Improving fishery law enforcement in marine protected areas

Abstract

There are several international and European legal instruments which provide a legal basis for the establishments of marine protected areas (MPAs) for the purpose of improving fishery management in the marine environment. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of MPAs remains open to debate and considerable attention is now focussed at international and European levels on how to improve the enforcement of regulations in MPAs. In this context, there is little doubt but that monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) are indispensable tools for improving law enforcement and compliance in such areas. Indeed, recent experience in the European Union suggests that the effectiveness of MCS ought to be a primary consideration when designated areas to be protected in the marine environment. Accordingly, the aim of this article is to focus on some of the difficulties that must be overcome in order to improve the effectiveness of MCS in MPAs. Particular emphasis is placed on the problems that stem from the absence of common definitions regarding the characteristics of the area to be protected, the absence of harmonisation of MCS in such areas, as well as the problems that stem from practical considerations such as the size, shape and location of MPAs. The article also reviews basic fishery enforcement measures which can improve the effectiveness of MPAs including: hydrofencing, special fishing permits, one gear rule, as well as specific monitoring systems and security enforcement zones. Although the total harmonisation of regulatory measures is desirable from a law enforcement perspective, the article nonetheless concludes that it is also possible to have specific MCS solutions tailored to meet the characteristics of the area that needs to be protected. Résumé Différents instruments juridiques internationaux et européens fournissent une base légale pour l'établissement des aires marines protégées (AMP) visant à améliorer la gestion des pêches dans l'environnement marin. Néanmoins, la discussion sur l'efficacité des AMP reste ouverte et la façon d'améliorer l'application des règlementations dans les AMP fait l'objet aujourd'hui d'une attention particulière au niveau international et européen. Dans ce contexte, il ne fait aucun doute 96 R. Long et al. 123que le suivi, le contrôle et la surveillance (SCS) sont les outils indispensables pour améliorer la mise en oeuvre et le respect des règlementations dans ces zones. En effet, une expérience récente de l'Union européenne montre que l'efficacité du SCS doit être prioritairement prise en considération lors de la création des aires marines protégées. En conséquence, cet article se concentre sur certaines difficultés qui doivent être surmontées afin d'améliorer l'efficacité du SCS dans les AMP. L'accent est mis en particulier sur les problèmes issus de l'absence de définitions communes des caractéristiques de l'aire à protéger, de l'absence d'harmonisation du SCS dans de telles zones, ainsi que sur les problèmes issus de considérations pratiques telles que la taille, la forme e...

Marine conservation finance: The need for and scope of an emerging field

“…The scientific literature abounds with factors that constrain the success of marine conservation initiatives. Examples include disjointed and inadequate ocean governance (Marian, 2012;Yen-Chiang, 2012;Aswani and Ruddle, 2013), conflicts between stakeholders (Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008;Kuei-Chao et al, 2013), and limited enforcement capacity (Monteiro et al, 2010). Yet there is an overarching limit to marine conservation that has not been adequately addressed in the literature or in practice: finance.…”

No-trawl area impacts: perceptions, compliance and fish abundances

“…Even low levels of trawling activity can affect habitats and benthic communities, and historical and on-going non-compliance may have limited the ability of the PTAs to deliver benefits for fish stocks (Kritzer 2004; Monteiro et al . 2010). This assertion is supported by a recent study, which failed to detect differences in benthic communities across the boundaries of the PTAs (Allen 2008).…”

“…For example, the Devon Inshore Potting Agreement enhanced the size of some fish species (Blyth-Skyrme et al 2006), likely due to improvements in habitat quality (Kaiser et al 2002) and benthic communities upon which mobile species depend (Blyth et al 2004). Even low levels of trawling activity can affect habitats and benthic communities, and historical and on-going non-compliance may have limited the ability of the PTAs to deliver benefits for fish stocks (Kritzer 2004;Monteiro et al 2010). This assertion is supported by a recent study, which failed to detect differences in benthic communities across the boundaries of the PTAs (Allen 2008).…”

From measuring outcomes to providing inputs: Governance, management, and local development for more effective marine protected areas

“…According to Samonte et al [89] the enforcement chain includes five important steps -surveillance and detection, interception and arrest, prosecution, and sanctions -and "it is only as strong as the weakest link". A contextually tailored and seamless program of monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) that incorporates a variety of measures is indispensible to any program of enforcement [183,184]. Sanctions can include the confiscation of illegal gear [105] but these sorts of actions need to be legally supported [149].…”