te chn o lo g y in the me dite rr ane an se a and t he ap

EVALUATION OF THE EAF, ASSESSMENT OF MPAS AND THE APPLICATION OF THE MCS

BY SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY IN THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA

ANEJO 1 PORTADA

TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC REPORT ABOUT THE EVALUATION OF THE EAF, ASSESSMENT OF MPAS AND THE APPLICATION OF THE MCS BY SATELLITE

TECHNOLOGY IN THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA

LAURA, FONTAN BOUZAS

TESIS PRESENTADA Y PUBLICAMENTE DEFENDIDA PARA LA OBTENCION

DEL TITULO DE MASTER OF SCIENCE EN

GESTIÓN PESQUERA SOSTENIBLE

Alicante a 5 de Septiembre de 2015

MASTER EN GESTIÓN PESQUERA SOSTENIBLE

(5ª edición: 2015-2017)



ANEJO 2 PRIMERA PAGINA DE LAS TESIS MASTER. VERSION INICIAL

TITULO DEL TRABAJO DE INVESTIGACION

LAURA, FONTAN BOUZAS

Trabajo realizado en Satellite Applications Catapult, equipo OceanMind, situado en Oxford, Reino Unido, bajo la dirección del Dr. Philippe Cury y Dra. Marta Coll.

Y presentado como requisito parcial para la obtención del Diploma Master of Science en Gestión Pesquera Sostenible otorgado por la Universidad de Alicante a través de Facultad de Ciencias y el Centro Internacional de Altos Estudios Agronómicos Mediterráneos (CIHEAM) a través del Instituto Agronómico Mediterráneo de Zaragoza (IAMZ).

Vº Bº Director Autor

Fdo : D. ........ Fdo: D. .................. .................., a .... de ........... de ..........2015



TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC REPORT

ABOUT THE EVALUATION OF THE EAF,

ASSESSMENT OF MPAS AND THE

APPLICATION OF THE MCS BY SATELLITE

TECHNOLOGY IN THE MEDITERRANEAN

SEA



Figure 1: Map of the AOI, Mediterranean Sea and the EEZ delimitons



Figure 2: Heatmap of all AIS activity of vessels 1st April 2015 to 1st April 2016.



Acronyms and Abbreviations

ABNJ Areas Beyond National

Jurisdiction MDG

Millennium

Development Goals

ACCOBAMS

Agreement on the

Conservation of

Cetaceans of the Black

Sea, Mediterranean Sea

and neighbouring

Atlantic Area

MEDPAN Mediterranean MPA

managers network

AIS Automatic Identification

System MMSI

Maritime Mobile

Service Identity

CBD Convention on

Biological Diversity MPA Marine Protected Areas

CIESM Mediterranean Science

Commission MSFD

Marine Strategy

Framework Directive

CIHEAM

International Centre for

Advanced Mediterranean

Agronomic Studies

MSP Marine Spatial Planning

CITES

Convention on the

International Trade in

Endangered Species of

Wild Fauna and Flora

MSY Maximum Sustainable

Yield

COFI FAO Committee on

Fisheries NGO

Non |Governmental

Organisation

COP Conference of Parties PSMA Port State Measures

Agreement

CPUE Catch per unit effort RFMO/A

Regional Fisheries

Management

Organization/

Arrangement

EBM Ecosystem Based

Management RAC/SPA

Regional Activity

Centre for Special

Protected Areas

EAF Ecosystem Approach to

Fisheries SAC

Scientific Advisory

Committee on Fisheries

EBSA

Ecologically or

Biologically Significant

Area

SAP BIO

Strategic Action

Programme for the

Conservation of

Biological Diversity in

the Mediterranean

Region

EEZ / EFZ

Exclusive Economic

Zone / Exclusive Fishing

Zone

SAR Synthetic Aperture

Radar

EC European Commission SDG Sustainable

Development Goal

FAD Fish Aggregating

Devices SPAMI

Specially Protected Area

of Mediterranean

Importance

FAO Food and Agriculture

Organization SSF Small scale fishery



FRA Fisheries Restricted Area TAC Total Allowable Catch

GFCM

General Fisheries

Commission for the

Mediterranean

TEEB

The Economics and

Ecosystems and

Biodiversity

GFCM-AVL

GFCM record of vessels

over 15 m authorized to

operate in the GFCM

area

UNCLOS

United Nations

Convention on the Law

of the sea

GIS Geographic Information

Systems UNDP

United Nations

Development

Programme

GSA Geographical subarea UNFSA United Nations Fish

Stocks Agreement

GT Gross Tonnage UNCLOS

United Nations

Environment

Programme

ICES

International Council for

the Exploration of the

Sea

UNEP

United Nations

Environment

Programme

ICZM Integrated Coastal Zone

Management UNCLOS

IHS IHS Maritime & Trade VME Vulnerable Marine

Ecosystems

ILO International Labour

Organization

VG

TENURE

Voluntary Guidelines

for the Responsible

Governance of Tenure

of Land, Fisheries and

Forests in the Context of

National Food Security

IMO International Maritime

Organization VMS

Vessel Monitoring

System

IPOA-IUU

International Plan of

Action to Prevent, Deter

and Eliminate IUU

Fishing

VPA Virtual Population

Analysis

ITU

International

Telecommunication

Union

WWF World Wide Fund for

Nature

IUCN International Union for

Conservation of Nature

IUU Illegal, Unreported and

Unregulated fishing

LOA Length overall

MAP Mediterranean Action

Plan

MaPAMed Marine Protected Areas

in the Mediterranean

MCS Monitoring, Control and

Surveillance



Acknowledgments

The preparation of this document was made possible thanks to the contribution of a

number of people. First of all, I would like to give special thanks to my supervisor,

Dr. Philippe Cury, not only for co-funding this work, but also for his unconditional

support, infinite patience, enthusiasm and professionalism. Thank you very much for

teaching me that a human being can be kind, straight and professional, all at the same

time. You gave me the hope and belief that change is possible, for a better world, by doing

small things every day.

My co-supervisor, Dr. Marta Coll - a splendid professional. For always answering my

questions and giving me a better understanding of the Mediterranean Sea with her deep

and strong knowledge, for always making herself available and giving me her time and

support during this process.

I am deeply grateful to Dr. Jose Luis Lizaso for his flexibility, making

the continuity of this Masters possible and to the University of Alicante, where the

Masters took place. In the same way, I am grateful to the Mediterranean Agronomic

Institute which, as an intergovernmental organisation, works to improve sustainable

agriculture and fisheries, to ensure food and nutrition security and for developing rural

and coastal territories. Specifically, to the great labour of Dr. Bernardo Basurco.

The Ministry of Environment of Spain, especially to Alfonso Gomez Garcia a great

professional with a strong knowledge of the Mediterranean regulations, as well as to

Carolina Martinez for answering my questions about the Alboran regulations.

All the managers of MPAs and experts on the EAF who took the time to collaborate and

answer my questions and emails. Peer reviewers, for providing careful feedback on the

various chapters of the report, the people who gave their support for data collection and

shared their knowledge, experts on the Mediterranean for providing dedicated advice on

the scientific aspects of this document.

I would like to give thanks to Simon Chesworth, from Exacearth and to my team at

OceanMind; to Nick Wise and Charles Kilgour for their positivity and help with data

capture. Special thanks to Pablo Trueba Boluda for his patience, expertise and kindness.

To my family and friends, for their support throughout my professional career and always.

Especially to my parents for their unconditional love and to my sister for her passion,

deep knowledge in Oceanography and as a scientific mentor.

To Mark Leaver and his family, I cannot put into words how much I owe him, without

his help this thesis would not have been possible.

Thank you all.



Executive Summary

This study presents a general evaluation of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries

(hereinafter EAF) in the Mediterranean Sea, a general assessment of the Marine Protected

Areas (hereinafter MPAs) in the basin and the Monitoring Control and Surveillance of

vessels (hereinafter MCS). The study of the EAF and the MPAs has been done from local

scientific surveys, fishing and fleets statistics, published data on EAF analysis, and

questionnaires to regional and international bodies. The MCS, with satellite technology,

was applied to the whole Mediterranean as a preliminary study, in order to achieve a

global state of the maritime traffic and presence of fishing vessels from 1st May 2015 to

1st May 2016. In addition, taking into account the trawler closed area and the MPAs, an

example of a case study in the Alboran Island was chosen to specifically analyse the level

of compliance of the fishing rules in one restricted area. Furthermore, a different

technology for the artisanal fishery and other fleets can be applied, since this fleet does

not have satellite technology on its ships. The results have been compared with several

management scenarios previously analysed.

Results highlighted that the holistic study in the Mediterranean make possible a better

understanding of generating important information to be used in fisheries management.

The historical data is essential in order to apply good management. The MCS applied in

the Mediterranean and the Alboran MPA shows an example of the level of compliance,

as well as the pressure of maritime traffic in the Mediterranean Sea.

Keywords: Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries, Mediterranean Sea, assessment, Marine

Protected Areas, Monitoring Control and Surveillance, satellite technology, fisheries

compliance.



Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction and Objectives ...................................................................... 1

1.1 State of the marine resources and fishing impact .............................................................. 1

1.2. Management of the exploited marine resources throughout history............................... 4

1.3 Fisheries management based on the EAF ........................................................................ 7

1.4. Area of Study: The Mediterranean Sea ........................................................................ 11

1.5. Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 16

Chapter II: Methodology ............................................................................................. 17

2.1. Origin and application of the EAF on the Mediterranean Sea ...................................... 18

Material and methods on the application of the EAF ............................................................. 18

2.2. Assessment in the Mediterranean and MPAs ............................................................... 25

a) Materials and methods: ...................................................................................................... 25

b) Fisheries data: .................................................................................................................... 27

c) MPAs assessment: .............................................................................................................. 33

2.3 MCS on the Mediterranean: Alboran as a case of study ................................................. 50

Chapter III: Results ..................................................................................................... 63

3.1. Analysis of the MCS on the Mediterranean Sea ........................................................... 63

3.2 Analysis of the MCS of the Alboran MPA as a case of study ....................................... 72

Chapter IV: Discussion ................................................................................................ 87

4.1. Regarding the information and data available for the EAF ............................................. 87

4.2. MPAs assessment ............................................................................................................ 87

4.3. Regarding MCS analysis.................................................................................................. 89

Chapter V: Conclusions ............................................................................................... 93

BIBLIOGRAPHY: ....................................................................................................... 95

12



v v

1



Chapter 1: Introduction and Objectives

1.1 State of the marine resources and fishing impact

Fisheries and aquaculture remain important sources of food, nutrition, income and

livelihood for hundreds of millions of people around the world (SOFIA report 2016).

World per capita fish supply reached a new record high of 20kg in 2014 thanks to

vigorous growth in aquaculture, which now provides half of all fish for human

consumption, and to a slight improvement in the state of certain fish stocks due to

improved fisheries management (SOFIA report 2016). Moreover, fish continues to be one

of the most-traded food commodities worldwide with more than half of fish exports by

value originating in developing countries. Recent reports by high-level experts,

international organizations, industry and civil society representatives all highlight the

tremendous potential of the oceans and inland waters now, and even more so in the future,

to contribute significantly to food security and adequate nutrition for a global population

expected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050 (SOFIA report, 2016).

The ocean productivity seemed limited, as some scientist said (Huxley, 1885; Christy and

Scott, 1965). However, in some cases, the wealth of aquatic living resources was assumed

to be an unlimited gift of nature. This myth has faded in the light of the realization that

aquatic resources, although renewable, are not infinite and need to be properly managed,

if their contribution to the nutritional, economic and social well-being of the growing

world population is to be sustained (FAO, 2012a).

Globally, marine fish and fisheries play an important role in ocean biodiversity (Pereira

et al., 2010) and the food security of millions of people (Srinivasan et al., 2010; FAO,

2011), providing a vital source of high-quality dietary protein and supporting individuals’

livelihoods and income. However, it is widely acknowledged that, as a source of food,

the productivity of marine fisheries is in a state of decline, primarily because of

unsustainable and destructive fishing practices, aggravated by climate change (Sumaila

et al., 2011). The individuals most vulnerable to these negative impacts are indigenous

people (e.g. Canada’s First Nations) and coastal communities around the world, such as

those in developing coastal and island countries (Allison et al., 2009). The seas, oceans

and fisheries are probably among the most challenging resource systems to govern

(Sumaila, 2012).

Faced with one of the world’s greatest challenges – how to feed more than 9 billion people

by 2050 in a context of climate change, economic and financial uncertainty, and growing

competition for natural resources – the international community made unprecedented

commitments in September 2015 when UN Member States adopted the 2030 Agenda for

Sustainable Development. The 2030 Agenda also sets aims for the contribution and

conduct of fisheries and aquaculture towards food security and nutrition in the use of

natural resources so as to ensure sustainable development in economic, social and

environmental terms.

Growth in the global supply of fish for human consumption has outpaced population

growth in the past five decades, increasing at an average annual rate of 3.2 percent in the

period 1961-2013, double than of population growth, resulting in increasing average per

capita availability. World per capita apparent fish consumption increased from an average

2



of 9.9 kg in the 1960s to 14.4 kg in the 1990s and 19.7 kg in the 2013, with preliminary

estimates for 2014 and 2015 pointing towards further growth beyond 20 kg (SOFIA report

2016). In addition to the increase in production, other factors that have contributed to

rising consumption include reductions in wastage, better utilization, improved

distribution channels, and growing demand linked to population growth, rising incomes

and urbanization. International trade also played an important role in providing wider

choices to consumers.

Global total capture fishery production in 2014 was 93.4 million tonnes, of which 81.5

million tonnes from marine waters and 11.9 million tonnes from inland waters (SOFIA

report 2016). For marine fisheries production, China remained the major producer,

followed by Indonesia, the United States of America and the Russian Federation. Catches

of anchoveta in Peru fell to 2.3 million tonnes in 2014 – half that of the previous year and

the lowest level since the strong El Nino in 1998 – but in 2015 they had already recovered

to more than 3.6 million tonnes. For the first time since 1998, anchoveta is not the top-

ranked species in terms of catch, as it fell below Alaskan Pollock (SOFIA report 2016).

Four highly valuable groups (tunas, lobsters, shrimps and cephalopods) registered new

record catches in 2014. Total catches of tuna and tuna-like species were almost 7.7 million

tonnes (SOFIA report 2016). The Northwest Pacific remained the most productive area

for capture fisheries, followed by the Western Central Pacific, the Northeast Atlantic and

the Eastern Indian Ocean. With the exception of the Northeast Atlantic, these areas have

shown increases in catches compared with the average for the decade 2003-2012.

Global fishing fleet

It is important also to take into account the number of vessels around the world and the

status of the fishing fleet: The most recent statistics show that the total number of the

fishing vessels in the world in 2014 is estimated at about 4.6 million. The fleet in Asia

was the largest, consisting of 3.5 million vessels and accounting for 75 percent of the

global fleet, followed by Africa (nearly 15%), Latin America (6%), North America (2%)

and Europe (2%) (SOFIA report, 2016).

In 2014, about 85 percent of the motorized fishing vessels in the world were less than 12

m in length overall (LOA), and such a small vessel dominate in all regions. About 2% of

all motorized fishing vessels were 24 m LOA or longer (roughly more than 100 gross

tonnage), and that fraction was larger in regions of Pacific and Oceania, Europe, and

North America. The estimated number of fishing vessels of 24 m LOA or longer operation

in marine waters was about 64.000. However, the number of fishing vessels registered

with a unique identification number provided by the International Maritime Organization

(IMO), a prerequisite for their inclusion in the Global Record of Fishing Vessels remains

about 23.000 (2016 SOFIA report).

Fisheries stocks

Another important issue is the status of fishery resources. Fishing has affected the

quantity of fish at sea and despite the fact that it is not possible to quantify all fish at sea,

there are several tools such as algorithms and statistic models that allow us to estimate

the level of fish stocks (REFS). The world’s marine fisheries expanded continuously to a

3



production peak of 86.4 million tonnes in 1996 but have since exhibited a general

declining trend. Global recorded production was 80.9 million tonnes in 2013. Of the FAO

Major Fishing Areas, the Northwest Pacific had the highest production with 21.4 million

tonnes (27 percent of the global marine catch) in 2013, followed by the Western Central

Pacific with 12.4 million tonnes (15 percent), the Southeast Pacific with 8.9 million

tonnes (11 percent) and the Northeast Atlantic with 8.4 million tonnes (10 percent). Based

on FAO’s analysis of assessed stocks, the share of fish stocks within biologically

sustainable levels has exhibited a downward trend, declining from 90 percent in 1974 to

68.6 percent in 2013. Thus, 31.4% of fish stocks were estimated as fished at a biologically

unsustainable level and therefore overfished. Of all the stocks assessed in 2013, 58.1%

were fully fished and 10.5 percent underfished. The share of underfished stocks decreased

almost continuously from 1974 to 2013, but that of fully fished stocks decreased from

1974 to 1989 before rising to 58.1 percent in 2013. Correspondingly, the percentage of

stocks fished at biologically unsustainable levels increased, especially in the late 1970s

and 1980s, from 10 percent in 1974 to 26 percent in 1989. After 1990, the number of

stocks fished at unsustainable levels continued to increase, albeit more slowly, to

31.4 percent in 2013.

Sustainability of fisheries is the over-riding goal of fisheries management. By a

commonly accepted definition, stocks fished at biologically unsustainable levels have an

abundance lower than the level that can produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY),

and are therefore being overfished. These stocks require strict management plans to

rebuild stock abundance to full and biologically sustainable productivity. The stocks

fished within biologically sustainable levels have abundance at or above the level

associated with MSY. Stocks fished at the MSY level produce catches that are at or very

close to their MSY. Therefore, they have no room for further expansion in catch and

effective management must be in place to sustain their MSY. The stocks with a biomass

considerably above the MSY level (underfished stocks) have been exposed to relatively

low fishing pressure and may have some potential to increase their production. In

accordance with the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (the Code), and to avoid

overfishing, effective and precautionary management plans should be established before

increasing the fishing rate of these underfished stocks.

Fishery production varies greatly among species. The ten most productive species

accounted for about 27 percent of world’s marine capture fisheries production in 2013.

Most of their stocks are fully fished and, therefore, have no potential for increases in

production, whilst some stocks are overfished and increases in their production may be

possible only after their successful restoration (2016 SOFIA report).

Fishing remains one of the most dangerous occupations in the world. Thanks to a long-

standing cooperation between the FAO, the International Labour Organization and the

IMO, international instruments now apply to fishing vessels of all sizes and to the

personnel working on board those vessels.

Monitoring Control and Surveillance (MCS) systems have acquired a central role in

sustainable fisheries management, especially given the increased international concern

about IUU fishing. In 2001, FAO Members adopted the IPOA-IUU, providing a

complementary specific 'toolbox' to the Code to address IUU fishing. In 2014, COFI

4



adopted the voluntary Guidelines for Flag State Performance, which are expected to prove

valuable in strengthening compliance by flag States with their international duties and

obligations. In addition to vessel monitoring systems and traditional MCS systems, new

technologies such as satellite imagery, cell phone applications or electronic monitoring

systems, as well as collaborative mechanisms for coordinated operations and information

exchange, are developing and creating synergies that make MCS operations more

effective and targeted (FAO technical guidelines for responsible fisheries, 2002).

Regarding to the Mediterranean Sea, the working group on Vessel Monitoring Systems

(VMS) and related control systems in the GFCM area of application are developing a

regional control system, building upon the technical standards and requirements provided

for in recommendation GFCM/2009/33/7 on the establishment of VMS in the GFCM area

of application. It is important to highlight that they have a pilot regional study for a VMS

and control system based on a modular approach, which simultaneously encompasses

both industrial and small-scale fishing vessels. The GFCM have already started with the

road map and future steps, for the control of demersal fisheries in the Strait of Sicily.

1.2. Management of the exploited marine resources throughout history

The marine ecologist Jeremy Jackson wrote in 2001 a study where he reported the

destruction that has been caused by fishing practices, "humans have been disturbing the

marine ecosystems from when they started to fish." This statement comes into conflict

with the true enigma, in fact, we don’t know when humans started harvesting clams,

harpoon fishing, line fishing or fishing with nets (Cury P. et al., 2012).

There has been a move worldwide from traditional fisheries management practices, which

largely depend on single-species assessments and management approaches, to a more

holistic, ecosystem-based framework (Garcia et al., 2003).

It is during the first decade of the 20th century, that knowledge about the fundamental

biological parameters of the most interesting commercial species has been developed.

Parameters such as growth, sexual maturity, feeding or fecundity. The yield equation of

exploited populations was defined (Rusell, 1931), the growth equation was formulated

(Von Bertalanffy, 1938) and the application of the population dynamics to fish stocks

was started (Graham, 1935; De Lury, 1047; Beverton y Holt, 1956) (Fernandez, 2008).

Between the decades 30 and 70 of the last century, mathematic models for stock

evaluation were developed based on catches, fishing effort and catch per unit effort

(CPUE) (Thomson and Bell, 1934; Schaefer, 1954, 1957; Pella and Tomlinson, 1969).

Also, the virtual population analysis appeared (John Pope, 1972) and over the years, was

improved (Fernandez, 2008).

