Suchergebnisse

A survey of past and existing management measures applied to different fisheries in European Western waters is analyzed as a typology of co-management between governments and stakeholders. Faced with increasing constraints on accessing fish stocks, management measures have evolved toward fishing rights individualization, limited access and various other specific measures. Restrictions on access have changed fishermen's behaviour in several significant ways. A comparative analysis, based on qualitative data collected through interviews and focus groups, is developed for fisheries from the following European countries: France, Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom. Past and existing individual harvesting rights in the four countries are reviewed and compared.

Fisheries policy is increasingly influenced by civil society organizations. The newest example of this is the formulation of the landing obligation, a regulation that should reduce the contested practice of discarding unwanted fish. In this paper the implementation process of the landing obligation in four European countries is compared. From this comparison it becomes clear that fishers are working on diminishing discards. However it also shows that for the legitimacy, and the effectiveness of policy it is not only vital to increase the influence of civil society actors, but also the participation of resource users. Their views, knowledge, and cooperation are vital for a successful implementation of the regulation. Otherwise, resistance become too high, and regulation becomes more symbolic than a tool for change.

This study compares the details and performance of fisheries management between the EU and a selection of other countries worldwide: Iceland, New Zealand, and Australia, which are considered in many respects to be among the most advanced in the world in fisheries management. Fisheries management in the EU, Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand has developed following different paths, despite being based on similar instruments and principles. Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand have been at the forefront of developing management practices such as stakeholder involvement, legally binding management targets (Australia, New Zealand), individual transferable quotas, and discard bans (Iceland, New Zealand). The EU has since the beginning of the 21st century taken significant steps to better involve stakeholders and establish quantitative targets through management plans, and a landing obligation is gradually being implemented from 2015 onward. The management of domestic fisheries resources in Australia, New Zealand, and Iceland has, overall, performed better than in the EU, in terms of conservation and economic efficiency. It should, however, be stressed that, compared to Australia, New Zealand, and Iceland, (i) initial over-capacity was more of an issue in the EU when management measures became legally binding and also that (ii) EU has been progressive in developing common enforcement standards, on stocks shared by sovereign nations. The situation of EU fisheries has substantially improved over the period 2004–2013 in the northeast Atlantic, with fishery status getting close to that in the other jurisdictions, but the lack of recovery for Mediterranean fish stocks remains a concern.

Within MESMA, nine case studies (CS) represent discrete marine European spatial entities, at different spatial scales, where a spatial marine management framework is in place, under development or considered. These CS (described in more details below) are chosen in such a way (MESMA D. 3.1 ) that they encompass the complexity of accommodating the various user functions of the marine landscape in various regions of the European marine waters. While human activities at sea are competing for space, there is also growing awareness of the possible negative effects of these human activities on the marine ecosystem. As such, system specific management options are required, satisfying current and future sectoral needs, while safeguarding the marine ecosystem from further detoriation. This integrated management approach is embedded in the concept of ecosystem based management (EBM). The goal of marine EBM is to maintain marine ecosystems in a healthy, productive and resilient condition, making it possible that they sustain human use and provide the goods and services required by society (McLeod et al. 2005). Therefore EBM is an environmental mangagement approach that recognises the interactions within a marine ecosystem, including humans. Hence, EBM does not consider single issues, species or ecosystems good and services in isolation. Operationalisation of EBM can be done through place-based or spatial management approaches (Lackey 1998), such as marine spatial planning (MSP). MSP is a public process of analysing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities aiming at achieving ecological, economic and social objectives. These objectives are usually formulated through political processes (Douvere et al. 2007, Douvere 2008). Within MESMA, a spatially managed area (SMA) is then defined as "a geographical area within which marine spatial planning initiatives exist in the real world". Marine spatial planning initiatives refer to existing management measures actually in place within a defined area, or in any stage of a process of putting management in place, e.g. plans or recommendations for a particular area. Management can include management for marine protection (e.g. in MPAs), or management for sectoral objectives (e.g. building a wind farm to meet renewable energy objectives). Within MESMA, SMAs can have different spatial scales. A SMA can be a small, specific area that is managed/planned to be managed for one specific purpose, but it can also be a larger area within which lots of plans or 'usage zones' exist. This definition is different from the definition mentioned in the DoW (page 60). The original definition was adapted during a CS leader workshop (2-4 May 2012 in Gent, Belgium) and formally accepted by the MESMA ExB during the ExB meeting in Cork (29-30 May 2012). MSP should result in a marine spatial management plan that will produce the desired future trough explicit decisions about the location and timing of human activities. Ehler & Douvere (2009) consider this spatial management as a beginning toward the the implementation of desired goals and objectives. They describe the spatial management plan as a comprehensive, strategic document that provides the framework and direction for marine spatial management decisions. The plan should identify when, where and how goals and objectives will be met. Zoning (the development of zoning plans) is often an important management measure to implement spatial management plans. The purpose of a zoning plan (Ehler & Douvere 2009) is: To provide protection for biologically and ecologically important habitats, ecosystems, and ecological processes. To seperate conflicting human activities, or to combine compatible activities. To protect the natural values of the marine management area (in MESMA terminology: the SMA) while allowing reasonable human uses of the area. To allocate areas for reasonable human uses while minimising the effects of these human uses on each other, and nature. To preserve some areas of the SMA in their natural state undisturbed by humans except for scientific and educational purposes. ; peer-reviewed