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

Abstract

<jats:title>SUMMARY</jats:title><jats:p>MPAs are being established worldwide at an increasing rate, however empirical evidence for benefits to mobile species of small areas closed to fishing in temperate regions are little known. Using two North Sea prohibited trawling areas (PTAs) established &gt; 80 years ago, social (fishers’ perceptions), management (fishing effort and compliance) and ecological (fish abundance and size) data were combined to assess the PTAs against their primary societal (conflict resolution) and secondary ecological (stock protection) objectives. Fishers perceived that the PTAs resolved conflicts between static and mobile gear sectors, despite evidence of non-compliance. However, few fishers perceived that they personally benefited from the PTAs. Fish abundance and size data from baited traps (BT) and video (BV) provided no evidence of PTA effects, but trawling effort was a significant predictor of BT fish abundance data and improved the model of BV fish abundance data. The absence of PTA effects on fish is attributable to non-compliance, the high mobility of the fish involved and their continued exploitation within the PTAs using static gear. This points to the need for greater understanding of the behaviour of fishers in relation to closures. The study also highlights the challenges of quantifying possible fishery benefits of small temperate closed areas and questions whether widely advocated fishery benefits may have enhanced initial support, but failure to deliver them may erode faith in such closures as a fisheries management tool.</jats:p>

How fisher‐influenced marine closed areas contribute to ecosystem‐based management: A review and performance indicator scorecard

“…In both studies, static gear fishers were allowed to fish inside the closed areas, while mobile gear users were not. In Bloomfield et al (2012), 54% of the trawl fishers interviewed thought PTAs achieved their objectives. Fishers were generally positive about the closed areas for conflict resolution and stock protection.…”

“…In Bloomfield et al . (), 54% of the trawl fishers interviewed thought PTAs achieved their objectives. Fishers were generally positive about the closed areas for conflict resolution and stock protection.…”

“…Gear conflicts often influence the type of closures imposed. A study on prohibited trawling areas (PTAs) in the UK (Bloomfield, Sweeting, Mill, Stead, & Polunin, 2012) discussed conflict resolutions between mobile and static gear fishers, similar to Blyth, Kaiser, Edwards-Jones, and Hart (2004) on the Inshore Potting Agreement (IPA). In both studies, static gear fishers were allowed to fish inside the closed areas, while mobile gear users were not.…”

“…In recent cases, fishers provided a variety of biological and ecological data relevant to closures (Bloomfield et al, 2012;Blyth et al, 2004;Forcada et al, 2010;Galal et al, 2002;Guidetti et al, 2010;Jupiter & Egli, 2011;Seytre & Francour, 2008). For example, fishers provided information on fishing locations and habitat information to help select study sites for biomass sampling at the South Devon Inshore Potting Agreement (IPA), UK (Blyth et al (2004).…”

Effects of Pollution on Marine Organisms

“…A study of benthic macrofaunal assemblages in the Sackville Spur closed area (fisheries) in the Northwest Atlantic showed that the exclusion zone had greater abundances, biomass, diversity, and taxa indicative of vulnerable marine ecosystems than nearby areas outside the zone(Froján et al, 2012). Based on these results, the authors recommended that the closed area be maintained in its current form Bloomfield et al (2012). reported that fish abundance and size at two North Sea prohibited trawling areas (PTAs) was not different from control sites.…”