All these studies are very useful, in order to know more about population dynamics. This

is the part of fisheries biology, which studies the numbers (and biomass) of fish and why

they change. Also, is useful to make good assessments, which is the judgment made by a

scientist or scientific body on the state of a resource, such as a fish stocks or MPAs,

usually for the purpose of passing advice to a management authority. These preliminary

steps are essential for improved management, which is the art of taking measures,

affecting a resource and its exploitation with a view to achieving certain objectives - such

as the maximisation of the production of that resource.

5



There are many different mathematical models allowing us to study population dynamics,

such as fitting, optimisation, simulation, deterministic vs. stochastic (Monte Carlo),

uncertainty management (risk analysis), decision assessment (game theory) and neural

networks amongst others. The most famous assessment methods are: direct (surveys,

DEPM, visual, marking), indirect (catch effort analysis, age-structured analysis,

simulation procedures) and statistical (time series, GLM).

There are several tools and measures for the purposes of fisheries management - to list

some examples: the control of access or fishing effort limits, restrictions in the number

of vessels, capacity, amount of fishing gear, number of vessel trips, yield controls, catch

limits such as the total allowable catch (TAC), technical measures, temporal/spatial

restrictions, minimum catch size and the regulations about the type and design of fishing

gear (FAO, 2012).

Scientific groups started to answer to practical questions, similar to the mathematic ones

(Cury P. et al. 2012).

The conference celebrated in Rome in 1955, in which more than forty-five countries

participated, represented a decisive change. Researchers like Graham, Schaefer and

Beverton presented their quantitative work, in which they optimized the relationship

between the fisher’s activity and the exploited population dynamics. It seemed that the

spectrum of anarchical exploitation had been removed and replaced with a rational and

regulated exploitation. Shaefer presented, during the symposium, a point of view where

he considered the ecologic research as an ideal, more than a necessity, a kind of

intellectual refinement.

At the Roma conference, access to marine resources was in play. The concept of the MSY,

defined by scientists, made an irrefutable scientific argument to permit free access to

marine resources and whilst the level of catch that corresponds to the MSY is not reached,

there is no limitation for the fishing effort. From this conference, the concept of the MSY

was imposed universally and not disputed. The scientists were optimistic in the capacity

of identifying the maximum available catch. And it is because of this that the wealthy

nations like the United States have reached the freedom of action and exploitation at sea,

which generated a huge fishing overcapacity, economic decrease and overexploitation of

the oceans. We can say that the MSY was for fisheries, the entrance to the global Era.

In the conference, working groups from the ICES answered technical questions for the

fisheries management. Fisheries economists like Gordon, complained about this decision:

the biologist have the tendency of treating the fishers as an exogenous element and their

behaviour have not been integrated on the general bio economic theory1.

The fishing theory, that pretended to transform the renewable resources management, has

become a simple task to solve technical problems of the fisheries management. (Cury et

1 T.D. Smith, Scaling fisheries: The science of measuring the effects of fishing. 1855-1955, New York,

Cambridge University Press, 1994.

6



al. 2012).

In the Industrial Revolution, particularly after the Second World War, new technologies

and geographic expansion (mainly to the south and estimated at 0.8-1 latitude

degrees/year and bathymetric estimated at 62.5 m per decade) helped the development

of fishing activity and the catching of less accessible species - or initially, less valued

species (Pauly et al., 2002; Schoijet, 2002; Fromentin et al., 2006; Pauly, 2009; Swartz

et al., 2010; Watson et al., 2012; Watson y Morato, 2013; Watson y Pauly, 2013;

Watson et al., 2013).

It is important to mention that this expansion increased the energetic costs (Tyedmers

et al., 2005) and caused an increase of the fuel per fish landed, as such they required

subsidies for profitable fishing (Sumaila et al., 2010).

During the 20th century fisheries were managed almost exclusively on a single species

basis and largely assumed to operate in isolation from the rest of the ecosystem. As

pressures on resources and ecosystems increase, the shortcomings of this single-species

approach have become more obvious. An Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF)

management, which takes into consideration ecological relationships between species

(harvested or not) and balances the diverse needs and values of all who use, enjoy or

depend on the ocean now and in the future, is now accepted as the preferred approach

to managing fisheries. (Petersen, S. et al.). This type of management combines two

different paradigms. The first is the ecosystem management, which objective is to

preserve the structure, diversity and functioning of the ecosystems. The second it is the

fisheries management, which goal is to satisfy the necessity of food and economic

benefits for the society and people. (FAO, 2003).

Twenty years ago, in view of the overexploitation of many conventional fish stocks and

the growing interest in harvesting new kinds of food from the sea, May et al. (1979)

stressed the need for fisheries managers to take account of interactions among species.

This appears even more important today because of the sustained increasing trend in the

catches of pelagic fish since the 1950s. Although the continued existence of these

intensively exploited resources may not yet be threatened, collapses of major

populations may affect the biological structure of the community or ecosystem

(Beverton, 1990). In upwelling systems, patterns of interaction between pelagic fish and

other organisms have received little attention, because scientists have focused more on

the effect of the environment on fish population dynamics. Cury p. et al., 2000.

Fisheries science diverged from its parent discipline of ecology in the 1950s when

quantitative models of population dynamics were developed to estimate sustainable

yields. A revolution occurred in the 1980s with the recognition that variation in the

physical environment affects fishery yields through its influences on larval transport,

foraging success, and survival. In the meantime, ecology evolved toward experimental

hypothesis testing (2) and leapt forward with an understanding of the nonlinear nature

and indirect effects of species interactions (3). These characteristics of species

interactions contribute to feedback loops and the resultant complex dynamics and

tipping points of associated populations and ecosystems. Although fisheries science

includes sophisticated ecosystem models that can aid fisheries management, the species

7



interactions described in those models are primarily direct consumptive interactions that

account for the flow of biomass through food webs. These models have limited capacity

for accommodating the network of indirect effects among species that create complex

feedback loops and tipping points; fisheries science and ecology need to reunite in a

quest to understand these processes and their effects in fishery systems. (Travis J. et al.,

2013).

1.3 Fisheries management based on the EAF

The ocean plays a critical role in supporting human well-being, from providing food,

livelihoods and recreational opportunities to regulating the global climate. Sustainable

management aimed at maintaining the flow of a broad range of benefits from the ocean

requires a comprehensive and quantitative method to measure and monitor the health of

coupled human–ocean systems. (Halpern et al., 2012).

Human activities such as overfishing, coastal development and pollution have altered

marine ecosystems and eroded their capacity to provide benefits now and in the future.

Yet people benefit directly or indirectly from these activities by extracting food, visiting

coastal areas, making a living, or continuing centuries-old traditions. In a world with

over seven billion people, nearly half of who live near the coast, we urgently need new

analytical approaches to guide how to balance multiple competing and potentially

conflicting public goals and connect human development with the ocean’s capacity to

sustain progress. (Halpern, et al., 2012)

The benefits of managing fisheries in a manner that takes the overall health of the marine

ecosystem into account have long been recognised (Cocchrane et al. 2004). In fact, the

basic principles of this Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF) management are firmly

entrenched in the primary legal mechanism for the management of our global oceans,

the 1982 United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (Article 61).

The term 'Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries' was adopted by the FAO Technical

Consultation on Ecosystem-based Fisheries Management held in Reykjavik from 16th

to 19th September 2002 (FAO, 2003) for various reasons: (1) the reticence expressed

by the Reykjavik Conference vis-à-vis the EBFM terminology (see next section); (2)

the convenient parallel this term offers with the 'Precautionary Approach' to fisheries;

and (3), last but not least, the fact that the term EAF, not being limited narrowly to

management, could easily cover also development, planning, food safety, etc., better

matching the breadth of the FAO Code of Conduct. The term 'approach' indicates that

the concept delineates a way of taking ecosystem considerations into more conventional

fisheries management, in line with the Reykjavik Conference wisdom. The EAF could

be defined as the way in which the spirit of 'the Code' ought to be implemented. EAF is

defined by Ward et al. (2002) as “an extension of conventional fisheries management

recognizing more explicitly the interdependence between human well-being and

ecosystem health and the need to maintain ecosystems productivity for present and

future generations, e.g. conserving critical habitats, reducing pollution and degradation,

minimizing waste, protecting endangered species”. The Reykjavik FAO Expert

Consultation (FAO, 2003) agreed that the “purpose of an ecosystem approach to

fisheries is to plan, develop and manage fisheries in a manner that addresses the

multiplicity of societal needs and desires, without jeopardizing the options for future

8



generations to benefit from a full range of goods and services provided by marine

ecosystems."

The EAF and other related concepts (e.g. Ecosystem Based Management, EBM) have

developed in response for the need to implement, in a practical manner, the principles of

sustainable development (WCED, 1987), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD,

1992) and the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO, 1995). EAF is consistent

with all these principles and has been adopted by the FAO Committee on Fisheries

(COFI) as the appropriate approach to implement these principles for the management of

fisheries.

The definition of EAF by FAO: An approach to fisheries management and development

that strives to balance diverse societal objectives; taking into account knowledge and

uncertainties about biotic, abiotic, the human components and the interaction between

them.

Figure 3: interactions in the application of the EAF (EAF technical paper 443, Rome, FAO. 2003. 71 p).

9



EAF seeks to improve all fisheries management processes by adopting risk management

principles, recognising that complete knowledge is never available and is not essential to

start the process. EAF works by the identification and assessment of all relevant issues

and the establishment of participatory processes to help address high priorities effectively

and efficiently. It assists in making the correct decisions, with the information available,

by using a precautionary (to reflect the risk) and an adaptive approach (to improve

knowledge and adjust decisions). Implementing EAF helps to develop comprehensive

fishery management systems that seek the sustainable and equitable use of the whole

system (ecological and human) to best meet the community’s needs and values.

Figure 4 - Marine Ecosystem and interactions. Hjort centre for Marine Ecosystem Dynamics

The objective of the fisheries management should be to obtain an economically viable

catch, compatible with the conservation of the main characteristics and functions of

marine ecosystems. This will serve to prevent the drastic changes in the number of

species, the biodiversity and the degradation of habitats. (Larking, 1996).

This kind of management plays an important role in the MPAs, due to the fact that this

areas represent a good tool for the fisheries management and the conservation of marine

ecosystems. (Walters et al., 1999; Roberts, 2000; Watson et al., 2000; Roberts et al.,

2001; Pauly et al., 2002; Tudela, 2004). This is because this areas make possible a

protection and conservation of the marine biodiversity, habitats, fisheries populations and

the increase of the fisheries yield in surrounding areas in the long term. (Sumaila et al.,

10



2000: Roberts et al., 2001; Pauly et al., 2005).

The scientific community showed a big interest on this management, based on the

ecosystem. Because of this fact, some ecological models were developed, as they are a

useful tool taking into account the intrinsic limitations of the application of the EAF. A

variety of ecosystem modelling approaches is available, these models could be useful for

fisheries management and how they might assist in reconciling fisheries with

conservation, has not always been clear. One example is the Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE)

(Christensen and Pauly 1992; Walters et al. 1997), which is a massbalance trophic

modelling approach that has been widely applied in marine ecosystems. It provides a

standardized modelling approach to analyze food webs, facilitating meaningful

comparisons to be made between ecosystems (e.g., Moloney et al. 2005).

This model is simple and represents a good compromise between the required

parameterisation and the prediction reliability (Christensen and Walters, 2004).

Moreover, the data required is available from the stock evaluations, biological or

ecological basic studies. (Christensen et al., 2008).

The trophic levels play a fundamental role on the Ecosystem approach, as many marine

ecosystems typically contain a large number of species at the lower (e.g. planktonic)

trophic levels. They also contain a substantial number of predatory fish, seabirds, or

marine mammals that feed at the upper apex and near-apex trophic levels. However, in

many of the highly productive ecosystems of the world, and particularly in upwelling

regions, there tends to be a crucial intermediate trophic level occupied by small, plankton-

feeding pelagic fish that is typically dominated by only one, or at most a few, species

(Bakun, 1996). For example, in South Africa’s marine fauna, which is particularly rich

and well documented, the three phyla

Mollusca, Crustacea, and Chordata are represented by 3062, 2333, and 2492 species,

respectively (Gibbons et al., 1999). Among the 2000 marine fish species recorded, about

70% are demersal, benthic, or reef species; in contrast, only 6.1% large and 3.7% small

pelagic fish species are found (Fig. 1). Species diversity is relatively high at the bottom

of the food chain (e.g. 429 copepods, 2262 gastropods) and at its top (92 species of marine

birds and 41 species of marine mammals). This ‘‘wasp-waist’’ richness pattern appears

to be a common characteristic of upwelling systems as well as of many other types of

marine ecosystems. (Cury P. et al., 2001). Determining the form of key predator-prey

relationships is critical for understanding marine ecosystem dynamics as well. (Cury et

al., 2011).

In many areas of the world, fisheries management is not working. Some previously

productive fish stocks have collapsed. There are concerns about pollution and the impacts

of fishing on marine ecosystems. Yet there is growing pressure for the sea to provide

more food, and to continue to be a source of income and recreation for an expanding

population. These challenges have brought the problems for fisheries management into

sharp focus. They have been debated most recently in the European Commission’s Green

Paper on the Future of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). In many countries there have

been calls for fisheries management to become more transparent, to operate in an

ecosystem context, and involve fishermen and other stakeholders to a much greater

11



extent. At the same time there is need to take greater account of economic and social

factors and to integrate these into management and decision-taking. Such changes will

have major implications for management structures, information requirements and future

research. (Towards a holistic management, 2001).

A new fisheries management model is needed in order to take into account several factors

simultaneously. The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries is the cornerstone of a holistic and

successful management strategy of fisheries.

1.4. Area of Study: The Mediterranean Sea

Marine biodiversity in the European Seas is under threat due to the intensity of cumulative

human impacts. Despite the high-level goals to halt the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem

services by 2020, there are no signs of improved trends in the state of biodiversity. Most

services derived from marine and coastal ecosystems are being used unsustainably and

therefore marine ecosystems are deteriorating faster than other ecosystems. The

challenges of biodiversity conservation and sustainability of ecosystem services are

further complicated by climate change, which is expected to decrease the effectiveness of

current-state-of-the-art marine management measures by inducing range shifts and

biodiversity reshuffling and favouring biological invasions. (MarCons: COST Action

15121).

Figure 5 - GFCM areas on the Mediterranean (EurLex, Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011)

12



a) Introduction to the Mediterranean Sea

The Mediterranean Sea is a sea connected to the Atlantic Ocean, surrounded by

the Mediterranean Basin and almost completely enclosed by land; on the north

by Southern Europe and Anatolia, on the south by North Africa, and on the east by

the Levant. Although the sea is sometimes considered a part of the Atlantic Ocean, it is

usually identified as a separate body of water. Geological evidence indicates that around

5.9 million years ago, the Mediterranean was cut off from the Atlantic and was partly or

completely desiccated over a period of some 600,000 years, before being refilled by

the Zanclean flood about 5.3 million years ago.

Figure 6 - Mediterranean Sea and EEZ boundaries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Ocean

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_Basin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Europe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Africa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanclean_flood

13



The name Mediterranean is derived from the Latin mediterraneus, meaning 'inland' or 'in

the middle of land' (from medius, 'middle' and terra, 'land'). It covers an approximate area

of 2.5 million km2 (965,000 sq mi), but its connection to the Atlantic (the Strait of

Gibraltar) is only 14 km (8.7 mi) wide. The Strait of Gibraltar is a narrow strait that

connects the Atlantic Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea and separates Gibraltar and Spain

in Europe from Morocco in Africa. In oceanography, it is sometimes called

the Eurafrican Mediterranean Sea or the European Mediterranean Sea, to distinguish it

from Mediterranean seas elsewhere.

A submarine ridge between the island of Sicily and the African coast with a sill depth of

about 1,200 feet (365 metres) divides the Mediterranean Sea into western and eastern

parts. The western part in turn is subdivided into three principal submarine basins.

The Alborán Basin is east of Gibraltar, between the coasts of Spain and Morocco.

The Algerian (sometimes called the Algero-Provençal or Balearic) Basin, east of the

Alborán Basin, is west of Sardinia and Corsica, extending from off the coast of Algeria to

off the coast of France. These two basins together constitute the western basin.

The Tyrrhenian Basin, the part of the Mediterranean known as the Tyrrhenian Sea, lies

between Italy and the islands of Sardinia and Corsica.

The eastern Mediterranean is subdivided into two major basins. The Ionian Basin, in the

area known as the Ionian Sea, lies to the south of Italy and Greece, where the deepest

sounding in the Mediterranean, about 16,000 feet (4,900 metres), has been recorded. A

submarine ridge between the western end of Crete and Cyrenaica (Libya) separates the

Ionian Basin from the Levantine Basin to the south of Anatolia (Turkey) and the island

of Crete separates the Levantine Basin from the Aegean Sea, which comprises the part of

the Mediterranean Sea north of Crete and is bounded on the west and north by the coast

of Greece, and on the east by the coast of Turkey. The Aegean Sea contains the numerous

islands of the Grecian archipelago. The Adriatic Sea, northwest of the main body of the

eastern Mediterranean Sea, is bounded by Italy to the west and north and by Slovenia,

Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Albania to the east. (Salah M. et al.,

2017).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Gibraltar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Gibraltar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanography

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_sea_(oceanography)

https://www.britannica.com/place/Sicily

https://www.britannica.com/place/Gibraltar

https://www.britannica.com/place/Sardinia-island-Italy

https://www.britannica.com/place/Corsica

https://www.britannica.com/place/Algeria

https://www.britannica.com/place/France

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/constitute

https://www.britannica.com/place/Tyrrhenian-Sea

https://www.britannica.com/place/Italy

https://www.britannica.com/place/Ionian-Sea

https://www.britannica.com/place/Greece

https://www.britannica.com/place/Crete

https://www.britannica.com/place/Cyrenaica

https://www.britannica.com/place/Libya

https://www.britannica.com/place/Anatolia

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comprises

https://www.britannica.com/place/Slovenia

https://www.britannica.com/place/Bosnia-and-Herzegovina

https://www.britannica.com/place/Montenegro

https://www.britannica.com/place/Albania

14



Figure 7- Mediterranean Sea.

The Mediterranean fishers of the past used sailboats, and as such their impact on the

environment was more or less limited due to the imposed limitations of distance and time.

Thus, before the modernization of fishing, human beings did not generate a large impact

on the environment but with the motorization of fishing vessels, from 1920 to 1930 in the

Mediterranean area, the fisher’s work became more harmful, noisy and industrialized.

Now fishers can catch fish independently of the weather conditions, further, over a longer

period of time and are able to exploit new fishing grounds. This immediate increase of

productivity has created, in most cases, a technological and horsepower race that ends in

the overloading of fishing capacity to the detriment of the sea and the fishing sector

(Maynou et al.2012).

The situation in the Mediterranean and Black Sea is alarming. Catches have dropped by

one-third since 2007, being mainly attributed to the reduced landings of small pelagic

such as anchovy and sardine, but with most species groups also affected (SOFIA report

2016).

Although there are areas of similarity, Mediterranean fisheries differ in several important

respects from those in the North Sea. They are more diverse in terms of the fleet structure,

the species caught and fishing methods used. Small scale and inshore fisheries are more

important economically in the Mediterranean than those in the North Sea and many

fisheries take place in waters under the jurisdiction of coastal states. There are, however,

other fisheries, including those for tuna, whose management requires a strong

international dimension. Information and research priorities for the region are likely to be

different. (Towards a holistic management, 2001).

Lack of information about the state of the stocks, the problems of enforcing existing

regulations, and increasing fishing effort, give particular cause for concern within the

Mediterranean. Many coastal fishery resources are depleted and the large pelagic and

15



many demersal stocks are over-exploited. There is a need to improve stock assessment

techniques and adopt a multi-species perspective. The socio-economic, human and

cultural dimensions of the fisheries, although prominent features, are often ignored. In

the Mediterranean, as in other EU regions there is a lack of stakeholder involvement in

fisheries management and poor communication and information flow between fishers,

scientists and decision makers. There are also concerns about the wider environmental

and ecological impact of fisheries. High levels of fishing in coastal waters have led to the

degradation of habitats, reduced biodiversity and affected sensitive areas of the seabed,

including fish nursery areas. There is a need for more integrated management of the

coastal zone. A trend towards modernisation of the fleet is leading to more efficient

fishing vessels, larger fishing enterprises, and increased fishing effort which runs counter

to the objectives of fish stock conservation. (Towards a holistic fisheries management, A

Mediterranean Perspective, 2001).

There is growing global concern that biodiversity decline is one of the most pressing

world crises (Tittensor et al. 2014 Science 346:241-244). However, a recent study about

global terrestrial and marine biodiversity changes was inconclusive (Dornelas et al. 2014

Science 344:296-299), and detailed marine biodiversity studies are scarce. When

available, these marine assessments typically only include data-rich areas (Worm et al.

2006 Science 314:787-790). This lack of information can be due to incomplete data

collection systems but it can also be related to limits in the access of these data, as it is

the case in many African and Mediterranean countries. In these areas, some ecosystems

have been heavily exploited prior to good data collection. Working with local experts it

is possible to retrieve available data that are not typically included in global databases.

(Coll et al., 2017).

