The greatest challenge is to get people to think globally, and to take on board the Tragedy of the Commons.    In the UK, all the media talk about the Common Fisheries Policy revolves around how British fishermen are threatened.  Institutional selfishness and narrow national interests reign supreme, I'm afraid.

The community thinks that any intervention by Government even though may be well meaning, is bound to bring the scenario from bad to worse.A good amount of scientific information is never available from fishermen to the policy makers.The problem revolves around scientific & technical in this part of Asia.There is almost nothing like a management organization, & whatever is present is vague about its aims & objectives.Authority is a toothless tiger,& the sector is never given any priority.

Non compliance  form fishers is the greatest challenge . They cheat the authority by destroying the spawner and juveniles . But when there is drastic reduction in the catch they blame the  state fisheries Dept , Scientists and others . Scientists on there part should be more proactive and visit the field more often/

For me there are two most important reasons: first is complexity, so that EBFM are too complex for political platform and it is not accepted because difficult for understanding by politicians and decision matter -  so it is matter of communication. Maybe we scientist need to work on it, second is historical - difficult to change way of thinking in that way of thinking industry=profit any thing else is disturbance and overcomplications. The problem is also lack of trust - on both sites science and policy -  policy to science by ignoring advice and science ignoring political objectives. So, some how that lead to lack of communication.

The greatest challenge of EAFM implementation might differ from one ocean to the other but my guess is that, globally, it is a cultural obstacle at different levels. Knowledge on marine ecosystem functioning has increased drastically (still lot to discover!) as well as computing capabilities but our capacity to sit, communicate and work with others than our pairs still remain the same: low if not null. This occurs between fishery scientists and marine environmental scientists, between scientists, fishermen and deciders, and also to some extent with the large public. 

Without being able all to sit around the same table and without will to communicate, mutual trust will never occur. Some countries seem to better manage (among which Australia, New Zealand, the US) than others but I believe that what most hampers the EAFM implementation is the lack of mutual trust between stake-holders.

Political will and institutional change at the local, regional, national and global level.

It seems like the conflict (real or perceived) between individual good and societal good is a real barrier here.  This issue coupled with our tendency to heavily discount both the future and the indirect effects seems most problematic.  

It’s an interesting question Jason. I think many of the previous answers are correct; yet the diversity of answers alludes to the fact that there are myriad impediments to a thorough implementation of EBFM. In our respective countries there are unique challenges, relating to the scale of fisheries, economies, and governance structures. Hence the challenges in thoroughly implementing EBFM the United States will be different from those in implementing EBFM in eastern Africa. On some level I think there has to be (as was mentioned) political will, which in theory would lead to tangible support, both from an organizational and financial standpoint. Hypothetically, if it came down the chain of command that we were going to do EBFM until we got it right or showed it didn’t work, it would get done eventually.

Perhaps a different perspective would be to take a step back and ask, why do we need EBFM? And what is the purported goal of EBFM? Is it to replace single species stock assessment? Has single-species management has failed? Personally I think we do a pretty good job of more traditional single-species stock assessments. However, stocks (and all marine species) do not live in isolation. Therefore successful EBFM is predicated on an understanding of how the system functions. Hence to better manage our living marine resources, we need a predictive and mechanistic understanding of how species assemblages interact with the abiotic and biotic environment. If we can show that we have a fundamental understanding of how ecosystems are structured and how they function, then we are able to show more clearly how an ecosystem can be managed successfully. From a fisheries standpoint this could mean a move toward sustainability, but this should be balanced with and taken into consideration with other non-fisheries sectors, that managed as a whole would lead to more resilient coastal communities and economies.

It's demographic and cultural. Fewer people and a better distribution of wealth leads to a happier, better educated, and a more scientifically literate society. Unconstrained capitalism creates winners and losers, and everyone competes to be the former at the expense of the latter. In general, compare the US and UK versus Scandinavia. Then, for fisheries and aquaculture, compare the US and Norway. Look to game theory - without societal mechanisms in place to constrain selfish behavior and cheating, you get the tragedy of the commons.

This is a tough one for everyone and there is very little contact between the disparate stages of those from the field to political management.  The costs of sending scientists into the field is an special concern and research by many state organisations is now immersed mainly in monitoring programs.  I have no problem with this but monitoring often means that there is less contact with the industry.  Then there is the beaurocracy which does not always enable a practical result and is resented by those who do not understand the reasoning behind many of the approaches made.  So I think lack-of-trust and beaurocracy are the main impediments.  Don't forget we live in a world with more managers than before, we are living in the beaurocracene not the anthropocene!

Good question. .. and good answers. For me the biggest impediment is the relentless march of the ants. ... i.e. our continuing growing population... As well as the ethics of capitalism which istireless taught

As I know in my country, the greatest challenge is to teach the issue of the importance of fisheries management for local people, especially fishermen, meanwhile, the cultural issues have an important significance.

I don't think the fisheries management community has come to grips with the scale of the problem.  

The management is difficult in ocean to implement any laws to stop the over exploitation of the resources to maintain the ecosystem which is most important for conservation of biodiversity. Education is important for the fishermen community to stop the depletion of marine organisms, they should left parent stock in the system for future harvest of fishes. Commercial fisheries can be restricted to avoid damages for the natural stock. Alternative jobs can be provided for them to implement the ecosystem management to keep something for future generation and conservation point and proper functioning of the ecosystem. Many writers have given good statement can be considered for the management approach. Thanks for providing good topic on fisheries.  

