-

Abstract

A new concept “precautionary fisheries management” for the management of fish stocks in Turkey seas

Keywords

• Fishing quotas, fisheries management, marine fisheries, ICES

Türkiye Denizlerindeki Balık Stoklarının Yönetimi İçin Yeni Bir Kavram:'İhtiyatlı Balıkçılık Yönetimi'

Öz

Abstract

A new concept “precautionary fisheries management” for the management of fish stocks in Turkey seas

When the commercial sea fisheries landings are evaluated on species basis according to the Turkish Statistical Institute (TUİK) data of the year 1990, it has not observed a significant decrease except for slight fluctuations in landing amounts of short-lived fish populations such as anchovies (Engraulis encrasicolus), sprats (Sprattus sprattus), sardines (Sardina pilchardus), Atlantic bonito (Sarda sarda), and horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus). However, it has observed considerable decline in landing amounts of long-lived benthopelagic fish species as grey mullet (Mugil cephalus), sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax), turbot (Psetta maxima), red mullet (Mullus barbatus), whiting (Merlangius merlangus euxinus), and hake (Merluccius merluccius). These results indicate that these species in second group were overfished and stocks have been destroyed. The concept of “precautionary approach” in fisheries management is more conservator management approach in the event of information on fish stocks is uncertain, unreliable, and insufficient. Worldwide, this mentality has been adopted by many international organizations related to fish stock management in regional seas and there is still application area. Also, implementation of precautionary approach to fisheries management in management of commercial fish stocks in Turkey seas will be able to contribute in terms of protection of over-exploited and long-lived fish stocks, and obtaining maximum sustainable yield (MSY) from these stocks.

Keywords: Fishing quotas, fisheries management, marine fisheries, ICES.

Özet

Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TUİK) verilerine göre 1990 yılı itibariyle avcılığı yapılan deniz ürünleri üretim miktarı tür bazında değerlendirildiğinde; hamsi (Engraulis encrasicolus), çaça (Sprattus sprattus), sardalye (Sardina pilchardus), palamut (Sarda sarda) ve istavrit (Trachuru strachurus) gibi kısa ömürlü balık populasyonlarının karaya çıkış miktarlarında çok küçük dalgalanmaların dışında belirgin bir düşüş gözlenmemesine karşın, kefal (Mugil cephalus), levrek (Dicentrarchus labrax) kalkan (Psetta maxima), barbunya (Mullus barbatus), mezgit (Merlangius merlangus euxinus) ve berlam (Merluccius merluccius) gibi uzun ömürlü bentopelajik balık türlerinin av miktarlarında önemli sayılabilecek düşüşler gözlenmiştir. Bu sonuçlar ikinci gruptaki bu türlerin aşırı avlandığı ve stokların bozulmakta olduğu sonucuna işaret etmektedir. Balıkçılık yönetiminde ‘ihtiyatlı yaklaşım’ kavramı; balık stokları ile ilgili bilgilerin belirsiz, güvenilmez ve yetersiz olması durumunda, daha fazla korumacı yönde olan bir yönetim anlayışıdır. Bu anlayış dünya genelinde birçok bölgesel denizlerdeki stok yönetimine ilişkin uluslararası kuruluşlara tarafından benimsenmiş ve halen uygulama alanı bulmaktadır. İhtiyatlı balıkçılık yönetimi yaklaşımının Türkiye denizlerindeki ticari balık stoklarınınyönetiminde de uygulanması, aşırı sömürülen uzun ömürlü balık stokların korunması ve bu stoklardan sürdürülebilir en yüksek ürünün alınabilmesi açısından katkı sağlayabilecektir.

Anahtar kelimeler: Avcılık kotası, balıkçılık yönetimi, deniz balıkçılığı, ICES.