Today much more is known about planet Mars than about life in the deep sea regions of

our own planet. (CIESM, 2003). Despite our powerful fascination – since ancient times

– about undersea worlds, deep ocean exploration lags very far behind the exploration of

outer space, and the global number of scientific deep-sea submersibles looks pale in

comparison to that of satellites and spaceships. In the Mediterranean, deep-sea

exploration is truly in its infancy, and our knowledge of the bathyal biota, dismal. To

draw attention to this perplexing state of affairs, CIESM brought together some of the

best experts in the discipline in order to summarize the scant, but developing knowledge

on Mediterranean deep-sea biology and to identify the most crying gaps.

It is in the Mediterranean that deep-sea organisms were first discovered and studied:

Antoine Risso, an apothecary from Nice published a series of papers between 1810 and

1827 on fish and crustaceans collected by fishermen at depths of 600 to 1,000 m in the

Gulf of Genoa. Risso’s papers were thoroughly ignored at the time for they contradicted

the “paradigm” formulated by Edward Forbes that below 550 m the deep ocean was a

lifeless zone. It was only in 1861, when Alphonse Milne-Edwards identified molluscs and

corals attached to a piece of telegraph cable brought up from 1,800 m deep between

Algeria and Sardinia, that Risso’s findings were vindicated. (CIESM, 2003).

There is also a real sense of urgency: surrounded by dense coastal human populations and

cities, subjected to intense fishing, fast-growing maritime traffic, the Mediterranean deep

sea may be among the most heavily impacted deep-sea environments in the world. Yet it

16



is also among the least known areas in terms of biodiversity resources. (CIESM, 2003).

1.5. Objectives

The objectives of this study are, the compilation of the most up to date information

regarding the EAF, an assessment of the state of the MPAs and the analysis of the MCS

with satellite technology. In order to reach these objectives, I have applied a holistic

approach to the study of the Mediterranean waters. My specific objectives are the

following:

- Preliminary evaluation of the EAF

- Assessment of the Mediterranean and MPAs

- Application of the MCS in the Mediterranean using satellite technology:

Alboran Island as a case study

- Application of possible new technology for the SSF

- Possible impact/dissemination of my study

My main objective is to provide an overview of Mediterranean fisheries and to discuss

the multiple effects generated by fishing exploitation, from commercial stocks to the

whole ecosystem, in relation to the challenging long-term sustainability goals of the

European Union (sensu CFP Reg. no. 1380/2013) and FAO (UN; sensu SDG 14, FAO

SO2 and the Aichi Targets).

17



Chapter II: Methodology

Figure 8 – Satellite acquiring data from space. (NOAA data source).

For my study I have used several tools, such as scientific data and assessment reports as

a preliminary database. This has provided a deep understanding and an overview of the

state of the ecosystem, MPAs and the multiple impacts of fishing exploitation in the

different Mediterranean geographical sub-areas (GSAs).

The technology used (satellites and experimental) is the cornerstone of this study,

enabling the monitoring and control of maritime traffic. I have applied the preliminary

tools and the MCS across the whole of the Mediterranean Sea and have also produced an

assessment of the Alboran MPA and the fisheries compliance review as a specific case

study. Furthermore, I have explained how we can use the technology for the SSF in the

Mediterranean, without the use of satellites, as an experimental example.

In order to integrate the EAF and the MCS studies for a holistic view, it is necessary to

compile the most recent scientific data available and evaluate the state of the area. Reports

from the GFCM, MedPan and the most representative bodies on the Mediterranean Sea

are the key sources for providing an accurate study.

Ecological extinction caused by overfishing precedes all other pervasive human

disturbance to coastal ecosystems, including pollution, degradation of water quality, and

anthropogenic climate change. Historical abundances of large consumer species were

fantastically large in comparison with recent observations. Paleoecological,

archaeological, and historical data show that time lags of decades to centuries occurred

between the onset of overfishing and consequent changes in ecological communities,

because unfished species of similar trophic levels assumed the ecological roles of

overfished species until they too were overfished or died of epidemic diseases related to

18



overcrowding. Retrospective data not only helps to clarify the underlying causes and rates

of ecological change, but they also demonstrate achievable goals for restoration and

management of coastal ecosystems that could not even be contemplated based on the

limited perspective of recent observations alone (Jackson J.B.C. et al., 2001).

2.1. Origin and application of the EAF on the Mediterranean Sea

The sustainability of Mediterranean and Black Sea fisheries is affected by different

threats, including the effects of increased pollution from human activities, habitat

degradation, the introduction of alien species, overfishing and the impacts of climate-

driven changes in the marine ecosystem. The dramatic ecosystem changes that have

occurred in the Black Sea during the past few decades are testimony of the need to account

for these different processes and stressors in the management of fisheries in the region,

in line with an ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF). (GFCM report, 2016).

Material and methods on the application of the EAF

a) Before the application of the EAF, previous analysis of the Mediterranean fisheries

and the management systems identified some of the strength and weaknesses as

follows:

Strengths:

- Many of the fisheries are small scale, local and traditional, providing

employment and support for coastal communities and keeping local traditions

alive;

- Many of the fish and shellfish stocks are local, confined to the coastal fringe

and not shared across member states;

- The commonality of fisheries is recognised, but without the adoption of open

access to all;

- The fish and shellfish species exploited are diverse and of high economic

value;

- Local circumstances would allow the use of different management

instruments applying to a range of species;

- Attention is given to the quality of both fish and shellfish and there is

consumer demand for fresh as opposed to frozen or processed products;

- A diversity of fishing methods is employed which spreads fishing effort;

- Less fishing is carried out by large, company-owned vessels, operating on an

industrial scale, than in other EU waters;

- The physical nature of the environment in some areas, with narrow shelves

sloping steeply into deep waters, affords protection to stocks;

- The existence of long established fishermen’s organisations in some maritime

departments, like the Prud’hommies in France, the Cofradias in Spain and the

cooperative movement in Italy, gives a voice to the fishing sector;

- Decentralised or co-management of local resources is operative in some

maritime departments; and

- Strenuous efforts are now being made to improve the management of shared

resources through GFCM and ICCAT

19



Weaknesses:

- Fishery regulations are poorly enforced, particularly technical measures

applied to fishing gears and minimum landing sizes;

- Lack of effective means of limiting fishing mortality has led to the depletion

of many fishery resources; large pelagic and many demersal stocks are over-

exploited;

- Information on the general biology of the species exploited and on the state of

the fish stocks is often lacking; statistics on both catch and effort are

unreliable;

- High levels of fishing in coastal waters have led to degradation of habitats,

reduced bio-diversity and have affected sensitive areas of the seabed,

including nursery areas;

- Urban development and pollution have contributed to degradation of some

coastal areas and can affect shellfish quality;

- Stock assessments rarely take account of ecosystem parameters or consider

interactions between species, including interactions between fisheries and

marine mammals;

- The diversity of the fisheries makes management and regulation difficult;

- Discarding of fish which are below minimum landing size or caught as a by-

catch is increasing, especially in the offshore fisheries;

- Sport fisheries which are expanding greatly in the Mediterranean, and

compete with small scale coastal fisheries, are poorly controlled;

- The trend towards modernisation of the fleet, often through the award of

subsidies, has led to more efficient vessels, larger fishing enterprises and

increased fishing effort, which runs counter to stock conservation objectives;

- There is a lack of coordination between scientific institutions and little

harmonisation of information collection;

- Robust institutional structures, which bring together various stakeholders, are

lacking in some areas.

- In many fisheries, although not all, there is limited interaction between fishers,

fishery managers and fishery scientists; and

- There is a lack of emphasis on common resource management and regulation

between EU states and with other countries.

b) Following these studies, assessments were made on the situation of the EAF, for

example RAC-SPA, with the following results:

In 2010, RAC‐SPA (UNEP‐MAP RAC/SPA 2010) reported on a roadmap for the

implementation of the EAF in central Mediterranean. They listed the main gaps to address

before implementing EAF:

- Lack of clear national strategy to systematically inventorise marine and

coastal biodiversity in many countries.

- The national inventories of marine and coastal species and habitats are not

homogeneous. For most countries they are incomplete.

- Many Mediterranean sectors and/or ecosystems remain unstudied, even per

country.

- Prospecting is usually done in areas that are easily accessed. The inventories

drawn up in some countries (bibliography, site prospecting, updating etc.) are

20



usually made in sectors concerned by programmes or action plans.

- Knowledge of the presence, distribution, abundance and conservation status

of Mediterranean coastal and marine species is uneven for taxa and regions.

- Deep sea and high seas reference habitats have commonly been little explored.

- Lack of national taxonomic skills for many groups of marine flora and fauna.

This inevitably results in dubious identification of species. Experts in

taxonomy of most groups are strongly concentrated in a few countries, mostly

lying in the northern part of the Mediterranean.

- Little sharing of recent knowledge within scientific circles in the various

countries of the northern and southern Mediterranean.

- Absence of programmes for monitoring non‐native species in many countries,

particularly the countries of the southern Mediterranean.

- Patchy mapping of marine and coastal species and biocenoses, particularly

those of conservation interest for the Mediterranean.

- Research done on marine and coastal biodiversity is compartmentalized,

restricted to very narrow aspects, and lacks interdisciplinarity.

- Absence of coordinated and cross‐border scientific research, probably related

to financial and administrative constraints.

RAC‐SPA (2010) added that gaps about the 'impacts and effects on marine and coastal

biodiversity' can be observed at several levels: scientific knowledge; legal tools

availability; enforcement of existing laws; public awareness; concrete actions and

operative plan implementations (Vigneau J., 2014).

CREAM project:

The project: Coordinating research in support of the application of EAF (Ecosystem

Approach to Fisheries) and management advice in the Mediterranean and Black Seas,

with acronym CREAM, has been funded by the EU-FP7 Programme (Call: FP7-KBBE-

2010-4, Grant agreement no: 265648).

The CREAM consortium comprises of 22 partners from 17 countries (Bulgaria, Croatia,

Cyprus, Egypt, France, Georgia, Greece, Italy, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, Romania,

Russia, Spain, Tunisia, Turkey and Ukraine) including:

National research institutes.

One international organisation, from the Mediterranean and Black Sea

countries, with a long history and active participation in fisheries research and

assessment.

National, regional and international fisheries management organisations.

The project has also maintained an active collaboration with regional and international

fisheries management organisations (FAO, GFCM, BSC, ICCAT and RAC/SPA). It has

developed strong training and capacity building, and dissemination components in order

to help to harmonize data collection and methodologies. These are tools used in fisheries

assessment and management in the Mediterranean and Black Sea.

21



Regarding publications, CREAM has produced two collective and peer-reviewed

publications: the special issue in the Scientia Marina Journal 'The Ecosystem Approach

to Fisheries in the Mediterranean and Black Seas' (Sci. Mar. 78S1: 2014), with 11

original research articles, and the article “The scientific strategy needed to promote a

regional ecosystem-based approach to fisheries in the Mediterranean and Black Seas” in

the journal Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries (Volume 23, Issue 4, December 2013,

pp 415-434) signed by 16 members of the CREAM consortium. There have been other 9

peer-reviewed publications by the members of the consortium.

In quantitative terms, CREAM has provided 32 deliverables, amongst which 22 were

made available to the general public. It has organised four coordination meetings, seven

specific workshops or meetings, two training courses and one international dissemination

conference.

Figure 9 - Participants in the Advanced Course ECOSYSTEM APPROACH TO FISHERIES IN THE

MEDITERRANEAN AND BLACK SEAS. SCIENTIFIC BASES Varna (Bulgaria), 3-7 February 2014.

http://www.icm.csic.es/scimar/index.php/secId/6/IdNum/196/

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11160-013-9305-y

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11160-013-9305-y

22



The main conclusions of this course were the following:

There is a large amount of data available for EAF in the Mediterranean and Black Sea.

The time series may be discontinued at some locations and the format range updated from

paper sheet to structured databases. There may not be any location gathering all the data

needed for ecosystem based fisheries management (EBFM).

Data collection protocols are difficult to find or not existing.

The possibility of using SeaDataNet for abiotic parameters should be investigated

further.

Fleet and fisheries statistics are compiled through GFCM Task 1 and, although

still incomplete, are available on the GFCM public website.

Status of marine resources and level of fishing pressures are provided by FAO sub

regional projects, agreed and validated in GFCM and EU/STECF relevant

working groups.

Scientific surveys are an important means to collect biological information and

habitat description, but the addition of all surveys in a given year never

encompasses the whole Mediterranean and Black Sea area. Biological

information and habitat description are predominantly in published documents.

Occurrence and spatial distribution of non‐indigenous species is also available

through published documents.

Economics information is often seen as confidential and difficult to gather and

share for analysis.

Spatial planning is an essential tool for management in an EAF and a comprehensive

overview of existing marine protected areas in the Mediterranean is available within the

MedPAN network. The EU project MESMA (2009‐2013) will support integrated

management plans for designated or proposed sites with assessment methods based on

European collaboration.

The main results of the CREAM project where divided by topics:

Regarding the anthropogenic ecosystem impacts and resource assessment:

(Rome 30-31 May 2012) 21 participants representing all the partners of CREAM

received a synthesis of the information from partners on the understandings, at

partner/country level, related to EAF and fishery management aspects. 180 files

about information at a country level, research and monitoring projects have been

compiled. The main topics reflected the FAO’s Technical Guidelines in research

for the EAF implementation:

1) Fisheries structure and fleets.

2) Fisheries impacts and other anthropogenic impacts.

3) Species/habitat knowledge.

4) Socio economic aspects and modelling (ecosystem and bio economic).

5) Assessment of management measures.

23



6) The management process.

7) Monitoring and assessments.

The results highlighted an overall low-medium degree of fulfilling the requirements

of EAF in the Mediterranean and Black Seas, with some differences related to the

different issues considered. In general, the highest scores were reported for the knowledge

related to fleet structure/behaviour as well as species/habitats, while the lowest scores

were noticed for modelling, socio-economic and management issues. These results,

despite being only semi-quantitative, provided an initial global picture on a wide

geographical level, which can provide useful information to properly address the

implementation of EAF in the Mediterranean and Black Sea.

Analysis of the management systems adopted in different countries/GSA of the

Mediterranean and Black seas; an exhaustive picture of the measures and provisions

related to fishery management and a general picture about the fishing regulations contain

many common aspects among all the areas considered. In general, in all the countries the

current management measures foresee limitations of the fishing capacity, implemented

through regulations of the number of licenses or according to a level of total GT of the

fleet considered. Only in some countries (e.g. Spain, Greece) are limitations of the fishing

capacity of the single vessel (with a limit of 500-600 hp) in place, even though the partners

commented that this measure is not fully enforced. Fishing activity, in particular trawling

and purse seining, is regulated everywhere - in general by a maximum number of fishing

days per week. Only in a few cases (e.g. in some GSAs of Spain) are there limitations of

the fishing hours per day (12 hours per fishing trip, with some local exceptions).

Technical measures, mainly concerning the mesh size or the length/drop of set nets are

present in almost all the GSAs considered. The EU Mediterranean countries are

standardised by means of the EU Regulation 1967/2006 (only in a few cases have some

restrictions to this provision been noticed). More diversity was reported for the non-EU

countries. Spatial restrictions are present everywhere, in particular for trawling or for

bottom gears (usually in the coastal waters). The EU Reg. 1967/2006 also has provisions

regarding spatial restriction and sensitive habitats. No Take Zones have been established

in a few areas in the recent years, mainly targeted to the protection of essential fish

habitats, such as nursery or spawning grounds of economically relevant species. A large

number of small MPAs exists in the Mediterranean, but they are of little relevance to

EAF. Temporal restrictions are present practically everywhere, especially for trawling.

Seasonal closures are implemented in many countries, with some differences in their

application on a yearly basis. In the EU countries, the seasonal closure for trawling ranges

from a minimum of 30-40 days in Italy and Spain, to 120 days in Greece and 160 days in

Cyprus.

State of the art data collection; seaDataNet provided information for the abiotic

component. One of the conclusions was, that the national inventories of marine

coastal species and habitats are not homogeneous and incomplete.

Overview of data available; when formulating an EAF management plan, lack

of data or uncertainty about the impact of the fishery should not be used as an

argument for delaying the plan (FAO guidelines for an EAF). Given the

24



uncertainties associated with the lack of knowledge, data, and understanding

about the ocean and living marine resources, the precautionary approach is a

fundamental and inextricable feature of implementing EAF (Meltzer, 2009).

Report on proposed indicators, models, methodologies and reference points;

the context of the Mediterranean and Black Sea may be seen as difficult for the

implementation of an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF). Working with the

similar concept of Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management (EBFM), Hilborn

expressed that there are "core" and "extended" aspects of EBFM and concludes

that we will have great difficulty in moving EBFM beyond the core components

of eliminating overfishing of the main species, reducing by-catch and habitat

impact, and protecting endangered or charismatic species without firmer policy

guidance regarding the social objectives of fisheries and their impact on marine

ecosystems and human communities. In terms of scientific developments,

IndiSeas provides a way forward and the steps that the scientific community as a

whole need to take, in order to make EAF a reality.

A scientific strategy to achieve EAF objectives for 2020; numerous overlapping

and poorly coordinated initiatives for EAF exist in the region.

The current situation: Given the uncertainties associated with the lack of knowledge, data,

and understanding about the ocean and living marine resources, the precautionary

approach is a fundamental and inextricable feature of implementing EAF (Meltzer, 2009).

Recent reports suggest that many well-assessed fisheries in developed countries are

moving toward sustainability. Fisheries lacking formal assessment comprise >80% of

global catch. (Costello C. et al.)

It is important to understand the EAF is related with both legal and institutional aspects:

Consistent with the FM Guidelines, legislation is used here in its broadest sense,

encompassing all types of international instruments as well as national and local laws and

regulations. The international instruments with provisions relevant to fisheries, and which

need to be considered in implementing EAF, are described in Annex 1. These need to be

reflected in national legislation and all associated fisheries regulations and practices.

EAF is not well covered in binding international law at present, either explicitly as EAF

sensu stricto, or implicitly as sustainable development principles, but is reflected mainly

in voluntary instruments such as the Rio Declaration, Agenda 21, and the Code of

Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the Reykjavik Declaration.

As a result, few regional fisheries organizations and arrangements make explicit

recognition of EAF in their instruments. Furthermore, EAF is not frequently an integral

part of national fisheries policy and legislation. This leads to many deficiencies in current

fishery management regimes, such as weak crosssectoral consultation and cooperation

and the failure to consider, or a legal inability to act on external influences such as

pollution and habitat deterioration. Such problems need to be addressed and corrected

where required. Especially in the case of national policies and laws, EAF may require

that existing legal instruments and the practices of other sectors that interact with or

impact on fisheries need to be considered, and that adjustments to those instruments and

25



practices pertaining to other sectors be made. EAF is, therefore, likely to require more

complex sets of rules or regulations that recognize the impacts of fisheries on other sectors

and the impact of those sectors on fisheries. It may be desirable to regulate the major and

more or less constant inter-sectoral interactions through the primary legislation. This

could apply, for example, to laws controlling coastline development and coastal habitat

protection, the establishment of permanent MPAs, and the creation of crosssectoral

institutions. However, many interactions between fisheries and other sectors will be

dynamic, and in these cases, it may be desirable to strive for a more responsive and

flexible mode of interaction than is usually possible through the primary legislation. In

these cases, it would be preferable to rely instead on agreed rules. This is consistent with

the advice in the FM Guidelines, namely that routine management control measures

needing frequent revision should be included in subordinate legislation, rather than in the

primary legislation. (EAF, 2003).

Addressing environmental issues requires recognition of problems, mobilization of

resources to develop solutions, and leadership in driving change. These actions are best

accomplished by thinking globally, acting locally. However, environmental problems

themselves are rarely local in scale, and piecemeal attempts to address them usually fail.

This is particularly true in the conservation of the marine environment, where open

marine ecosystems and the international nature of pollution, overexploitation, and of

other threats dictate a large-scale multilateral response. The mismatch between large-

scale thinking (embodied in marine policy) and small-scale conservation action has

serious implications for the politics of ecosystem-based management ability to reverse

the tide of environmental degradation occurring in the world’s oceans. (Howard I., et al.,

2005)

2.2. Assessment in the Mediterranean and MPAs

a) Materials and methods:

The Mediterranean is one of the priority eco-regions in the world. It represents only

0.82% of the ocean surface, but with nearly 17,000 known marine species today, it is

home to 4-18% of the global marine biodiversity according to the taxonomic groups

examined (Coll et al., 2010 Bianchi & Morri, 2000), and has an important endemism of

10 to 48% depending on the groups (in Coll et al., 2010). The spatial patterns have shown

a general decline of biodiversity from the Northwest to the Southeast, with some

exceptions, and given the limited knowledge of the biodiversity along the southern and

eastern shores (Coll et al., 2010). This remarkable diversity is the result of its geological

history: the opening / closing of the Straits of Gibraltar with consecutive drying /

reflooding in the basin, warming and ice age cycles and mixed flows from the Atlantic

Ocean and the Red Sea via the Gulf of Suez. The Mediterranean provides vital areas for

the reproduction of pelagic species: the Atlantic Bluefin tuna’s main spawning areas, the

great white shark’s unique breeding areas and sea turtle's, such as the green and

loggerhead turtles, nesting areas along its eastern coast. These high oceanic productivity

areas host a particularly rich marine mammal fauna and the eastern part of the basin is

one of the last shelters for the threatened Mediterranean monk seal. The shallow coastal

26



waters are home to key species and sensitive ecosystems such as seagrass beds and

coralligenous assemblages, whilst the deep waters host a unique and fragile fauna. Many

of these species are rare and / or threatened and are globally or regionally classified by

IUCN as threatened or endangered. This natural heritage has profoundly influenced the

development of populations, transforming this basin into a rich and heterogeneous mosaic

of cultures. There is intense urbanisation, tourism, shipping traffic, overfishing, pollution

and global changes, which weigh heavily on this environment (The status of the MPAs

in the Mediterranean Sea 2012: MedPAN and RAC/SPA).

