Skip to content

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

  • 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
  • And 1 others
  • Clara Ulrich
This paper 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, establish quantitative targets through management plans, and a discard ban is gradually being implemented from 2015 onwards. 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 overcapacity 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 languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)803-824
JournalFish and Fisheries
Volume17
Issue number3
Early online date6 Feb 2016
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2016
Externally publishedYes

Documents

  • HATCHER_2016_cright_FF_A comparative review of fisheries management experiences

    Rights statement: This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: 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., Thoegersen, T. and 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 Fish, 17: 803–824. , which has been published in final form at 10.1111/faf.12147. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.

    Accepted author manuscript (Post-print), 624 KB, PDF document

Related information

Relations Get citation (various referencing formats)

ID: 5084052