Establish community-based fisheries management

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

45%
Certainty

21%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Fishing can impact subtidal benthic invertebrates through species removal or habitat damage from fishing gear coming into contact with the seabed (Collie et al. 2000). Community-based fisheries management, sometimes referred to as indigenous customary management (Twist et al. 2016), assigns the management of marine resources to the local community who often possesses traditional and local knowledge crucial to local management. Community-based fisheries management is often based on a partial protection strategy, which uses one or more spatial management measures (for instance measures that restrict some aspect of the fishery; Cinner & Aswani 2007). Community-based management gives local communities the power to set regional fisheries bylaws and/or regulations and has been implemented into legislation in several countries (Ruddle 1998). By regulating and limiting fishing effort, and protecting the marine environment, community-based fisheries management can, in theory, reduce the impacts on the seabed, the amount of bycatch, and overall threat to subtidal benthic invertebrates (Twist et al. 2016).

Evidence for related intervention is summarised under “Threat: Biological resource use – Establish territorial user rights for fisheries”.

_{Cinner J.E. & Aswani S. (2007) Integrating customary management into marine conservation. Biological Conservation, 140, 201–216.}

_{Collie J.S., Hall S.J., Kaiser M.J. & Poiner I.R. (2000) A quantitative analysis of fishing impacts on shelf‐sea benthos. Journal of Animal Ecology, 69, 785–798.}

_{Ruddle K. (1998) The context of policy design for existing communitybased fisheries management systems in the Pacific Islands. Ocean and Coastal Management, 40, 105–126.}

_{Twist B.A., Hepburn C.D. & Rayment W.J. (2016) Distribution of the New Zealand scallop (Pecten novaezealandiae) within and surrounding a customary fisheries area. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 73, 384–393.}

Study locations

Key messages

One study examined the effects of establishing community-based fisheries management on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in the Foveaux Straight (New Zealand).

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Mollusc abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Foveaux Straight found that a customary fisheries area where management was community-based had more New Zealand scallops compared to a protected area prohibiting all fishing and an area allowing recreational harvest.
Mollusc condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Foveaux Straight found that a customary fisheries area where management was community-based, tended to have smaller New Zealand scallops compared to a protected area prohibiting all fishing and an area allowing recreational harvest.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A replicated, site comparison study in 2013 of 20 sites in the Paterson Inlet, Foveaux Straight, New Zealand (Twist et al. 2016) found that sites within a customary fisheries area where management was community-based had more New Zealand scallops Pecten novaezealandiae, but they tended to be smaller, compared to adjacent sites in a marine protected area prohibiting all fishing (no-take reserve) and a recreational harvest-only area. Scallop abundance was higher inside the customary fisheries area (3.62 scallops/m²) compared to the other sites (no-take: 0.63 scallops/m²; recreational: 0.56 scallops/m²). Scallops tended to be smaller in the customary fisheries area (104 mm), compared to the no-take reserve (110 mm), and the recreational area (132 mm; size data were not statistically tested). In June 2013, divers counted and measured scallops in three to nine transects (100 m²) at each of 20 sites: six in the customary fisheries area (community-based management, see paper for details), three in the no-take reserve (designated in 2004), and three in the recreational harvest-only area.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Twist B.A., Hepburn C.D. & Rayment W.J. (2016) Distribution of the New Zealand scallop (Pecten novaezealandiae) within and surrounding a customary fisheries area. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 73, 384-393.

Please cite as:

Lemasson, A.J., Pettit, L.R., Smith, R.K. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation. Pages 635-732 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Subtidal Benthic Invertebrate Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Designate a Marine Protected Area and only allow hook and line fishing Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit the harvesting of sea urchins Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	2	Synopsis Link
Designate a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) to regulate impactful maritime activities Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link