Taking Stock: Grant Helps Scientists Collaborate on Fisheries in China

This story is part of our “Taking Stock,” series, which shares insights from past research projects supported by the Lenfest Ocean Program. We reflect on which approaches these projects used to make research relevant and useful to decision-makers—and ask how the research has informed marine policy and management. To see the full series, visit the Cross Currents homepage.

China’s fishing industry has grown into the world’s largest, and its fisheries managers are now facing many of the same problems previously faced by their counterparts in the West, such as low abundance of important species due to overfishing. Scientific exchange regarding what management solutions have worked in other contexts might therefore be helpful, yet it has been relatively rare.

Several years ago, the Lenfest Ocean Program began looking for opportunities to build dialogue and mutual learning among scientists working in China and those in other nations. This effort resulted in a grant that successfully opened communication channels, delivered detailed recommendations to Chinese fisheries managers, and set the stage for scientific exchange to continue.

We see two key ingredients that helped make these outcomes possible: collaboration and a focus on pressing management priorities. These ingredients are likely familiar to anyone who works at the interface of science and management, but we believe there are lessons to be learned from the details of how we applied them in this complex situation.

Finding common priorities

We awarded the grant in 2013 to Rosamond Naylor and Ling Cao of Shanghai Jiao Tong University to convene two science symposia in China. They invited prominent researchers working in China to explore critical issues facing fisheries managers, in partnership with counterparts from Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States with experience in fisheries science, economics, and management.

To promote information-sharing and open dialogue, we and the grantees designated one Chinese scientist and one Western scientist to co-chair each session. In addition, we worked with experts to identify a theme that would bring the diverse researchers together: “connecting the dots between global food security and marine ecosystems.” Ecosystems are a common focus of Western fisheries science, whereas food security is a top management priority in China. The choice of a theme that connected the two helped attract several senior Chinese scientists to the first symposium, held in Beijing in 2014.

The Chinese scientists provided critical context, for example by explaining the complex institutions supporting Chinese fisheries management in detail. This helped overcome the inclination of some Western scientists to recommend the management measures they were already familiar with, such as species-specific quotas and comprehensive catch monitoring. Instead, the group concentrated on solutions that could work within the existing system.

The Chinese participants also raised an ongoing debate in China that most of the Western scientists were unfamiliar with. The debate, which helped to set the direction for the group’s work, was over a proposal to perpetuate the depleted state of predator species in China’s waters. The thinking was that intentionally keeping predators at very low numbers would allow the smaller-bodied species they prey upon to grow in abundance beyond their normal limits. The goal was to greatly increase catches of the smaller-bodied species, also called forage fish, thereby more than offsetting the lost catches of predators and generating improved food security.

Grappling with a pressing issue

Numerous nations have already followed this path inadvertently, by overfishing valuable predator species. The catch of prey species has increased in some cases, but many Western scientists and fisheries managers believe that the more economically productive approach is to recover predators, or, more precisely, high-trophic-level species. These species generally fetch a higher price per pound, and their presence is also believed to result in healthier “ecosystem structure,” which can increase the resilience of the system and thus the stability of the seafood supply.

The proposal to follow the opposite strategy in China stimulated a vigorous discussion. The 25 symposium participants drew on evidence from fisheries and management systems around the world to reflect on the potential risks and benefits of this approach, as well as the risks and benefits of restoring ecosystem structure.

The group decided to gather a second time to develop detailed recommendations that could not only help restore that structure, but that could be implemented within the Chinese management context.

Fostering a collaborative product

The second symposium was held in Shanghai in 2015 and brought critical ideas to the surface for more focused discussion. For example, one scientist noted a particularly salient characteristic of many prey species: they are prone to natural cycles of boom and bust. After discussing this point, among others, the group came to agree that relying mainly on these low-trophic-level species would result in periods of very low catches, thereby undermining not only ecosystem structure but food security as well.

In addition, the Western scientists came to better understand the institutional barriers to changing fisheries management, such as the lack of mechanisms for data gathering and scientific input. They also learned that there is a growing appetite for reform within the Chinese government, which the group agreed presented an opportunity to offer specific suggestions for addressing the institutional barriers.

The group therefore set forth their suggestions in a manuscript, which became a 2017 paper in the journal PNAS, titled “Opportunity for marine fisheries reform in China.” It included a detailed review of the history of fisheries management in China, six recommendations for “serious institutional reform,” and an emphasis on restoring ecosystem structure.

Reaching decision-makers

PNAS is a high-profile journal in the United States, but not in China. To reach the relevant scientists and decision-makers, Dr. Cao translated the paper and republished it in a Chinese journal. In addition, the authors with high-level government contacts identified a publication that reaches key officials: China Ocean News, which issued a detailed summary of the paper.

Because the latter is a state outlet, publication there indicates some degree of government approval. In addition, we have been told that officials in China’s fisheries bureau agreed with the recommendations and will consider them as they draft the next five-year plan for fisheries, a high-level policy statement due in 2023.

The paper has also been well-received in the Western scientific community, where it has increased awareness of China’s priorities and institutions and set the stage for further collaboration. For example, two symposium participants—Drs. Julia Xue and Ellen Pikitch—are now partnering to study China’s marine protected areas (MPAs), a potential management tool for recovering ecosystem structure. (Their project is supported by the Lenfest Ocean Program.)

Lessons for making science relevant

This project illustrates the benefits of incorporating two ingredients to help make scientific information more relevant and useful: collaboration and a focus on management needs.

In the case of collaboration, we and the grantees fostered an open process in which participants came to the table as equals willing to share their complementary expertise and knowledge. The result was a set of recommendations that embrace many of the goals and methods of Western management systems but tailored to work within Chinese institutions.

Collaboration, in turn, helped the project identify and focus on the pressing management priority of food security. As a result of their collaboration and focus, the group was able to identify ecosystem structure as a central issue of active debate, and then unite around a shared position. Their detailed, sophisticated recommendations are well positioned to inform what could be, according to the PNAS paper, “a true paradigm shift in fisheries management.”