ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil Advance Access originally published online on June 21, 2008
ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 2008 65(8):1515-1519; doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsn102
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appears in the following ICES Journal of Marine Science issue: Marine Environmental Indicators: Utility in Meeting Regulatory Needs [View the issue table of contents]
Biodiversity of North Sea fish: why do the politicians care but marine scientists appear oblivious to this issue?
Fisheries Research Services, Marine Laboratory, PO Box 101, Victoria Road, Aberdeen AB11 9DB, UK
tel: +44 1224 295417; fax: +44 1224 295511; e-mail: greenstreet{at}marlab.ac.uk
Greenstreet, S. P. R. 2008. Biodiversity of North Sea fish: why do the politicians care but marine scientists appear oblivious to this issue? – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 1515–1519.Political drivers underpinning the development of an Ecosystem Approach to Marine Management (EAMM) focus on conserving and restoring biodiversity. However, the Element of Ecological Quality for Fish Communities that emerged from the 2002 Bergen North Sea Ministerial Conference relates to "Changes in the proportion of large fish and hence the average weight and average maximum length of the fish community". How did this apparent change in direction arise? Responding to advice requests from OSPAR, ICES established seven criteria for identifying "state" indicators capable of supporting indicator-based management. Application of these criteria underlined the merits of indicators of fish size, whereas diversity indices performed poorly against four of the criteria. These difficulties are examined here. Far from being oblivious to the issue of biodiversity, marine scientists recognized that they were not in a position to recommend Ecological Quality Objectives (EcoQOs) for fish biodiversity that would have relied on the use of biodiversity indicators. The use of indicators of size structure, for which the theoretical foundation was better developed, allowed the continued development of an EAMM in the short term. However, if the issue of biodiversity is to be addressed in the longer term, then shortcomings associated with the use of biodiversity indicators need to be addressed.
Keywords: biodiversity, ecosystem approach to marine management, indicators, selection criteria
Received 23 November 2007; accepted 17 March 2008; advance access publication 21 June 2008.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  G. J. Piet, R. van Hal, and S. P. R. Greenstreet Modelling the direct impact of bottom trawling on the North Sea fish community to derive estimates of fishing mortality for non-target fish species ICES J. Mar. Sci., October 1, 2009; 66(9): 1985 - 1998. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. P. R. Greenstreet, G. J. Holland, T. W. K. Fraser, and V. J. Allen Modelling demersal fishing effort based on landings and days absence from port, to generate indicators of "activity" ICES J. Mar. Sci., June 1, 2009; 66(5): 886 - 901. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. P. R. Greenstreet, H. M. Fraser, and G. J. Piet Using MPAs to address regional-scale ecological objectives in the North Sea: modelling the effects of fishing effort displacement ICES J. Mar. Sci., January 1, 2009; 66(1): 90 - 100. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|