Les espaces de l'halieutique

Le modèle multispécifique Osmose (Ojbect-oriented simulator of marine ecosystem exploitation) est utilisé pour simuler les effets de la mise en place de zones refuges dans le cadre de pêcheries multispécifiques non ciblées. Les populations théoriques modélisées, constituées de poissons ichtyophages et mobiles, sont structurées en âge et en taille et interagissent par le biais de règles de comportement de prédation définies au niveau du banc de poissons. Une aire de répartition spatiale moyenne est attribuée à chaque espèce dans laquelle, à chaque nouvelle année simulée, la production larvaire est distribuée aléatoirement. Les simulations réalisées montrent qu'à forts taux d'exploitation, les captures totales sur le long terme peuvent être maintenues à un niveau élevé par l'instauration de zones refuges. En particulier, pour des niveaux d'exploitation résultant en des taux de mortalite supérieurs à FMSY (MSY : maximum sustainable yield), la simulation de différentes tailles de réserves marines met en évidence l'existence d'une taille optimale de zone refuge. En outre, la comparaison des effets induits, d'une part par la réduction directe de l'effort de pêche, d'autre part par la fermeture de zones de pêche, suggère que cette dernière mesure est plus efficace en termes de maximisation des captures et de maintien de la biodiversité de l'écosystème exploité. Cet avantage théorique est supposé provenir d'une particularité inhérente à l'instauration de zones refuges : ces dernières permettraient en effet de préserver non seulement une fraction globale des populations mais également un ensemble d'interactions trophiques localisées dans le temps et l'espace, qui pourraient avoir une influence non négligeable sur la dynamique globale du système... (D'après résumé d'auteur

Combined fishing and climate forcing in the southern Benguela upwelling ecosystem: an end-to-end modelling approach reveals dampened effects

The effects of climate and fishing on marine ecosystems have usually been studied separately, but their interactions make ecosystem dynamics difficult to understand and predict. Of particular interest to management, the potential synergism or antagonism between fishing pressure and climate forcing is analysed in this paper, using an end-to-end ecosystem model of the southern Benguela ecosystem, built from coupling hydrodynamic, biogeochemical and multispecies fish models (ROMS-N 2 P 2 Z 2 D 2 -OSMOSE). Scenarios of different intensities of upwelling-favourable wind stress combined with scenarios of fishing top-predator fish were tested. Analyses of isolated drivers show that the bottom-up effect of the climate forcing propagates up the food chain whereas the top-down effect of fishing cascades down to zooplankton in unfavourable environmental conditions but dampens before it reaches phytoplankton. When considering both climate and fishing drivers together, it appears that top-down control dominates the link between top-predator fish and forage fish, whereas interactions between the lower trophic levels are dominated by bottom-up control. The forage fish functional group appears to be a central component of this ecosystem, being the meeting point of two opposite trophic controls. The set of combined scenarios shows that fishing pressure and upwelling-favourable wind stress have mostly dampened effects on fish populations, compared to predictions from the separate effects of the stressors. Dampened effects result in biomass accumulation at the top predator fish level but a depletion of biomass at the forage fish level. This should draw our attention to the evolution of this functional group, which appears as both structurally important in the trophic functioning of the ecosystem, and very sensitive to climate and fishing pressures. In particular, diagnoses considering fishing pressure only might be more optimistic than those that consider combined effects of fishing and environmental variability

Post-2020 biodiversity targets need to embrace climate change

Recent assessment reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) have highlighted the risks to humanity arising from the unsustainable use of natural resources. Thus far, land, freshwater, and ocean exploitation have been the chief causes of biodiversity loss. Climate change is projected to be a rapidly increasing additional driver for biodiversity loss. Since climate change and biodiversity loss impact human societies everywhere, bold solutions are required that integrate environmental and societal objectives. As yet, most existing international biodiversity targets have overlooked climate change impacts. At the same time, climate change mitigation measures themselves may harm biodiversity directly. The Convention on Biological Diversity\u27s post-2020 framework offers the important opportunity to address the interactions between climate change and biodiversity and revise biodiversity targets accordingly by better aligning these with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals. We identify the considerable number of existing and proposed post- 2020 biodiversity targets that risk being severely compromised due to climate change, even if other barriers to their achievement were removed. Our analysis suggests that the next set of biodiversity targets explicitly addresses climate change-related risks since many aspirational goals will not be feasible under even lower-end projections of future warming. Adopting more flexible and dynamic approaches to conservation, rather than static goals, would allow us to respond flexibly to changes in habitats, genetic resources, species composition, and ecosystem functioning and leverage biodiversity\u27s capacity to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation

