance and marine conservation are substantially lower. Technological development, scientific information and capacity building are also uneven, with high progress in developed nations and stagnation in developing countries.

4.5.3. Management in OSP5 In this pathway, fisheries management is dedicated to satisfy the requirements of fish markets and contingent priorities, ignoring the conservation of non-traded resources and other non-commercial ecosystem services. In the high seas, fished stocks are managed at their MSY when the volume of catches is a priority and at MEY when economic rent is a priority. No precautionary or ecosystem approaches are adopted, in contrast to coastal state owned resources and ecosystems, which are protected. Compliance is good as important technological developments facilitate tight fisheries monitoring and the implementation of management measures based on technology. 5. Discussion

4.5. Oceanic system pathway 5: « high tech and market » 5.1. Are OSPs spanning the full range of uncertainties? 4.5.1. Economy in OSP5 This OSP is characterized by rapid economic growth and technological change leading to access to high quality protein from production systems that do not rely on wild caught fisheries for lower-priced markets. Only high-income people place a high value upon wild-caught fish so that fisheries shrink dramatically. This leads to a high demand for high quality wild caught products but a low demand for low-quality marine fisheries products and the shift toward aquaculture or other production technologies. Costs for fisheries are reduced by low energy prices in the absence of global environment and climate policy, and by the availability of cost-effective engine technologies. Technological innovation and substitution of capital for labour reduce the demand for labour in wild fisheries production systems and keep costs low. Technological innovation lowers the costs of improved monitoring and enforcement. Markets are globally organized and very competitive. Increased automation of production on a global scale may reduce employment and thus disposable incomes, although fish-as-food is unlikely to be impacted.

Having characterized and described the five OSPs, they can be compared in terms of the structuring variables of each of the major domains presented in Section 3 (Table 2 and Fig. 4). As a set, the OSPs span the full range across structuring variables in every major domain. In the economic domain, OSP1 has high fishing costs, due to the growth of wages and taxes, combined with increasing demand for high quality fish. OSP 2 remains in a medium cost and demand range while OSP3 is characterized by large regional variations of costs according to heterogeneous regional access to cheap oil. Demand is high in OSP3 due to the generalization of food security issues. OSP4 and 5 both see lower costs due to technological advances. OSP4 has relatively high demand for high quality fish for the elite, whereas OSP5 sees low demand for wild caught fish due to increased production of aquaculture and other alternatives. The upper left quadrant (low fish demand/high fishing cost) remains empty because very high costs reduce supply for wild caught fish. In the governance domain, OSP1 stands apart from the other pathways with improved geopolitical convergence leading to increased coordination, cooperation and an efficient global governance of the seas. OSP4 is dominated by the consolidation of multinational companies but sees less geopolitical convergence and cooperation between the categories of states. OSP2 follows current trends, whereas OSP3 and 5 see less coordination due to weak convergence of perceived interests. Management in OSP1 aims for long-term sustainability goals integrating over the three pillars of sustainability (environmental, social and economic). Compliance is very good as well due to the high awareness of nations and their good implementation capacity. In OSP4, compliance of the limited number of multinational companies with vertically integrated value streams is relatively high, but the goals of management are mostly on maintaining short-term profits. OSP3 and 5 follow short-term goals, struggling with food security issues for OSP3 and aiming for profit maximization for OSP5. Compliance is low in both

4.5.2. Governance in OSP5 In line with the SSP5 where environmental policies focus on local environmental problems and ignore global issues, industry governance is well organized on a regional basis, but global issues are often neglected so that the high seas and distant resources are not preserved consistently. In general, regional stocks remain well managed; but exposure to global markets may impact financial stability in some emerging countries because ineffective institutions (O’Neill et al., 2016) increase exposure to intermittent crises, creating temporary drives for resource nationalism and intensified fishing. The global emphasis on market-led solutions over regulatory ones means that the geo-political cooperation necessary to put bad state players in check is not well developed. The digital revolution facilitates the development of shorter, more efficient global value chains (less links between sea and plate), a 212

Very high Globally connected

Fishing Cost Market

213

Low Catch-up by developing countries

Holistic (ecological, social, economic)

High level

International laws and regulation, technological developments, high level of bottom-up and top-down monitoring

Corporate influence Convergence

Management Objectives

Compliance

Tools

Governance & Geopolitics Institution Global governance

High, for high quality fish

SSP1 (Sustainability)

SSP-parent (O’Neill et al., 2016)

Economy (Wild) Fish Demand

OSP1

OSP Element

Table 2 Summary of assumptions of the OSPs on Economy, Governance and Management.

