Canada's Pacific groundfish trawl habitat agreement: A global first in an ecosystem approach to bottom trawl impacts

Wallace, Scott; Turris, Bruce R.; Driscoll, John; Bodtker, Karin; Mose, B.; Munro, Gordon R.

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2015.06.028

Cited by 44 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In some cases, the fishing industry has been supportive of closures that primarily serve non‐fishery outcomes, taking the initiative to identify sensitive habitat areas that should be closed to fishing. This industry‐led habitat protection occurred in New Zealand and British Columbia, where the fishing industry adopted a longer‐term perspective and support for conservation‐minded measures that can promote resilience and achieve ecocertification (OECD, ; Wallace et al., ). The observed alignment of extensive spatial management networks and generally successful fisheries management is likely a result of both successful management leading to greater industry support (or at least tolerance) for spatial management, and spatial management contributing to positive fishery outcomes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the most part, the IVQs are transferable and are used for more than 60 fisheries targeting a number of species such as halibut ( Hippoglossus stenolepis , Pleuronectidae), many species of rockfish ( Sebastes species), and dogfish ( Squalus suckleyi , Squalidae). Additionally British Columbia has implemented the world's first habitat conservation bycatch limits, whereby fishers have limited allowable bycatch quotas for corals and sponges, a proxy for habitat damage (Wallace et al., ).…”

Section: Case‐studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…British Columbia, like Iceland and Alaska, utilizes an extensive, science-based spatial management network. The trawl footprint was instituted in 2012, and its efficacy for groundfish stocks has not yet been evaluated (Wallace et al, 2015). British Columbia's RCAs have been in place somewhat longer, but few positive effects on targeted rockfish species have been documented (Haggarty, Shurin, & Yamanaka, 2016).…”

Section: Outcomes Within and Adjacent To Managed Areasmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The use of spatial management tools in rights‐based groundfish fisheries

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The role of spatial management, including marine protected areas, in achieving fisheries outcomes alongside conservation goals is debated. In fisheries that fail to meet fishing mortality targets, closed areas are sometimes implemented to reduce fishing mortality. However, fisheries with stronger management, including rights‐based approaches that can address overcapacity and overfishing problems, often employ spatial management as well. Here, we compare the objectives, design, and performance of spatial management in nine temperate demersal fisheries in North America, Oceania, Europe, and Africa that employ rights‐based systems. Common objectives of spatial management included protecting habitat, juveniles, and spawners and reducing discards. Recovering age structure and creating scientific reference sites were less common objectives, despite being widely cited benefits of spatial management. Some fisheries adopted single closures to achieve single objectives, whereas others adopted diverse networks to achieve multiple objectives. Importantly, many spatial protections are implemented primarily through industry initiatives. Environmental change compromised the efficacy of spatial management in some cases, suggesting the need to design spatial management systems that are robust to changing ocean conditions. Fisheries with diverse and extensive spatial management systems have generally healthier fish stocks. Whether this implies that spatial management contributed substantially to fishery performance is unclear due to an absence of large‐scale, long‐term studies aimed at discerning different drivers of success. Although these targeted monitoring studies of closed areas are limited, such studies are necessary to help resolve the ongoing debate and to enable more purposeful design of spatial management for fisheries and conservation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Case‐studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Outcomes Within and Adjacent To Managed Areasmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The use of spatial management tools in rights‐based groundfish fisheries

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In practice, they do not necessarily minimize or eliminate further adverse effects on VMEs (Auster et al, ; Dunn et al, ; cf. Wallace et al, ). Moreover, fishing effort is likely to be displaced into similar (but less preferred) fishing grounds, which expands the trawling footprint and may increase total effort due to lower catch rates of target species (Kenchington, ), thereby increasing overall impacts to seabed habitats and biota.…”

Section: Management Measures and Industry Actionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These measures establish quotas that limit trawl bycatch of vulnerable structure‐forming species, such as coral and sponge. At present, they are being implemented for groundfish management in British Columbia, Canada, where fleet‐wide and individual limits are intended to reduce and manage impacts on corals and sponges (Wallace et al, ). The bycatch quotas are tradable between vessels and are combined with more traditional spatial closures in areas with high coral and sponge concentrations.…”

Section: Management Measures and Industry Actionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Choosing best practices for managing impacts of trawl fishing on seabed habitats and biota

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bottom trawling accounts for almost one quarter of global fish landings but may also have significant and unwanted impacts on seabed habitats and biota. Management measures and voluntary industry actions can reduce these impacts, helping to meet sustainability objectives for fisheries, conservation and environmental management. These include changes in gear design and operation of trawls, spatial controls, impact quotas and effort controls. We review nine different measures and actions and use published studies and a simple conceptual model to evaluate and compare their performance. The risks and benefits of these management measures depend on the extent to which the fishery is already achieving management objectives for target stocks and the characteristics of the management system that is already in place. We offer guidance on identifying best practices for trawl‐fisheries management and show that best practices and their likelihood of reducing trawling impacts depend on local, national and regional management objectives and priorities, societal values and resources for implementation. There is no universal best practice, and multiple management measures and industry actions are required to meet sustainability objectives and improve trade‐offs between food production and environmental protection.

show abstract

Spatial restrictions hinder avoidance of choke species in an Indigenous rights‐based fishery

English,

Picco,

Edwards

et al. 2023

People and Nature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nutrient‐rich waters along the Pacific coast of North America support diverse fish communities that have helped sustain coastal peoples for millennia. Five Nuu‐chah‐nulth First Nations on the west coast of what is now known as Vancouver Island, Canada, hold constitutional Indigenous rights to conduct a multispecies community fishery, which includes Pacific Halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis). A 2009 court decision defined the extent of these Indigenous rights to be within 9 nm of the coast, thereby not fully recognizing the knowledge and authority of the traditional leadership and raising concerns about the potential for an increase in rockfish bycatch. Yelloweye Rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) are a potential ‘choke’ species for this fishery because the two species occupy similar depth ranges. A choke species is one that is caught incidentally while targeting other species and, if caught in excess of its quota limits, can trigger a halt to fishing on the target species. Guided by the insights of local Indigenous peoples and using both fishery‐independent survey and commercial longline catch data, we investigated the effects of fishing depth and spatial restriction on the relative catch weights of these two species using spatiotemporal models. We find evidence that a confined fishing area can limit opportunities for avoiding choke species. Specifically, fishing at depths deeper than 175 m, which occur outside the court defined area (CDA), would provide more opportunities for catching halibut while avoiding Yelloweye Rockfish than are currently available within the CDA. This Indigenous‐informed, analytical approach to a management problem is just one example of how Western scientists can engage in coproduction of knowledge with Indigenous peoples to transition from the ‘status quo’ towards a practice of ‘Two‐Eyed Seeing’ that more effectively balances Indigenous rights and species conservation. Policy implications: Our study highlights (1) the importance of considering choke species distributions and opportunities for their avoidance when implementing spatial harvest restrictions and (2) how related analytical and management decisions can benefit from being guided by the advice of Indigenous knowledge holders. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

show abstract

Canada's Pacific groundfish trawl habitat agreement: A global first in an ecosystem approach to bottom trawl impacts

Cited by 44 publications

References 16 publications

The use of spatial management tools in rights‐based groundfish fisheries

The use of spatial management tools in rights‐based groundfish fisheries

Choosing best practices for managing impacts of trawl fishing on seabed habitats and biota

Spatial restrictions hinder avoidance of choke species in an Indigenous rights‐based fishery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About