4.6 Article

Coviability analysis of Western Mediterranean fisheries under MSY scenarios for 2020

期刊

ICES JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE
卷 71, 期 7, 页码 1563-1571

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsu061

关键词

bioeconomic fisheries model; coviability analysis; demersal fisheries; pelagic fisheries; Western Mediterranean

资金

  1. European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) [266445]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF) seeks to manage fisheries sustainably, including all dimensions of fisheries: biological, social and economic aspects. The separate management of these aspects may lead to conflicting objectives. Coviability analysis helps us to rank a set of choices (alternative management measures) objectively, allows us to explore which policies will ensure strong sustainability, and formally recognizes themulti-objective nature of fisheries management. The coviability of the main Western Mediterranean Spanish fisheries was examined with a bioeconomic simulation model under alternative management strategies that implement strong fishing mortality reduction policies. Based on a joint (biological and economic) viability assessment, it has been shown that Western Mediterranean fisheries require the reduction of fishing effort to similar to 10% of the 2010 levels. This strong conservation measure would need to be applied as soon as possible in order for European Mediterranean fisheries to be managed at MSY, as required by legally binding international agreements, which may be unrealistic. Large reductions in fishing mortality for stocks that have been subject to high exploitation rates for decades are difficult to achieve with the current paradigm of effort control in the Mediterranean. Instead, reorienting the exploitation of Mediterranean fish stocks with management measures that combine changes in exploitation patterns with seasonal or spatial area closures, should help meet the policy goals of fishing mortality levels compatible with MSY by 2020.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据