Mitigating undesirable impacts in the marine environment: a review of market-based management measures

James Innes,Samantha Paredes,Chris Wilcox,Sarah Jennings,Sean Pascoe

doi:10.3389/fmars.2015.00076

Abstract

Internationally, marine biodiversity conservation objectives are having an increasing influence on the management of commercial fisheries. While this is largely being implemented through marine protected areas, the use of market based instruments (MBIs) has proved useful in other areas of fisheries and biodiversity conservation management. This paper explores the potential of MBIs as biodiversity conservation management tools for mitigating the undesirable impacts of fishing industries operating in the marine environment, examples of which are still relatively limited in the marine context. We assess the potential of several alternative measures by reviewing and considering the successes and limitations of previous applications and how these would translate in the case of commercial fishing. Several fishing methods and conservation values are considered and the circumstances in which MBIs may be most applicable are identified. Where appropriate, and by either replacing or (more likely) complementing existing management arrangements, MBIs have the potential to improve environmental performance. This has a number of implications. From the environmental perspective they should enable levels of undesirable impacts on conservation values such as sensitive habitat or protected species of turtles, marine mammals and seabirds to be reduced. MBIs can also increase management cost-effectiveness and reduce the costs imposed upon industry by allowing them greater flexibility when developing solutions. Further, in the increasingly relevant case of MPAs, the potential cost of structural adjustment packages to government may also be significantly reduced if improved environmental performance makes it possible for some industry members to continue operating.

Highlights

Over the last two decades, the development of international1 and regional2 conventions to protect marine biodiversity has resulted in greater commitments to mitigate undesirable impacts in the marine environment, mostly through increasing the amount of habitat closed to fishing
We review the potential of market based instruments (MBIs) as management tools to mitigate the undesirable environmental impacts associated with commercial fishing and consider how this might reduce the need to exclude fisheries from Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)
Whilst examples of MBIs being applied in this context are still relatively limited in number and often in their infancy when compared to other industries, considering the lessons learnt from experiences to date in conjunction with known practical and theoretical limitations is informative

Summary

Introduction

Over the last two decades, the development of international and regional conventions to protect marine biodiversity has resulted in greater commitments to mitigate undesirable impacts in the marine environment, mostly through increasing the amount of habitat closed to fishing. Charge or Penalty-based Systems In addition to the potential opportunity cost associated with disposing of bycatch, damage to gear (e.g., from bycatch or habitat), reduced harvest due to bait and hooks being consumed by non-target species, or damaged and devalued target species are all potential costs of poor environmental performance As these costs are often relatively small or poorly accounted for there is little incentive for fishers to limit their impact when operating. As with many of the policies discussed in this review, the effectiveness of the MBI will depend on the actual ability of the fisher to avoid the species or areas of concern The implementation of both habitat use and bycatch penalties requires information on fishing activities and catches. Modeling of a variable effort unit system based on fishing location proposed for an Australian tuna fishery to reduce bycatch of seabirds found that such a system could effectively control bycatch at lower cost to the industry than the current area closures (Pascoe et al, 2013)

Discussion

Concluding Remarks