Bans are adapted to the distribution and the particular spatial dynamics of each zone. The flexible management

of bans, particularly total bans, has been effective controlling landings. Much like in agricultural systems were lands are left fallow to improve productivity, in the gooseneck barnacle fishery high quality areas are left unharvested for a year (total ban) to improve next years׳ landings. Additionally, if reductions in landings are perceived immediate measures are taken, the affected zones are banned for the rest of the season. In the case of the gooseneck barnacle fishery, BMN 673 datasheet when a continuous reduction in global catches was determined by the DGPM and perceived by the fishers, a reduction in daily TAC was implemented. According to stakeholders of the seasonal management plans, adaptive management has enabled the sustainability of the plans and produced an increase in yield. Within the Asturian co-management system important differences among management plans exist. Particularly

the Cabo Peñas plan, which has developed different harvesting strategies and guidelines than other plans. However, these measures are not always beneficial. For VX-809 molecular weight example, harvesting zones during the reproductive period of a species that settles on conspecifics [33] might be detrimental to the stock. In a top-down system it would have been very difficult to find a solution however in a flexible collaborative system, such as the gooseneck barnacle co-management, compromises were found. The campaign was adapted for the Cabo Peñas plan, its territory was divided into three sub-areas; two are exploited during the fishing season and one during summer months. This way the fishers are still able to harvest all year without affecting recruitment for the entire plan. Also, excess in effort due to greater TAC and a longer campaign in Cabo Peñas could

lead to reduced prices [5] and overexploitation of the population [42]. However, in the Asturian co-management system the excess in landings was accounted for by reducing Cabo Peñas´ effort to specific days. As in other collaborative systems, the downfalls in the gooseneck barnacle management were mitigated through cooperation among stakeholders [43]. Interviews and focus groups shed light on the different social context and perceptions of the ZD1839 cofradías, particularly Cabo Peñas. Thus, any fishery management strategy that encompasses all cofradías must have the adaptive capacity present in co-management systems. When the co-management system was first proposed there was no particular critical juncture motivating the fishers towards a change in policy, differing from most cases where collaborative management has been implemented [3]. On the contrary, the emergence of co-management was triggered exclusively through the foreseen benefits of having exclusive rights to market an unexploited resource.