A policy-based framework for the determination of management options to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems under the EU deep-sea access regulations

Vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) are particularly susceptible to bottom-fishing activity as they are easily disturbed and slow to recover. A data-driven approach was developed to provide management options for the protection of VMEs under the European Union “deep-sea access regulations.” A total of two options within two scenarios were developed. The first scenario defined VME closure areas without consideration of fishing activity. Option 1 proposed closures for the protection of VME habitats and likely habitat, while Option 2 also included areas where four types of VME geophysical elements were present. The second scenario additionally considered fishing. This scenario used VME biomass—fishing intensity relationships to identify a threshold where effort of mobile bottom-contact gears was low and unlikely to have caused significant adverse impacts. Achieving a high level of VME protection requires the creation of many closures (> 100), made up of many small (∼50 km2) and fewer larger closures (> 1000 km2). The greatest protection of VMEs will affect approximately 9% of the mobile fleet fishing effort, while closure scenarios that avoid highly fished areas reduce this to around 4–6%. The framework allows managers to choose the level of risk-aversion they wish to apply in protecting VMEs by comparing alternative strategies.En prensa2,27

Deliverable 3.6 zoning plan of case studies : evaluation of spatial management options for the case studies

Within MESMA, nine case studies (CS) represent discrete marine European spatial entities, at different spatial scales, where a spatial marine management framework is in place, under development or considered. These CS (described in more details below) are chosen in such a way (MESMA D. 3.1 ) that they encompass the complexity of accommodating the various user functions of the marine landscape in various regions of the European marine waters. While human activities at sea are competing for space, there is also growing awareness of the possible negative effects of these human activities on the marine ecosystem. As such, system specific management options are required, satisfying current and future sectoral needs, while safeguarding the marine ecosystem from further detoriation. This integrated management approach is embedded in the concept of ecosystem based management (EBM). The goal of marine EBM is to maintain marine ecosystems in a healthy, productive and resilient condition, making it possible that they sustain human use and provide the goods and services required by society (McLeod et al. 2005). Therefore EBM is an environmental mangagement approach that recognises the interactions within a marine ecosystem, including humans. Hence, EBM does not consider single issues, species or ecosystems good and services in isolation. Operationalisation of EBM can be done through place-based or spatial management approaches (Lackey 1998), such as marine spatial planning (MSP). MSP is a public process of analysing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities aiming at achieving ecological, economic and social objectives. These objectives are usually formulated through political processes (Douvere et al. 2007, Douvere 2008). Within MESMA, a spatially managed area (SMA) is then defined as “a geographical area within which marine spatial planning initiatives exist in the real world”. Marine spatial planning initiatives refer to existing management measures actually in place within a defined area, or in any stage of a process of putting management in place, e.g. plans or recommendations for a particular area. Management can include management for marine protection (e.g. in MPAs), or management for sectoral objectives (e.g. building a wind farm to meet renewable energy objectives). Within MESMA, SMAs can have different spatial scales. A SMA can be a small, specific area that is managed/planned to be managed for one specific purpose, but it can also be a larger area within which lots of plans or ‘usage zones’ exist. This definition is different from the definition mentioned in the DoW (page 60). The original definition was adapted during a CS leader workshop (2-4 May 2012 in Gent, Belgium) and formally accepted by the MESMA ExB during the ExB meeting in Cork (29-30 May 2012). MSP should result in a marine spatial management plan that will produce the desired future trough explicit decisions about the location and timing of human activities. Ehler & Douvere (2009) consider this spatial management as a beginning toward the the implementation of desired goals and objectives. They describe the spatial management plan as a comprehensive, strategic document that provides the framework and direction for marine spatial management decisions. The plan should identify when, where and how goals and objectives will be met. Zoning (the development of zoning plans) is often an important management measure to implement spatial management plans. The purpose of a zoning plan (Ehler & Douvere 2009) is: To provide protection for biologically and ecologically important habitats, ecosystems, and ecological processes. To seperate conflicting human activities, or to combine compatible activities. To protect the natural values of the marine management area (in MESMA terminology: the SMA) while allowing reasonable human uses of the area. To allocate areas for reasonable human uses while minimising the effects of these human uses on each other, and nature. To preserve some areas of the SMA in their natural state undisturbed by humans except for scientific and educational purposes.peer-reviewe

A sustainable food system for the European Union

Food systems have complex social, economic and ecological components, and radical transformation is needed to make them sustainable. This report from SAPEA lays out the science on how that transition can happen in an inclusive, just and timely way. What the report says The global demand for food will increase in the future. To meet this demand, it is not enough simply to increase productivity in a sustainable way. We also need to change from linear mass consumption to a more circular economy — which will mean changing our norms, habits and routines. The evidence shows that this kind of behaviour change needs to happen collectively, not just individually. So we need joined-up governance at local, national and international levels. Food systems also contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. This can be addressed by reducing waste or directing it back into the supply chain. A mix of different measures will be most effective. The evidence shows that taxation is one of the most effective ways to modify behaviour. Accreditation and labelling schemes can also have an impact. Meanwhile, reform of European agriculture and fisheries policies offer great opportunities to develop resilience and sustainability. But there is not yet enough evidence to know for sure exactly what works in practice, so the steps we take should be carefully evaluated, and trade-offs anticipated.status: publishe

A policy-based framework for the determination of management options to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems under the EU deep-sea access regulations

Vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) are particularly susceptible to bottom-fishing activity as they are easily disturbed and slow to recover. A data-driven approach was developed to provide management options for the protection of VMEs under the European Union “deep-sea access regulations.” A total of two options within two scenarios were developed. The first scenario defined VME closure areas without consideration of fishing activity. Option 1 proposed closures for the protection of VME habitats and likely habitat, while Option 2 also included areas where four types of VME geophysical elements were present. The second scenario additionally considered fishing. This scenario used VME biomass—fishing intensity relationships to identify a threshold where effort of mobile bottom-contact gears was low and unlikely to have caused significant adverse impacts. Achieving a high level of VME protection requires the creation of many closures (> 100), made up of many small (∼50 km2) and fewer larger closures (> 1000 km2). The greatest protection of VMEs will affect approximately 9% of the mobile fleet fishing effort, while closure scenarios that avoid highly fished areas reduce this to around 4–6%. The framework allows managers to choose the level of risk-aversion they wish to apply in protecting VMEs by comparing alternative strategies