Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Controversy over Marine Protected AreasIntroduction

The Controversy over Marine Protected Areas: Introduction [The most important controversy in fisheries management in recent years has been the debate over marine protected areas (MPAs). The epicentre of this controversy is the issue of whether large networks of no-take MPAs (NTMPAs), more usually known as marine reserves (MRs), are necessary to protect fish stocks. On the one hand, advocates of MRs argue that without MRs the worldwide decline in fish stocks will continue to the point of threatening more stocks with extinction. On the other hand, critics of MRs argue that conventional fisheries management (CFM) which includes restrictions on quota, fishing gear, effort controls, and selective spatial restrictions, if properly enforced, is perfectly adequate to protect fish stocks. There is another element in this controversy—which concerns marine biodiversity. Advocates of MRs argue that the only way to protect non-target marine species and their habitats (biodiversity) is to establish large networks of MRs; whereas critics of MRs argue that biodiversity can be adequately protected by CFM together with some selected MRs.] http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png

The Controversy over Marine Protected AreasIntroduction

Download PDF
13 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/the-controversy-over-marine-protected-areas-introduction-jAMkJTgFWY
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Copyright
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015
ISBN
978-3-319-10956-5
Pages
1 –14
DOI
10.1007/978-3-319-10957-2_1
Publisher site
See Chapter on Publisher Site

Abstract

[The most important controversy in fisheries management in recent years has been the debate over marine protected areas (MPAs). The epicentre of this controversy is the issue of whether large networks of no-take MPAs (NTMPAs), more usually known as marine reserves (MRs), are necessary to protect fish stocks. On the one hand, advocates of MRs argue that without MRs the worldwide decline in fish stocks will continue to the point of threatening more stocks with extinction. On the other hand, critics of MRs argue that conventional fisheries management (CFM) which includes restrictions on quota, fishing gear, effort controls, and selective spatial restrictions, if properly enforced, is perfectly adequate to protect fish stocks. There is another element in this controversy—which concerns marine biodiversity. Advocates of MRs argue that the only way to protect non-target marine species and their habitats (biodiversity) is to establish large networks of MRs; whereas critics of MRs argue that biodiversity can be adequately protected by CFM together with some selected MRs.]

Published: Oct 18, 2014

Keywords: Fishery Management; Fish Stock; Marine Reserve; Whale Shark; Marine Mammal Commission

There are no references for this article.