Making protected areas effective for biodiversity, climate and food

The spatial extent of marine and terrestrial protected areas (PAs) was amongst the most intensely debated issues prior to the decision about the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Positive impacts of PAs on habitats, species diversity and abundance are well documented. Yet, biodiversity loss continues unabated despite efforts to protect 17% of land and 10% of the oceans by 2020. This casts doubt on whether extending PAs to 30%, the agreed target in the Kunming-Montreal GBF, will indeed achieve meaningful biodiversity benefits. Critically, the focus on area coverage obscures the importance of PA effectiveness and overlooks concerns about the impact of PAs on other sustainability objectives. We propose a simple means of assessing and visualising the complex relationships between PA area coverage and effectiveness and their effects on biodiversity conservation, nature-based climate mitigation and food production. Our analysis illustrates how achieving a 30% PA global target could be beneficial for biodiversity and climate. It also highlights important caveats: i) achieving lofty area coverage objectives alone will be of little benefit without concomitant improvements in effectiveness, ii) trade-offs with food production particularly for high levels of coverage and effectiveness are likely and iii) important differences in terrestrial and marine systems need to be recognized when setting and implementing PA targets. The CBD's call for a significant increase in protected area will need to be accompanied by clear PA effectiveness goals to reduce and revert dangerous anthropogenic impacts on socio-ecological systems and biodiversity

Trophic level-based indicators to track fishing impacts across marine ecosystems

Trophic level (TL)-based indicators have been widely used to examine fishing impacts in aquatic ecosystems and the induced biodiversity changes. However, much debate has ensued regarding discrepancies and challenges arising from the use of landings data from commercial fisheries to calculate TL indicators. Subsequent studies have started to examine survey-based and model-based indicators. In this paper, we undertake an extensive evaluation of a variety of TL indicators across 9 well-studied marine ecosystems by making use of model- as well as survey and catch-based TL indicators. Using detailed regional information and data on fishing history, fishing intensity, and environmental conditions, we evaluate how well TL indicators are capturing fishing effects at the community level of marine ecosystems. Our results highlight that the differences observed between TL indicator values and trends is dependent on the data source and the TL cut-off point used in the calculations and is not attributable to an intrinsic problem with TL based indicators. All 3 data sources provide useful information about the structural changes in the ecosystem as a result of fishing, but our results indicate that only model-based indicators represent fishing impacts at the whole ecosystem level.JRC.H.1-Water Resource

Strong fisheries management and governance positively impact ecosystem status

Fisheries have had major negative impacts on marine ecosystems, and effective fisheries management and governance are needed to achieve sustainable fisheries, biodiversity conservation goals and thus good ecosystem status. To date, the IndiSeas programme (Indicators for the Seas) has focussed on assessing the ecological impacts of fishing at the ecosystem scale using ecological indicators. Here, we explore fisheries Management Effectiveness' and Governance Quality' and relate this to ecosystem health and status. We developed a dedicated expert survey, focused at the ecosystem level, with a series of questions addressing aspects of management and governance, from an ecosystem-based perspective, using objective and evidence-based criteria. The survey was completed by ecosystem experts (managers and scientists) and results analysed using ranking and multivariate methods. Results were further examined for selected ecosystems, using expert knowledge, to explore the overall findings in greater depth. Higher scores for Management Effectiveness' and Governance Quality' were significantly and positively related to ecosystems with better ecological status. Key factors that point to success in delivering fisheries and conservation objectives were as follows: the use of reference points for management, frequent review of stock assessments, whether Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) catches were being accounted for and addressed, and the inclusion of stakeholders. Additionally, we found that the implementation of a long-term management plan, including economic and social dimensions of fisheries in exploited ecosystems, was a key factor in successful, sustainable fisheries management. Our results support the thesis that good ecosystem-based management and governance, sustainable fisheries and healthy ecosystems go together.IOC-UNESCO; EuroMarine; European FP7 MEECE research project; European Network of Excellence Eur-Oceans; FRB EMIBIOS project [212085]info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Linking capacity development to GOOS monitoring networks to achieve sustained ocean observation