- The Mediterranean ecosystem has a long history of human disturbance and

exploitation. A growing body of knowledge and recent single species

assessments are showing a general overexploitation status of commercial

fish and shellfish stocks along with a rapid decline of large predators, such

as sharks (Ferretti et al., 2008, 2013; Fortibuoni et al., 2010, 2016). While

the impact of poorly regulated fisheries is widely documented in EU

Mediterranean waters (Colloca et al., 2013; Vasilakopoulos et al., 2014), the

status of fisheries and stocks in non-EU countries, where a standardized

fisheries data collection system is generally not yet fully enforced, is still

unclear. However, taking into consideration the recent reports of the working

groups on stock assessment of the General Fisheries Commission for the

Mediterranean (GFCM), it is possible to argue that in the non-EU countries

the situation may also be critical (GFCM, 2016a,b). (Colloca et al., 2017).

- In recent years there has also been increasing evidence for the negative

impacts of fishing on the Mediterranean trophic web and ecosystem.

Analyses on the impact of fishing on the ecosystem, quantified through an

index of Loss in secondary production (Libralato et al., 2008) resulted a

general low probability of the ecosystem to be sustainably fished in the

Mediterranean Sea both from models and data (Libralato et al., 2005).

Moreover, the meta-analysis of Mediterranean model outputs highlighted

detectable signs of impacts of fishing from several ecosystem indicators

(Coll and Libralato, 2012). The ecosystem change was so fast during the last

50 years to be directly witnessed in different Mediterranean areas by

fishermen and vessel captains (Maynou et al., 2011), highlighted from

analysis of landing statistics (Fortibuoni et al., 2017), and documented in

several studies (Lleonart, 1993; Abelló et al., 2002; Coll et al., 2006, 2007;

Libralato et al., 2008; Azzurro et al., 2011).

- In addition, there is a growing concern about the damages on the benthic

habitat caused by towed gears such as otter trawls, dredges, beam trawls

(Pranovi et al., 2000; Smith et al., 2000; de Juan et al., 2007; De Biasi and

Pacciardi, 2008; de Juan and Lleonart, 2010).

- The critical situation of commercial stocks also raised concerns for several

factors that alone, or in combination with fisheries, are contributing to the

worsening conditions of marine Mediterranean communities. Increasing

bodies of research are showing the fast-spreading of new invasive species in

the Mediterranean (Lejeusne et al., 2009; Galil et al., 2014; Parravicini et

al., 2015) that can have indirect effects on resident communities and fisheries

that are difficult to quantify (e.g., Libralato et al., 2015). Pollution and

27



marine litter are being given strong attention because of the several indirect

and direct impacts on both stocks and fisheries (Galgani, 2015). Nutrient

loads from watershed have been regulated with important changes in the last

few decades resulting in direct effects on marine coastal area primary

productivity and exploited resources (Caddy, 2000; Fortibuoni et al., 2017).

Climatic global changes are also influencing Mediterranean marine

communities by changing average temperature, productivity and water

alkalinity (Lazzari et al., 2012, 2014; Cossarini et al., 2015) with potentially

large effects on exploited stocks (Colloca et al., 2014).

Although there is a general concern about the lack of adequate management measures to

reverse the ongoing negative trends and drive Mediterranean fisheries towards

sustainable exploitation, the overall picture of the situation of fisheries and ecosystems is

still rather confused (Colloca et al. 2017).

The Mediterranean Sea is a densely populated region where multiple human activities

have placed stress on biodiversity, food webs, and ecosystems for centuries. The coastal

region of the Mediterranean Sea is home to more than 150 million people and is by far

the largest global tourism destination, attracting almost a third of the world’s international

tourists annually (343 million out of 980 million worldwide in 2014, with a projection of

500 million by 2030). Consequently, the demand for marine resources and space is very

high, and users often oppose the establishment of MPAs, which may limit or displace

their activities (e.g., local commercial and recreational fishing, boating, diving). In such

contexts, understanding if MPAs are effective and under what circumstances, is essential

to raising public and decision-maker awareness and informing decisions about creation,

maintenance, expansion, management, enforcement and support for MPAs (Giakumi et

al, 2017).

b) Fisheries data:

The fishing tradition of the Mediterranean dates back to ancient times. There are several

documents, not only written but also artistic representations that represent the sea and

fisheries over 2000 years ago. Furthermore, there is also documentation from the

Renaissance period. The data available on fishing capacity, such as the total number of

artisanal vessels using fixed gears (e.g., trammel nets, long-lines, traps, etc.), trawlers,

purse-seiners and pelagic trawlers in each Mediterranean Geographical Sub-Area (GSAs,

Figure 10) was obtained from several sources.

This includes technical reports of both the FAO-GFCM and the Scientific Technical and

Economic Committee of the European Commission (STECF-EC), as well as fleet data

retrieved from the European vessel register and scientific studies.

(http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleet/index.cfm)

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/fleet/index.cfm

28



Figure 10 - Mediterranean FAO-GFCM Geographical Sub-Areas (GSAs)2.

Total landings in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea increased irregularly from about

one million tonnes in 1970 to almost two million tonnes in 1982. They remained relatively

stable during most of the 1980s before declining abruptly in 1989 and 1990, largely due

to the collapse of pelagic fisheries in the Black Sea. In the Mediterranean, landings

continued to increase until 1994, reaching 1,087,000 tonnes, and subsequently declined

irregularly to 787,000 in 2013. In the Black Sea, landings have varied considerably from

one year to the next since 1990, showing a generally increasing trend. In 2013, the total

reported landings in the Black Sea was 376,000 tonnes. Algeria, Greece, Italy, Spain,

Tunisia, Turkey and Ukraine are together responsible for slightly more than 80 percent

of total landings in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea.

2 The continental shelf (0–200m) is also shown. 1, Northern Alboran Sea; 2, Alboran Island; 3, Southern

Alboran Sea; 4, Algeria; 5, Balearic Islands; 6, Northern Spain; 7, Gulf of Lions; 8, Corsica Island; 9,

Ligurian and North Tyrrhenian Sea; 10, South Tyrrhenian Sea; 11.1, Sardinia (west); 11.2, Sardinia

(east); 12, Northern Tunisia; 13, Gulf of Hammamet; 14, Gulf of Gabes; 15, Malta Island; 16, South of

Sicily; 17, Northern Adriatic; 18, Southern Adriatic Sea; 19, Western Ionian Sea; 20, Eastern Ionian Sea;

21, Southern Ionian Sea; 22, Aegean Sea; 23, Crete Island; 24, North Levant; 25, Cyprus Island; 26,

South Levant; 27, Eastern Levant Sea.

29



The total value of fish landings across the Mediterranean and the Black Sea is estimated

to be a minimum of US$3.09 bill. The sub region with the highest landing value is the

western Mediterranean (US$1.57 bill), followed by the Ionian Sea (US$1.41 bill), the

eastern Mediterranean (US$1.07 bill), the Adriatic Sea (US$979 mill) and the Black Sea

(US$691 million). Similar average landing prices were observed in the western

Mediterranean (US$3947 per tonne), the Ionian Sea (US$3902 per tonne) and the Adriatic

Sea (US$ 3849 per tonne) and is worth nothing that the average landing price in these

three subregions is at least double that of the eastern Mediterranean (US$1893 per tonne)

and the Black Sea (US$1516 per tonne).

GSA Country Total n. fishing

vessels

Trawlers Artisanal

vessels

Purse seiners

and pelagic

trawlers

Total landing

(ton)

Landings

demersal

fisheries (ton)

Landings purse

seiners and pelagic

trawlers (ton)

1 Spain 788 110 588 90 18,894 6,254 12,640

3 Marocco 2,146 106 1,916 124 31,867 16,048 15,819

4 Algeria 4,743 550 2,906 1,287 97,741 41,247 56,494

5 Spain 373 63 302 8 2,359.1 1,662.83 696.2

6 Spain 1,631 496 1,000 135 50,656 15,246 28,529.8

7 France 1,261 73 1,106 82 14,253 8,938.6 9,641

8 France 194 9 185 0 355.4 257.8 97.6

9 Italy 1,622 302 1,277 43 17,296 11,323.5 5,972.1

10 Italy 2,657 247 2,324 86 17,396 11,602 5,794

11 Italy 1,239 130 1,109 0 11,326 11,325 0.52

12–14 Tunisia 11,484 374 10,702 408 11,0882

20,044 90,838

15 Malta 1,025 22 999 4 4,780.5 1,040 3,740.5

16 Italy 1,172 405 728 39 19,824 15,324 4,499.5

17 Italy,

Slovenia,

Croatia

5,159 1,043 3,788 328 14,9186

43,984.3 10,5201.7

18 Italy,

Montenegr

o, Albania

1,605 599 951 55 19,545 13,219 6,325.7

19 Italy 1,568 227 1,319 22 10,140 9,307 599.4

20 Greece 3,553 31 3,482 40 5,051 554 4,497

21 Libya 4,602 263 4,196 143 25,000 1,600 23,400

22–23 Greece 16,526 310 15,931 285 81,661 17,055 62,227

24 Turkey 1,839 202 1,577 60 6,773 5,026 1,747

25 Cyprus 943 13 928 2 1,218.7 675 543.7

26 Egypt 2,989 1,124 1,657 208 61,376 16,944 44,432

27 Israel,

Lebanon,

Syria,

Palestine

3,520 39 3,133 348 9,021 1,503 7,518

30



Despite such differences, fisheries present a more significant economic contribution to

regional economies in the eastern Mediterranean, compared with other sub regions.

Five countries account for approximately 80 percent of the total landing value of GFCM

fisheries: Italy, Turkey, Greece, Spain, and Algeria, in that order. Italy represents the

country with the highest landing value in the region (close to US$9000 million). Trawlers

(12-24m LOA), purse seiners (>12m LOA) and polyvalent small-scale vessels with

engine (6-12m LOA) are the fleet segments associated with the highest landing value

(US$761 million, US$549 million and US$438 million, respectively).

Landing data by main group of species (demersal fish, small-pelagics, elasmobranches,

crustaceans, cephalopods) and area were obtained from the GFCM marine capture

production database 1970–2014 (http://www.fao.org/gfcm/data/capture-production-

statistics/en/). This was complemented for EU GSAs with data from the JRC database on

Mediterranean and Black Sea fisheries (https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/dd/medbs) as well

as Italian data included in Mannini and Sabatella (2015). Fishing mortality and FMSY

values were compiled from stock assessment forms produced by both the GFCM and

STECF working groups in stock assessment from 2002 to 2014 and summarized by

Cardinale and Scarcella (2017).

Reported landing data in each GSA was contrasted with fleet capacity, calculated as total

number of trawl vessels, and dimension of the continental shelf (depth range: 0–200 m).

The latter was derived from a depth layer downloaded from Marspecdatabase

(http://www.marspec.org).

http://www.fao.org/gfcm/data/capture-production-statistics/en/

http://www.fao.org/gfcm/data/capture-production-statistics/en/

https://stecf.jrc.ec.europa.eu/dd/medbs

http://www.marspec.org/

31



Figure 11 - Fishing pressure on the Mediterranean continental shelf, as n. vessel km−2, by GSA and

fleet: (A) artisanal vessels (B) trawlers.

Mediterranean Geographical-Subareas GSA or combination of GSAs in 20143. (Colloca

et al. 2017).

3 Total number of fishing vessels (dredges excluded), trawlers, artisanal vessels (e.g., vessels using fixed

gears), purse seiners and pelagic trawlers. Landings data are summarized as total landings, landings of

demersal fisheries (i.e., trawlers and artisanal vessels) and landings of pelagic fisheries (i.e., purse seiners

and pelagic trawlers). The dimension of the continental shelf is also shown.

-

Fishing pressure on the Mediterranean continental shelf, as n. vessel km−2, by GSA and fleet: (A) artisanal

vessels; (B) trawlers.

32



The officially reported fishing fleet operating in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea

comprises some 92700 vessels. The fishing fleet is unevenly distributed in the GFCM

area of application, with the eastern Mediterranean accounting for the largest share of

vessels (28%), followed by the Ionian….

The GFCM is an FAO body responsible for the sustainable development of fisheries and

aquaculture on the Mediterranean and the Black Sea (FAO major fishing area 37).

Through the coordination of its 24 contracting parties, the GFCM tailors and adapts

general concepts introduced by FAO to the particularities of the region’s fisheries and

ecosystems. The GFCM has often been at the forefront of embracing concepts such as an

ecosystems approach to fisheries management, guidelines for the management of deep-

sea fisheries and guidelines for sustainable small-scale fisheries. The GFCM has also

organized and coordinated activities such as a symposium and regional conference on

small-scale fisheries and the adoption of the roadmap to fight illegal, unreported and

unregulated (IUU) fishing. Other examples include the adoption of recommendations on

port state measures, on the establishment of a list of IUU vessels and on the use of vessel

monitoring systems.

Based on the data reported by GFCM members, at least one-quarter of a million people

-

- Relationships between the dimension of the continental shelf area of GSAs and the reported total annual landings

(GSAs 1-3 are excluded).

-

-

-

Figure 12 - Relationships between the dimension of the continental shelf area of GSAs and the

reported total annual landings (GSAs 1-3 are excluded).

33



are employed on fishing vessels in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. (FAO. 2016.

The State of Mediterranean and Black Sea Fisheries. General Fisheries Commission for

the Mediterranean. Rome, Italy.).

c) MPAs assessment:

The international definitions for MPAs have varied over time. In this report, the definition

used is the latest one provided by the IUCN (Dudley, 2008): «a protected area is a clearly

defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other

effective means, to achieve the long term conservation of nature with associated

ecosystem services and cultural values».

Figure 13 – Marine Protected Areas in the Mediterranean Sea.

34



Figure 14 – Protected Areas Red Natura 2000 in Spain.

This definition clearly differentiates the sites aimed at conservation from those mainly

used for mining; an example would be the fisheries management areas. However, we

cannot distinguish the terrestrial areas from the marine ones.

35



A study jointly undertaken by MedPAN and RAC/SPA and validated by MedPAN’s

scientific committee has led to adapt this definition, therefore a marine protected area is

considered to be: << any clearly defined geographical marine area - including sub-tidal,

inter-tidal and supratidal or lagoon / coastal lake area which is continuously or

temporarily connected to the sea, together with its overlying water - recognized,

dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long term

conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values >>

(Claudet et al., 2011) .

One of the most practical and cost-effective strategies in ocean conservation is the

creation of marine protected areas (MPAs). MPAs were originally conceived as a

nature-based tool for repairing damage to overexploited fish stocks and habitats, and for

conserving biodiversity. Several decades of place-based research and meta-analyses

reveal that MPAs indeed serve these purposes (Callum M. R., et al., 2017).

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are recognized as the most effective management and

conservation tool to manage the unprecedented alteration to marine ecosystems and

mitigate its effects as well as using other complementary tools (pollution control, resource

management by regulating the access, equipment or authorized periods for example).

These are now being increasingly recognized as a fisheries management tool. (Status of

MPAs in the Mediterranean, 2012).

The Marine Protected Areas are the perfect example of the binomial between

conservation and development, through the integration of environmental and fisheries

aspects. During the last few decades, the marine environment conservation and protection

policies acquired an international and national rise. However, the protection of the sea

was later than of the land and technology has been the bottleneck and main limitation.

Taking into account that the sea has a surface of ¾ of the planet, this fact is even more

striking. Also, at sea we find the richest ecosystems (with a wider range of taxon) taking

part in one of the most important global systems - the global atmospheric dynamic - and

offering valuable sources for sustainable development. (Áreas Marinas protegidas en la

Cuenca Mediterránea Española, análisis de la situación actual).

The designation and management of MPAs in the Mediterranean is governed by a range

of international, regional and national instruments. The main two are the Convention on

Biological Diversity (CBD) on an international level, and the Barcelona Convention on a

regional level. In addition, the Northern European Mediterranean countries all have

directives, policies, and other European instruments, which include the Marine Strategy

Framework Directive, Natura 2000 and the Common Fisheries Policy, which is currently

under reform. One must also highlight the progress being made in national legislation.

36



All these instruments are presented in the 2008 MPA status report (link:

www.iucn.org/about/union/secretariat/offices/iucnmed/resources/publications/index.cfm

?uNewsID=1962), but the main changes to note since 2008 are the following (not in

chronological order and presented according to their relevance to MPAs). The CBD’s

recent commitments in 2010, the Nagoya conference adopted a protocol, which validated

an operational ≪2011-2020 Biological Diversity Strategic Plan≫, with 20 quantified

sub-objectives known as the ≪Aichi targets≫. These 20 objectives include two key

objectives, one on fishing and the other on protected areas:

• By 2020, to manage/operate all exploited aquatic stocks (fish, invertebrates, aquatic

plants) in a sustainable way by applying an ecosystem based approach in order to avoid

overfishing.

• By 2020, to create a network of protected areas covering at least 17% of the land area

and 10% of coastal and marine areas, constituting an ecologically representative and well-

connected network of protected areas, which are effectively conserved and equitably

managed.

At the Barcelona Convention in February 2012, the signatories met to validate the 'Paris

Declaration' for the Mediterranean which reinforces the tenets of the Nagoya

commitments and, in particular, that of the ecosystem-based approach, combating climate

change, making greater efforts to reduce pollution, reinforcing the network of MPAs with

the 10% objective in the Mediterranean by 2020 and actions to be taken in ecologically

or biologically significant marine areas (EBSAs). This meeting has also acted on the need

to reinforce changes in economic practices by, “setting up a 'blue' economy for the

Mediterranean, deriving from the 'green' economy and applied to seas, based on the

Mediterranean Strategy of sustainable development as a framework for action”. The 'Paris

Declaration' also reaffirms the commitments made in relation to ICZM Protocol adopted

in 2008, following its ratification by six of the Contracting Parties and which came into

force in 2011. The process of implementation is reflected in a roadmap, which was

developed in 2012 and coordinated by the RAC/PAP. The ICZM Protocol has been added

to the Convention’s Protocols, specifically for SPA and biological diversity, and

completes the intervention areas by requiring the protection of specific coastal

ecosystems, islands and coastal landscapes (art.10, 11, 12.).

The Contracting Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) set in 2004 the

objective of establishing, by 2012, comprehensive, ecologically representative and

efficiently managed national and regional protected areas systems.

http://www.iucn.org/about/union/secretariat/

37



In 2010, the CBD’s Parties adopted the Strategic Plan for Biological Diversity 2011-

2020, including Target 11 which states that, “by 2020, at least 17% of terrestrial and

inland water and 10% of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular

importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively

and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well-connected systems of

protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into

the wider landscape and seascape.” The Specially Protected Areas and Biological

Diversity Protocol in the Mediterranean (SPA/BD Protocol) and the Strategic Action Plan

for the Conservation of Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean (SAP BIO) are the main

tools which the contracting parties to the Barcelona Convention can use to implement the

Convention on Biological Diversity.

Under the SPA/BD Protocol, Mediterranean countries contribute to the objective of

establishing a far-reaching and coherent Mediterranean network of marine and coastal

protected areas by implementing the Regional Work Programme for marine and coastal

protected areas in the Mediterranean, as well as in open sea, which was adopted by the

Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention in 2009. The Regional Activity Centre

for Specially Protected Areas (RAC/SPA) was established in Tunis in 1985 on the

decision of the Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention. It was given the

responsibility of assessing the natural heritage situation and assisting Mediterranean

countries in implementing the Specially Protected Areas Protocol (SPA protocol of

1982), which was later replaced by the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas

and Biological Diversity (SPA/BD protocol of 1995 which came into force in 1999)

through the following actions:

• The implementation of scientific and technical research programmes as defined by the

SPA/BD Protocol with these research programmes having the priority of being relevant

to Specially Protected Areas of Mediterranean Importance (SPAMI) and species listed in

Appendices II and III of the SPA / BD Protocol.

• The elaboration of management plans for protected areas and species (ex. MedMPA and

MedMPAnet Projects...).

• The development of cooperation programmes in order to coordinate the creation,

conservation and management of specially protected areas, as well as the selection,

management and conservation of protected species.

Since 1990, the MedPAN Network (the network of managers of Marine Protected Areas

in the Mediterranean) has been dedicated to unifying the managers of Marine Protected

Areas (MPAs) in the Mediterranean and to give them support in their management

activities. By the end of 2008, MedPAN became an Association under the 1901 law

(French legal system) and aims to promote the creation, sustainability and operation of a

Mediterranean network of marine protected areas.

38



The MedPAN Association now has 9 founding members, 40 members (MPA managers)

and 24 partners (activities linked to the management of MPAs) from 18 different

Mediterranean countries. (Status of MPAs in the Mediterranean, 2012).

More recent studies say that MPAs are increasingly recognised as one of the most

effective tools for the conservation and protection of the marine environment when

they are managed effectively and have sufficient resources to address local management

issues.

