A comparative review of fisheries management experiences in the European Union and in other countries worldwide: Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand
|Author(s)||Marchal Paul1, Andersen Jesper Levring2, Aranda Martin3, Fitzpatrick Mike4, 5, Goti Leyre6, Guyader Olivier7, Haraldsson Gunnar8, Hatcher Aaron9, Hegland Troels Jacob10, Le Floc h Pascal11, Macher Claire7, Malvarosa Loretta12, Maravelias Christos D.13, Mardle Simon2, Murillas Arantza3, Nielsen J. Rasmus14, Sabatella Rosaria12, Smith Anthony D. M.15, Stokes Kevin16, Thoegersen Thomas14, Ulrich Clara14|
|Affiliation(s)||1 : IFREMER, Channel & North Sea Fisheries Res Unit, 150 Quai Gambetta,BP 699, F-62321 Boulogne S Mer, France.
2 : Univ Copenhagen, Dept Food & Resource Econ, Rolighedsvej 25, DK-1985 Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
3 : AZTI Tecnalia, Div Marine Res, E-20110 Gipuzkoa, Spain.
4 : Natl Univ Ireland, JE Cairnes Sch Business & Econ, Socioecon Marine Res Unit, Galway, Ireland.
5 : Irish Observer Net 3 Burton Pl, Gardiners Hill Cork, Ireland.
6 : Thunen Inst Sea Fisheries, Palmaille 9, D-22767 Hamburg, Germany.
7 : IFREMER, Maritime Econ Unit, CS 10070, F-29280 Plouzane, France.
8 : Univ Iceland, Inst Econ Studies, IS-101 Reykjavik, Iceland.
9 : Univ Portsmouth, Portsmouth Business Sch, Econ & Finance Dept, Richmond Bldg,Portland St, Portsmouth PO1 3DE, Hants, England.
10 : Aalborg Univ, Innovat Fisheries Management, Skibbrogade 5, DK-9000 Aalborg, Denmark.
11 : Univ Bretagne Occidentale, Unite Mixte Rech AMURE, 12 Rue Kergoat,Bat B,CS 93837, F-29238 Brest 3, France.
12 : NISEA Fishery & Aquaculture Res Org, Via Irno 11, I-84135 Salerno, SA, Italy.
13 : Hellen Ctr Marine Res, 46-7 Km Athens Sounio, Anavyssos 19013, Attica, Greece.
14 : Tech Univ Denmark, Inst Aquat Resources, Jaegersborg Alle 1, DK-2920 Charlottenlund, Denmark.
15 : CSIRO Oceans & Atmosphere, GPO Box 1538, Hobart, Tas 7109, Australia.
16 : 59 Jubilee Rd, Wellington 6035, New Zealand.
|Source||Fish And Fisheries (1467-2960) (Wiley-blackwell), 2016-09 , Vol. 17 , N. 3 , P. 803-824|
|WOS© Times Cited||18|
|Keyword(s)||Australia, comparative review, European Union, fisheries management, Iceland, 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.|