International Journal of Aquaculture, 2025, Vol.15, No.6, 287-297 http://www.aquapublisher.com/index.php/ija 289 most cases, human fishing always tends to "step on the line" or even cross it. Signs of a sharp decline in biomass and degradation of biodiversity have emerged in many sea areas around the world. Model studies indicate that excessive fishing pressure not only reduces the target fish species but also affects other biomes through chain reactions, reducing the stability of the entire ecosystem (Stanford-Clark et al., 2025). Once overfishing occurs, both high-trophic organisms and secondary productivity will decline, and the system's self-recovery ability will also deteriorate. To ensure the sustainable development of fishery resources, it is necessary to rely on scientifically setting fishing quotas, implementing Ecosystem-based management (EBFM), and adopting flexible dynamic strategies in order to maintain that delicate balance between utilization and protection. Figure 1 Declines in fish biomass between sites are driven primarily by loss of species (RICH-L) and compositional losses (COMP-L) (Adopted from Lefcheck et al., 2021) 3 Policy and Governance Framework for Fishery Management 3.1 International legal and policy system: the united nations convention on the law of the sea and the FAO code of conduct for responsible fisheries When it comes to global fishery governance, most people first think of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF). The UNCLOS was established in 1982, defining the rights and responsibilities of each country in the management of fishery resources within their exclusive economic zones, and calling for international cooperation in the management of transboundary and highly migratory fish resources. The CCRF was introduced by the FAO in 1995 and is equivalent to establishing a set of "codes of conduct" for global fisheries, emphasizing the balance of ecological, economic and social goals in management. The four International Action Plans (IPOAs) formed under the framework of CCRF are more like specific operational guidelines, promoting continuous improvement in aspects such as fishery resource protection, law enforcement compliance, legal construction and international cooperation among countries (Swasey et al., 2021). Interestingly, these seemingly high-level international rules actually provide a basis for countries to formulate local policies and also offer a common reference framework for regional fishery governance. It can be said that the reason why countries can now "match up" in fishery management is largely due to the significant role played by these international mechanisms. 3.2 Comparison of national and regional fishery governance models Fishery governance models around the world are not set in stone, and there is no one-size-fits-all template. Take the United States and the European Union as examples. They tend to adopt a centralized management approach, setting quotas and allocating fishing rights through legal and scientific evaluations, and encouraging community participation. Among them, the Magnusson-Stevens Act of the United States and the Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union are typical representatives. In contrast, in some regions of Pacific island countries or Latin America, the situation is completely different - community co-management, local traditional knowledge and resource sharing are more important, and systems such as territorial use rights for fisheries (TURFs) are often more effective. Meanwhile, regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) play a key role in the governance of multi-national shared fishery resources, but they often encounter obstacles in implementation and interest coordination. The emerging Fisheries Improvement Project (FIPs) has broken some traditional boundaries
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjQ4ODYzNA==