Several objectives in the Aïchi Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 (now

consolidated by decisions taken at Rio+20 or at the Convention on Biological Diversity

(CBD) COP 11 in Hyderabad in 2012, and reinforced by several Protocols of the

Barcelona Convention and several European directives) highlight the commitments and

international frameworks which show the efforts to be undertaken to improve the status

of biodiversity and management of marine resources in the Mediterranean. MPAs in the

Mediterranean region as a whole do not yet constitute a regional ecological network of

Marine Protected Areas, despite the fact that a network of MPA managers exists

(MedPAN). Given the magnitude of pressures and challenges, achieving the objectives

of the CBD, the Barcelona Convention, or those associated with EU policies and

frameworks, will only be possible in the short and medium term, if there is a renewed,

stronger, and coherent commitment from all stakeholders (international organisations,

conventions, agreements), riparian states, NGOs, the scientific community, national

institutions, MPA managers, the private sector, local populations/communities etc, and

on every geographic scale (local, national, Mediterranean, European and international).

Of all the oceans, the Mediterranean Sea is unique not only by its geography, the intense

pressure from populations and pollution, but also because it suffers the most from the

impacts of climate change. Consequently, it should not only receive more support than

other areas of the world to restore its ecosystems, rebuild its resilience and continue to

provide goods and services, but also to remain a key innovative region and a model for

other regions all over the world.

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are a cornerstone of marine conservation. Globally, the

number and coverage of MPAs are increasing, but MPA implementation lags in many

human-dominated regions. In areas with intense competition for space and resources,

evaluation of the effects of MPAs is crucial to inform decisions. In the human-dominated

Mediterranean Sea, fully protected areas occupy only 0.04% of its surface. (Giakoumi et

al., 2017).

39



Figure 15 - Mean weighted effect sizes in (a) fully and (b) partially protected areas in Mediterranean

MPAs4.

The ecological effects of fully protected areas (also called ‘no-take areas’ or ‘marine

reserves’) have been widely documented in both temperate and tropical regions, and this

information has often been synthesized in regional and global studies. Observed

ecological effects include increases in sizes of organisms, density and biomass of

commercially exploited species and whole assemblages, reproductive potential, species

richness, live cover of benthic organisms, and restoration of trophic interactions (e.g.

Selig and Bruno, Edgar et al., Guidetti and Sala and Floros et al.). In contrast, information

on the responses of organisms, populations and communities to partial protection has

been synthesized less often in meta-analyses (but see Lester and Halpern,

Sciberras et al. and Sala and Giakoumi, and the ecological effectiveness of partially

protected areas has often been questioned (e.g. Costello and Ballantine). Because many

MPAs around the world are multiple-use areas that include partially protected areas,

especially in densely populated regions, it is important to assess whether partial protection

4 The graph displays the weighted ratio (E) and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) in and out (fully or partially)

protected areas of: fish assemblage biomass, density, and species richness; dusky grouper (Epinephelus

marginatus), white seabream (Diplodus sargus sargus), and two-banded seabream (D. vulgaris) biomass

and density; and sea urchin (Paracentrotus lividus and Arbacia lixula) density. Open dots correspond to

mean effect sizes with confidence intervals that overlapped with zero. Sample sizes for each variable are

indicated in parentheses next to effect sizes.

40



affects species and communities and to what extent.

It is important to highlight the recent progress in creating and strongly enforcing protected

areas and to emphasize the need of accurate scientific knowledge.

The ocean has recently taken a more prominent role on the international policy stage. In

June, the United Nations (UN) initiated development of a treaty for conservation of

biodiversity on the High Seas. One of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

adopted by the UN in September focuses on the ocean. In early October, the second Our

Ocean Conference (OO-2015) provided a high profile platform for nations to tout

progress or make promises to protect and restore the ocean. (Lubchenco J. et al., 2015).

Figure 16 - The graph shows increases in global MPA coverage over time5.

5 The line graph shows increasing MPA area. MPAs and year established are shown below the x axis. Data include

formal commitments for large MPAs made in mid-2015. Bar graphs (decadal from 1960 to 2010, plus 2015) show

percent ocean surface area that is strongly or fully protected (dark blue) out of the total percent MPA coverage (light

blue). Circled numbers highlight key international events or agreements: 1) First AAAS Marine Reserves

Symposium; 2) First NCEAS Marine Reserves Working Group; 3) UN World Summit on Sustainable Development;

4) Vth IUCN World Parks Congress; 5) UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); 6) CBD, Aichi Targets; 7)

UN SDG 14. Chagos MR currently in negotiation. GBRMP, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park; PRIMNM,

Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument; MP, Marine Park; MR, Marine Reserve; MTMNM,

Marianas Trench Marine National Monument; OS, Ocean Sanctuary; PEI MPA,

Prince Edward Islands Marine Protected Area; PIPA, Phoenix Islands Protected Area; PMNM,

Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument. Pre-2015 data from World Database on Protected Areas

41



Despite the low fraction of the ocean protected, significant progress has been made in the

last decade—from less than 0.1% to 1.6% strongly protected. This reflects increasingly

strong scientific evidence about the social, economic, and environmental benefits of full

protection; greater attention to community, stakeholder, and governance dynamics;

increasing recognition of the need for more protection due to threats to biodiversity,

overfishing, and the lack of assessment for many marine stocks; dedicated campaigns by

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs); funding by philanthropies; and new

technologies that enable more effective enforcement. Complementary changes are under

way in some fishery management to achieve more sustainable fisheries outside marine

Reserves.

Although the science of MPAs is mature and extensive, political discussions are

frequently disconnected from that knowledge, and resistance from resource extractors is

often intense.

Some of the conclusions of this assessment regarding the state of the MPAs management

are the following:

- Full protection works: fully protected, effectively enforced reserves almost

always achieve their primary goal of significant ecological gains, including

more species in greater numbers and larger sizes. Fully protected areas have

ecological benefits up to an order of magnitude greater than partially protected

areas (1). Strong potential also exists to help recover some depleted fisheries

outside a reserve. They also provide a control to evaluate the impact of fishing

and thus improve fishery management.

- Habitats are connected: networks of reserves that extend beyond coastal

waters into deeper waters can protect more biodiversity; many species move

among habitats during their life cycles. If seamounts are fully protected within

a strategically placed reserve, they can also benefit migratory animals such as

tuna and marine mammals.

- Networks allow fishing: connected networks of reserves can protect species

while allowing extractive use between reserves. Connectivity occurs through

movement of larvae, juveniles, or adults, sometimes across political

jurisdictions, leading to greater benefits than from a set of unconnected

reserves. Simply having multiple relatively small reserves within a region,

without thoughtful design, does not guarantee connectivity.

and MPAtlas, collated by R. Moffitt, and from (6). Mid-2015 large MPA data compiled by authors from

data made public as formal MPA commitments are announced. See SM for MPA sizes.

42



- Reserves can enhance resilience: large and strategically placed reserves with

their full component of trophic levels and greater genetic and species diversity

are likely to be more resilient to some environmental changes and could be

important tools in climate adaptation.

- Planning saves money: thoughtful planning can minimize the costs of

reserves, including foregone revenue. Reserves can increase economic

benefits, such as through spill over of adults to fished areas or enhanced

tourism revenues; in some cases, the value of the reserve can exceed the pre-

reserve value.

- Ecosystems matter: complementary efforts beyond reserves and MPAs are

needed to fully protect and restore ecosystem functioning. Smart planning

using science- and ecosystem-based approaches can enable a combination of

sustainable uses (fishing, aquaculture, energy generation, recreation, and the

like) and protected places.

- Embrace options: MPAs have been implemented using myriad top-down

(politically mandated) and bottom-up (citizen-driven) approaches (see SM).

Both are needed to achieve adequate protection.

- Bring users to the table: involving stakeholders during all stages can assist

successful MPA planning, improving outcomes of resource protection while

minimizing the effects on resource users (see SM).

- Change users’ incentives: push-back is understandable from those who bear

the immediate costs, especially if there is no guarantee of direct benefit. This

has been the single biggest impediment to the creation of reserves. Good

reserve design and explicit transition strategies can help minimize economic

and social effects (e.g., fisheries buyouts, phasing out fishing over time, or

training for alternative livelihoods).

- Use new technologies for enforcement: partnerships between NGOs, the

technology industry, and agencies use satellite tracking to visualize boat

traffic, identify potential illegal fishing, and direct law enforcement to

offenders. These complement international initiatives to reduce what has been

a major threat to fishery management and biodiversity protection: Illegal,

Unregulated, and Unreported (IUU) Fishing.

- Integrate reserves with other management measures: reserves cannot

address all stressors affecting the ocean. Complementary management, ideally

integrated with reserves, is necessary to address issues such as bycatch,

unsustainable and IUU fishing, climate change, and ocean acidification.

- Expect surprises and use adaptive management: when reserve goals are

identified, so, too, should plans be laid for accommodating unexpected

changes. Monitoring is key to track progress and signal when management

plans should be reviewed. Management agencies need the capacity to

43



effectively evaluate reserve outcomes and use sound data for adapting

appropriately.

An accelerated pace of protection will be needed for the ocean to provide the full range

of benefits people want and need. (Lubchenco, 2015).

The MPA also, can serve as a powerful tool to help ameliorate some problems of climate

change, slow the development of others, and improve the outlook for continued

ecosystem functioning and delivery of ecosystem services.

Marine reserves will also help to insure against inadequate management both in national

waters and beyond national jurisdictions. They extend the precautionary principle to

management and ensure that we do not make scientific advances through the belated

realisation of what we have lost. Ultimately, by helping to mitigate and promote

adaptation to climate change, reserves would protect the many economic and social

benefits we derive from marine ecosystems (Roberts M.C, et al., 2017).

44



Case study: Alboran MPA

The Natural Park and Marine Reserve of Alboran Island it is located on The Alboran Sea,

which is an important area globally for marine traffic as it provides an important corridor

that connects the Mediterranean Sea with the Atlantic Ocean which is crossed by 25% of

global maritime traffic, which corresponds to approximately 90,000 vessels per year

(Robles et al., 2007). Independent of the problems of ocean pollution spills or accidents

at sea (e.g. the "Sea Spirit" in 1990 in Moroccan waters), this feature characterizes the

fishing activity in the open sea areas from the Alboran Sea. Therefore, the bigger boats

of greater gross tonnage could break the fishing gear or collide with slower fishing boats

during fishing operations (Baez et al., 2009). Thus, the fishing grounds from open sea in

the Alboran Sea are away from the main shipping lanes, and are closer to the coast than

in other areas.

Figure 17 - Map of Alboran Sea6.

The Alboran Sea extends from the Strait of Gibraltar to an adopted line running from

6 The most important landing ports, for the fishery vessels from Alboran Sea in the fishing-ground

oopensea, are showed: (1) Tarifa, (2) Algeciras, (3) La Linea, (4) Estepona, (5) Marbella, (6)Fuengirola,

(7) Málaga, (8) Caleta de Vélez, (9) Motril, (10) Adra, (11) Roquetas de Mar, (12) Almería, (13) Carboneras

(out of Alboran sea in sensu stricto), (14) Garrucha (out of Alboran sea in sensu stricto), (15) Tanger, (16)

Ceuta, (17) M´diq, (18) Stehat, (19) Jebha, (20) Cala Iris, (21) Al Hoceïma, (22) Beni Ansar (Nador), (23)

Ras El Ma, (24) Ghazaouet (Tlemecen), (25) Bouzed jar (Ain Témouchent ), and (26) Oran.

45



Cabo de Gata (Almeria, Spain) to the Cape Fegalo (Algeria), is the westernmost portion

of the Mediterranean, lying between Spain, Morocco and Algeria. The Alboran Sea

extends from the Strait of Gibraltar to an adopted line running from Cape of Gata

(Almeria, Spain) to the Cape Fegalo (Algeria). Our study region is approximately

between 35º–37º N and 0º–4º W, and includes the main harbours. The Atlantic Ocean

waters entering the Alboran Sea through the Strait of Gibraltar are richer in nutrients

compared with the surface Mediterranean water. This fact, together with the upwelling in

the northern Alboran Sea (close to the Spanish coast), causes important plankton

productivity in northern Alboran Sea. These productivity levels are the highest around

the Bay of Malaga, coinciding with the flow of the Western Alboran Gyre (WAG). The

peaks in the plankton productivity are during spring, summer and autumn, coinciding

with the spawning season of European anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) and sardine

(Sardina pilchardus). Thus, important spawning areas for many of the fish species are

found near to the coast in the north of the Alboran Sea.

Other important reproductive zones for demersal fish are found in the submarine canyons

of the Alboran Sea, whose origin is related with ancient fluvial erosion processes.

Blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou), horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus), chub

mackerel (Scomber japonicus), silver scabbardfish (Lepidopus caudatus), and Atlantic

pomfret (Brama brama) are the most important targeted apart from non-tuna species,

considering the total catch weight from the open sea. Bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus),

little tunny (Euthynnus alletteratus), skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis), plain bonito

(Orcynopsis unicolor), Atlantic bonito (Sarda sarda), bullet tuna (Auxis rochei), and

swordfish (Xiphias gladius) are the main tuna fisheries in South Alboran’s open sea. The

main tuna and associated fisheries in the North Alboran’s open sea, considering the total

catch weight, are bullet tuna (Auxis rochei), Atlantic bonito (Sarda sarda), swordfish

(Xiphias gladius) and little tunny (Euthynnus alletteratus).

The submarine canyons of the Alboran Sea are also important reproductive zones for

demersal fish. The origin of the submarine canyons is related with ancient fluvial erosion

processes. They are generally short but in front of Almería there is a long submarine

canyon of 75 km. The submarine canyon in front of Motril is near to the shoreline, while

the submarine canyon off Algeciras and La Linea is very steep (Camiñas et al. 2004; Baro

et al., 2012).

According to Camiñas et al. (2004), the principal target species of fisheries vessels of the

Alboran Sea are mainly (in order of importance): bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus), sardine

(Sardina pilchardus), European anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus), European hake

(Merluccius merluccius), red mullet (Mullus barbatus), blue whiting (Micromesistius

poutassou), red shrimp (Aristeus antennatus), and common octopus (Octopus vulgaris).

There is a marked socioeconomic gradient between Spain (within the European Union)

and

46



Morocco and Algeria (two least-developed countries). Spain is the ninth largest country

in the world in the export of fish products, as well as being a major importer (FAO, 2012).

However, Morocco is the major fisheries producer in Africa (FAO, 2012). Fisheries and

aquaculture in Africa provide more than 7% of the work force engaged in the primary

sector of fish production in the world (FAO, 2012). This provides an indication of the

socio-economic importance of this activity in the three countries around the Alboran Sea.

According to the FAO (2012) report, the countries that should improve their data

collection and reporting systems are found mainly in Africa.

The Mediterranean is a peculiar sea from an oceanographic point of view, as important

oceanic events occur on a small scale (Rodriguez, 1982). In this context, the Alboran Sea

is the border with the Atlantic Ocean. Here, the superficial and less salty waters from the

Atlantic arrive in the Mediterranean, whilst at the same time the deep Mediterranean

waters, more saline, leave the Mediterranean. The Alboran Sea basin is considered as a

channel bordered to the north by Spain and to the south by Morocco and is a water mixture

transition zone between the Atlantic and Mediterranean waters (Parrilla & Kinder, 1987).

The Atlantic Current in the Alboran Sea traces two anticyclonic gyres where surface

waters accumulate. As a result, the surface water of the Alboran Sea exhibits a lower

salinity than Mediterranean water, mixing as it progresses eastwards with the higher

salinity Mediterranean water. The Atlantic current surrounds and feeds the two

anticyclonic gyres: the WAG and the EAG.

Moreover, the oceanography of the Alboran Sea responds to changes in the anticyclone

of the Azores, as described by Parrilla and Kinder (1987). The Sea Surface Temperature

factor in the Alboran Sea is a complex variable, which is also influenced by factors other

than downwelling and upwelling water masses. However, the annual average value of

SST shows a low deviation in the Alboran Sea.

The Alboran basin presents the peculiar shape of a funnel, surrounded by a rugged

coastline, with high peaks near to the sea, where it snow accumulates during the winter

season, for example, Mulhacen and Veleta peaks (over 3.000 meters high from the

southern Iberian Peninsula), Tidirhin and Akra (over 2.100 m from Rif Mountains,

Morocco), and Tell Atlas (over 1.500 m, Algeria). Thus, the accumulated snow is an

important fresh-water reservoir. This snow melts down in spring-summer of the following

year, with the consequent increase in runoff of freshwater the sea and a consequent

lessening of sea surface salinity and density and blocking of the local upwelling of colder

water. This phenomenon could have an important effect on the marine productivity and

larval growth (Báez et al., 2013a).

47



Figure 18 - Alboran gyre, with the anticyclonics Western Alboran Gyre and the Eastern Alboran Gyre

(WAG, EAG)7.

Regarding fishing activity, the main fishing performed in the Alboran’s open sea in the

last ten years has been: driftnets, longline, purse seine, and bottom trawl. The swordfish

(Xiphias gladius) is the target species for the driftnets fishery. Bluefin tuna (Thunnus

thynnus), little tunny (Euthynnus alletteratus), and swordfish are the main longline fishery

targeted species, both surface and the bottom longline modalities. Sardine (Sardina

pilchardus) and European anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) are the most important small

pelagic species targeted for the purse seiners. Finally, the bottom trawl fisheries is

characterised by multispecific bottom fisheries, targeting (in order of importance)

European hake (Merluccius merluccius), red mullet (Mullus barbatus), blue whiting

(Micromesistius poutassou), red shrimp (Aristeus antennatus), and common octopus

(Octopus vulgaris). (IndeMares, 2014).

7 The grey area shows the major phytoplankton productivity area. Source: Hauschildt et al. (1999), modified

by (Minas et al. 1984).

48



Figure 19 – Marks of trawlers registered with Side Scan Sonar (SSS). (Juan Goutayer/INDEMARES-

Alborán).

The regulations applied to this area (Alboran Sea) are:

- Ley 42/2007, de 13 de diciembre, del Patrimonio Natural y de la

Biodiversidad.

- Ley de Gestión Integrada de la Calidad Ambiental (GICA).

- Ley 41/2010 de Protección del Medio Marino

- ORDEN de 8 de septiembre de 1998 por la que se establece una reserva marina

y una reserva de pesca en el entorno de la isla de Alborán y se regula el

ejercicio de la pesca en los caladeros adyacentes.

- Resolución de 5 de septiembre de 2016, de la Secretaría General del Mar.

Regarding to the fishing access, The Ministry of Environment, Agriculture and Maritime

Affairs publish a general list of the total of fishing vessels allowed to fish in the area

(currently 51 trawlers). Another monthly or fortnightly list is published for each

vessels and the specific period.

The instruments:

- PORN: Reserva Natural y el Paraje Natural Punta Entinas-Sabinar, Reserva

Natural Albufera de Adra, Parque Natural Cabo de Gata-Níjar.

- PRUG: Parque Natural Cabo de Gata-Níjar.

- Programa de Gestión Sostenible de Recursos para la Conservación Medio

Marino Andaluz.

- Red de Centros de Gestión del medio marino andaluz (CEGEM).

- Plan de Ordenación del Territorio de Andalucía (POTA)

49



The Alboran Sea corresponds to FAO area 37 and to Management Geographical Sub-

Areas

(GSA) of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean: GSA01 (north

Alboran

Sea), GSA02 (Alboran Island), and GSA03 (South Alboran Sea) and small portion of the

GSA0 (Algeria) (GFCM, 2001)

Figure 15 - Management Geographical Sub-Areas (GSA) of the GFCM8.

8 GSA01 (north Alboran Sea), GSA02 (Alboran Island), and GSA03 (South Alboran Sea) and a small

portion of the GSA04 (Algeria) (GFCM, 2001)

50



2.3 MCS on the Mediterranean: Alboran as a case of study

2.3.1 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundaries in the Mediterranean Sea

The understanding of the delimitation of Maritime Boundaries is essential to know how

the jurisdiction and rules are applied at Sea. This is a fundamental, preliminary step for

the application of the monitoring, control and surveillance at sea. There are some

international rules applicable for all countries, whereas others make a difference due to

their specifications. This is the case of the Mediterranean Sea as an example of a Semi-

enclosed sea.

The First United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea was held in the spring of 1958

in Geneva, Switzerland and was based on the careful background work and drafts

prepared over an extended period by the International Law Commission. The work of the

Commission facilitated the rapid conclusion of a highly successful Conference that

produced four keystone conventions: The Convention on the Territorial Sea and the

Continuous Zone, the Convention on the Continental Shelf, the Convention on the High

Seas, and the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the

High Seas, as well as an Optional Protocol on the Settlement of Disputes9. The

establishment of maritime zones by States in accordance with the UNCLOS 1982 may

create situations of overlapping claims, then requiring maritime boundary delimitation.

These delimitations of the Maritime Boundaries (Territorial Sea, Contiguous zone,

Economic Exclusive Zone and the Continental shelf) have been applied differently in the

case of the Mediterranean Sea.

The Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) are international

organisations formed by countries with fishing interests in an area and with fisheries

management purposes. Thus, while some RFMOs have a purely advisory role, most have

management powers to set catch and fishing effort limits, technical measures and control

obligations. The RFMOs provide reports and data about the principally exploited stocks.

In the Alboran Sea two RFMOs have competence: the General Fisheries Commission for

the Mediterranean (GFCM) and the International Commission for the Conservation of

Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). The GFCM is focused on managing the principally exploited

stocks in this sea, whilst the ICCAT is focused in fisheries management of highly

migratory species, mainly tuna, and swordfish. (Indemares, 2014).

