A comparative review of fisheries management experiences in the European Union and in other countries worldwide: Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand

Paul Marchal; Jesper Levring Andersen; Martin Aranda; Mike Fitzpatrick; Leyre Goti; Olivier Guyader; Gunnar Haraldsson; Aaron Hatcher; Troels Jacob Hegland; Pascal Le Floc'h; Claire Macher; Loretta Malvarosa; Christos D. Maravelias; Simon Mardle; Arantza Murillas; J. Rasmus Nielsen; Rosaria Sabatella; Anthony D.M. Smith; Kevin Stokes; Thomas Thøgersen; Clara Ulrich

doi:10.1111/faf.12147

A comparative review of fisheries management experiences in the European Union and in other countries worldwide: Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand

Paul Marchal, Jesper Levring Andersen, Martin Aranda, Mike Fitzpatrick, Leyre Goti, Olivier Guyader, Gunnar Haraldsson, Aaron Hatcher, Troels Jacob Hegland, Pascal Le Floc'h, Claire Macher, Loretta Malvarosa, Christos D. Maravelias, Simon Mardle, Arantza Murillas, J. Rasmus Nielsen, Rosaria Sabatella, Anthony D.M. Smith, Kevin Stokes, Thomas ThøgersenClara Ulrich

35 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This study compares the details and performance of fisheries management between the EU and a selection of other countries worldwide: Iceland, New Zealand, and Australia, which are considered in many respects to be among the most advanced in the world in fisheries management. Fisheries management in the EU, Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand has developed following different paths, despite being based on similar instruments and principles. Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand have been at the forefront of developing management practices such as stakeholder involvement, legally binding management targets (Australia, New Zealand), individual transferable quotas, and discard bans (Iceland, New Zealand). The EU has since the beginning of the 21st century taken significant steps to better involve stakeholders and establish quantitative targets through management plans, and a landing obligation is gradually being implemented from 2015 onward. The management of domestic fisheries resources in Australia, New Zealand, and Iceland has, overall, performed better than in the EU, in terms of conservation and economic efficiency. It should, however, be stressed that, compared to Australia, New Zealand, and Iceland, (i) initial over-capacity was more of an issue in the EU when management measures became legally binding and also that (ii) EU has been progressive in developing common enforcement standards, on stocks shared by sovereign nations. The situation of EU fisheries has substantially improved over the period 2004–2013 in the northeast Atlantic, with fishery status getting close to that in the other jurisdictions, but the lack of recovery for Mediterranean fish stocks remains a concern.

Original language	English
Journal	Fish and Fisheries
Volume	17
Issue number	3
Pages (from-to)	803–824
Number of pages	22
ISSN	1467-2960
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12147
Publication status	Published - 1 Sept 2016

Access to Document

10.1111/faf.12147

Cite this

Marchal, P., Andersen, J. L., Aranda, M., Fitzpatrick, M., Goti, L., Guyader, O., Haraldsson, G., Hatcher, A., Hegland, T. J., Le Floc'h, P., Macher, C., Malvarosa, L., Maravelias, C. D., Mardle, S., Murillas, A., Nielsen, J. R., Sabatella, R., Smith, A. D. M., Stokes, K., ... Ulrich, C. (2016). A comparative review of fisheries management experiences in the European Union and in other countries worldwide: Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand. Fish and Fisheries, 17(3), 803–824. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12147

A comparative review of fisheries management experiences in the European Union and in other countries worldwide : Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand. / Marchal, Paul; Andersen, Jesper Levring; Aranda, Martin et al.

In: Fish and Fisheries, Vol. 17, No. 3, 01.09.2016, p. 803–824.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Marchal, P, Andersen, JL, Aranda, M, Fitzpatrick, M, Goti, L, Guyader, O, Haraldsson, G, Hatcher, A, Hegland, TJ, Le Floc'h, P, Macher, C, Malvarosa, L, Maravelias, CD, Mardle, S, Murillas, A, Nielsen, JR, Sabatella, R, Smith, ADM, Stokes, K, Thøgersen, T & Ulrich, C 2016, 'A comparative review of fisheries management experiences in the European Union and in other countries worldwide: Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand', Fish and Fisheries, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 803–824. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12147

@article{6a1ce20502ef4693aa683dd4fca3c4e6,

title = "A comparative review of fisheries management experiences in the European Union and in other countries worldwide: Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand",

abstract = "This study compares the details and performance of fisheries management between the EU and a selection of other countries worldwide: Iceland, New Zealand, and Australia, which are considered in many respects to be among the most advanced in the world in fisheries management. Fisheries management in the EU, Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand has developed following different paths, despite being based on similar instruments and principles. Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand have been at the forefront of developing management practices such as stakeholder involvement, legally binding management targets (Australia, New Zealand), individual transferable quotas, and discard bans (Iceland, New Zealand). The EU has since the beginning of the 21st century taken significant steps to better involve stakeholders and establish quantitative targets through management plans, and a landing obligation is gradually being implemented from 2015 onward. The management of domestic fisheries resources in Australia, New Zealand, and Iceland has, overall, performed better than in the EU, in terms of conservation and economic efficiency. It should, however, be stressed that, compared to Australia, New Zealand, and Iceland, (i) initial over-capacity was more of an issue in the EU when management measures became legally binding and also that (ii) EU has been progressive in developing common enforcement standards, on stocks shared by sovereign nations. The situation of EU fisheries has substantially improved over the period 2004–2013 in the northeast Atlantic, with fishery status getting close to that in the other jurisdictions, but the lack of recovery for Mediterranean fish stocks remains a concern.",

