Aggregate performance in managing marine ecosystems of 53 maritime countries

Alder, Jackie; Cullis-Suzuki, Sarika; Karpouzi, Vasiliki; Kaschner, Kristin; Mondoux, Suzanne; Swartz, Wilf; Trujillo, Pablo; Watson, Reg; Pauly, Daniel

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2009.10.001

Cited by 41 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…; Alder et al . ; Worm and Branch ). The surveys have used different methodologies and, therefore, identified somewhat different regions, but there are also some similarities.…”

Section: Global Fisheries Problem Hotspotsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing fisheries for human and food security

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We evaluate the current status of the global marine fisheries using the frameworks of conflict, food security and vulnerability. Existing trends suggest that there is likely to be greater food insecurity and fisheries conflicts due to issues such as: declining fishery resources; a North–South divide in investment; changing consumption patterns; increasing reliance on fishery resources for coastal communities; and inescapable poverty traps creating by low net resource productivity and few alternatives. Consequently, managing fisheries from a food security perspective will become increasingly necessary, and we therefore briefly review fisheries from the perspective of food security and evaluate it using a vulnerability framework. Specifically, we describe three key components of vulnerability (exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity) for selected fisheries. This is followed by proposals to build the adaptive capacity of fisheries and recommendations to avoid future conflicts. Adaptive capacity attributes include assets, social flexibility and organization attributes, and learning. We present some key ways to build these aspects of the fishery to reduce the many potential environmental and social threats that increase the vulnerability of fisheries. Recommendations include fewer subsidies, reduced capital investment, precautionary management to minimize risks of ecosystem collapse, conservation of remaining resources, diversified portfolios of production and markets, and greater equity in contracts and distribution. Further, we recommend a contextual diagnostic and environmental justice framework to assess a range of options for fishery governance.

show abstract

“…; Alder et al . ; Worm and Branch ). The surveys have used different methodologies and, therefore, identified somewhat different regions, but there are also some similarities.…”

Section: Global Fisheries Problem Hotspotsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing fisheries for human and food security

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Australia's fisheries encompass arguably the most complex and expensive management systems worldwide on a per unit catch‐weight basis. Management practices ranked second for sustainability in a global marine performance assessment of 53 countries (Alder et al, ), with frequent praise from fisheries experts worldwide (e.g. Hilborn, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rapid declines across Australian fishery stocks indicate global sustainability targets will not be achieved without an expanded network of ‘no‐fishing’ reserves

Edgar

Ward

Stuart‐Smith

2018

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract1. A continuing debate between environmental scientists and fisheries biologists on the sustainability of fisheries management practices, and the extent of fishing impacts on marine ecosystems, is unlikely to be resolved without fisheryindependent data spanning large geographic and temporal scales. Here, we compare continental-and decadal-scale trends in fisheries catches with underwater reef monitoring data for 533 sites around Australia, and find matching evidence of rapid fish-stock declines.2. Regardless of a high global ranking for fisheries sustainability, catches from Australian wild fisheries decreased by 31% over the past decade. The biomass of large fishes observed on underwater transects decreased significantly over the same period on fished reefs (36% decline) and in marine park zones that allow limited fishing (18% decline), but with a negligible overall change in no-fishing marine reserves. Populations of exploited fishes generally rose within marine reserves and declined outside the reserves, whereas unexploited species showed little difference in population trends within or outside reserves.3. Although changing climate and more precautionary fisheries management contribute to declining fish catches, fisheries-independent transect data suggest that excessive fishing also plays a major role.4. The large number of fishery stocks that remain unmanaged or have poor data, coupled with continuing declines in the stock biomass of managed fish species, indicate that Aichi Target 6 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (i.e. 'by 2020, all fish and invertebrate stocks and aquatic plants are managed and harvested sustainably') will not be achieved in Australia, or elsewhere.5. In order to maintain some naturally functioning food webs supported by large predators and associated ecosystem services in this era of changing climate, a greatly expanded network of effective, fully protected marine protected areas is needed that encompasses global marine biodiversity. The present globally unbalanced situation, with >98% of seas open to some form of fishing, deserves immediate multinational attention.

show abstract

“…We reviewed existing methods to combine multiple indicators, discussed their pros and cons, and identified three categories of approaches: (1) a scoring approach aggregating indicators into a single composite indicator, (2) a multidimensional approach, and (3) multi-criteria decision analysis. The scoring approach is the most common and relies on a simple combination of indicators such as the sum, arithmetic mean, hierarchical mean, weighted mean, median, product (Halpern et al 2008;Allison et al 2009;Alder et al 2010;Butchart et al 2010;Ojaveer and Eero 2011;Coll et al 2010). Although the method is simple, it is sensitive to the aggregation formula chosen (Allison et al 2009;Ojaveer and Eero 2011), indicator weights (Alder et al 2010), and initial indicator selection.…”

Section: Integration Of Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global in scope and regionally rich: an IndiSeas workshop helps shape the future of marine ecosystem indicators

Shin

Bundy

Shannon

et al. 2012

Rev Fish Biol Fisheries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This report summarizes the outcomes of an IndiSeas workshop aimed at using ecosystem indicators to evaluate the status of the world's exploited marine ecosystems in support of an ecosystem approach to fisheries, and global policy drivers such as the 2020 targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Key issues covered relate to the selection and integration of multi-disciplinary indicators, including climate, biodiversity and human dimension indicators, and to the development of dataand model-based methods to test the performance of ecosystem indicators in providing support for fisheries management. To enhance the robustness of our crosssystem comparison, unprecedented effort was put in gathering regional experts from developed and developing countries, working together on multi-institutional survey datasets, and using the most up-to-date ecosystem models.

show abstract

Aggregate performance in managing marine ecosystems of 53 maritime countries

Cited by 41 publications

References 21 publications

Managing fisheries for human and food security

Managing fisheries for human and food security

Rapid declines across Australian fishery stocks indicate global sustainability targets will not be achieved without an expanded network of ‘no‐fishing’ reserves

Global in scope and regionally rich: an IndiSeas workshop helps shape the future of marine ecosystem indicators

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About