 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Avcılık kotası, balıkçılık yönetimi, deniz balıkçılığı, ICES

Kaynakça

1. Kaynaklar
2. Anonim, 2001. T.C. Tarım ve Köyişleri Bakanlığı, Koruma Kontrol Genel Müdürlüğü yazışma kayıtları (yayınlanmamış).
3. Anonim, 2008. 2/1 Nolu Ticari Amaçlı Su Ürünleri Avcılığını Düzenleyen Tebliğ. Tarım ve Köyişleri Bakanlığı. http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2008/08/20080821. htm (giriş11Temmuz,2013).
4. Anonim, 2012a. 3/1 Nolu Ticari Amaçlı Su Ürünleri Avcılığını Düzenleyen Tebliğ. Gıda Tarım ve Hayvancılık Bakanlığı.
5. http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2012/08/20120818.htm (giriş 11 Temmuz, 2013).
6. Anonim, 2012b. Balıkçı Gemisini Avcılıktan Çıkaranlara Yapılacak Destekleme Tebliği (Tebliğ No: 2012/51). T.C. Gıda Tarım ve Hayvancılık Bakanlığı.
7. http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2012/06/20120619.htm (giriş 11 Temmuz, 2013).
8. Anonim, 2012c. Orkinos Balıklarının Avcılığı, Taşımacılığı ve Ticaretine İlişkin Uygulama Genelgesi (No:48). T.C. Gıda Tarım ve Hayvancılık Bakanlığı.

