Lessons for fisheries management from the EU cod recovery plan |
| |
| Institution: | 1. School of Biological, Earth & Environmental Sciences, University College Cork, Ireland;2. Marine Institute, Rinville, Oranmore, Co. Galway, Ireland;3. Marine Scotland Science, Marine Laboratory, 375 Victoria Road, Aberdeen AB11 9DB, United Kingdom;4. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Aquatic Resources Institute of Marine Research, Lysekil, Sweden;5. The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk NR33 0HT, United Kingdom;6. Technical University of Denmark, National Institute of Aquatic Resources, Charlottenlund, Denmark;7. Institute of Marine Research, 5005 Bergen, Norway;8. Johann Heinrich von Thünen Insitute, Institute of Sea Fisheries, Hamburg, Germany;9. Countryside and Community Research Institute, Oxstalls Lane, Longlevens, Gloucester GL2 9HW, United Kingdom;10. European Commission, Joint Research Centre IPSC, Maritime Affairs Unit, TP 051, 21027, Ispra, Italy;11. The Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Ankerstraat 1, B-8400 Ostend, Belgium;1. School of Science, University of Greenwich, Medway Campus, Central Avenue, Chatham Maritime, Kent ME4 4TB, UK;2. School of Science, University of Greenwich, Medway Campus, Central Avenue, Chatham Maritime, Kent ME4 4TB, UK;3. Greenwich Maritime Institute, University of Greenwich, The Old Royal Naval College, Park Row, London SE10 9LS, UK;1. Sustainability Research Unit/South African National Parks, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Private Bag X6531, George 6530, South Africa;2. Biodiversity Unit, Sustainable Fisheries Programme, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) South Africa, PO Box 23273, Claremont 7735, South Africa;1. School of Geosciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA;2. The College of Marine Science, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, FL, USA;3. Southeast Regional Office, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, FL, USA;4. Department of Biology, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, FL, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | The performance of the EU long-term management plan for cod stocks, in force since 2009, is analysed focusing on the human and institutional factors. The plan operates through landings quotas (TACs) and effort restrictions following a Harvest Control Rule, and deploys a novel instrument allowing Member States to ‘buy back’ or increase fishing effort for fleet segments engaged in cod-avoidance measures. The stipulated fishing mortality reductions have not been achieved. On the positive side, the ‘buy-back’ instrument has led to increased uptake of selective gear and implementation of permanent and real-time temporary closures. On the negative side, ignoring the dimension of fishers as reactive agents in the design, the impact assessment, and the annual implementation of the measures has contributed to the failure to adequately implement the plan and achieve its objectives. The main problem is that the landings quotas taken in a mixed fishery did not limit catches because fishers were incentivised to continue fishing and discard overquota catch while quota for other species was available. The effort limitations intended to reduce this effect were insufficient to adequately limit fishing mortality in targeted fisheries, although fishers experienced them as prohibiting the full uptake of other quotas. Recommendations for future plans include (i) management through catch rather than landings quotas, (ii) the internalisation of the costs of exceeding quotas, (iii) use of more selective gear types, (iv) the development of appropriate metrics as a basis for regulatory measures and for evaluations, (v) participatory governance, (vi) fishery-based management, (vii) flexibility in fishing strategy at vessel level. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