Good compliance

– No tools in place

Poor monitoring, low level of control

MPAs and all possible top-down tools

Optimizing profits but care for iconic biodiversity

Fully in the hands of industry Low

Global but oligarchic

High for high quality, but low overall (substitution products) Low Global, strong vertical integration

SSP4 (Inequality)

OSP4

No planning in place

Dislocated governance Low Low

High,no alternative available Contrasted costs Local and fragmented

SSP3 (Regional rivalry)

OSP3

Short-term of maximization of profit for developed countries, of catches or profit for developing countries Partial compliance

Weak institutions (lack of cooperation between developed and developing countries) Medium Status-quo

Increasing Global and dominated by developed countries

Increasing

SSP2 (Middle of the road)

OSP2

Locally good but low compliance at global scale Technology used to disconnect from nature – productive aquaculture

Economic Profitability, conservation of local environment (but not high seas)

No international cooperation, but strong institutions at the regional level High High

Low Globalized, competitive

Low, shift to aquaculture and farming

SSP5 (Fossil-fuelled development)

OSP5

O. Maury et al.

Global Environmental Change 45 (2017) 203–216

Global Environmental Change 45 (2017) 203–216

O. Maury et al.

Fig. 4. Illustrative mapping of the five OSPs in the structuring spaces of the three major domains: Economy, Governance and Management. The green OSP is sustainable, the blue OSPs lie in the middle of the path to sustainability and the red OSPs are eventually unsustainable, either intrinsically (OSP 3) or because the underlying SSP is leading to an unsustainable situation (as for OSP 5, which is based on the SSP 5 describing a fossil-fuel based world). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

6. Conclusion and way forward

cases.

This work initiates the adaptation of the Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs) to the marine domain, starting with oceanic fisheries. While each pathway presented here is designed to be plausible, they remain caricatures of potential futures. The pathways clarify the varied potentialities at stake in different domains in the oceanic world and their interactions, thereby outlining some concepts to think about the future. Ultimately, the goal is that these OSPs will be useful for factoring in long-term objectives into present day management, designing effective strategies to transition toward sustainability, building longterm visions to design policies in a participatory way or assessing alternative global governance strategies and management options (Maury et al., 2013). We are still far from being in a position to reach these ambitious goals however, and several critical steps are needed. The first is to turn our qualitative OSPs into quantitative ones so that they can be used to force available coupled social-ecological models (e.g. Dueri et al., 2016; Mullon et al., 2009; Merino et al., 2012) to simulate the interactive trajectories of ecosystems, biodiversity, fleets, catches, supply chains and markets in each OSP framework. This will require translating quantitatively the key drivers characterizing the OSPs in relation to the control variables of the existing coupled models. This might be obvious for some control variables but might require additional hypotheses or the development of auxiliary models to connect to others. In a second step, the OSPs should be refined in a participatory way according to stakeholder perceptions of the system. Alternative fisheries governance strategies and the development of potential new governance instruments for fisheries adaptation to global changes can then be proposed and compared with simulations in each of the OSP contexts.

5.2. Developing scenarios for the fisheries sector The use of socioeconomic scenarios for the fisheries sector is in its infancy. Only a handful studies have formally developed fisheries scenarios using general descriptions of possible socioeconomic futures (see Section 2.2). Our paper documents the process that we have adopted and implemented to create such storylines for oceanic fisheries. Beyond the present paper, future work will include quantifying the driving forces of scenarios, quantifying their performance indicators and running simulations along the different storylines. Our experience with the first steps of the scenario methodology of Alcamo (2008) that we followed was fairly straightforward. However, the fisheries sector is quite unfamiliar with the development of longterm socioeconomic scenarios in general and the participants in our endeavour have broadly varying backgrounds. This allowed a useful diversity of views but required long exchanges to understand each other and to come to the insights of how different and uncertain future developments are on the 50–100 year time horizon. Once all the participants shared that insight, we experienced a lot of enthusiasm for writing the storylines for the OSPs. The OSPs produced can serve the broad purpose of identifying possible future threats and opportunities for global oceanic fisheries. More concretely, the OSPs developed will be useful to prescribe the forcing variables of socio-ecological models of oceanic systems and conduct quantitative comparisons of alternative governance and management strategies. Eventually, this will also enable comparison of different model implementations with the same contrasted set of forcing factors. 214

