Abstract
There is a large body of literature on the different actions, projects and methods used to manage the unwanted consequences of biological invasions. However, management experiences are mostly reported for terrestrial organisms, and relatively few cases are described for aquatic species in the specific context of fisheries. Fisheries management encounters challenges in addressing AIS within the context of climate change, given the distinctive features of aquatic environments. Under the changing climate, marine ecosystems, characterized by high connectivity across broad spatial scales, undergo significant alterations in species distribution and ecosystem functions. At the same time, isolated inland waters face even greater hurdles in adapting to these distributional changes, making them particularly vulnerable to severe impacts of global warming.
The diverse ecological, socioeconomic, political and technical characteristics of fishery systems across the world make it difficult to identify generally applicable approaches for dealing with AIS. While a general recommendation is to adopt risk analysis or a precautionary approach, the complexity of fishery systems necessitates context-specific strategies. In this section we present a compendium of measures for managing established AIS in local fisheries, discussing their potential, main challenges and enabling factors for their implementation, and providing a synthesis of key recommendations. This compendium is based on the analysis of a series of case studies (Part 2) and a further expert consultation in the form of an online survey (Appendix 1). As a whole, this section summarizes experiences on a wide spectrum of management measures, which can be implemented to control and/or adapt to aquatic invasions within the complexity of each ecological and socioeconomic system.
Nine management measures were identified and grouped under socioeconomic strategies, communication strategies, and environmental interventions (Figure 1). A variable degree of overlap exists across the measures, as some of the good practices described can be considered relevant to several, if not all, measures. Moreover, some of the measures considered can be strongly interdependent. For instance, a commercial fishery cannot be developed on a given AIS (measure #1 Develop and manage a commercial fishery) without the existence of market opportunities for that species (measure #3 Explore market opportunities). Examples primarily deal with the management of established AIS, while other possible actions to be implemented prior to this stage – such as prevention, early detection and a priori risk/benefit analysis – were deliberately not covered in this volume, but should be considered as a cornerstone for the management of biological invasions, as widely recommended elsewhere (FAO, 1995; Ruesink et al., 1995; Bartley and Minchin, 1996; Mack et al., 2000; Simberloff, 2003; ICES, 2005; FAO, 2018).
The compendium of measures discussed below is not exhaustive and cannot be prescribed for every situation. As a good practice in fisheries management, the choice of the measure(s) to be implemented should be preceded by a thorough analysis of the risks, costs and benefits associated with the proposed measures, in line with the principles of an ecosystem approach to fisheries (FAO, 2003) and related management frameworks (Pikitch et al., 2004; Arkema et al., 2006). Considerable knowledge and consensual agreement among stakeholders is therefore needed to implement these strategies, taking into account the ecological impacts of AIS, the feasibility and costs of chosen measures, related socioeconomic opportunities and ecological risks, among other factors (de Carvalho-Souza et al., 2024). Kleitou et al. (2021), for instance, conceptualized an ecosystem-based fishery management approach for AIS and proposed a decision-making framework to guide the choice of fishery management measures in the Mediterranean Sea. Based on a cost-benefit analysis, the authors provided initial guidance to determine whether a fishery targeting AIS, or NIS more broadly, should be implemented and in what manner (Figure 2). The development of similar approaches to guide the choice of management measures with regards to AIS in other contexts is encouraged.
The diverse ecological, socioeconomic, political and technical characteristics of fishery systems across the world make it difficult to identify generally applicable approaches for dealing with AIS. While a general recommendation is to adopt risk analysis or a precautionary approach, the complexity of fishery systems necessitates context-specific strategies. In this section we present a compendium of measures for managing established AIS in local fisheries, discussing their potential, main challenges and enabling factors for their implementation, and providing a synthesis of key recommendations. This compendium is based on the analysis of a series of case studies (Part 2) and a further expert consultation in the form of an online survey (Appendix 1). As a whole, this section summarizes experiences on a wide spectrum of management measures, which can be implemented to control and/or adapt to aquatic invasions within the complexity of each ecological and socioeconomic system.
Nine management measures were identified and grouped under socioeconomic strategies, communication strategies, and environmental interventions (Figure 1). A variable degree of overlap exists across the measures, as some of the good practices described can be considered relevant to several, if not all, measures. Moreover, some of the measures considered can be strongly interdependent. For instance, a commercial fishery cannot be developed on a given AIS (measure #1 Develop and manage a commercial fishery) without the existence of market opportunities for that species (measure #3 Explore market opportunities). Examples primarily deal with the management of established AIS, while other possible actions to be implemented prior to this stage – such as prevention, early detection and a priori risk/benefit analysis – were deliberately not covered in this volume, but should be considered as a cornerstone for the management of biological invasions, as widely recommended elsewhere (FAO, 1995; Ruesink et al., 1995; Bartley and Minchin, 1996; Mack et al., 2000; Simberloff, 2003; ICES, 2005; FAO, 2018).
The compendium of measures discussed below is not exhaustive and cannot be prescribed for every situation. As a good practice in fisheries management, the choice of the measure(s) to be implemented should be preceded by a thorough analysis of the risks, costs and benefits associated with the proposed measures, in line with the principles of an ecosystem approach to fisheries (FAO, 2003) and related management frameworks (Pikitch et al., 2004; Arkema et al., 2006). Considerable knowledge and consensual agreement among stakeholders is therefore needed to implement these strategies, taking into account the ecological impacts of AIS, the feasibility and costs of chosen measures, related socioeconomic opportunities and ecological risks, among other factors (de Carvalho-Souza et al., 2024). Kleitou et al. (2021), for instance, conceptualized an ecosystem-based fishery management approach for AIS and proposed a decision-making framework to guide the choice of fishery management measures in the Mediterranean Sea. Based on a cost-benefit analysis, the authors provided initial guidance to determine whether a fishery targeting AIS, or NIS more broadly, should be implemented and in what manner (Figure 2). The development of similar approaches to guide the choice of management measures with regards to AIS in other contexts is encouraged.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Title of host publication | Fisheries responses to invasive species in a changing climate |
Chapter | 1 |
Pages | 9 |
Number of pages | 41 |
Publication status | Published - 4 Jul 2024 |