Medidas de Gestao das Pescarias Marinhas e Aquicultura 2019 The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018 | Page 119

THE STATE OF WORLD FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE 2018
BOX 8
MAINSTREAMING BIODIVERSITY CONCERNS IN FISHERIES
Biodiversity mainstreaming, the consideration of
biodiversity across fisheries and aquaculture, has
gained substantially in profile since the 1992 adoption
of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The broader
impact of fisheries on natural renewable resources and
the environment more generally was enshrined in the
1982 Law of the Sea Convention, which shows due
regard to target species in fisheries, but also to
associated and dependent species. The United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)
and its Agenda 21 spurred research on the effects of
differing gear, bycatch, habitat impacts and
perturbations of trophic relationships on the ecosystem.
FAO, as the UN agency with competence for fisheries,
developed the Code of Conduct for Responsible
Fisheries (FAO, 1995) and guidelines on sustainable
indicators, the precautionary approach and the
ecosystem approach, which contributed directly to
mainstreaming of biodiversity in fisheries policy and
management (Sinclair and Valdimarsson, 2003). The
adoption of the Aichi Targets by the Parties to CBD in
2010 reflects the global societal expectation of
biodiversity conservation in sectoral management, with
Aichi target 6 outlining a comprehensive series of
deliverables for fisheries and Aichi target 11 focusing on effective area-based management of biodiversity in
the oceans. This international process, and the related
SDG 14, outlines fisheries’ accountability for the full
footprint of its activities and facilitates the measurement
of countries’ action in mainstreaming biodiversity into
their policies and management measures.
At the UN Biodiversity Conference in Mexico in 2016
(the thirteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to
CBD) – which had the theme “Mainstreaming of
Biodiversity for Well-Being” – FAO and its partners
showed how consideration of biodiversity had been
strengthened in relation to management and conservation
of fisheries, with a particular focus on policies and
actions in relation to conservation of threatened species
and vulnerable habitats, and announced the creation of a
multistakeholder dialogue on biodiversity (FAO, 2018f).
FAO also highlighted efforts by RFMOs and national
fishery authorities to update their management instruments
or replace them with new ones incorporating more active
management rules for species and habitats of particular
conservation concern, often in close collaboration with
environment sector interests. The Sustainable Ocean
Initiative, for example, aims to strengthen the convergence
of actions by RFMOs and regional seas organizations
(CBD, 2018).
of coastal and marine waters as protected areas
by 2020. Governments, foundations, non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) and local
communities around the world are channelling
substantial interest, capacit y and funding to the
establishment of MPAs. It is important to
recognize that while MPAs have positive effects
on biodiversit y inside no-take zones, efforts to
secure the sustainabilit y of aquatic resources
must build on a wider range of natural resource
management inter ventions. Implemented in
isolation, MPAs can result in shifting of fishing
pressure to areas that lack adequate management
measures, or may have significant impacts on the
livelihoods and food securit y of fisheries-
dependent communities. As with any
management tool, it is critical to evaluate protected areas in terms of their potential
management and conser vation outcomes, yield
and economic performance, taking into
consideration the cost of effective implementation
and long-term management (FAO, 2011b).
Dynamic ocean management
Dynamic ocean management is defined as
management that changes in space and time in
response to the shifting nature of the ocean and
its users, based on the integration of new
biological, oceanographic, social and/or economic
data in near real-time (Max well et al., 2015).
Proponents of this approach maintain that by
better aligning human and ecological scales of
use, it can increase the efficacy and efficiency of
fisheries management compared to static
| 103 |