Global Environmental Change 45 (2017) 203–216

O. Maury et al.

A new scenario framework for climate change research: background, process, and future directions. Clim. Change 122, 363–372. FAO GLOBEFISH, 2017. In: Global Market Trends for Raw and Processed Tuna Remained Uncertain Throughout 2016. Rome. (Accessed June 20, 2017). http://www.fao.org/ in-action/globefish/market-reports/resource-detail/en/c/882595/. FAO, 2016. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2016. In: Contributing to Food Security and Nutrition for All. Rome. pp. 200. Flothmann, S., von Kistowski, K., Dolan, E.L., Meere, F., Album, G., 2010. Closing loopholes: getting illegal fishing under control. Science 328, 1235–1236. Galland, G., Rogers, A., Nickson, A., 2016. Netting billions: a global valuation of tuna. A Report from The PEW Charitable Trusts 22. Gallopin, G., Hammond, A., Raskin, P., Swart, R., 1997. Branch Points:Global scenarios and human choice. A Report of the Global Scenario Group. Stockholm Environment Institute 54. Garcia, S.M., Rosenberg, A.A., 2010. Food security and marine capture fisheries: characteristics, trends, drivers and future perspectives. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 365, 2869–2880. Guillotreau, P., Squires, D., Sun, J., Compeán, G.A., 2016. Local, regional and global markets: what drives the tuna fisheries? Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1007/s11160-016-9456-8. Hamilton, A., Lewis, A., McCoy, M.A., Havice, E., Campling, L., 2011. Market and Industry Dynamics in the Global Tuna Supply Chain. Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency, Honiara. Hanich, Quentin A., Campbell, Brooke, Bailey, Megan, Molenaar, Erik, 2015. Research into fisheries equity and fairness-addressing conservation burden concerns in transboundary fisheries. Mar. Policy 51, 302–304. Havice, E., Campling, L., 2010. Shifting tides in the western central pacific ocean tuna fishery: the political economy of regulation and industry responses. Glob. Environ. Polit. 10 (1), 89–114. Havice, E., Campling, L., 2013. ‘Articulating upgrading: island developing states and canned tuna production’. Environ. Plann. A 45 (11), 2610–2627. Havice, E., Campling, L., 2017. ‘Where chain and environmental governance meet: interfirm strategies in the canned tuna global value chain’. Econ. Geogr. 93 (3), 292–313. Haward, M., Bergin, A., 2000. Taiwan’s distant water tuna fisheries. Mar. Policy 24 (1), 33–43. Haward, M., Bergin, A., 2001. The political economy of Japanese distant water tuna fisheries. Mar. Policy 25 (2), 91–101. IPBES, 2016. The Methodological Assessment Report on Scenarios and Models of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. In: Ferrier, S., Ninan, K.N., Leadley, P., Alkemade, R., Acosta, L.A., Akçakaya, H.R., Brotons, L., Cheung, W.W.L., Christensen, V., Harhash, K.A., Kabubo-Mariara, J., Lundquist, C., Obersteiner, M., Pereira, H.M., Peterson, G., Pichs-Madruga, R., Ravindranath, N., Rondinini, C., Wintle, B.A. (Eds.), Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany, pp. 350. JRC, 2007. For-Learn. Online Foresight Guide. European Commission. http://forlearn.jrc. ec.europa.eu/guide/4_methodology/meth_scenario.htm. Jackson, J.B.C., Kirby, M.X., Berger, W.H., Bjorndal, K.A., Botsford, L.W., Bourque, B.J., Bradbury, R.H., Cooke, R., Erlandson, J., Estes, J.A., Hughes, T.P., Kidwell, S., Lange, C.B., Lenihan, H.S., Pandolfi, J.M., Peterson, C.H., Steneck, R.S., Tegner, M.J., Warner, R.R., 2001. