183
3
Perspectives and Future
Challenges
Challenges raised by this coupling approach pertain to (1) finding a relevant design and level of
detail regarding processes embodied in each
model, (2) getting a proper parameterization of
both models, and (3) keeping an overall consistency, instead of technical issues regarding the
coupling itself.
First of all, the methodology promoted here
will be extended to a more representative set of
the Eastern English Channel fisheries. For that
purpose, the MwZ number of features will be
extended to include seven target species, in
order to be coupled with the ISIS-Fish model
developed by Lehuta et al. (2015) and which
includes five additional target species: cod
Gadus morhua, whiting Merlangius merlangus,
European sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax, squids
Loligo spp., and scallop Pecten maximus.
Another possible improvement of the ISIS-Fish
model can be to add benthic and/or pelagic habitats to provide a dynamic description of habitat
state impacted by human activities (including
sediment extraction) like in Gasche et al. (in
preparation).
Additional features such as bird or seal colonies, highly sensitive habitats, or endangered species known locations may also be added to
increase the spatial constraint on the MwZ solutions and to better represent the local biodiversity
and not only the exploited species.
The definition of management scenarios that
are likely to be implemented is also of high
importance. This raises the need for the identification of more realistic management measure
regarding either the administrative status of zones
(e.g., is it desirable to ban ground-towed gears
from large zones designated under the bird directive only?) or the local characteristics of an MPA
itself (e.g., in the case of particularly discrete
natural bivalve beds where dredging cannot be
banned without deep economic impacts). In that
context, a consultation of managers is underway
to move toward more realistic constraints on
MwZ inputs.
Contributions of different zone types to the
preservation of various features will also have to
be characterized in a more explicit way, based on
observed and quantified gear impacts, proposed
effort reduction (by gear within the zone), and
overall effort partition among gears.
This approach could also be improved by
moving fishing activities from costs to features
that also have to be protected (e.g., with a 90 %
target on value landed by each type of activity
that is no more than 10 % loss). This would
ensure a better equitability of the conservation
effort among métiers by applying a high penalty
to scenarios inducing a larger loss than the one
set by target for at least one type of activity.
These combined improvements should
enhance our capacity to provide valuable diagnostics and advice regarding the effectiveness
of MPA networks for the management of mixed
fisheries.
Acknowledgments We wish to thank the French MPA
Agency for providing up-to-date MPA limits. The study
was funded by the Interreg IVa PANACHE (Protected
Area Network Across the Channel Ecosystem) European
project.
References
Ban NC, Adams VM, Almany GR, Ban S, Cinner JE,
McCook LJ, Mills M, Pressey RL, White A (2011)
Designing, implementing and managing marine protected areas: emerging trends and opportunities for
coral reef nations. Coral Reefs Future Dir 408:21–31.
doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2011.07.023
Batsleer J, Poos J, Marchal P, Vermard Y, Rijnsdorp A
(2013) Mixed fisheries management: protecting the
weakest link. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 479:177–190.
doi:10.3354/meps10203
Carpentier A, Martin CS, Vaz S (eds) (2009) Channel
habitat atlas for marine resource management, final
report (CHARM phase II). INTERREG 3a Programme,
IFREMER, Boulogne-sur-mer, France, 626 pp
Delavenne J, Metcalfe K, Smith RJ, Vaz S, Martin CS,
Dupuis L, Coppin F, Carpentier A (2012) Systematic
conservation planning in the eastern English Channel:
comparing the Marxan and Zonation decision-support
tools. ICES J Mar Sci J Conserv 69:75–83.
doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsr180
Delavenne J, Marchal P, Vaz S (2013) Defining a pelagic
typology of the eastern English Channel. Cont Shelf
Res 52:87–96. doi:10.1016/j.csr.2012.10.016
Toward a Dynamical Approach for Systematic Conservation Planning of Eastern English Channel Fisheries
3
Perspectives and Future
Challenges
Challenges raised by this coupling approach pertain to (1) finding a relevant design and level of
detail regarding processes embodied in each
model, (2) getting a proper parameterization of
both models, and (3) keeping an overall consistency, instead of technical issues regarding the
coupling itself.
First of all, the methodology promoted here
will be extended to a more representative set of
the Eastern English Channel fisheries. For that
purpose, the MwZ number of features will be
extended to include seven target species, in
order to be coupled with the ISIS-Fish model
developed by Lehuta et al. (2015) and which
includes five additional target species: cod
Gadus morhua, whiting Merlangius merlangus,
European sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax, squids
Loligo spp., and scallop Pecten maximus.
Another possible improvement of the ISIS-Fish
model can be to add benthic and/or pelagic habitats to provide a dynamic description of habitat
state impacted by human activities (including
sediment extraction) like in Gasche et al. (in
preparation).
Additional features such as bird or seal colonies, highly sensitive habitats, or endangered species known locations may also be added to
increase the spatial constraint on the MwZ solutions and to better represent the local biodiversity
and not only the exploited species.
The definition of management scenarios that
are likely to be implemented is also of high
importance. This raises the need for the identification of more realistic management measure
regarding either the administrative status of zones
(e.g., is it desirable to ban ground-towed gears
from large zones designated under the bird directive only?) or the local characteristics of an MPA
itself (e.g., in the case of particularly discrete
natural bivalve beds where dredging cannot be
banned without deep economic impacts). In that
context, a consultation of managers is underway
to move toward more realistic constraints on
MwZ inputs.
Contributions of different zone types to the
preservation of various features will also have to
be characterized in a more explicit way, based on
observed and quantified gear impacts, proposed
effort reduction (by gear within the zone), and
overall effort partition among gears.
This approach could also be improved by
moving fishing activities from costs to features
that also have to be protected (e.g., with a 90 %
target on value landed by each type of activity
that is no more than 10 % loss). This would
ensure a better equitability of the conservation
effort among métiers by applying a high penalty
to scenarios inducing a larger loss than the one
set by target for at least one type of activity.
These combined improvements should
enhance our capacity to provide valuable diagnostics and advice regarding the effectiveness
of MPA networks for the management of mixed
fisheries.
Acknowledgments We wish to thank the French MPA
Agency for providing up-to-date MPA limits. The study
was funded by the Interreg IVa PANACHE (Protected
Area Network Across the Channel Ecosystem) European
project.
References
Ban NC, Adams VM, Almany GR, Ban S, Cinner JE,
McCook LJ, Mills M, Pressey RL, White A (2011)
Designing, implementing and managing marine protected areas: emerging trends and opportunities for
coral reef nations. Coral Reefs Future Dir 408:21–31.
doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2011.07.023
Batsleer J, Poos J, Marchal P, Vermard Y, Rijnsdorp A
(2013) Mixed fisheries management: protecting the
weakest link. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 479:177–190.
doi:10.3354/meps10203
Carpentier A, Martin CS, Vaz S (eds) (2009) Channel
habitat atlas for marine resource management, final
report (CHARM phase II). INTERREG 3a Programme,
IFREMER, Boulogne-sur-mer, France, 626 pp
Delavenne J, Metcalfe K, Smith RJ, Vaz S, Martin CS,
Dupuis L, Coppin F, Carpentier A (2012) Systematic
conservation planning in the eastern English Channel:
comparing the Marxan and Zonation decision-support
tools. ICES J Mar Sci J Conserv 69:75–83.
doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsr180
Delavenne J, Marchal P, Vaz S (2013) Defining a pelagic
typology of the eastern English Channel. Cont Shelf
Res 52:87–96. doi:10.1016/j.csr.2012.10.016
Toward a Dynamical Approach for Systematic Conservation Planning of Eastern English Channel Fisheries