Generic harvest control rules for European fisheries

Froese, Rainer; Branch, Trevor A.; Proelß, Alexander; Quaas, Martin F.; Sainsbury, Keith; Zimmermann, Christopher

doi:10.1111/j.1467-2979.2010.00387.x

Cited by 89 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In classical fisheries science, it is increasingly assumed that the concept of MSY, as a reference for the catch rate, should be reinterpreted as an upper limit rather than a management target, by replacing the traditional goal of maximizing the catch by that of maximizing economic profit or even minimizing the impact of fishing (Froese et al, 2011(Froese et al, , 2016a, although this is not being implemented yet in national and EU fishing policies (Marchal et al, 2016). This requires the introduction of a range of management tools that permits an overall reduction in exploitation rates.…”

Section: Fish Box Vs Mpasmentioning

confidence: 99%

North East Atlantic vs. Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas as Fisheries Management Tool

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effectiveness of management initiatives implemented in the context of the European Common Fisheries Policy has been questioned, especially with regard to the Mediterranean. Some of the analyses made to compare the fishing activity and management measures carried out in the North East Atlantic and in the Mediterranean do not take into account some of the differentiating peculiarities of each of these regions. At the same time, they resort to traditional fisheries management measures and do not discuss the role of marine protected areas as a complementary management tool. In this respect, the apparent failure of marine protected areas in the North-East Atlantic compared with the same in the Mediterranean is challenging European fishery scientists. Application of the classical holistic view of ecological succession to the functioning of fishery closures and no-use areas highlights the importance of combining both management regimes to fully satisfy both fishery-and biodiversity-oriented goals. We advocate that an optimal management strategy for designing an MPA to protect biodiversity and sustain fishing yields consists of combining a network of no-use areas (close to their mature state) with fish boxes (buffer zones maintained by fishing disturbance in a relatively early successional stage, where productivity is higher), under a multi-zoning scheme. In this framework, the importance of no-use areas for fisheries is based on several observations: (1) They preserve biological diversity at regional scale, at all levels-specific, habitat/seascape, and also genetic diversity and the structure of populations, allowing natural selection to operate. (2) They permit the natural variability of the system to be differentiated from the effects of regulation and to be integrated in appropriate sampling schemes as controls. (3) They maintain the natural size and age structure of the populations, hence maximizing potential fecundity, allowing biomass export to occur from core to regulated areas, dampening the fluctuations derived from deviations from the theoretical optimal effort in the fishing zone.

show abstract

Section: Fish Box Vs Mpasmentioning

confidence: 99%

North East Atlantic vs. Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas as Fisheries Management Tool

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is clear that allowable catches can deviate from MSY due to environmental and economic factors, interdependence of stocks, etc., but catch rates above MSY (i.e. > F MSY ) are likely to result in declines below B MSY and lower catches in the long term (Froese et al 2010). Thus, HCRs should adaptively and periodically (i.e.…”

Section: Governance F and Decision-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a new fisheries effort management system for the Faroe Islands? - Controversies around the meaning of fishing sustainability

Hegland

Hopkins

2014

Maritime Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Faroe Islands are currently struggling to find their feet in a new context of globalisation and changing international requirements on fishery management best practices, as exemplified by United Nations protocols and agreements. We introduce the Faroese fisheries effort management system for cod, haddock and saithe, which represents an innovative attempt to tackle the challenges of mixed fisheries by means of a combination of total allowable effort implemented through days-at-sea and extensive use of closed or limited access areas. Subsequently, we present and discuss controversies concerning the system's ability (or lack thereof) to achieve a level of fishing effort that produces long-term sustainability. Over the years the system has proved able to evolve and overcome challenges, and the Faroe Islands are currently considering adding a proper fisheries management plan to the system to achieve fishing at maximum sustainable yield. However, finding support for this plan presents a challenge due particularly to an enduring gap between the perspectives of scientists and actors in the catching sector. Finally, we outline some actions that could be taken to reduce the gap and hence facilitate reform of the system: 1) integration of the consultative/advisory process; 2) obtaining tailor-made advice for the Faroese effort management system from the relevant scientific body; 3) establishment of a transparent mechanism for monitoring and regulating fishing effort; 4) clarifying the efficacy of the prevalent system of closed areas.

show abstract

“…v www.esajournals.org fisheries, Froese et al (2011) recommended a generic, precautionary annual target catch of 91% of MSY.…”

Section: Functional Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To set the target based on a functional relationship, we relied on an MSY proxy, i.e., the yield expected with spawner potential ratio values corresponding to a spawning stock biomass equal to 40% of unfished levels. In particular, the target (C FR ) was set as 91% of the MSY proxy in keeping with the recommendations of Froese et al (2011). We chose Fig.…”

Section: Applying Different Types Of Targets To Assess Ocean State: Fmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sea sick? Setting targets to assess ocean health and ecosystem services

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The benefits provided by a healthy ocean are receiving increasing attention in policy and management spheres. A fundamental challenge with assessing ocean health and ecosystem services is that we lack a scientific framework for expressing ecosystem conditions quantitatively in relation to management goals. Here we outline and operationalize a conceptual framework for identifying meaningful reference points and quantifying the current ecosystem state relative to them. The framework requires clear articulation of management goals and is built on a review of current scientific understanding and assessment of data availability. It develops a structured approach for choosing among three classes of reference points, including: (1) functional relationships that establish the ocean state that can be produced and sustained under different environmental conditions, (2) time series approaches that compare current to previous capacities to obtain a particular ocean state in a specific location, and (3) spatial reference points that compare current capacities to achieve a desired ocean state across regional (or, if necessary, global) scales. We illustrate this general framework through the lens of ocean health defined in terms of a coupled social-ecological system, with examples from fisheries, marine livelihoods, and water quality in the USA. Assessment of ocean health and ecosystem services can be significantly influenced by the choice of indicators used to track changes in a management goal, the type of reference point selected, and how one measures the distance of the current state from the reference point. This framework provides flexible, standardized methods for evaluating ocean health and ecosystem services that can advance important components of ecosystem-based management, including marine spatial planning, ecosystem service valuation, and integrated ecosystem assessments.

show abstract

Generic harvest control rules for European fisheries

Cited by 89 publications

References 31 publications

North East Atlantic vs. Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas as Fisheries Management Tool

North East Atlantic vs. Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas as Fisheries Management Tool

Towards a new fisheries effort management system for the Faroe Islands? - Controversies around the meaning of fishing sustainability

Sea sick? Setting targets to assess ocean health and ecosystem services

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About