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293, 629–638. Kriegler, E., O’Neill, B.C., Hallegatte, S., Kram, T., Lempert, R.J., Moss, R.H., Wilbanks, T., 2012. The need for and use of socio-economic scenarios for climate change analysis: a new approach based on shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 22, 807–822. Lam, V.W., Cheung, W.W., Reygondeau, G., Sumaila, U.R., 2016. Projected change in global fisheries revenues under climate change. Sci. Rep. 6, 32607. Leadley, P., Pereira, H.M., Alkemade, R., Fernandez-Manjarrés, J.F., Proença, V., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Walpole, M.J., 2010. Biodiversity Scenarios: projections of 21 st century change in biodiversity and associated ecosystem services Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Montreal. Tech. Ser. 50, 132p. Lefort, S., Aumont, O., Bopp, L., Arsouze, T., Gehlen, M., Maury, O., 2015. Response of marine pelagic communities to global climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 154–164. Lehodey, P., Senina, I., Calmettes, B., Hampton, J., Nicol, S., 2012. Modelling the impact of climate change on Pacific skipjack tuna population and fisheries. Clim. Change 119 (1), 95–109. Maury, O.K., Miller, H., Arrizabalaga, O., Aumont, O., Campling, L., Fonteneau, A., Guillotreau, P., Hobday, A., Lutcavage, M., Marsac, F., Munro, G., Suzuki, Z., Murtuggude, R., 2013. A global Science-policy partnership for progress towards sustainability of oceanic ecosystems and fisheries. COSUST 5 (3-4), 314–319. Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J., Behrens III, W.W., 1972. The Limits to Growth: a Report for the Club of Rome's Project on the Predicament of Mankind. Universe Bookspp. 205 (ISBN 0–87663-165-0). Merino, G., Barange, M., Rodwell, L., Mullon, C., 2011. Modelling the sequential geographical exploitation and potential collapse of marine fisheries through economic globalization, climate change and management alternatives. Sci. Mar. 75 (4), 779–790. Merino, G., Barange, M., Blanchard, J., Harle, I., Holmes, R., Allen, I., Allison, E.H., Badjeck, M.C., Dulvy, N., Holt, J., Jennings, S., Mullon, C., Rodwell, L., 2012. Can marine fisheries and aquaculture meet fish demand from a growing human population in a changing climate? Glob. Environ. Change 22, 795–806. Miyake, M., Guillotreau, P., Sun, C.-H., Ishimura, G., 2010. Recent developments in the tuna industry: stocks, fisheries, management, processing, trade and markets. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 543. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, pp. 125.

