A comparative review of fisheries management experiences in the European Union and in other countries worldwide: Iceland,Australia, and New Zealand |
| |
| Authors: | 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 Thoegersen Clara Ulrich |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Channel and North Sea Fisheries Research Unit, IFREMER, Boulogne s/mer, France;2. Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg C, Denmark;3. AZTI Tecnalia, Marine Research Division, Herrera, Gipuzkoa, Spain;4. Socio‐Economic Marine Research Unit, J.E. Cairnes School of Business and Economics, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland;5. Irish Observer Net 3 Burton Place, Gardiners Hill Cork, Ireland;6. Thünen Institute of Sea Fisheries, Hamburg, Germany;7. Maritime Economy Unit, IFREMER, Plouzané, France;8. Institute of Economic Studies, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland;9. Economics and Finance Department, Portsmouth Business School, University of Portsmouth, Richmond Building, Portsmouth, UK;10. Innovative Fisheries Management, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark;11. Unité Mixte de Recherche AMURE, Université de Bretagne Occidentale, Brest Cedex 3, France;12. NISEA, Fishery and Aquaculture Research Organisation, Salerno, SA, Italy;13. Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, Anavyssos, Attica, Greece;14. Institute of Aquatic Resources, Technical University of Denmark, Charlottenlund, Denmark;15. CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Hobart, Tas., Australia;16. , Khandallah, Wellington, 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. |
| |
| Keywords: | Australia comparative review European Union fisheries management Iceland New Zealand |
|
|
