The use of spatial management tools in rights‐based groundfish fisheries

Abstract

AbstractThe role of spatial management, including marine protected areas, in achieving fisheries outcomes alongside conservation goals is debated. In fisheries that fail to meet fishing mortality targets, closed areas are sometimes implemented to reduce fishing mortality. However, fisheries with stronger management, including rights‐based approaches that can address overcapacity and overfishing problems, often employ spatial management as well. Here, we compare the objectives, design, and performance of spatial management in nine temperate demersal fisheries in North America, Oceania, Europe, and Africa that employ rights‐based systems. Common objectives of spatial management included protecting habitat, juveniles, and spawners and reducing discards. Recovering age structure and creating scientific reference sites were less common objectives, despite being widely cited benefits of spatial management. Some fisheries adopted single closures to achieve single objectives, whereas others adopted diverse networks to achieve multiple objectives. Importantly, many spatial protections are implemented primarily through industry initiatives. Environmental change compromised the efficacy of spatial management in some cases, suggesting the need to design spatial management systems that are robust to changing ocean conditions. Fisheries with diverse and extensive spatial management systems have generally healthier fish stocks. Whether this implies that spatial management contributed substantially to fishery performance is unclear due to an absence of large‐scale, long‐term studies aimed at discerning different drivers of success. Although these targeted monitoring studies of closed areas are limited, such studies are necessary to help resolve the ongoing debate and to enable more purposeful design of spatial management for fisheries and conservation.