Acknowledgments The present paper is the result of two workshops organized thanks to the UNESCO-IOC, Eur-Oceans and EuroMarine support in November 2013 and February 2016. It is a contribution to the CLIOTOP Task Team “Building scenarios for the sustainability of global oceanic ecosystems and fisheries”. We would like to warmly thank the three anonymous reviewers of this paper, for their very constructive and relevant comments that have lead to substantial improvements of the manuscript. OM, OA, LB and SL acknowledge the support of the French ANR, under the grant CEP MACROES (MACRoscope for Oceanic Earth System ANR09-CEP-003). References Österblom, H., Bodin, Ö., 2012. Global cooperation among diverse organizations to reduce illegal fishing in the southern ocean. Conserv. Biol. 26, 638–648. Österblom, H., Sumaila, U.R., 2011. Toothfish crises, actor diversity and the emergence of compliance mechanisms in the Southern Ocean. Global Environ. Change 21, 972–982. Österblom, H., Jouffray, J.-B., Folke, C., Crona, B., Troell, M., Merrie, A., Rockström, J., 2015. Transnational corporations as ÖKeystone actorsö in marine ecosystems. PLoS One 10 (5), e0127533. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127533. Adolf, S., Bush, S.R., Vellema, S., 2016. Reinserting state agency in global value chains: the case of MSC certified skipjack tuna. Fish. Res. 182, 79–87. Alcamo, J., 2008. The SAS approach: combining qualitative and quantitative knowledge in environmental scenarios environmental futures – the practice of environmental scenario analysis. J. Alcamo. Vol 28. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 123–150. Alder, J., Guénette, J., Cheung, W., Christensen, V., 2007. Ecosystem-based Global Fishing Policy Scenarios (No. ISSN 1198–6727). The Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouverm B.C., Canada. Béné, C., Arthur, R., Norbury, H., Allison, E.H., Beveridge, M., Bush, S., Campling, L., Leschen, W., Little, D., Squires, D., Thilsted, S.H., Troell, M., Williams, M., 2015. Contribution of fisheries and aquaculture to food security and poverty reduction: assessing the current evidence. World Dev. 79, 177–196. Barange, M., Merino, G., Blanchard, J., Scholtens, J., Harle, J., Allison, E.H., Allen, I., Holt, J., Jennings, S., 2014. Impacts of climate change on marine ecosystem production in societies dependent on fisheries. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 211–216. Barclay, K., Koh, S.-H., 2008. Neo-liberal reforms in Japan's tuna fisheries? A history of government-business relations in a food-producing sector. Jap. Forum 20 (2), 139–170. Barrett, S., 2003. Environment & Statecraft: The Strategy of Environmental TreatyMaking. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Barrett, S., 2005. The theory of international environmental agreements. In: In: Mäler, K.G., Vincent, J.R. (Eds.), Chapter 28 in Handbook of Environmental Economics Volume 3. Elsevier B.V., pp, pp. 1458–1516. Bopp, L., Resplandy, L., Orr, J.C., Doney, S.C., Dunne, J.P., Gehlen, M., Halloran, P., Heinze, C., Ilyina, T., Séférian, R., Tjiputra, J., Vichi, M., 2013. Multiple stressors of ocean ecosystems in the 21st century: projections with CMIP5 models. Biogeosci. Discuss. 10, 3627–3676. Burkhard, B., 2010. Ecosystem services – Bridging ecology: economy and social sciences. Ecol. Complexity 7, 257–259. Campling, L., Havice, E., 2013. Mainstreaming environment and development at the WTO? Fisheries subsidies, the politics of rule-making and the elusive ‘triple win’. Environ. Plann. A 45 (4), 835–852. Campling, L., 2012. The tuna ‘Commodity frontier’: business strategies and environment in the industrial tuna fisheries of the western indian ocean. J. Agrar. Change 12 (2-3), 252–278. Campling, L., 2016. Trade politics and the global production of canned tuna. Mar. Policy 69 (July), 220–228. Ecosystems and human well-being: scenarios. In: In: Carpenter, S.R., Pingali, P.L., Bennett, E.M., Zurek, M.B. (Eds.), Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, vol. 2 Island Press. Cheung, W.W.L., Lam, V.W.Y., Sarmiento, J.L., Kearney, K., Watson, R., Pauly, D., 2009. Projecting global marine biodiversity impacts under climate change scenarios. Fish Fish. 10 (3), 235–251. Cheung, W.W.L., Sarmiento, J.L., Dunne, J., Frölicher, T.L., Lam, V.W.Y., Deng Palomares, M.L., Watson, R., Pauly, D., 2012. Shrinking of fishes exacerbates impacts of global ocean changes on marine ecosystems. Nat. Clim. Change 3 (3), 254–258. Cullis-Suzuki, S., Pauly, D., 2010. Failing the high seas: a global evaluation of regional fisheries management organizations. Mar. Policy 34, 1036–1042. Deaton, A.S., Muellbauer, J., 1980. Economics and Consumer Behavior. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 450. Dueri, S., Bopp, L., Maury, O., 2014. Projecting the impacts of climate change on skipjack tuna abundance and spatial distribution. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 742–753. Dueri, S., Guillotreau, P., Jiménez-Toribio, R., Oliveros-Ramos, R., Bopp, L., Maury, O., 2016. Food security or economic profitability?: Projecting the effects of climate and socioeconomic changes on global skipjack tuna fisheries under three management strategies. Glob. Environ. Change 41, 1–12. Ebi, K.L., Hallegatte, S., Kram, T., Arnell, N.W., Carter, T.R., Edmonds, J., Kriegler, E., Mathur, R., O’Neill, B.C., Riahi, K., Winkler, H., Van Vuuren, D.P., Zwickel, T., 2014.

