Towards Cross-Border Fisheries Management: An Analysis of Fleet Structures and Species-Specific Regulatory Measures in the Aegean Sea

H. Dereli̇, Vahdet Ünal, Aylin Ulman, Ioannis Giovos, Zafer Tosunoğlu, G. Prodromitis, Dimitrios K. Moutopoulos
{"title":"Towards Cross-Border Fisheries Management: An Analysis of Fleet Structures and Species-Specific Regulatory Measures in the Aegean Sea","authors":"H. Dereli̇, Vahdet Ünal, Aylin Ulman, Ioannis Giovos, Zafer Tosunoğlu, G. Prodromitis, Dimitrios K. Moutopoulos","doi":"10.12681/mms.35526","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Intrinsic differences in the applied management measures of shared stocks in transboundary waters inhibit the ability of either state to benefit from such measures, as one state may benefit in lieu of the other, thus reducing the efficacy of both. This study compares for the first time the fleet structure, specific management measures applied to species-specific regulations for commercial fishing, species listed in official monitoring schemes, and protected taxa between Greece and Türkiye for the Aegean Sea. A comparative analysis utilizing the official data was sourced from both countries. Large-scale Greek and Turkish fishing fleets have been modernized within the last 30 years (1991-2021). Greek and Turkish large-scale fishing fleets included smaller trawlers with lower tonnage and slightly higher engine horsepower, while purse seines of both states included larger vessels with higher horsepower and tonnage. This indicates that the fishing pressure on the demersal resources in the Aegean Sea has partially decreased, but the fishing pressure on pelagic resources has increased despite the decrease in the number of vessels. Only 11 out of 74 minimum conservation reference sizes (MCRS) are sufficiently set above the Lm50 sizes they should be based on, whereas 18 species need reproductive studies, and 22 are set below the Lm50, and could benefit from an increase. The application of specific closed seasons for commercial species was used by both states with the intent to protect the reproductive periods of some stocks. However, several of these closure periods did not fully or even partially cover the spawning periods of the respective species. Species-specific closures were applied to 13 species in Greece and 23 species in Türkiye, with only two fish species (Xiphias gladius and Thunnus thynnus) listed for both countries. Only 14 species (out of 34 protected by Greece and 46 by Türkiye) are protected by both states, most of which are listed as critically endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). Harmonization of fisheries management measures currently does not align between the two neighbouring states, and the General Fisheries Commission of the Mediterranean is the competent authority that would be able to restructure such measures, especially as Türkiye has been aligning their measures with that of the EU for the accession process. This contribution highlights the clear differences between Greece and Türkiye, and provides advice for developing a unified management regime for the Aegean Sea.","PeriodicalId":506559,"journal":{"name":"Mediterranean Marine Science","volume":"14 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mediterranean Marine Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12681/mms.35526","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Intrinsic differences in the applied management measures of shared stocks in transboundary waters inhibit the ability of either state to benefit from such measures, as one state may benefit in lieu of the other, thus reducing the efficacy of both. This study compares for the first time the fleet structure, specific management measures applied to species-specific regulations for commercial fishing, species listed in official monitoring schemes, and protected taxa between Greece and Türkiye for the Aegean Sea. A comparative analysis utilizing the official data was sourced from both countries. Large-scale Greek and Turkish fishing fleets have been modernized within the last 30 years (1991-2021). Greek and Turkish large-scale fishing fleets included smaller trawlers with lower tonnage and slightly higher engine horsepower, while purse seines of both states included larger vessels with higher horsepower and tonnage. This indicates that the fishing pressure on the demersal resources in the Aegean Sea has partially decreased, but the fishing pressure on pelagic resources has increased despite the decrease in the number of vessels. Only 11 out of 74 minimum conservation reference sizes (MCRS) are sufficiently set above the Lm50 sizes they should be based on, whereas 18 species need reproductive studies, and 22 are set below the Lm50, and could benefit from an increase. The application of specific closed seasons for commercial species was used by both states with the intent to protect the reproductive periods of some stocks. However, several of these closure periods did not fully or even partially cover the spawning periods of the respective species. Species-specific closures were applied to 13 species in Greece and 23 species in Türkiye, with only two fish species (Xiphias gladius and Thunnus thynnus) listed for both countries. Only 14 species (out of 34 protected by Greece and 46 by Türkiye) are protected by both states, most of which are listed as critically endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). Harmonization of fisheries management measures currently does not align between the two neighbouring states, and the General Fisheries Commission of the Mediterranean is the competent authority that would be able to restructure such measures, especially as Türkiye has been aligning their measures with that of the EU for the accession process. This contribution highlights the clear differences between Greece and Türkiye, and provides advice for developing a unified management regime for the Aegean Sea.
实现跨境渔业管理:爱琴海船队结构和特定鱼种监管措施分析
对跨境水域中的共有种群采取的管理措施存在内在差异,这阻碍了两国从这些措施中获益的能力,因为一国可能会代替另一国获益,从而降低两国的效率。本研究首次比较了希腊和土耳其之间爱琴海的船队结构、适用于商业捕捞特定物种法规的具体管理措施、官方监测计划中列出的物种以及受保护类群。利用两国的官方数据进行了比较分析。希腊和土耳其的大型捕鱼船队在过去 30 年(1991-2021 年)内实现了现代化。希腊和土耳其的大型捕鱼船队包括吨位较小、发动机马力稍高的小型拖网渔船,而两国的围网渔船则包括马力和吨位较大的大型渔船。这表明,爱琴海底层资源的捕捞压力部分减小,但中上层资源的捕捞压力却有所增加,尽管渔船数量有所减少。在 74 个最小养护参考尺寸(MCRS)中,只有 11 个的设定充分高于其应依据的 Lm50 尺寸,而 18 个物种需要进行繁殖研究,22 个物种的设定低于 Lm50,可从增加中受益。两个州都对商业鱼种实施了特定的禁渔期,目的是保护某些鱼种的繁殖期。然而,其中几个禁渔期并没有完全或甚至部分覆盖相应鱼种的产卵期。希腊对 13 个鱼种实施了特定物种禁渔,土耳其对 23 个鱼种实施了特定物种禁渔,两国仅列出了两个鱼种(Xiphias gladius 和 Thunnus thynnus)。只有 14 个鱼种(希腊保护 34 个鱼种,土耳其保护 46 个鱼种)受到两国的保护,其中大部分被国际自然及自然资源保护联盟(IUCN)列为极度濒危鱼种。目前,这两个邻国的渔业管理措施并不统一,地中海渔业总委员会是能够调整这些措施的主管机构,尤其是土耳其在加入欧盟的过程中一直在使其措施与欧盟的措施保持一致。本文强调了希腊和土耳其之间的明显差异,并为制定爱琴海统一管理制度提供了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信