Globally, many fish species are overexploited, and many stocks have collapsed. This crisis, along with increasing concerns over flow-on effects on ecosystems, has caused a reevaluation of traditional fisheries management practices, and a new ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) paradigm has emerged. As part of this approach, selective fishing is widely encouraged in the belief that nonselective fishing has many adverse impacts. In particular, incidental bycatch is seen as wasteful and a negative feature of fishing, and methods to reduce bycatch are implemented in many fisheries. However, recent advances in fishery science and ecology suggest that a selective approach may also result in undesirable impacts both to fisheries and marine ecosystems. Selective fishing applies one or more of the “6-S” selections: species, stock, size, sex, season, and space. However, selective fishing alters biodiversity, which in turn changes ecosystem functioning and may affect fisheries production, hindering rather than helping achieve the goals of EBFM. We argue here that a “balanced exploitation” approach might alleviate many of the ecological effects of fishing by avoiding intensive removal of particular components of the ecosystem, while still supporting sustainable fisheries. This concept may require reducing exploitation rates on certain target species or groups to protect vulnerable components of the ecosystem. Benefits to society could be maintained or even increased because a greater proportion of the entire suite of harvested species is used.

The failures of traditional target-species management have led many to propose an ecosystem approach to fisheries to promote sustainability. The ecosystem approach is necessary, especially to account for fishery–ecosystem interactions, but by itself is not sufficient to address two important factors contributing to unsustainable fisheries: inappropriate incentives bearing on fishers and the ineffective governance that frequently exists in commercial, developed fisheries managed primarily by total-harvest limits and input controls. We contend that much greater emphasis must be placed on fisher motivation when managing fisheries. Using evidence from more than a dozen natural experiments in commercial fisheries, we argue that incentive-based approaches that better specify community and individual harvest or territorial rights and price ecosystem services and that are coupled with public research, monitoring, and effective oversight promote sustainable fisheries.

Economists have long argued that a fishery that maximizes its economic potential usually will also satisfy its conservation objectives. Recently, maximum economic yield (MEY) has been identified as a primary management objective for Australian fisheries and is under consideration elsewhere. However, first attempts at estimating MEY as an actual management target for a real fishery (rather than a conceptual or theoretical exercise) have highlighted some substantial complexities generally unconsidered by fisheries economists. Here, we highlight some of the main issues encountered in our experience and their implications for estimating and transitioning to MEY. Using a bioeconomic model of an Australian fishery for which MEY is the management target, we note that unconstrained optimization may result in effort trajectories that would not be acceptable to industry or managers. Different assumptions regarding appropriate constraints result in different outcomes, each of which may be considered a valid MEY. Similarly, alternative treatments of prices and costs may result in differing estimates of MEY and their associated effort trajectories. To develop an implementable management strategy in an adaptive management framework, a set of assumptions must be agreed among scientists, economists, and industry and managers, indicating that operationalizing MEY is not simply a matter of estimating the numbers but requires strong industry commitment and involvement.