215

Global Environmental Change 45 (2017) 203–216

O. Maury et al.

Havlik, P., Humpenöder, F., Da Silva, L.A., Smith, S., Stehfest, E., Bosetti, V., Eom, J., Gernaat, D., Masui, T., Rogelj, J., Strefler, J., Drouet, L., Krey, V., Luderer, G., Harmsen, M., Takahashi, K., Baumstark, L., Doelman, J., Kainuma, M., Klimont, Z., Marangoni, G., Lotze-Campen, H., Obersteiner, M., Tabeau, A., Tavoni, M., 2016. The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Global Environ. Change. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009. (in press). Robinson, J., Burch, S., Talwar, S., O’Shea, M., Walsh, M., 2011. Envisioning sustainability: recent progress in the use of participatory backcasting approaches for sustainability research. Technol. Forecast. Social Change 78 (5), 756–768. Schurman, R.A., 1998. Tuna dreams: resource nationalism and the pacific islands’ tuna industry. Dev. Change 29 (1), 107–136. Smith, Hance D., 2000. ‘The industrialisation of the world ocean’. Ocean Coast. Manage. 43 (1), 11–28. Sumaila, U.R., Lam, V., Le Manach, F., Swartz, W., Pauly, D., 2015. Global fisheries subsidies: an updated estimate. Marine Policy 69 (2016), 189–193. Tarte, S., 2014. Regionalism and changing regional order in the pacific islands. Asia Pac. Policy Stud. 1 (2), 312–324. Taylor, K.E., Stouffer, R.J., Meehl, G.A., 2012. An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Am. Meteorol. Soc. April, 485–498. Teh, L.S.L., Cheung, W.W.L., Sumaila, U.R., 2016. Scenarios for investigating the future of Canada’s oceans and marine fisheries under environmental and socioeconomic change. Regul. Environ. Change 1–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10113-0161081-5. Teisl, M.F., Roe, B., Hicks, R., 2002. Can eco-labels tune a market? Evidence from dolphin-safe labeling. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 43, 339–459. Tittensor, D.P., Eddy, T.D., Lotze, H.K., Galbraith, E.D., Cheung, W., Barange, M., Blanchard, J.L., Bopp, L., Büchner, M., Bulman, C., Carozza, D.A., Christensen, V., Coll, M., Fulton, E.A., Hobday, A., Huber, V., Jennings, S., Jones, M., Lehodey, P., Link, J.S., Mackinson, S., Maury, O., Niiranen, S., Oliveros Ramos, R., Roy, T., Fernandes, J.A., Schewe, J., Shin, Y.-J., Stock, C.A., Underwood, P.J., Watson, J.R., Walker, D., 2017. Challenges and Opportunities in the Intercomparison of Fisheries and Marine Ecosystem Models (submitted). UN, 2015. Resolution adopted by the general assembly on 25 september 2015. In: Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Seventieth Session. Agenda items 15 and 116. A/70/L.1. UNEP, 2002. GEO-3. Global Environment Outlook. Past, Present and Future Perspectives. United Nations Environment Program, Nairobi, pp. 426. UNEP, 2007. GEO-4. Global Environment Outlook. Environment for Development. United Nations Environment Program, Nairobi, pp. 540. UNEP, 2012. GEO-5. Global Environment Outlook. Environment for the Future We Want. United Nations Environment Program, Nairobi, pp. 529. Warszawski, L., Frieler, K., Huber, V., Piontek, F., Serdeczny, O., Schewe, J., 2014. The inter-sectoral impact model intercomparison project (ISI?MIP): project framework. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 3228–3232. van Vuuren, D.P., Riahi, K., Moss, R., Edmonds, J., Thomson, A., Nakicenovic, N., Kram, T., Berkhout, F., Swart, R., Janetos, A., Rose, S.K., Arnell, N., 2012. A proposal for a new scenario framework to support research and assessment in different climate research communities. Glob. Environ. Change 22 (1), 21–35. van Vuuren, D.P., Kriegler, E., O’Neill, B.C., Ebi, K.L., Riahi, K., Carter, T.R., Edmonds, J., Hallegatte, S., Kram, T., Mathur, R., Winkler, H., 2014. A new scenario framework for Climate Change Research: scenario matrix architecture. Clim. Change 122, 373–386.