9 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982: a commentary. (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff)

. (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff) Volume II, Center for Oceans Law and Policy, University of Virginia

School of Law.

51



Figure 20 – Maritime Boundaries

The Mediterranean is a semi-enclosed sea surrounded by 21 countries. It is characterized

by a number of distinctive features with important implications for the conservation and

management of fisheries (FAO, 2005).

One of these features is the general restraint shown by coastal states to exercise their

rights to extend national jurisdiction over waters in the Mediterranean. Whilst most states

have established territorial waters, few have claimed an economic exclusive zone or a

fishing zone extending beyond these waters. As a result, the high seas area in the

Mediterranean lies much closer to the coasts than in most other seas and oceans on the

planet. It is therefore similar to the situation that prevailed in the sixties and seventies

prior to the devising of the new law of the sea enshrined in the 1982 United Nations

Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC). The existence of a large area of high seas

requires a high level of cooperation between coastal states to ensure the sustainable

52



utilization of fisheries resources in the Mediterranean. After a brief review of the basic

principles and rules relating to the establishment of maritime zones as embodied in the

LOSC, this chapter examines the legal status of Mediterranean waters.

Most Mediterranean states have established a 12-mile territorial sea. A few countries still

adopt narrower limits, namely Greece and Turkey in the Aegean Sea. Because of the

complex political and geographical situation, the very possibility of extending the

territorial sea beyond the 6-mile limit is still disputed by the two countries. In the case of

the Aegean Sea, application of the median line rule provided under Article 15 of the

LOSC is politically sensitive as too many islands are on either side of the median line.

The Syrian Arab Republic claims a 35-mile territorial sea, which does not fit with

international law as reflected in the LOSC. It is not clear, however, whether the Syrian

Arab Republic enforces rights beyond 12 miles. Bosnia and Herzegovina and Slovenia

have not yet determined the extent of their territorial sea. Both newly independent states

have a very narrow access to the Adriatic Sea. In addition, the geographical features of

the coastline make it very difficult, if not impossible, for both states to establish any

substantial territorial sea.

Mediterranean states have so far been reluctant to proclaim an EEZ or, at least to give

effect to such a claim in the Mediterranean. Among the reasons behind the choice of

delaying the establishment of EEZ may be the existence of difficult problems of

delimitation still to be settled in this relatively narrow sea and the desire of most states to

preserve freedom of navigation, naval mobility and access to fisheries. From a legal point

of view, however, there is nothing to prevent Mediterranean states from establishing EEZ

if they wish to do so. At least three Mediterranean states have taken steps towards the

establishment of such a zone.

Spain and France have proclaimed a 200-mile EEZ off their coasts but have indicated that

it is not applicable to Mediterranean waters.

In the Mediterranean, there are four countries, namely, Algeria, Malta, Spain and Tunisia

that have claimed fishing zones extending beyond their territorial waters.

Spain, by Royal Decree No. 1315/1997 of 1 August 1997 as modified, claimed a 37-mile

wide fisheries protection zone measured from the outer limit of the territorial sea. The

fisheries protection zone is delimited according to the line, which is equidistant (median

line) from the opposite coast of Algeria and Italy and the adjacent coast of France. No

fisheries protection zone is established in the Alboran Sea, off the Spanish coast facing

Morocco. Interestingly, it was argued, in the preamble of the Royal Decree, that extension

of jurisdiction over fisheries resources beyond territorial waters was a necessary step to

ensure adequate and effective protection of fisheries resources. In Spain’s view,

maintenance of the status quo, which was already characterized by excessive exploitation

of fisheries resources, was unacceptable as it would have rapidly led to the depletion of

these resources.

Building on the Spanish approach, the European Union, in a 2002 document laying down

a Community Action Plan for the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries

53



resources in the Mediterranean, advocated the declaration of fisheries protection zones,

of up to 200 nautical miles, to improve fisheries management in the Mediterranean. It

stressed the fact that establishment of fisheries protection zones would facilitate control

and contribute significantly to fighting against illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU)

fishing. The document emphasized the need to build a consensus through wide

consultation and involvement of all countries bordering the Mediterranean basin, if such

undertaking is to be successful and effective. To achieve this, a common approach should

first be agreed upon by Community Member States and, subsequently, by all the countries

in the region. Recently, France indicated that it adhered to this approach and that the

legislation to declare a 50-mile fisheries protection zone off its Mediterranean coast was

in the process of being drafted.

Figure 21 - Prosal for the EEZ (yellow) and FRA (red)10.

A new Spanish regulation, the Royal Decree 236/2013, 5th April, established an Economic

Exclusive Zone in the noroccidental Mediterranean Sea.

10 (Naucher global source).

54



Figure 22 - EEZ of Spain on the Mediterranean Sea from 2013. (SeaBird Task Force).

55



2.3.2. The MCS in the Mediterranean Sea

Figure 23 – Software of Satellite Applications Catapult

In order to utilise the most up to date technology available, applying monitoring,

surveillance and control via satellite technology in the Mediterranean, I used

OceanMind’s technical solution. OceanMind is a technology research and development

system designed to monitor, detect and respond to illicit fishing activity across the world’s

oceans. It was conceived from the 'Project Eyes on the Seas', a joint initiative between

The Pew Charitable Trusts (Pew), a US-based independent non-profit organisation, and

the Satellite Applications Catapult.

56



Figure 24 –Mediterranean Sea, Exclusive Economic Zones.

The satellite technology was used for:

1) An AIS activity review for the entire Mediterranean Sea for the period 1st

April 2015 - 1st April 2016.

2) A full fisheries compliance monitoring review of the MPA of Alboran

Island and the surrounding 5 nautical mile buffer zone for the first 6

months of 2017 (Jan -Jun 2017).

57



Figure 25 – Technology for the MCS

I used updated databases with information of fishing vessels, fishing buoys, fish carriers

and fish bunkers. Also, I draw data from the Automated Identification System (AIS)11,

RFMO’s IUU lists, ITU and HIS for the fisheries monitoring, control and surveillance

analysis. Targeting Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing, provides

unbiased, independent monitoring, verification and validation of all ‘at sea’ fishing

activities.

This AIS data has been used in this study to monitor all AIS activity in the Mediterranean

EEZ, analysing every unique track to identify potential IUU fishing risks. In this study

we also reviewed vessels allocated Maritime Mobile Service Identity (MMSI). An MMSI

is a unique nine-digit number that is entered into an AIS transponder and identifies a

particular ship. Each MMSI should be associated with a national Ship Radio License

and contain a 3-digit prefix which corresponds to the country code.

11 AIS1: a maritime collision avoidance system transmitted on marine VHF radio that provides vessels

receiving it with information on position, speed, course and identity data as inputted by the transmitting

vessel. The system is regulated by International Maritime Organization SOLAS convention. Mandatory on

all passenger vessels and merchant vessels over 300 gross tons some Flag States. Commercial satellite

arrays collect AIS data from space extending the range of AIS to a near global footprint.

58



During the analysis also I reviewed vessels allocated Maritime Mobile Service Identity

(MMSI). An MMSI is a unique nine-digit number that is entered into an AIS transponder

and identifies a particular ship. Each MMSI 12 should be associated with a national Ship

Radio License and contain a 3-digit prefix, which corresponds to the country code. For

example, UK vessels are identified with prefix numbers 232, 233, 234 or 235. This

identity information is used to cross-reference the vessel’s flag state.

Figure 26 – Data base and vessel tracking in the same source.

Fisheries regulations are complex, inconsistent and pervasive. Organisations that enforce

or follow these regulations often lack the capacity to effectively identify the risks posed

by fishing activities, especially when fishing vessels traverse multiple jurisdictions.

With this analysis I have combined an enforcement and regulatory expertise together with

machine learning, 3D gaming, and cyber security to empower fisheries enforcement and

compliance. A variety of machine learning algorithms sit at the heart of OceanMind’s

technological capability, driving accuracy and depth of detail.

12 National legislation for MMSI registration varies and is not widely enforced

59



The machine learning capability of the technology has enabled me to identify the fishing

activity required for corroboration automatically. This has allowed me, as a fisheries

analyst, to focus specifically on those anomalies that characterise possible IUU fishing

activity and investigate them further.

Built with security at its core, confidentiality is integral to the design of the system. I

worked in complete confidence to keep all data safe, separate and secure.

The use of satellite monitoring technology can drastically reduce the time and cost

associated with traditional means of surveillance at sea (i.e. patrol vessels). It significantly

improves the chances of detecting illegal fishing activity and serves to supplement patrol

activities, through planning and recommendations, based on the identification of targets

and areas of investigation.

My work on the MCS analysis is divided in two different parts:

1) MCS overview of the Mediterranean Sea: this section represents the results of

the annual analysis. An Area of Interest (AOI) for fishing activity around the

Mediterranean in which I monitored the AIS activity. AIS transmissions

within the AOI were analysed over the period of a year, from 1st April 2015

to 1st April 2016.

2) Alboran MPA as a case of study:

Following the larger spatial study in the Mediterranean Sea, I developed a more detailed

case study focussing on the Alboran Island, which is situated in the centre of the Alboran

Sea, about 90 km south of the coast of Almeria and 50 km from the North African coast.

The volcanic island is substantially topographically flat, with a maximum height of 16 m

above sea level. The marine protected area occupies almost all of this platform and much

of the continental slope and is beyond 1,000 m deep. This is an area of special ecological

value, with high biodiversity of benthic and demersal and pelagic organisms. This marine

area has been declared to protect the breeding colony of Audouin's gull ((Larus audouinii)

on Alboran Island. The island represents the fifth spot in numerical importance for the

reproduction of this species worldwide.

(Mpatlas: http://www.mpatlas.org/mpa/sites/68807624/).

http://www.mpatlas.org/mpa/sites/68807624/

60



Figure 27 – Marine Protected Areas in Almeria subzone.

61



Figure 28 – Marine space of Alboran Island

- Designation: Espacio Marino

- Designation Type: None

- Status: Designated

- No Take: Not Reported

- No Take Area km²: None

- Reported Marine Area km²: 661.11

62



63



Chapter III: Results

3.1. Analysis of the MCS on the Mediterranean Sea

3.1.1. Map of the AIS tracks for the year-analysis period:

Figure 29 – AIS activity of vessels in the Mediterranean Sea (1st April15-1st April16).

64



3.1.2 Number of AIS ID’s on the Mediterranean for the year period (1Apr15-1Apr16):

Mediterranean Sea

Category 2015/16

Fishing 3635

Fish Carrier 31

Fish Bunker 0

Fishing Buoy 0

Support 0

Cargo 9842

Hazardous Cargo 5797

Passenger 1750

Pleasure 5209

Unknown 11796

Other 3459

Total 41519

Table 1 - Total number of unique vessel AIS ID’s identified in the year review for the Mediterranean.

3.1.3 Key points from the AIS analysis:

- A total of 41519 unique AIS vessel ID’s were identified in the Mediterranean

AOI during the year review period, of these 3635 were fishing vessels.

- AIS activity of all ship types in the Mediterranean Sea shows the AOI is an

intense traffic area, with shipping lanes running across the western

Mediterranean, from the Strait of Gibraltar to Italy (near the African coast).

There is a clear shipping lane between the south of Italy and Greece and

between Italy and Egypt. There is another intense traffic area between Greece

and Turkey. In the Black Sea, the most significant traffic lines are between

Turkey and Ukraine, Russia and Georgia.

- The transit activity increased during the year, with a peak in Aug15. The high

positional densities surrounding Greece and the Adriatic are due to fishing

fleets operating in the area. The high density in the Strait of Gibraltar and

South of Italy are mainly due to the maritime traffic.

65



- AIS activity of ship type “fishing” suggest fishing vessels commonly transit

the area to fish on the coastal areas surrounding the Adriatic, Spanish coast,

South Sicily and Greece.

- AIS activity of ship type “Fishing” operation between 0.25 and 5 kts (speeds

associated with fishing) suggest it is an area under high fishing pressure in the

coastal zones. The high level of transmissions in the Adriatic is most likely

due to the high fishing pressure on the area. The positional densities observed

in the whole year show high activity in close proximity to the boundary of

some restricted areas.

- Vessel numbers increased from Jul15 to Oct15 for all vessel types and for

fishing vessels.

- There are significant seasonal and spatial fishing patters in the Mediterranean

Sea AOI, and the majority of fishing pressure is concentrated on the coastal

areas of the Adriatic, Greece, South of Italy and Spanish coast.

- Other AIS traffic including cargo vessels remained constant throughout the

year, with no clear peak seasons apart form the pleasure and passenger boats

which peak between August and September.

- Significant seasonal fishing patterns in the Mediterranean, with the majority

of fishing vessel AIS activity occurring between Jul15 - Dec15.

- There is a very slight peak season for fish carriers in Nov15.

- The spatial analysis suggests high fishing pressure occurs mainly in the

Adriatic, South of Sicily, in Greece and on the western Mediterranean in Spain

(Valencia, Catalunya, and Andalucia).

- The number of vessels has a general increase between Aug15 and Nov15.

After this month the majority of categories keep this level, which aligns with

the global increase in AIS transmission sensing.

- The main threat to the Mediterranean is from the high pressure of maritime

traffic, also the SSF fleet is larger than that of the industrial fleet, so a better

MCS for the SSF fleet is required in order to be able to identify the behaviour

of the fleet.

- In addition, vessels frequently have AIS transmission gaps, which may enable

fishing that is not detected on AIS. 32,305 vessels were detected with some

kind of AIS transmission gap.

66



3.1.4. Ship type Category for the year-analysis:

Table 2 – Total number of AIS ID’s in the Mediterranean Sea for the six-month analysis

3.1.5. Graphs:

Figure 30 – Fishing vessels during the one-year analysis.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr

Fishing vessels (Apr15-Apr16)

Ship Type Category

May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Total

Fishing

855 868 894 2240 2692 2728 2787 2591 2399 2506 2590 2735 3635

Fish Carrier

5 5 5 7 6 9 14 12 9 8 6 7 31

Fish Bunker

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

Fishing Buoy

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cargo 3750 3745 3714 4633 4768 4874 4815 4872 4809 4760 4857 4807 9842

Hazardous 2298 2326 2366 2748 2811 2908 2888 2759 2768 2774 2765 2725 5797

Passenger 543 569 610 1373 1466 1354 1167 1060 1029 1055 1180 1333 1750

Pleasure 278 375 448 3615 3499 2807 2028 1444 1405 1463 1897 2524 5209

Unknown 1056 1096 1098 6146 6172 5099 4212 3521 3286 3441 4371 5149 11796

Other 947 972 975 2207 2271 2217 2177 2105 2045 2094 2179 2278 3459

67



There is a remarkable increase in the number of vessels from July15 to Aug15. After this

period there is a continued increase until November, followed by a decrease that takes

until Jan16. From January the increase is gradual, with a difference of around 300 vessels.

Figure 31 – Fish carriers during the year analysis.

Figure 32 – Cargo and Hazardous vessels during the year analysis.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Fish carriers

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000


Cargo/Hazardous cargo (Apr15-Apr16)

Cargo vessel Hazardous cargo

68



Figure 33: Total number of unique vessel AIS ID’s identified in the year review for the Mediterranean

AOI.

3.1.6. Heatmaps of the density of unique vessel AIS ID’s (All, fishing and fishing slow):

0

2000

4000

6000

May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar AprNu

mb

er o

f ve

ssel

s

Axis Title

All AIS signals by category (Apr15-Apr16)

Fishing Fish carrier Fish bunker

Fishing Buoy Support Cargo

Hazardous cargo Passenger Pleasure

Other

v

69



v

70



v

71



72



3.2 Analysis of the MCS of the Alboran MPA as a case of study

3.2.1. Ship Type Category in the Mediterranean for the 6 month-analysis: Alboran case study

Table 3 – Number of AIS ID’s in the Mediterranean for the six-month period (1Jan-1Jun17).

Table 4 - Number of AIS ID’s in the Alboran MPA for the six-month period (1Jan-1Jun17).

Ship Type Category Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Total

Fishing

2301

2361

2607

2651

2513

2483

3300

Fish carrier 12 7 7 5 3 3 18

Fish bunker 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Fishing Buoy 6 5 9 13 8 9 16

Buque Auxiliar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cargo 4669 4619 4712 4689 4671 4564 7961

Hazardous Cargo 2753 2706 2787 2755 2832 2834 4715

Passenger 983 1008 1111 1286 1385 1433 1612

Pleasure 1228 1297 1700 2330 3002 3579 4512

Unknown 4086 4328 5521 7233 9037 11230 14807

Other 2137 2122 2250 2293 2330 2421 3106

Ship Type Category Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Total

Fishing 1

2 4 3 3 2 7

Fish carrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fish bunker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fishing Buoy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Buque Auxiliar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cargo 6 1 1 4 4 4 8

Hazardous Cargo 4 1 1 4 2 3 5

Passenger 3 1 0 2 2 2 3

Pleasure 0 0 0 1 0 1 1

Unknown 2 2 4 7 5 4 7

Other 0 0 0 8 4 2 9

73



3.2.2 Key points:

Compliance of fishing regulations in the Alboran appears to be medium-high and AIS analysis

suggests the risk of IUU fishing activity should be considered. There is significant evidence of

dark vessels not transmitting on AIS inside the Alboran area and in known fishing grounds as well

as in the surrounding area of the Alboran MPA.

- A total of 40048 unique AIS vessel ID’s were identified in the Mediterranean AOI

during the 6 months review period, of these 3300 were fishing vessels.

- The high density in the Strait of Gibraltar is mainly due to the maritime traffic lanes as

the Strait of Gibraltar is the entrance from the Atlantic to the Mediterranean Sea.

- A total of 36 unique AIS vessel ID’s were identified in the Alboran MPA for the same

period, of these 10 were fishing vessels.

- All of the 10 fishing vessels have gaps on AIS in their transmissions.

- 3 of the fishing vessels do not appear on the authorised list to fish inside the Marine

Reserve.

- Other AIS traffic including cargo vessels remained almost constant throughout the 6-

month period.

- In addition, vessels frequently have AIS transmission gaps which may enable fishing

that is not detected on AIS, all were analysed and reported in the next chapter.

3.2.3. Fisheries Compliance Review in Alboran MPA

A detailed analysis of all vessels found during the six-month period inside the Alboran Island AOI

was conducted to identify any IUU fishing risks. I have considered a number of risk categories as

reported on below:

No. of vessels Risk Category 3 Fishing activity without authorization inside Alboran MPA

10 Fishing activity inside the Alboran MPA

15 Fishing activity inside the 5nm buffer zone

3 AIS significant transmission gaps inside the Alboran MPA

7 Unknown MMSI in the AOI

Table 5 – Number of vessel identified with possible risk activity.

Vessel tracks were analysed and all suspicious or unexplained activity was investigated further

using other data sources. In some cases, suspicious activity could be explained by weather events

or an investigation into the commercial activity of the vessel. Any suspicious events that could not

be explained in this way are detailed below and any recommendations for further action by the

relevant competent authority are provided.

74



3.2.4. Active Fishing AIS Activity

10 fishing vessel AIS transponders transmitted position reports within the Alboran MPA. All of

these vessels were observed with likely fishing activity within the Alboran MPA and surrounding

area. All fishing vessels meeting the criteria of the aforementioned risk categories are described

below.

Name La Coneja IMO 8746727 Flag Spain

IRCS ECDW MMSI 224096430 Type Trawler

License Information license AM-2-8-03 CFO Code 25772

Additional Information

Last position: 01Sep17 (15:12:46z)

Latitude: 35.984802 Longitude: -3.103472

Build Date: 2003 Company: Zapata y Hernandez

Description

Vessel authorised by the Spanish Government to fish in the Alboran waters (Judicial Annual Decission 5Sep 2016). The track shows small AIS gaps during the whole period.

Recommendations

It is recommended to verify if this vessel is included in the monthly or fornighly list that the Government publish for trawlers in the Alboran Marine Reserve. If it is not included, it is recommended to inform the authorities and request VMS data and logbooks for this vessel, for confirmation of fishing activity inside the Mediterranean MPA.

75



Name Pico Veleta IMO - Flag Spain

IRCS EA5411 MMSI 224029390 Type Bottom trawler

License Information

license AM-3-2-01 CFO Code 25083


Last position: 01Spet17 (15:02:51z)

Latitude: 36.626598 Longitude:-3.641547

Description

Vessel authorized in the annual list to fish in the Marine Reserve. The track shows small AIS gaps.

Recommendations

It is recommended to check if it is in the monthly/ fornightly list. If the vessel is not included, the recommendation is to contact the flag state (Spain) and request VMS data and logbooks for this vessel, for confirmation of fishing activity inside the MPA.

76



Name Nuevo Manolo

Puyol IMO - Flag Spain


License Information

License GR-1-1-05 CFO Code 26672


Last position: 01Sept17 (15:07:57 z)


Description

Vessel authorised y the Government to fish in 2017.

Recommendations

It is recommended to check if it is in the monthly/ fornightly list. If the vessel is not included, the recommendation is to contact the flag state (Spain) and to request VMS data and logbooks for this vessel, for confirmation of fishing activity inside the Mediterranean MPA.