Developing enduring capacity to monitor ocean life requires investing in people and their institutions to build infrastructure, ownership, and long-term support networks. International initiatives can enhance access to scientific data, tools and methodologies, and develop local expertise to use them, but without ongoing engagement may fail to have lasting benefit. Linking capacity development and technology transfer to sustained ocean monitoring is a win-win proposition. Trained local experts will benefit from joining global communities of experts who are building the comprehensive Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS). This two-way exchange will benefit scientists and policy makers in developing and developed countries. The first step toward the GOOS is complete: identification of an initial set of biological Essential Ocean Variables (EOVs) that incorporate the Group on Earth Observations (GEO) Essential Biological Variables (EBVs), and link to the physical and biogeochemical EOVs. EOVs provide a globally consistent approach to monitoring where the costs of monitoring oceans can be shared and where capacity and expertise can be transferred globally. Integrating monitoring with existing international reporting and policy development connects ocean observations with agreements underlying many countries' commitments and obligations, including under SDG 14, thus catalyzing progress toward sustained use of the ocean. Combining scientific expertise with international capacity development initiatives can help meet the need of developing countries to engage in the agreed United Nations (UN) initiatives including new negotiations for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction, and the needs of the global community to understand how the ocean is changing

The global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services: Summary for policy makers

This report represents a critical assessment, the first in almost 15 years (since the release of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2005) and the first ever carried out by an intergovernmental body, of the status and trends of the natural world, the social implications of these trends, their direct and indirect causes, and, importantly, the actions that can still be taken to ensure a better future for all. These complex links have been assessed using a simple, yet very inclusive framework that should resonate with a wide range of stakeholders, since it recognizes diverse world views, values and knowledge systems.Fil: Díaz, Sandra Myrna. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; ArgentinaFil: Settele, Josef. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research; AlemaniaFil: Brondízio, Eduardo. Indiana University; Estados UnidosFil: Ngo, Hien. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; AlemaniaFil: Guèze, Maximilien. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; AlemaniaFil: Agard, John. University of The West Indies; Trinidad y TobagoFil: Arneth, Almut. Karlsruher Institut fur Technologie; AlemaniaFil: Balvanera, Patricia. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; MéxicoFil: Brauman, Kate. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Butchart, Stuart. University of Cambridge; Reino UnidoFil: Chan, Kai M. A.. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Garibaldi, Lucas Alejandro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas. Centro Cientifico Tecnologico Conicet - Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigaciones En Recursos Naturales, Agroecologia y Desarrollo Rural. - Universidad Nacional de Rio Negro. Instituto de Investigaciones En Recursos Naturales, Agroecologia y Desarrollo Rural.; ArgentinaFil: Ichii, Kazuhito. Chiba University; JapónFil: Liu, Jianguo. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Subramanian, Suneetha. United Nations University; JapónFil: Midgley, Guy. Stellenbosch University; SudáfricaFil: Miloslavich, Patricia. Universidad Simon Bolivar.; VenezuelaFil: Molnár, Zsolt. Hungarian Academy of Sciences; HungríaFil: Obura, David. Coastal Oceans Research and Development Indian Ocean; KeniaFil: Pfaff, Alexander. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Polasky, Stephen. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Purvis, Andy. Natural History Museum; Reino UnidoFil: Razzaque, Jona. University of the West of England; Reino UnidoFil: Reyers, Belinda. Stellenbosch University; SudáfricaFil: Roy Chowdhury, Rinku. Clark University; Estados UnidosFil: Shin, Yunne-Jai. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; FranciaFil: Visseren-Hamakers, Ingrid. Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen; Países BajosFil: Willis, Katherine. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Zayas, Cynthia. University of the Philippines; Filipina