For a better user experience please update your browser or use Chrome or Firefox browser.
Utilities
Publication detail
HomeScientific approaches for the assessment and management of deep-sea fisheries and ecosystems in RFMOs and RFBs
Final report
Scientific approaches for the assessment and management of deep-sea fisheries and ecosystems in RFMOs and RFBs
Final report
Publication metadata
Globally, there are ten regional organisations responsible for the management of fisheries for non-migratory species in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) have a legal mandate to ensure the sustainable use of marine living resources in these areas, although the two organisations in the eastern and western equatorial Atlantic (CECAF and WECAFC) are limited to an advisory role and formally designated Regional Fishery Bodies (RFBs) only. Unlike RFMOs, RFBs do not have a Convention document, and cannot implement binding measures to which member states must adhere (e.g. areas closed to fishing). In this review, we discuss the varying strategies adopted by these organisations to manage deep-water fisheries (400m and deeper), with a particular focus upon measures designed to limit deleterious impacts upon sensitive benthic ecosystems. Each organisation is scored against 102 criteria which relate to their status, capacity, and actions to manage bottom fisheries. The North Atlantic RFMOs (NEAFC and NAFO), and CCAMLR were the highest scoring organisations, with CECAF, WECAFC and the South Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (SIOFA) consistently amongst the lowest scoring organisations. To explore the extent to which each organisation is meeting its objectives, each of these criteria are grouped according to whether they best represent an organisation’s capacity (what it can do); need (what it should do); and action (what it has or is doing), as a means to assess how each organisation is performing. The action and need scores for most organisations are broadly proportional (i.e. the more an organisation does to limit adverse impacts, the less needs to be done), but comparisons between capacity and action highlight where organisational improvements should be made. Several organisations still have substantial capacity gaps (particularly CECAF and WECAFC) and should be targeted for additional technical and financial support. Others, such as the Mediterranean Fisheries Council (GFCM), progress appears not to be commensurate with their collective capacity, perhaps owing to more a more complex geopolitical setting. This review provides detailed background information for each organisation and makes a number of recommendations for future research and policy direction.
- Published:
- Corporate author(s): AZTI TECNALIA , CEFAS , Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (European Commission) , IEO , IPMA , MRAG
- Themes: Fisheries policy
- Subject: common fisheries policy , deep-sea fishing , fishery management , fishery resources , fishing regulations , international waters , report
|
PDF
|
|||
| ISSN | ISBN 978-92-9202-442-0 | DOI 10.2826/35050 | Catalogue number EA-02-19-180-EN-N |
- Released on EU Publications:
Document viewer
Note:
The publication cannot be displayed in the document viewer. Open web version
You may access it from: Download and languages