The management of fisheries is not easy and depends on the region where you want to deploy, in bordering countries, the demand for marine products substantially tends to increase and thus the fishing is done from legal, illegal or directed to incidentally. Boats crossing the border with sport fishing permits with no recording catch, sardine boats catch big pelagic  and compete with commercial and sport fishing boats, etc. However it is important to implement the management with all possible actors in the fisheries

Strong leadership and lack of common language between ecosystem Modellers and policy makers!

Tal cual planteas la pregunta... y considerando los distintos agentes que intervienen, la respuesta es distinta según los propios intereses de cada cual. Pero preguntas por el "impedimento que plantea el mayor desafío" y "ordenación ecosistemica". Al respecto considero que es el correcto y cabal entendimiento de estructuras ecosistemicas. No se trata solo se recursos pesqueros, pesquerías, problemas sociales, económicos, etc. tiene que ver con estructuras ecológicas y de nicho que tienen relaciones que aún se desconocen o no se integran adecuadamente, porque también responde a intereses particulares, intereses de cualquier índole, incluso las de conveniencia-economicas de investigación.

Jargon and open access. The literature and guidance on the ecosystem based approach to fisheries management is pretty jargon laden, and encompasses a huge range of issues, objectives and approaches. It is hard to grasp and of little relevance to those whose livelihood depends on a fishery. But  they do understand the importance and need to sustain their own resource, even if they don't do so for the usual reasons.  If we manage to get good conventional fisheries management in place (ie with the emphasis on the target stock) we will be half way to good ecosystem management - which is far more difficult.  And the latter is dependent on the former, so we have to sort basic fisheries management  first, before we look for the wholy grail (spelling intended) of the ecosystem approach. I have been to very expensive and very morally commendable high level meetings about the need for a broader ecosystem approach, in regions where we are no where near being able to manage some of the simplest fisheries systems. So cut the jargon, sort out the basics (which is very tough), and then build on the management system that has been developed for the fishery to take greater account of wider ecosystem issues. 

I my humble opinion I suspect EBFM even in the simplest form of implementation is a pipe dream. Call it what you want: cultural, political, personal, whatever reasons.

Even if their was an agreement accepted by all countries that interact within a given ecosystem, enforcement throughout would be nil. I don't give into defeat too often, but I anticipate that the lengths that the world would have to go to are too much to bear. I do not see a happy medium being reached between all involved parties.

Though I think we, as a community of knowledgeable individuals, could do a better job of data interaction, sharing, combining, collaborating, so on and so forth, so that you can look at the data with an EBFM mindset.

That's my 2c for what it's worth.

The distribution and life histories of fish species are relatively well known, except for some important aspects that are dependent on the physical environments they inhabit. Ecosystem-based fisheries management cannot be fully implemented until there is better knowledge of the distribution of physical characteristics of seabed substrates and the water column, and a better understanding of the processes that form them. In my view, high-resolution interpretive mapping of fishing grounds (substrates, water column) will provide the framework required for initiating the management of ecosystems and their associated species.

These come to mind:

1. Legal precedence and cultural attachment to a single-species management structure.  A species not considered overfished in a single-species context may be overfished in an ecosystem context. 

2.  A focus on only  growth and recruitment overfishing in fishery management.  

3.  The fixation by fisheries management to only allocate resources only for fishery extraction.  No allocations are provided for non-extractive uses such as recreational diving, tourism, education, science, or conservation.  The "right to fish" is widely discussed but not "rights to have undisturbed areas with public access " for nature appreciation, education, science, or conservation.  While many areas that prohibit hunting exist on land and are widely accepted, analogous aquatic areas that prohibit fishing are rare.   

4. A over reliance on stock wide assessment models and the lack of spatially explicit, stock assessment models.

5. Lack of accepted ecosystem models that can integrate climate, productivity, oceanography, and trophic and fishery interactions.

6.  A failure to incorporate a precautionary principle into management.  Because we have imperfect knowledge, some areas should be set aside with minimum disturbance.  

7. A preoccupation with short term economic impacts versus a long-term ecosystem persistence.   Although economic considerations are important, they are not sufficient.   Economics must be balanced with ethics.  Self-interest must also involve obligations, responsibility, and self-sacrifice.  

8. More proximate and pragmatic problems are misinformation, ignorance, stupidity, stubbornness, greed, and arrogance.

Our recent paper could be useful for you and please will you find it in attached file.

The lack of fishermen community participation possesses the greatest challenge to the EBFM approach. The identification and delineation of its components are well defined for the fishery management purpose. However, we are failing to involve the communities in the same management platform. Hence the ecosystem based approach can be made more realistic with the inclusion of fishermen communities.

"The lack of fishermen community participation possesses the greatest challenge to the EBFM approach"

The problem is that there is no fishermen community, the fishermen of neighboring countries, and especially of large and strong ones, are the deadly enemy of fishermen in one's own country, since they deplete the fish stocks in that area.

I found that there's no single approach and agreement as to the EBFM objectives. Some people think that EBFM's objective is to manage fisheries to obtain best sustainable catches, considering the ecological conditions of the ecosystem that should be managed for the benefit for food supply to people, the Genesis way. Thus, for example, it would exclude the presently widely applied single-species management. In the extreme, it should be like agriculture that's turning wilderness into arable fields.

Other people seem to be of the opinion that the objective of the EBFM is to maintain the environment as close as possible to its original "wild" condition. Extreme approach seems to consider fisheries as  a sort of annoyance, which the management should bring to minimum.  And the truth is....