9. http://www.tarim.gov.tr (giriş 18 Aralık, 2012).
10. Anonim, 2013. Balıkçı Gemisini Avcılıktan Çıkaranlara Yapılacak Destekleme Tebliği (Tebliğ No: 2013/25). Gıda Tarım ve Hayvancılık Bakanlığı.
11. http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2013/05/20130529-23.htm (giriş 21 Haziran, 2013).
12. Anonim, 2014. TUBİTAK Projeleri. Gıda Tarım ve Hayvancılık Bakanlığı Trabzon Su Ürünleri Merkez Araştırma Enstitüsü Müdürlüğü.
13. http://arastirma.tarim.gov.tr/sumae/Menu/6/Tubitak-Projeleri (giriş 28 Ekim, 2014).
14. Bruyn, P., Murua, H. and Aranda, M. 2013. The Precautionary approach to fisheries management: How this is taken into account by Tuna regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs). Elsevier, Marine Policy, 38: 397-406. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2012.06.019.
15. Cadima, E.L. 2003. Fish stock assessment manual. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No 393, Rome, Italy, 161 pp.
16. Cochrane, K.L. (ed.), 2002. A fishery manager’s guidebook, management measures and their application. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No 424, Rome, 231p.
17. FAO, 1995. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.Rome, 41 pp.
18. FAO, 1996. Precautionary approach to capture fisheries and species introductions. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, No. 2, Rome, 54 pp.
19. FAO, 2001. Research implications of adopting the precautionary approach to management of tuna fisheries. FAO Fisheries Circular 2001: pp. 74.
20. FAO, 2006. Stock assessment for fishery management-A
21. framework guide to the stock assessment tools of the Fisheries Management Science Programme (FMSP). FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No 487, Rome, Italy, 261 pp.
22. Gabriel, W.L. and Mace, P.M.1999. A review of biological reference points in the context of the precautionary approach. In: Restrepo, V.R. (Ed.), Proceedings of the fifth national NMFS workshop: Providing scientific advice to implement the precautionary approach under the Magnusson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act. 24-26 February 1998, Key Largo, Florida, USA, US Dep. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS-F/SPO, 40: 34-45.
23. Garcia, S.M. 1996. The precautionary approach to fisheries and its implications for fishery research, technology and management: an updated review. In: FAO, Precautionary approach to fisheries, Part 2, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, 350.2: 1-75.
24. Garcia, S.M. 2000. The precautionary approach to fisheries: progress review and main issues: 1995-2000. In: Current Maritime Issues and the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, University of Virginia, Center for Oceans Law and Policy, Martinus Nijhoff Publ., 479-560.
25. Garcia, S. M. and De Leiva Moreno, J.I. 2005. Evolution of the state of fish stocks in the Northeast Atlantic within a precautionary framework, 1970-2003: a synoptic evaluation, ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62:1603-1608.
26. Gümüş, A.ve Zengin, M. 2011. İkibinli Yılların Başında Samsun
27. Balıkçılığının Durumu: Çöken Demersal Balık Stoklarına Karşılık Alternatif Arayışlar. 13-16 Ekim 2011, Samsun Sempozyumu, Bildiriler Kitabı. Samsun, 19 s.
28. Hilborn, R.2002. The dark side of reference points, Bull. Marine Science, 70(2): 403-408.
29. Hilborn, R. and Walters, C.J.1992. Quantitative fisheries stock assessment: Choice, dynamics and uncertainty. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 570 pp.
30. Hilborn, R., Pikitch, E.K. and Francis, R.C. 1993. Current trends in including risk and uncertainty in stock assessment and harvest decisions, Canadian Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences, 50(4):874-880.
31. ICCAT, 2012. The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. http://www.iccat.int/en/contracting.htm (giriş 16 Mayıs, 2012).
32. ICES, 1997. Report of the study group on the precautionary approach to fisheries management. Copenhagen, 5-11 February
33. , ICES CM 1997/Assess: 7: 41 p.
34. ICES, 1998. Report of the study group on the precautionary approach to fisheries management. Copenhagen, 3-6 February 1998, ICES CM 1998/ACFM: 10.
35. ICES, 1999. Extract of the Report of the ICES Advisory Committee on fishery management. October, Multiple pages.
36. ICES, 2000. Report of the CWP intercessional meeting working group on precautionary approach terminology and CWP sub-group on publication of integrated catch statistics for the
37. Atlantic. Copenhagen, 10-16 February 2000, ICES CM 2000/ACFM: 17.
38. ICES, 2011. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee. ICES Advice, 2011, Book 1, 226 pp.
39. ICES,2012. Report of the ICES Advisory Committee 2012. ICES Advice, 2012, Book 6.
40. NOAA, 1998. Technical Guidance on the Use of Precautionary Approaches to Implementing National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and Management Act, July 17, 1998. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO, 54 p.
41. Pikitch, E.K. 2002. The Scientific Case for Precautionary
42. Management: Current Fishery Problems Traced to Improper Use of Science. Pp 59-63 In: Managing Marine Fisheries in the United States: Proceedings of the Pew Oceans Commission Workshop on Marine Fishery Management, Seattle, Washington, 18–19 July 2001. Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, Virginia.
43. Serchuk, F.M., Rivard, D., Casey, J. and Mayo, R. 1997. Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group of the NAFO Scientific Council on the precautionary approach. NAFO SCS Document, 97/26: 14 p.
44. Staples, D. 1996. Indicators of sustainable fisheries development. In: D.A. Hancock, D.C. Smith, A. Grant and J.P. Beumer (eds.) Developing and sustaining world fisheries resources: the state of science and management. Second World Fisheries Congress, Brisbane 1996. CSIRO, Australia.
45. STECF, 2013. Assessment of Black Seastocks (STECF 13-20). Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 430 pp.
46. Thompson, G.G. and Mace, P.M. 1997. The evolution of the precautionary approach to fisheries management, with focus on the United States. NAFO SCR Document, 97/26: 14 p.
47. TUİK, 2013. Su Ürünleri İstatistikleri 2012. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, Ankara, 59 ss.
48. TUİK, 2014. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. Su ürünleri istatistikleri.
49. http://kutuphane.tuik.gov.tr/yordambt/yordam.php (giriş 18 Haziran, 2014).
50. Ulman, A., Bekişoğlu, Ş., Zengin, M., Knudsen, S., Ünal, V.,
51. Mathews, C., Harper, S., Zeller, D. and Pauly, D. 2013. From bonito to anchovy: a reconstruction of Turkey’s marine fisheries catches (1950-2010). Mediterranean Marine Science, 14(2): 309-342. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.12681/mms.414.
52. UN, 1995. Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. In: United Nations Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, Sixth session, New York, 24 Jul-4 August 1995, A/CONF, 164/37 8 September 1995.
53. http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_fish stocks.htm (giriş 16 Ağustos, 2012).