77



Name Jota y A IMO - Flag Spain


License Information

License AM-3-1-04 CFO Code 25958


Last position: 31Aug17 (17:46:54 z)


Build Date: 2004 (Adra)

Description

This vessel is authorised in the annual list to fish. In May goes to the MPA area and has some small AIS gaps.

Recommendations

It is recommended to check if it is in the monthly/ fornightly list. If the vessel is not included, the recommendation is to contact the flag state (Spain) and to request VMS data and logbooks for this vessel, for confirmation of fishing activity inside the Mediterranean MPA.

78



79



Name Playa Torrenueva IMO - Flag Spain


License Information

License AM-3-1-96 CFO Code 23722


Last position: 31Aug17 (13:09:50 z)


Build Date: 1998

Description

Authorised vessel. It remains on the north area of the Alboran sea, close to the coastline. In July (out of the analysis period) it presents an AIS gap that should be reported: from 29Jul17 at around 04:00z until 30Jul17 at 10:29z. The average speed is 0.64 nm/h, which means very likely fishing activity.

Recommendations

It is recommended to review the montly/fornightly list of authorised vessels. If the vessel is not included, contact the flag state (Spain) to request VMS data and logbooks for this vessel for confirmation of fishing activity inside the Mediterranean MPA.

80



Name Almariyyat IMO - Flag Spain

IRCS ECDW MMSI 225985363 Type Bottom trawler

License Information

license AM-2-8-03 CFO Code 25772


Last position: 01Sep17 (15:12:46z)


Description

This vessel is authorised in the annual list but presents lack of ID information. Some small AIS gaps were detected between 1Jan17 and 1Jul17.

Recommendations

It is recommended to review the montly/fornightly list of authorised vessels. If the vessels is not included, contact the flag state (Spain) to request VMS data and logbooks for this vessel, for confirmation of fishing activity inside the Mediterranean MPA.

81



Name Hermanos

Guerrero IMO - Flag Spain

IRCS 262864 MMSI 224289430 Type Fishing

License Information

No license


Last position: 30Jun17 (23:04:35z)


Description

This vessel has no license from the Government (is not in the list of authorized vessels). The track starts transmitting on the 13Apr17 (see the figure below, start). After that it presents some AIS gaps and goes to the port in Almeria; after this to the Isleta del Moro (to the north).

Recommendations

This vessel represents high risk as it is not in the licence list. It is recommended to contact the flag state (Spain) to request VMS data and logbooks for this vessel for confirmation of fishing activity inside the Mediterranean MPA.

82



Name Francisco Ramon

Segundo IMO - Flag Spain

IRCS EB2770 MMSI 224275390 Type Fishing

License Information

No license registered


Hermanos fuentes de la cruz, s.l. C/Pescadores, 10 (Roquetas de mar).

Description

This vessel has no license from the Government (is not in the list of authorised vessels).

Recommendations

It is recommended to contact the flag state, to request VMS data and logbooks for this vessel for confirmation of fishing activity inside the Mediterranean MPA.

83



Name El Nuevo Romano IMO - Flag Spain

IRCS EB3211 MMSI 224256930 Type Fishing

License Information

No license registered


Build Date: 2003, Almeria (Spain)

Description

This vessel has no license from the Government (is not in the list of authorised vessels). High risk.

Recommendations

It is recommended to contact the flag state, to request VMS data and logbooks for this vessel for confirmation of fishing activity inside the Mediterranean MPA.

84



Name El Balerma IMO - Flag Spain

IRCS EA5627 MMSI 224194620 Type Bottom

trawler

License Information License AM-2-5-05

CFO Code 26733


Build date: 2005 Almeria (Spain)

Description

Vessel with annual license. Has some small AIS gaps during the period.

Recommendations

It is recommended to review if this vessel is in the montly/ fornightly list. If it is not included, it is recommended to contact the flag state and to request VMS data and logbooks for this vessel, for confirmation of fishing activity inside the Mediterranean MPA.

85



Transmission gaps inside MPAs:

10 fishing vessels were observed inside the MPA of which 3 vessels have no licence register. Also,

all of the vessels included in the annual licence list, need to be included in the montly/fornightly

list as well. We observe 2 vessels with high-risk transmissions gaps within the Alboran MPA.

There is not enough information from the available AIS position reports to indicate whether the

vessels carried out fishing activity between transmissions inside the MPA.

Further investigation of their tracks, by VMS where possible, is recommended to confirm if fishing

activity occurred and if this occurred inside the MPAs. It is recommended that the flag state and

RFMOs are contacted and the VMS data as well as logbooks are requested for these vessels for

the periods indicated in the table below.

86



87



Chapter IV: Discussion

4.1. Regarding the information and data available for the EAF

The data published and analysed from the previous years are useful to know the situation regarding

the implementation of the EAF in the Mediterranean Sea.

4.2. MPAs assessment

Our oceans are increasingly managed spatially. Implementation of marine protected areas (MPAs)

is now common (Gaines et al. 2010, Edgar et al. 2014) and spatial management is further

developing into a more comprehensive approach – marine spatial planning (MSP) – that covers a

broad class of uses, including aquaculture, energy production and shipping (Douvere 2008, Foley

et al. 2010).

Changing the distribution of fishing activities

Marine spatial planning (MSP) is increasingly utilised to sustainably manage ocean uses. Marine

protected areas (MPAs), a form of spatial management in which parts of the ocean are regulated

to fishing, are now a common tool in MSP for conserving marine biodiversity and managing

fisheries. However, the use of MPAs in MSP often neglects, or simplifies, the redistribution of

fishing and non-fishing activities inside and outside of MPAs following their implementation. This

redistribution of effort can have important implications for effective MSP (Cabral R.B, et al.,

2016).

How users respond to new spatial regulations

Marine spatial planning identifies areas to be protected, but historically MPAs have been

established in an ad hoc, opportunistic basis (Agardy et al. 2011). Successful MPA design depends

on resource users’ responses to new spatial rules. Displacement of fishing effort due to MPA

establishment may exacerbate conditions in areas outside of MPAs (Agardy et al. 2011), or

poaching inside an MPA may negate benefits from protection (Guidetti et al. 2008, Davis et al.

2015). Optimizing MPA site selection has received considerable attention, but primarily from the

perspective of the characteristics of the target species (e.g., habitat, population distribution,

biodiversity, and connectivity – Possingham et al. 2000, Margules and Pressey 2000, Airamé et

al. 2003, Leslie et al. 2003, Parnell et al. 2006, Klein et al. 2008, Watson et al. 2011, White et al.

2013b, Cabral et al. 2015).

By contrast, little is understood about how different resource user groups respond to new spatial

regulations. As a result, some have argued that the main source of uncertainty in fisheries

management is not the dynamics of the exploited resources, but the behavior and decision-making

processes of resource users (Hilborn 1985, Fulton et al. 2011). More specifically, accurate

characterisation of fishers’ decision-making and behavior is rare (but see Parnell et al. 2010 and

88



Guenther et al. 2015), despite its critical role in developing realistic expectations of the outcomes

of existing and proposed marine spatial plans (Smith and Wilen 2003, Charles 2010).

The consequences of relocation of fishing effort

The implementation of the MPAs affects the fishing effort location.

The spatial distribution of fishing effort obviously plays a crucial role in affecting fish resource

exploitation (Murawski et al. 2005, Cabral et al. 2010, Parnell et al. 2010, Kay et al. 2012, Miller

and Deacon 2014). Spatial restrictions can concentrate effort, potentially leading to overharvesting

and negative biodiversity impacts, at least in the short term. Also, closing valuable or easily

accessible areas may impact fishery profits (Smith and Wilen 2003, Chollett et al. 2015).

Social and cultural changes

Redistribution of effort may be a function of various social and cultural factors and not

economically optimal, especially during the first few years after displacement from the MPA

(Stevenson et al. 2013). With increased use of MPAs in ocean management, and calls to determine

their effects on fisheries, fish populations and ecosystem health, there is a clear need for

understanding the redistribution of fishing effort (Cabral R.B., et al., 2016).

Level of protection

One key determinant is the level of protection given. Fully protected areas closed to all other

extractive uses, and strongly protected areas that are closed to all but limited, low impact fishing

methods, hereafter referred to as marine reserves, produce the greatest conservation benefits.

Commitment of nations

Coastal nations have committed to protecting 10% of their waters by 2020 under the Convention

on Biological Diversity and Sustainable Development Goal 14, but at the present rate, most will

fall short of this target (16). As of 2015, only 3.5% of the oceans were afforded or promised some

protection with 1.6% strongly or fully protected (12) although recent designations and promises

for protection have increased this. Nonetheless, if protection is either weak or not enforced, the

expected benefits will be fewer or may not materialise.

In general, potential shortcomings of MPAs include, prominently, lack of staff, equipment and

funding, inadequate consultation with and support from local communities, concerns about

managing displaced fishing effort if it occurs and insufficiencies in management scope.

89



4.3. Regarding MCS analysis

- Satellite technology can reduce the time and cost of traditional means of surveillance

at sea. The assessment procedure was to determine which vessels transmitted on AIS.

However, for those vessels that were not on AIS, their compliance could not be

assessed.

- The improvement of AIS satellite technology during the last few years has caused an

increase in the sensing and detections of AIS transmissions. We should take this into

account in the analysis.

- During AIS gaps, vessel compliance cannot be monitored. There is a risk that illicit

activity occurred during the review period, which was not captured in this assessment.

- The limitations on this study were mainly regarding the capacity (only one person

working) and the amount of data to be analysed (the Mediterranean is one of the Seas

with biggest number of vessels).

- Unknown AIS MMSI’s: During the year review, there were 32,305 position reports

associated with MMSIs on the Mediterranean Sea, with either a single transmission or

significant gap period and no associated identification information. These

transmissions indicate the likely presence of AIS transmitters either on a vessel or a

buoy. None of the MMSIs have accompanying AIS identification messages or are

registered with the International Telecommunications Union. Some of the MMSIs

transmit invalid MMSI prefixes that are not associated with any flag. Outreach to the

flag states may confirm the identity of the vessels and subsequent compliance with

RFMOs regulations if the vessel or buoy is associated with fishing activity.

- Experimental tools (VIIRS, technologies for SSF)

90



-

This new technology is trailblazing, having been purposely designed to support the fisheries

compliance and enforcement workflows and processes required for specialist fisheries analysts to

quickly provide detailed, actionable insight, tailored to each project’s objectives.

Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) is a remote sensing technique with the capability of identifying

ships at sea. Images from the Sentinel -1 (European Space agency) can be taken over the

Mediterranean Sea and analyse to identify any ships over 20 meters in length. Ship detections can

be correlated with known AIS transmissions to identify any ‘dark’ ships that may be involved in

IUU fishing activity.

Regarding the Small-Scale Fisheries (SSF) there is no universal definition of what constitutes a

small-scale fishery, there are a variety of fisheries that fall within one or several of the following

categories: artisanal, low-ranging (generally inshore activities) and under 12m in length. Gear

types to be tested include trawlers, dredgers, netters, potters and hand diver collectors. Published

global catch reports are widely known to misrepresent true catches, a major contributing factor

being the lack of reporting mechanisms in many SSF around the world. This causes problems for

fisheries managers as a lack of reporting leaves levels of fishing effort and fishing mortality grossly

underestimated. ). A wide variety of technologies can be applied. There is, for example: catch

monitoring by mobile phone, tablet and remote video, vessel activity monitoring via inshore VMS,

small vessel AIS and GPS, and gear monitoring by RFID tags and sensor systems. This is a pilot

project still in process13. By requesting access to the data of operational systems, (rather than

installing new equipment) this minimises interference with fishing activity and subsequently

13 The SSF pilot project is still in process.

91



increases the likelihood of cooperation for the project. However, installations of new equipment

will be required in basins with almost no electronic monitoring on small scale fleets (such as the

Mediterranean and the Black Sea). Installations will also be required if during the course of the

project, it is deemed appropriate to install equipment on newly identified fisheries, or install

additional new equipment for comparison on fisheries already utilising other technologies.

Letters were written detailing the length of the proposed trials and providing clarifications on data

usage and confidentiality which was raised on several occasions by fishers. The letters were

tailored for each fishery and signed by the representative fishery authority.

In the case of the Mediterranean Sea I have contacted Mauricio Pulido and other stakeholders.

Mauricio is the main representant of fishers of the sand-eel fishery. This particular fishery is co-

managed by a Committee where representants of the National and Regional Government, NGos,

fishers ad scientists take part on all the decisions. They agreed to participate in the possible trial to

put devices on their vessels and monitor their activities.

The tools available for the MCS analysis depend on the capability and requirements of each area

in particular. The information provided by the AIS and VMS signals, also the SAR analysis, VIIRS

and optical imagery amongst others, can be applied all together to allow us to fill in the gaps that

other technology does not provide.

92



93



Chapter V: Conclusions

This study presents a holistic management of fisheries, characterising the ecosystem of the

Mediterranean Sea over time. Human activity (not only tourism and erosion, but also the fishers

and managers) has made changes that must be taken into account and integrated as a part of the

historical data. Having a global picture of the situation, improved fisheries management can be

applied in each area.

A strong knowledge of the area and the situation of the fishing stocks, ecosystem conditions and

ecological data are fundamental for better management. Applying the MCS capacity we complete

the circle, providing information about the level of compliance in a specific area.

- The total number of vessels (with satellite tracking devices) was identified in this report

for the temporal analysis (annual and six months), providing a global picture of the

maritime traffic in the Mediterranean, which is essential for fishery managers.

- Specific numbers of each category of vessel give us information about the behavior of

fleets, distribution of the maritime traffic and areas with high pressure. Spatial planning

is possible after this analysis.

- After the one-year analysis, we know the areas of the Mediterranean that are subjected

to more maritime traffic, as well as the Gibraltar Strait, South of Sicily, Greece, Turkey,

Lebanon, Israel and the channels between them.

- Regarding the fishing fleet, the areas of highest pressure are: Adriatic, South Sicily,

Greece, Spain and specific areas of the west of Italy.

- The number of gaps in AIS transmissions provides information about vessel

compliance that cannot be monitored.

- For the six-month analysis, 10 fishing vessels were detected and all of them had AIS

gaps. One of these vessels appeared without a Spanish license for the Alboran MPA

zone.

- The comparative analysis of different MPAs gives information about the fisheries

compliance in vulnerable areas.

- There is significant evidence of dark vessels not transmitting on AIS inside the Alboran

area and in known fishing grounds, as well as in the surrounding area of the Alboran

MPA.

- Using satellite monitoring technology can drastically reduce the time and cost

associated with traditional means of surveillance at sea (i.e. patrol vessels), whilst

94



significantly improving the chances of detecting illegal fishing activity and serving to

supplement patrol activities through planning and recommendations, based on

identification of targets and areas for further investigation.

- Scientific advice comes from the annual studies that have been done every year to

analyse the state of fisheries stocks. Moreover, the reports from the international bodies,

such as GFCM in the Mediterranean or other reports, give more information about the

situation of this specific area. The recommendations and laws applied provide us with

knowledge about the restrictions and conservation measures applied.

- Monitoring and control are essential in order to gain a better understanding about the

level of compliance of fisheries regulations, thus making the resources more sustainable

and allowing the sea to recover from human activity.

There is much still to be learned about the benefits, costs and limitations of holistic studies; what

complementary management measures are needed, as well as alternative strategies to minimise

disruption to ecosystems and human societies from fishing activities.

However, this report provides both existing and emerging evidence that suggests holistic and

spatial planning analysis can serve as a powerful tool to help ameliorate some problems and gaps

within fisheries management. It will improve the cost/effectiveness relationship, slow the

development of negative impacts and create a roadmap whereby stakeholders can make joint

decisions based on reliable and useful information.

A change for better management is needed, in order to take action in this matter and to stop the

overexploitation of fishing stocks in the Mediterranean Sea.

95



BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1. Leenhardt, P., Low, N., Pascal, N., Micheli, F. & Claudet, J. The role of marine

protected areas in providing ecosystem services. In Aquatic functional biodiversity: An

ecological and evolutionary perspective (eds. Belgrano, A., Woodward, G. & Jacob,

U.) (Elsevier,2015).

2. Lubchenco, B. J. & Grorud-Colvert, K. Making waves: The science and politics of ocean

protection. Science. doi:10.1126/science.aad5443 (2015).

3. Sala, E. et al. Fish banks: An economic model to scale marine conservation. Mar. Policy

73, 154–161 (2016).

4. Horta e Costa, B. et al. A regulation-based classification system for marine protected

areas (MPAs). Mar. Policy 72, 192–198 (2016).

5. Devillers, R. et al. Reinventing residual reserves in the sea: are we favouring ease of

establishment over need for protection? Aquat.

Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 25, 480–504 (2015).

6. Gleason, M. et al. Designing a network of marine protected areas in California:

achievements, costs, lessons learned, and challenges ahead. Ocean Coast. Manag. 74,

90–101 (2013).

7. Pascual, M. et al. Socioeconomic impacts of marine protected areas in the Mediterranean

and Black Seas. 133, 1–10 (2016).

8. Coll, M. et al. The Mediterranean Sea under siege: spatial overlap between marine

biodiversity, cumulative threats and marine reserves. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 21, 465–

480 (2012).

9. Micheli, F. et al. Cumulative human impacts on Mediterranean and Black Sea marine

ecosystems: assessing current pressures and opportunities. PLOS ONE 8, e79889

(2013).

10. Giakoumi, S. et al. Towards a framework for assessment and management of

cumulative human impacts on marine food webs. Conserv. Biol. 29, 1228–1234 (2015).

11. Piante, C. & Ody, D. Blue Growth in the Mediterranean Sea: the Challenge of Good

Environmental Status. 192 (WWF-France, 2015).

12. Côté, I. M., Mosqueira, I. & Reynolds, J. D. Effects of marine reserve characteristics

on the protection of fish populations: a metaanalysis. J. Fish Biol. 59, 178–189 (2001).

13. Micheli, F., Halpern, B. S., Botsford, L. W. & Warner, R. R. Trajectories and correlates

96



of community change in no-take marine reserves. Ecol. Appl. 14, 1709–1723 (2004).

14. Claudet, J. et al. Marine reserves: size and age do matter. Ecol. Lett. 11, 481–489

(2008).

15. Lester, S. et al. Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: a global synthesis.

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 384, 33–46 (2009).

16. Molloy, P. P., McLean, I. B. & Côté, I. M. Effects of marine reserve age on fish

populations: a global meta-analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 46, 743–751 (2009).

17. Babcock, R. C. et al. Decadal trends in marine reserves reveal differential rates of

change in direct and indirect effects. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107, 18256–18261 (2010).

18. Selig, E. R. & Bruno, J. F. A global analysis of the effectiveness of marine protected

areas in preventing coral loss. PLOS ONE 5, e9278 (2010).

19. McCook, L. J. et al. Adaptive management of the Great Barrier Reef: a globally

significant demonstration of the benefits of networks of marine reserves. Proc. Natl.

Acad. Sci. 107, 18278–18285 (2010).

20. Edgar, G. J. et al. Global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with

five key features. Nature 506, 216–220 (2014).

21. Guidetti, P. & Sala, E. Community-wide effects of marine reserves in the

Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 335, 43–56 (2007).

22. Floros, C., Schleyer, M. H. & Maggs, J. Q. Fish as indicators of diving and fishing

pressure on high-latitude coral reefs. Ocean Coast.Manag. 84, 130–139 (2013).

23. Lester, S. & Halpern, B. Biological responses in marine no-take reserves versus

partially protected areas. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 367, 49–56 (2008).

24. Sciberras, M. et al. Evaluating the relative conservation value of fully and partially

protected marine areas. Fish Fish. 16, 58–77 (2015).

25. Sala, E. & Giakoumi, S. No-take marine reserves are the most effective protected areas

in the ocean. ICES J. Mar. Sci. (In Press).

26. Costello, M. J. & Ballantine, B. Biodiversity conservation should focus on no-take

marine reserves. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 507–509 (2015).

27. Botsford, L. W., Micheli, F. & Hastings, A. Principles for the design of marine reserves.

Ecol. Appl. 13, S25–S31 (2003).

28. Russ, G. R. & Alcala, A. C. Marine reserves: long-term protection is required for full

recovery of predatory fish populations. Oecologia 138, 622–627 (2004).

97



29. Stewart, G. B. et al. Temperate marine reserves: global ecological effects and guidelines

for future networks. Conserv. Lett. 2, 243–253 (2009).

30. McClanahan, T. R. & Graham, N. A. J. Marine reserve recovery rates towards a

baseline are slower for reef fish community life histories than biomass. Proc R Soc B

282, 20151938 (2015).

31. Halpern, B. S. The impact of marine reserves: do reserves work and does reserve size

matter? Ecol. Appl. 13, 117–137 (2003).

32. Sala, E. et al. The structure of Mediterranean rocky reef ecosystems across

environmental and human gradients, and conservation implications. PLOS ONE 7,

e32742 (2012).

33. Guidetti, P. et al. Italian marine reserve effectiveness: Does enforcement matter? Biol.

Conserv. 141, 699–709 (2008).

34. Di Franco, A. et al. Five key attributes can increase marine protected areas performance

for small-scale fisheries management. Sci. Rep. 6, 38135 (2016).

35. PISCO & UNS. The Science of Marine Protected Areas - Mediterranean Version.

(2016).

36. Gabrié, C. et al. The Status of Marine Protected Areas in the Mediterranean Sea. 256

(MedPAN & RAC/SPA, 2012).