Moss, R.H., Edmonds, J.A., Hibbard, K.A., Manning, M.R., Rose, S.K., van Vuuren, D.P., Carter, T.R., Emori, S., Kainuma, M., Kram, T., Meehl, G.A., Mitchell, J.F.B., Nakicenovic, N., Riahi, K., Smith, S.J., Stouffer, R.J., Thomson, A.M., Weyant, J.P., Wilbanks, T.J., 2010. The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature 463, 747–756. Mullon, C., Mittaine, J.F., Thébaud, O., Péron, G., Merino, G., Barange, M., 2009. Modeling the global fishmeal and fish oil markets. Nat. Resour. Model. 22 (4), 564–609. Mullon, C., Guillotreau, P., Galbraith, E.D., Fortilus, J., Chaboud, C., Bopp, L., Aumont, O., Kaplan, D., 2016. Exploring future scenarios for the global supply chain of tuna. Deep-Sea Res. II. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2016.08.004i. Nakicenovic, N., et al., 2000. Special Report on Emissions Scenarios: A Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K, pp. 599. Nakicenovic, N., Lempert, R., Janetos, A.C., 2014. Special issue: a framework for the development of new socio-economic scenarios for climate change research. Clim. Change 122 (3), 351–522. O’Neill, B., Kriegler, E., Ebi, K.L., Kemp-Benedict, E., Riahi, K., Rothman, D.S., van Ruijven, B.J., van Vuuren, D.P., Birkmann, J., Kok, K., Levy, M., Solecki, W., 2016. The roads ahead: narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21 st century. Glob. Environ. Change 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.gloenvcha.2015.01.004. OECD, 2010. Globalisation in Fisheries and Aquaculture – Opportunities and Challenges. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264074927-en. Ommer, R., Perry, I.R., Cochrane, K., Cury, P., 2011. World fisheries: a social-ecological analysis: wiley-Blackwell. Fish Aquat. Resourc. Ser. 14, 440p. PBL, 2012. Roads from Rio + 20. Pathways to Achieve Global Sustainability Goals by 2050. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agencypp. 286. Pauly, D., Alder, J., Bennett, E., Christensen, V., Tyedmers, P., Watson, R., 2003. The future for fisheries. Science 302, 1359–1361. Pauly, D., Watson, R., Alder, J., 2005. Global trends in world fisheries: impacts on marine ecosystems and food security. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 360, 5–12. Pereira, H.M., Leadley, P.W., Proença, V., Alkemade, R., Scharlemann, J.P.W., FernandezManjarrés, J.F., Araújo, M.B., P. Balvanera, Biggs, R., Cheung, W.W.L., Chini, L., Cooper, H.D., Gilman, E.L., Guénette, S., Hurtt, G.C., Huntington, H.P., G. Mace, M., Oberdorff, T., Revenga, C., Rodrigues, P., Scholes, R.J., Sumaila, U.R., Walpole, 2010. Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21çst century. Science 330, 1496–1501. Pinnegar, J.K., Viner, D., Hadley, D., Dye, S., Harris, M., Berkout, F., Simpson, M., 2006. Alternative Future Scenarios for Marine Ecosystems: Technical Report. Cefas Lowestoftpp. 109. Pörtner, H.-O., Karl, D.M., Boyd, P.W., Cheung, W.L., Lluch-Cota, S.E., Nojiri, Y., Schmidt, D.N., Zavialov, P.O., 2014. Ocean systems. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, pp. 411–484 (IPCC AR5 WGII). Raskin, P., Gallopin, G., Gutman, P., Hammond, A., Swart, R., 1998. Bending the curve: toward global sustainability. In: A Report of the Global Scenario Group. Stockholm Environment Institute. pp. 144. Raskin, P., Banuri, T., Gallopin, G., Gutman, P., Hammond, A., Kates, R., Swart, R., 2002. Great transition. the promise and lure of the times ahead. In: A Report of the Global Scenario Group. Stockholm Environment Institute. pp. 99. Riahi, K., van Vuuren, D.P., Kriegler, E., Edmonds, J., O'Neill, B.C., Fujimori, S., Bauer, N., Calvin, K., Dellink, R., Fricko, O., Lutz, W., Popp, A., Crespo Cuaresma, J., Samir, K.C., Leimbach, M., Jiang, L., Kram, T., Rao, S., Emmerling, J., Ebi, K., Hasegawa, T.,

216