A comparative review of fisheries management experiences in the European Union and in other countries worldwide: Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand
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...
Published in: | Fish and Fisheries |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Wiley-blackwell
2016
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00312/42305/41699.pdf https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12147 https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00312/42305/ |
id |
ftarchimer:oai:archimer.ifremer.fr:42305 |
---|---|
record_format |
openpolar |
spelling |
ftarchimer:oai:archimer.ifremer.fr:42305 2023-05-15T16:43:09+02:00 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 Fitzpatrick, Mike Goti, Leyre Guyader, Olivier Haraldsson, Gunnar Hatcher, Aaron Hegland, Troels Jacob Le Floc H, Pascal Macher, Claire Malvarosa, Loretta Maravelias, Christos D. Mardle, Simon Murillas, Arantza Nielsen, J. Rasmus Sabatella, Rosaria Smith, Anthony D. M. Stokes, Kevin Thoegersen, Thomas Ulrich, Clara 2016-09 application/pdf https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00312/42305/41699.pdf https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12147 https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00312/42305/ eng eng Wiley-blackwell info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/FP7/289192/EU//SOCIOEC https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00312/42305/41699.pdf doi:10.1111/faf.12147 https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00312/42305/ 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess restricted use Fish And Fisheries (1467-2960) (Wiley-blackwell), 2016-09 , Vol. 17 , N. 3 , P. 803-824 Australia comparative review European Union fisheries management Iceland New Zealand text Publication info:eu-repo/semantics/article 2016 ftarchimer https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12147 2022-06-28T22:50:16Z 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. Article in Journal/Newspaper Iceland Northeast Atlantic Archimer (Archive Institutionnelle de l'Ifremer - Institut français de recherche pour l'exploitation de la mer) New Zealand Fish and Fisheries 17 3 803 824 |
institution |
Open Polar |
collection |
Archimer (Archive Institutionnelle de l'Ifremer - Institut français de recherche pour l'exploitation de la mer) |
op_collection_id |
ftarchimer |
language |
English |
topic |
Australia comparative review European Union fisheries management Iceland New Zealand |
spellingShingle |
Australia comparative review European Union fisheries management Iceland New Zealand Marchal, Paul Andersen, Jesper Levring Aranda, Martin Fitzpatrick, Mike Goti, Leyre Guyader, Olivier Haraldsson, Gunnar Hatcher, Aaron Hegland, Troels Jacob Le Floc H, Pascal Macher, Claire Malvarosa, Loretta Maravelias, Christos D. Mardle, Simon Murillas, Arantza Nielsen, J. Rasmus Sabatella, Rosaria Smith, Anthony D. M. Stokes, Kevin Thoegersen, Thomas Ulrich, Clara A comparative review of fisheries management experiences in the European Union and in other countries worldwide: Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand |
topic_facet |
Australia comparative review European Union fisheries management Iceland New Zealand |
description |
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. |
format |
Article in Journal/Newspaper |
author |
Marchal, Paul Andersen, Jesper Levring Aranda, Martin Fitzpatrick, Mike Goti, Leyre Guyader, Olivier Haraldsson, Gunnar Hatcher, Aaron Hegland, Troels Jacob Le Floc H, Pascal Macher, Claire Malvarosa, Loretta Maravelias, Christos D. Mardle, Simon Murillas, Arantza Nielsen, J. Rasmus Sabatella, Rosaria Smith, Anthony D. M. Stokes, Kevin Thoegersen, Thomas Ulrich, Clara |
author_facet |
Marchal, Paul Andersen, Jesper Levring Aranda, Martin Fitzpatrick, Mike Goti, Leyre Guyader, Olivier Haraldsson, Gunnar Hatcher, Aaron Hegland, Troels Jacob Le Floc H, Pascal Macher, Claire Malvarosa, Loretta Maravelias, Christos D. Mardle, Simon Murillas, Arantza Nielsen, J. Rasmus Sabatella, Rosaria Smith, Anthony D. M. Stokes, Kevin Thoegersen, Thomas Ulrich, Clara |
author_sort |
Marchal, Paul |
title |
A comparative review of fisheries management experiences in the European Union and in other countries worldwide: Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand |
title_short |
A comparative review of fisheries management experiences in the European Union and in other countries worldwide: Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand |
title_full |
A comparative review of fisheries management experiences in the European Union and in other countries worldwide: Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand |
title_fullStr |
A comparative review of fisheries management experiences in the European Union and in other countries worldwide: Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand |
title_full_unstemmed |
A comparative review of fisheries management experiences in the European Union and in other countries worldwide: Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand |
title_sort |
comparative review of fisheries management experiences in the european union and in other countries worldwide: iceland, australia, and new zealand |
publisher |
Wiley-blackwell |
publishDate |
2016 |
url |
https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00312/42305/41699.pdf https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12147 https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00312/42305/ |
geographic |
New Zealand |
geographic_facet |
New Zealand |
genre |
Iceland Northeast Atlantic |
genre_facet |
Iceland Northeast Atlantic |
op_source |
Fish And Fisheries (1467-2960) (Wiley-blackwell), 2016-09 , Vol. 17 , N. 3 , P. 803-824 |
op_relation |
info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/FP7/289192/EU//SOCIOEC https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00312/42305/41699.pdf doi:10.1111/faf.12147 https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00312/42305/ |
op_rights |
2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess restricted use |
op_doi |
https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12147 |
container_title |
Fish and Fisheries |
container_volume |
17 |
container_issue |
3 |
container_start_page |
803 |
op_container_end_page |
824 |
_version_ |
1766033469156098048 |