Description
The conservation of Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs) is very high on the agenda worldwide. VMEs are defined by the UN FAO as vulnerable to fishing, besides other threats. VMEs are characterized by their uniqueness and their fragility, and there are marine habitats that are slow to recover. There are habitats with a high structural complexity and potential as biodiversity hotspots. VMEs are usually associated with topographic features of the seabed, such as seamounts, canyons and ridges. Living organisms there are made of cold-coral waters, sea pens and sponges, and associated deep-sea fish communities.VMEs are usually on the edge of continental shelves, which is far from most fishing grounds… This excepts Spanish and Portuguese fishing areas, given that the continental shelf is narrow in the Iberian seas. Environmental management in the EU has introduced various spatial restrictions to fishing in EU waters, given the EU Habitat directive, the EU MSFD, and soon alongside the EU biodiversity Strategy… Some VMEs are now protected by the Deep-Sea Access Regulation and Regulation (EU) 2022/1614, which closed 87 boxes to bottom fishing in 2022 in EU waters of the North-East Atlantic region.
The STECF was requested by the Commission last year to look at the effect of protecting VMEs identified by the scientists in ICES on the socioeconomic of the affected fishing fleets. Based on these preliminary findings, the STECF is now tasked to organise and run a Working Group looking at detailed data to go deeper into the analysis in 2024. This includes documenting assumptions behind the study and being better at including why it is worth protecting the biodiversity in VMEs… The main conclusion of last year´s study was that it should be cross-checked with stakeholders. Then the EU Member States should come up with data at the right level of resolution, the resolution of individual fisheries (to identify the deep sea fisheries from the rest), so that the assessment can be refined at that level. Last year's analysis showed that most fleet segments might not be impacted by more than 10% of the Gross Value Added when implementing the VME protection boxes. However, the effect varies depending on the box set alongside alternative scenarios ICES developed. Spanish and Portuguese bottom trawl fleets would be impacted the most. Looking at the issue spatially, we see that the effect originated from a few areas with a high impact. Again, this is due to the narrow continental shelf in the Portuguese and Spanish areas. The effect is again dependent on the ICES scenario chosen.
A row of shortcomings in the evaluation were identified. For example, we need the correct data to examine the smaller vessels that may be heavily impacted when the continental shelf is narrow. We are very good at capturing the costs… but it is obvious that we lack metrics for capturing the gains induced by protecting biodiversity. To contribute to the solution, here are 5 research and innovation needs: First. we need to continue the effort to collect data to monitor the biodiversity in marine habitats, and this requires advanced science techniques. Second. Stakeholders need to understand the expectations of a protected area in terms of the size of the area. VME boxes are pretty small, and we should not overly expect they will provide many benefits to fisheries. Third. It is more likely that those VMEs should be protected as such, as restoring them to the same previous level of biodiversity after their degradation will be impossible. This is because of irreversible damage that hundreds of years might repair. What is needed is to support ongoing work on refining the socioeconomic analysis with more data and insights from the stakeholders. This is twofold: Strengthening some spatial bioeconomic modelling approaches that deal with the individual fisheries level. Support collaborative partnerships among stakeholders for conserving natural capital and also long-term assets of fishers.
We should recall that we need to reconcile goals and focus on engaging the virtuous cycle in fisheries. This includes understanding marine ecosystem dynamics with more science. It also includes developing and supporting bioeconomic models to get a detailed and holistic view of socioeconomic effects. Finally, it consists of supporting proper governance that checks the action with socioeconomic impact evaluation but also engages stakeholders (for example, to disclose their socioeconomic data) to avoid lobbying efforts opposing the rules and not directed toward finding solutions.
We should also recognize collectively that deep-water fisheries, which are located beyond 400 meters and close to the lower limits of the upper continental slope, have grown significantly since the decline of continental-shelf fisheries. However, it's worth noting that most deep-water stocks have lower biological productivity than those found on the continental shelf and coastal regions (see ICES WGDEEP). Therefore, instead of expanding the exploitation of deep-sea fish species, it's more likely that restoring fish stocks will be the solution to the issue.
| Period | 6 Mar 2024 |
|---|---|
| Event title | How to improve EU policy-making for protecting Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems in the EU |
| Event type | Seminar |
| Location | Brussels, BelgiumShow on map |
| Degree of Recognition | International |
Keywords
- Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems
- Fisheries
- CFP