Governance of marine fisheries and biodiversity conservation

Garcia, Serge; Rice, Jake; Charles, Anthony

doi:10.1002/9781118392607.ch2

Cited by 24 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, co-management can involve the participation of local community groups or resource users in decision-making, implementation, and enforcement (Jentoft et al, 1998;Berkes, 2010). When MPAs are contemplated for coastal areas, there are typically strong interactions with small-scale fisheries, which can create significant governance issues, in terms of interactions between resource users and conservationists (Garcia et al, 2014), and for governance of MPAs themselves (Jones, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social networks and transitions to co-management in Jamaican marine reserves and small-scale fisheries

Alexander

Armitage

Charles

2015

Global Environmental Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social networks and transitions to co-management in Jamaican marine reserves and small-scale fisheries

Alexander

Armitage

Charles

2015

Global Environmental Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The impacts of trawling on the environment and biodiversity are the focus of societal debates about the benefits and costs of seafood production, and an increasing focus of fisheries and environmental management regulation and certification processes. This is especially the case when trawling occurs on or close to vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) or ecologically and biologically significant areas (EBSAs), but also for other types of habitat (Garcia, Rice, & Charles, ). A range of management measures and voluntary industry actions have been adopted to reduce or prevent trawling impacts on seabed habitats.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

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

“…International agreements related to sustainability encourage adoption of ecosystem‐based management (EBM), or within the fishery sector, the ecosystem approach to fisheries management (EAF) (FAO, , ), as well as “integrated management” (IM) approaches (Fogarty & McCarthy, ; Garcia, Rice, & Charles, ). Concurrent with international political pressure, fisheries face increasing demands to demonstrate sustainability (Dahl, ; FAO, ), to achieve third‐party certification (Foley, ; Foley & McCay, ) and to obtain and maintain societal acceptance (“social license”; e.g., Rooney, Leach, & Ashworth, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Concurrent with international political pressure, fisheries face increasing demands to demonstrate sustainability (Dahl, ; FAO, ), to achieve third‐party certification (Foley, ; Foley & McCay, ) and to obtain and maintain societal acceptance (“social license”; e.g., Rooney, Leach, & Ashworth, ). The common theme is the recognition that fisheries are part of social–ecological systems (Ostrom, ) and that sustainability requires appropriate consideration of four elements: ecological, economic, social (including cultural) and institutional (or governance) (Boström, ; Dahl, ; Garcia et al., ; Garcia & Staples, ; Rindorf et al., ). However, in practice, the social, economic and institutional aspects (i.e., the “human dimensions”) have been relatively neglected to date (Charles, ; Frame & Brown, ; Hicks et al., ; Rydin, ; Yanarella & Levine, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating and implementing social–ecological systems: A comprehensive approach to sustainable fisheries

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fisheries sustainability is recognized to have four pillars: ecological, economic, social (including cultural) and institutional (or governance). Although international agreements, and legislation in many jurisdictions, call for implementation of all four pillars of sustainability, the social, economic and institutional aspects (i.e., the “human dimensions”) have not been comprehensively and collectively addressed to date. This study describes a framework for comprehensive fisheries evaluation developed by the Canadian Fisheries Research Network (CFRN) that articulates the full spectrum of ecological, economic, social and institutional objectives required under international agreements, together with candidate performance indicators for sustainable fisheries. The CFRN framework is aimed at practical fisheries evaluation and management and has a relatively balanced distribution of elements across the four pillars of sustainability relative to 10 alternative management decision support tools and indicator scorecards, which are heavily focused on ecological and economic aspects. The CFRN framework has five immediate uses: (a) It can serve as a logic frame for defining management objectives; (b) it can be used to define alternate management options to achieve given objectives; (c) it can serve as a tool for comparing management scenarios/options in decision support frameworks; (d) it can be employed to create a report card for comprehensive fisheries management evaluation; and (e) it is a tool for practical implementation of an integrated social–ecological system approach.

show abstract

Governance of marine fisheries and biodiversity conservation

Cited by 24 publications

References 24 publications

Social networks and transitions to co-management in Jamaican marine reserves and small-scale fisheries

Social networks and transitions to co-management in Jamaican marine reserves and small-scale fisheries

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

Evaluating and implementing social–ecological systems: A comprehensive approach to sustainable fisheries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About