37. Guidetti, P. Marine reserves reestablish lost predatory interactions and cause

community changes in rocky reefs. Ecol. Appl. 16, 963–976 (2006).

38. Hereu, B. et al. Multiple processes regulate long-term population dynamics of sea

urchins on Mediterranean rocky reefs. PLOS ONE 7, e36901 (2012).

39. Guidetti, P. & Claudet, J. Comanagement practices enhance fisheries in marine

protected areas. Conserv. Biol. J. Soc. Conserv. Biol.

24, 312–318 (2010).

40. Currie, J., Sink, K., Le Noury, P. & Branch, G. Comparing fish communities in

sanctuaries, partly protected areas and open-access reefs in South-East Africa. Afr. J.

Mar. Sci. 34, 269–281 (2012).

41. Ban, N. C., McDougall, C., Beck, M., Salomon, A. K. & Cripps, K. Applying empirical

estimates of marine protected area effectiveness to assess conservation plans in British

Columbia, Canada. Biol. Conserv. 180, (2014).

42. Eggleston, D. B. & Parsons, D. M. Disturbance-induced ‘spill-in’ of Caribbean spiny

lobster to marine reserves. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 371, 213–220 (2008).

98



43. Tuya, F., Sanchez-Jerez, P., Dempster, T., Boyra, A. & Haroun, R. J. Changes in

demersal wild fish aggregations beneath a sea-cage fish farm after the cessation of

farming. J. Fish Biol. 69, 682–697 (2006).

44. Claudet, J. et al. Marine reserves: Fish life history and ecological traits matter. Ecol.

Appl. 20, 830–839 (2010).

45. Jaworski, A., Solmundsson, J. & Ragnarsson, S. A. Fish assemblages inside and outside

marine protected areas off northern Iceland: protection effects or environmental

confounds? Fish. Res. 102, 50–59 (2010).

46. Hackradt, C. W. et al. Response of rocky reef top predators (Serranidae: Epinephelinae)

in and around marine protected areas in the Western Mediterranean Sea. PLOS ONE 9,

e98206 (2014).

47. Scianna, C., Niccolini, F., Gaines, S. D. & Guidetti, P. ‘Organization Science’: A new

prospective to assess marine protected areas effectiveness. Ocean Coast. Manag. 116,

443–448 (2015).

48. Sala, E., Aburto-Oropeza, O., Reza, M., Paredes, G. & López-Lemus, L. G. Fishing

down coastal food webs in the Gulf of California. Fisheries 29, 19–25 (2004).

49. Salomidi, M. et al. Setting an ecological baseline prior to the bottom-up establishment

of a marine protected area in Santorini Island, Aegean Sea. Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 17, 720–

737 (2016).

50. Guidetti, P. The importance of experimental design in detecting the effects of protection

measures on fish in Mediterranean MPAs. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 12,

619–634 (2002).

51. Guidetti, P. et al. Large-scale assessment of Mediterranean marine protected areas

effects on fish assemblages. PLOS ONE 9, e91841 (2014).

52. Gaines, S. D., White, C., Carr, M. H. & Palumbi, S. R. Designing marine reserve

networks for both conservation and fisheries management. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107,

18286–18293 (2010).

53. Giakoumi, S., Grantham, H. S., Kokkoris, G. D. & Possingham, H. P. Designing a

network of marine reserves in the Mediterranean Sea with limited socio-economic data.

Biol. Conserv. 144, 753–763 (2011).

54. Fenberg, P. B. et al. The science of European marine reserves: Status, efficacy, and

future needs. Mar. Policy 36, 1012–1021 (2012).

55. Hillebrand, H. Meta-analysis in Ecology. In Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (ELS) (John

Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2008).

99



56. Cury, P., Bakun, A., Crawford, R. J. M., Jarre, A., Quin˜ones, R. A., Shannon, L. J.,

and Verheye, H. M. 2000. Small pelagics in upwelling systems: patterns of interaction

and structural changes in ‘‘wasp-waist’’ ecosystems. – ICES Journal ofMarine Science,

57: 603–618.

57. Global Seabird Response to Forage Fish Depletion—One-Third for the Birds. Philippe

M. Cury,1* Ian L. Boyd,2* Sylvain Bonhommeau,3 Tycho Anker-Nilssen,4 Robert J.

M. Crawford,5 Robert W. Furness,6 James A. Mills,7 Eugene J. Murphy,8 Henrik

Österblom,9 Michelle Paleczny,10 John F. Piatt,11 Jean-Paul Roux,12,13Lynne

Shannon,14 William J. Sydeman15

58. Encyclopedia Britannica. Mostafa Salah, Baruch Boxer

59. MarCons: Advancing marine conservation in the European and contiguous seas (COST

Action 15121).

60. Report of a Workshop held in Heraklion Crete 27 – 29 March 2001 under the auspices

of the European Union Accompanying Measures programme, Contract No. Q5AM-

2000-00002

61. Unravelling marine biodiversity changes in African and Mediterranean ecosystems M.

Coll*1, L.J. Shannon2, L.J. Atkinson3, T.P. Fairweather4, M. Hidalgo5, D. Jouffre1,

P. Kainge6, J. Steenbeek1, K. Watermeyer2, D. Yemane4 et al.

62. C I E S M Wo r k s h o p M o n o g r a p h s Mare Incognitum Exploring Mediterranean

deep-sea biology Heraklion, 2-5 July 2003 CIESM

63. Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1223389. Status and Solutions for the World's

Unassessed Fisheries. Christopher Costello1, Daniel Ovando1, Ray Hilborn2, Steven

D. Gaines1, Olivier Deschenes3, Sarah E. Lester.

64. FAO TECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR RESPONSIBLE FISHERIES 4. ISSN 1020-

5292. Suppl. 2

65. Politics and socio-economics of ecosystem-based management of marine resources.

Howard I. Browman, Konstantinos I. Stergiou. Vol. 300: 241–296, 2005.

66. Recent Trends and Impacts of Fisheries Exploitation on Mediterranean Stocks and

Ecosystems Francesco Colloca, Giuseppe Scarcella and Simone Libralato

67. Marine reserves can mitigate and promote adaptation to climate change. Callum M.

Robertsa, Bethan C. O’Learya, Douglas McCauleyb, Philippe Curyc, Carlos M.

Duarted, Jane Lubchencoe, Daniel Paulyf, Andrea Sáenz-Arroyog, U. Rashid Sumailaf,

Rod W. Wilsonh, Boris Wormi and Juan Carlos Castillaj.

68. Making waves: The science and politics of ocean protection Mature science reveals

opportunities for policy progress. By Jane Lubchenco and Kirsten Grorud-Colvert*

100



69. General fisheries commission for the mediterranean studies and reviews n75 (2005).

ISSN 1020-9549. Fisheries laws and regulations in the mediterranean: a comparative

study.

70. Drivers of redistribution of fishing and non-fishing effort after the implementation of a

marine protected area network. Reniel B. Cabral1, Steven D. Gaines, Brett Johnson,

Tom W. Bell, Crow White (2016).

71. Abad, E., Preciado, I., Serrano, A. & Baro, J. (2007). Demersal and epibenthic

assemblages of trawlable grounds in the northern Alboran Sea (western

Mediterranean). Sci. Mar., 71(3): 513-524.

72. Abdelhadi, B., Hernández, P. & Forcada, A. (2011). Étude de la distribution spatio-

temporelle de la pêcherie du thon rouge (Thunnus thynnus) en Algérie avec l’utilisation

du système d’information géographique (SIG). Mediterránea. Serie de Estudios

Biológicos. 2: suplement. ISSN 1130-6203.

73. Abid, N. & Idrissi, M. (2007). Gillnet. Chapter 3.1.3. ICCAT Manual. Ed. ICCAT.

(available from web)

site:http://www.iccat.int/Documents/SCRS/Manual/CH3/CHAP%203_1_3_GILL_E

NG.pdf).

74. Alboran Sea: Status of open seas fisheries. UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA. Technical Report

· January 2015

75. Báez, J.C., Bellido, J.J., Camiñas, J.A. & Real, R. (2012). ¿Puede el calentamiento

global alterar la llegada de tortuga laúd al Mar Mediterráneo? XII Congreso Luso-

Español de Herpetología, Abstract Book. Murcia, Spain.

76. Espacio Marino de Alboran, Áreas de estudio del proyecto LIFE+ INDEMARES 2014.

77. IPCC (2013) Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of

Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change, eds Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, et al.

(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA).

78. UNFCCC (2015) Adoption of the Paris Agreement. Proposal by the President.

UNFCCC. Conference of the Parties (COP). (United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland).

79. Cury, P., Bakun, A., Crawford, R. J. M., Jarre, A., Quin˜ones, R. A., Shannon, L. J.,

and Verheye, H. M. 2000. Small pelagics in upwelling systems: patterns of interaction

and structural changes in ‘‘wasp-waist’’ ecosystems. – ICES Journal ofMarine Science,

57: 603–618.

80. Magnan AK, et al. (2016) Implications of the Paris agreement for the ocean. Nat Clim

Change 6(8):732-735.

81. Kintisch E (2015) Climate crossroads. Science 350(6264):1016-1017.

101



82. IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A:

Global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth#

83. Integrating the invisible fabric of nature into fisheries management. Joseph Travisa,1,

Felicia C. Colemanb, Peter J. Austerc, Philippe M. Curyd, James A. Estese, Jose

Orensanzf, Charles H. Petersong, Mary E. Powerh,1, Robert S. Stenecki, and J.

Timothy Woottonj

84. Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds Field CB,

Barros VR, Dokken DJ, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD, et al. (Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA).

85. Hoegh-Guldberg O, Bruno JF (2010) The impact of climate change on the world's

marine ecosystems. Science 328(1523):1523-1528.

86. An index to assess the health and benefits of the global ocean. Benjamin S. Halpern1,2,

Catherine Longo1, Darren Hardy1, Karen L. McLeod3, Jameal F. Samhouri4, Steven

K. Katona5, Kristin Kleisner6, Sarah E. Lester7,8, Jennifer O’Leary1, Marla

Ranelletti1, Andrew A. Rosenberg5, Courtney Scarborough1, Elizabeth R. Selig5,

Benjamin D. Best9, Daniel R. Brumbaugh10, F. Stuart Chapin11, Larry B. Crowder12,

Kendra L. Daly13, Scott C. Doney14, Cristiane Elfes15,16, Michael J. Fogarty17,

Steven D. Gaines8, Kelsey I. Jacobsen8, Leah Bunce Karrer5, Heather M. Leslie18,

Elizabeth Neeley19, Daniel Pauly6, Stephen Polasky20, Bud Ris21, Kevin St

Martin22, Gregory S. Stone5, U. Rashid Sumaila6 & Dirk Zeller6.

87. Ecosystem Modeling Approaches for South African Fisheries Management. LYNNE

J. SHANNON*, COLEEN L. MOLONEY, PHILIPPE M. CURY, CARL D. VAN

DER LINGEN AND ROBERT J. M. CRAWFORD, PIERRE FRÉON, KEVERN L.

COCHRANE.

88. Rockström J, et al. (2009) Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for

humanity. Ecol Soc 14(2):32.

89. McMichael AJ (2013) Globalization, climate change, and human health. N Engl J Med

368:1335-1343.

90. Watson JEM, Dudley N, Segan DB, Hockings M (2014). The performance and

potential of protected areas. Nature 515(7525):67-73.

91. Edgar GJ, et al. (2014) Global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas

with five key features. Nature 506(7487):216-220.

92. Lester SE, et al. (2009) Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: a global

synthesis. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 384:33-46.

93. Lubchenco J, Grorud-Colvert K (2015) Making waves: The science and politics of

ocean protection. Science 350(6259):382-383.3:122-130.

102



94. O'Leary BC, et al. (2016) Effective coverage targets for ocean protection. Conserv Lett

9(6):398-404.

95. Gill DA, et al. (2017) Capacity shortfalls hinder the performance of marine protected

areas globally. Nature 543:665-669.

96. McClanahan TR, Marnane MJ, Cinner JE, Kiene WE (2006) A Comparison of Marine

Protected Areas and Alternative Approaches to Coral-Reef Management. Curr Biol

16:1408-1413.

97. Hilborn R (2016) Marine biodiversity needs more than protection. Nature 535:224-226.

98. Plumeridge AA, Roberts CM (2017) Conservation targets in marine protected area

management suffer from shifting baseline syndrome: A case study on the Dogger Bank.

Marine Poll Bull 116:395-404.

99. Christie P, White AT (2007) Best practices for improved governance of coral reef

marine protected areas. Coral Reefs 26:1047-1056.

100. Ban NC, et al. (2011) Designing, implementing and managing marine protected

areas: Emerging trends and opportunities for coral reef nations. J Exp Mar BiolEcol

408:21-31.

101. Hoegh-Guldberg O, et al. (2007) Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and

Ocean Acidification. Science 318(5857):1737-1742.

102. Graham NAJ, et al. (2008) Climate Warming, Marine Protected Areas and the

Ocean-Scale Integrity of Coral Reef Ecosystems. PLoS ONE 3(8):e3039.

103. Wooldridge SA (2009) Water quality and coral bleaching thresholds: Formalising

the linkage for the inshore reefs of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Marine Poll Bull

58:745-751.

104. Olds AD, et al. (2014) Marine reserves help coastal ecosystems cope with extreme

weather. Glob Chang Biol 20(10):3050-3058.

105. Mumby PJ, et al. (2007) Trophic cascade facilitates coral recruitment in a marine

reserve. PNAS 104(20):8362-8367.

106. Jordà G, Marbà N, Duarte CM (2012) Mediterranean seagrass vulnerable to

regional climate warming. Nat Clim Change 2:821-824.

107. Gattuso J-P, et al. (2015) Contrasting futures for ocean and society from different

anthropogenic CO2 emissions scenarios. Science 349(6243):aac4722.

108. Hönisch B, et al. (2012) The geological record of ocean acidification. Science

335(6072):1058-1063.

103



109. Narayan S, et al. (2016) The effectiveness, costs and coastal protection benefits of

natural and nature-based defences. PLoS ONE 11(5):e0154735.

110. Spalding MD, et al. (2014) The role of ecosystems in coastal protection: Adapting

to climate change and coastal hazards. Ocean Coast Manage 90:50-57.

111. Mazarrasa I, et al. (2015) Seagrass meadows as a globally significant carbonate

reservoir. Biogeosciences 12:4993-5003.

112. Kang N-Y, Elsner JB (2015) Trade-off between intensity and frequency of global

tropical cyclones. Nat Clim Change 5(7):661-664.

113. Micheli F, et al. (2012) Evidence that marine reserves enhance resilience to climatic

impacts. PLoS ONE 7(7):e40832.

114. Mellin C, MacNeil MA, Cheal AJ, Emslie MJ, Caley MJ (2016) Marine protected

areas increase resilience among coral reef communities. Ecol Lett 19(6):629-637.

115. Cheung WWL, et al. (2010) Large-scale redistribution of maximum fisheries catch

potential in the global ocean under climate change. Glob Chang Biol 16(1)

116. Green AL, et al. (2014) Designing marine reserves for fisheries management,

biodiversity conservation, and climate change adaptation. Coast Manage 42(2):143-

159.

117. Roberts CM, Hawkins JP (2012) Establishment of fish stock recovery areas.

(European Parliament. IP/B/PECH/IC/2012-053).

118. Roberts CM, et al. (2010) Guidance on the size and spacing of Marine Protected

Areas in England. (Natural England Commissioned Report NECR037).

119. Castilla J, Campo MA, Bustamente RH (2007) Recovery of Durvillaea antarctica

(Durvilleales) inside and outside Las Cruces Marine Reserve, Chile. Ecol

Appl17(5):1511-1522.

120. Munguía-Vega A, et al. (2015) Marine reserves help preserve genetic diversity after

impacts derived from climate variability: Lessons from the pink abalone inBaja

California. Glob Ecol Conserv 4:264-276.

121. Reusch TBH, Ehlers A, Hämmerli A, Worm B (2005) Ecosystem recovery after

climatic extremes enhanced by genotypic diversity. PNAS 102(8):2826-2831.

122. Mee JA, Otto SP, Pauly D (in press) Evolution of movement rate increases the

effectiveness of marine reserves for the conservation of pelagic fishes. Evol Appl.

123. Brown CJ, et al. (2010) Effects of climate-driven primary production change on

marine food webs: Implications for fisheries and conservation. Glob Chang

104



Biol16(4):1194-1212.

124. Cheung WWL, et al. (2012) Shrinking of fishes exacerbates impacts of global ocean

changes on marine ecosystems. Nat Clim Change 3(3):254-258.

125. Doney SC, Fabry VJ, Feely RA, Kleypas JA (2009) Ocean acidification: The other

CO2 problem. Ann Rev Mar Sci 1:169-192.

126. Britten GL, Dowd M, Worm B (2016) Changing recruitment in global fish stocks.

PNAS 113(1):134-139.

127. Hsieh CH, et al. (2006) Fishing elevates variability in the abundance of exploited

species. Nature 443(7113):859-862.

128. Halpern BS, Lester SE, Kellner JB (2009) Spillover from marine reserves and the

replenishment of fished stocks. Environ Conserv 36(4):268-276.

129. Beger M, et al. (2010) Conservation planning for connectivity across marine,

freshwater, and terrestrial realms. Biol Conserv 143(3):565-575.

130. Mascia MB, Claus C, Naidoo R (2010) Impacts of marine protected areas on fishing

communities. Conserv Biol 24(5):1424-1429.

131. Cheung WWL, et al. (in press) Transform high seas management to build climate-

resilience in marine seafood capacity. Fish Fish. https://dx.doi.org/10.111-1/faf.12177.

Online publication date: 30th August 2016.

132. Villéger S, Ferraton F, Mouillot D, de Wit R (2012) Nutrient recycling by coastal

macrofauna: intra- versus interspecific differences. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 452:297-303.

133. Layman CA, Allgeier JE, Rosemond AD, Dahlgren CP, Yeager LA (2011) Marine

fisheries declines viewed upside down: human impacts on consumer-driven nutrient

recycling. Ecol Appl 21(2):343-349.

134. Halpern BS, et al. (2015) Spatial and temporal changes in cumulative human

impacts on the world's oceans. Nat Commun 6:7615.

135. Beck MW, et al. (2011) Oyster reefs at risk and recommendations for conservation,

restoration, and management. BioScience 61(2):107-116.

136. Travis J, et al. (2014) Integrating the invisible fabric of nature: species interactions

and fisheries management. PNAS 111(2):581-584.

137. Oliver TH, et al. (2015) Biodiversity and resilience of ecosystem functions. Trends

Ecol Evolut 30(11):673-684.

138. Duffy JE, Lefcheck JS, Stuart-Smith RD, Navarrete SA, Edgar GJ (2016)

Biodiversity enhances reef fish biomass and resistance to climate change.

105



PNAS113(22):6230-6235.

139. Lauck T, Clark CW, Mangel M, Munro GR (1998) Implementing the precautionary

principle in fisheries management through marine reserves. Ecol Appl 8(sp1):S71-S78.

140. Gelcich S, et al. (2015) Alternative strategies for scaling up marine coastal

biodiversity conservation in Chile. Maritime Studies 14(5):5.

141. Gelcich S, Godoy N, Prado L, Castilla JC (2008) Add-on conservation benefits of

marine territorial user rights fishery policies in central Chile. Ecol Appl 18(1):273-281.

142. Cinner JE, Aswani S (2007) Integrating customary management into marine

conservation. Biol Conserv 140(3-4):201-216.

143. Gutiérrez NL, Hilborn R, Defeo O (2011) Leadership, social capital and incentives

promote successful fisheries. Nature 470(7334):386-389.

144. Cullis-Suzuki S, Pauly D (2010) Failing the high seas: A global evaluation of

regional fisheries management organisations. Mar Pol 34(5):1036-1042.

145. Sumaila UR, Cheung WWL, Lam VWY, Pauly D, Herrick S (2011) Climate change

impacts on the biophysics and economics of world fisheries. Nat Clim Change

1(12):449-456.

146. McCrea-Strub A, et al. (2011) Understanding the cost of establishing marine

protected areas. Mar Pol 35(1):1-9.

147. Báez, J.C., Bellido, J.J., Ferri-Yáñez, F., Castillo, J.J., Martín, J.J., Mons, J.L.,

Romero, D. & Real, R. (2011a). The North Atlantic Oscillation and Sea Surface

Temperature affect loggerhead abundance around the Strait of Gibraltar. Sci. Mar., 75:

571-575.

148. Báez, J.C. & Silva, L. (2013). Interacción de la pesca de arrastre con la captura

incidental de tortugas marinas en el caladero del Golfo de Cádiz. Boletín de la

Asociación Herpetológica Española, 24 (2).

149. Bas, C. (2002). El mar Mediterráneo recursos vivos y explotación. Ed. Ariel

Ciencia,Barcelona, 518 p.

150. Camiñas, J.A., Baro, J. & Abad, R. (2004). La pesca en el Mediterráneo andaluz.

Ed. Fundación Unicaja, Málaga, Spain, 264 pp.

151. Eckert, S.A., Moore, J.E., Dunn, D.C., van Buiten, R.S., Eckert, K.L. & Halpin,

P.N. (2008). Modeling loggerhead turtle movement in the Mediterranean: importance

of body size and oceanography. Ecol. Appl., 18: 290-308.