author = "Paul Marchal and Andersen, {Jesper Levring} and Martin Aranda and Mike Fitzpatrick and Leyre Goti and Olivier Guyader and Gunnar Haraldsson and Aaron Hatcher and Hegland, {Troels Jacob} and {Le Floc'h}, Pascal and Claire Macher and Loretta Malvarosa and Maravelias, {Christos D.} and Simon Mardle and Arantza Murillas and Nielsen, {J. Rasmus} and Rosaria Sabatella and Smith, {Anthony D.M.} and Kevin Stokes and Thomas Th{\o}gersen and Clara Ulrich",

year = "2016",

month = sep,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1111/faf.12147",

language = "English",

volume = "17",

pages = "803–824",

journal = "Fish and Fisheries",

issn = "1467-2960",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparative review of fisheries management experiences in the European Union and in other countries worldwide

T2 - Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand

AU - Marchal, Paul

AU - Andersen, Jesper Levring

AU - Aranda, Martin

AU - Fitzpatrick, Mike

AU - Goti, Leyre

AU - Guyader, Olivier

AU - Haraldsson, Gunnar

AU - Hatcher, Aaron

AU - Hegland, Troels Jacob

AU - Le Floc'h, Pascal

AU - Macher, Claire

AU - Malvarosa, Loretta

AU - Maravelias, Christos D.

AU - Mardle, Simon

AU - Murillas, Arantza

AU - Nielsen, J. Rasmus

AU - Sabatella, Rosaria

AU - Smith, Anthony D.M.

AU - Stokes, Kevin

AU - Thøgersen, Thomas

AU - Ulrich, Clara

PY - 2016/9/1

Y1 - 2016/9/1

N2 - This study compares the details and performance of fisheries management between the EU and a selection of other countries worldwide: Iceland, New Zealand, and Australia, which are considered in many respects to be among the most advanced in the world in fisheries management. Fisheries management in the EU, Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand has developed following different paths, despite being based on similar instruments and principles. Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand have been at the forefront of developing management practices such as stakeholder involvement, legally binding management targets (Australia, New Zealand), individual transferable quotas, and discard bans (Iceland, New Zealand). The EU has since the beginning of the 21st century taken significant steps to better involve stakeholders and establish quantitative targets through management plans, and a landing obligation is gradually being implemented from 2015 onward. The management of domestic fisheries resources in Australia, New Zealand, and Iceland has, overall, performed better than in the EU, in terms of conservation and economic efficiency. It should, however, be stressed that, compared to Australia, New Zealand, and Iceland, (i) initial over-capacity was more of an issue in the EU when management measures became legally binding and also that (ii) EU has been progressive in developing common enforcement standards, on stocks shared by sovereign nations. The situation of EU fisheries has substantially improved over the period 2004–2013 in the northeast Atlantic, with fishery status getting close to that in the other jurisdictions, but the lack of recovery for Mediterranean fish stocks remains a concern.

AB - This study compares the details and performance of fisheries management between the EU and a selection of other countries worldwide: Iceland, New Zealand, and Australia, which are considered in many respects to be among the most advanced in the world in fisheries management. Fisheries management in the EU, Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand has developed following different paths, despite being based on similar instruments and principles. Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand have been at the forefront of developing management practices such as stakeholder involvement, legally binding management targets (Australia, New Zealand), individual transferable quotas, and discard bans (Iceland, New Zealand). The EU has since the beginning of the 21st century taken significant steps to better involve stakeholders and establish quantitative targets through management plans, and a landing obligation is gradually being implemented from 2015 onward. The management of domestic fisheries resources in Australia, New Zealand, and Iceland has, overall, performed better than in the EU, in terms of conservation and economic efficiency. It should, however, be stressed that, compared to Australia, New Zealand, and Iceland, (i) initial over-capacity was more of an issue in the EU when management measures became legally binding and also that (ii) EU has been progressive in developing common enforcement standards, on stocks shared by sovereign nations. The situation of EU fisheries has substantially improved over the period 2004–2013 in the northeast Atlantic, with fishery status getting close to that in the other jurisdictions, but the lack of recovery for Mediterranean fish stocks remains a concern.

U2 - 10.1111/faf.12147

DO - 10.1111/faf.12147

M3 - Journal article

SN - 1467-2960

VL - 17

SP - 803

EP - 824

JO - Fish and Fisheries

JF - Fish and Fisheries

IS - 3

ER -

A comparative review of fisheries management experiences in the European Union and in other countries worldwide: Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this