The fishing sector is very diverse as it ranges from small-scale vessels (under 12 meters) to large-scale industrial fishing vessels (over 24 meters). Their fishing techniques vary greatly, as well as their possible interactions with marine ecosystems. Industrial bottom trawlers notably face criticism on account of their potential ecological impact. Common reported effects on marine wildlife include the overexploitation of fished species, the destruction of the seabed, the accidental catches of sensitive and protected species, as well as the overall high carbon footprint and CO2 emissions.
The rise in environmental consciousness in recent years has resulted in calls for greater protection of the marine environment and the re-modelling of the fishing sector in a way that better preserves and respects marine resources.
The “marine protection and restoration” sector is considered here in the broad sense, including both the protection of species and ecosystems as well as area-based initiatives. This fiche sets out the different interactions to be considered between the fishing sector and the marine protection and restoration sector, by detailing how this activity can affect marine wildlife, how its impacts can be avoided or reduced, and what possible synergistic relationships can be fostered between the two sectors.
Fisheries
Fishing has a long history in all European sea basins, and is of particular importance to coastal communities, both economically, socially, and as a food source. Capture fisheries have direct and indirect impacts on the marine environment and ecosystems notably through removal of biomass. However, thanks to innovations and regulations put in place over the last few decades within the EU, the state of fish stocks is progressively recovering [1], and conservation measures are expected to result in stock rebuilding.
The sector is regulated by the Common fisheries policy (CFP) [2], that aims at sustainably managing European fishing fleets and conserving fish stocks. Additionally, the Marine Action Plan aims at keeping fish stocks to sustainable levels and reducing the overall impact of fishing [3].
The sector is still facing major challenges and it has been in constant decline in volume for more than 20 years. This is largely due to the sensitivity of the business to the cost of fuel oil, reinforcing the need to decarbonise the sector as quickly as possible.
Marine protection and restoration
Marine protection and restoration can be approached from a geographical angle (area-based approach), from a particular species angle (such as whale conservation), or through more encompassing ecosystem health approaches (reduction of pollution, etc.).
Key international initiatives have been developed, both globally at EU level (Marine Strategy Framework Directive [4], EU Mission: Restore our Ocean and Waters [5]) that both frame EU actions in terms of marine protection and restoration, and at a more local level (such as the ACCOBAMS).
One of the main tools for area-based marine conservation is Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), but other designations fulfil similar functions (such as Natura 2000 areas). There has been a tenfold increase in MPA designation around the world since 2013.
Governance wise, this hugely diverse sector is divided between a wide range of actors of very different natures: States, NGO’s, local authorities, scientific institutions, international organizations, etc. It is therefore sometimes challenging to identify the relevant players that need to be involved in discussions.
For more European statistics and data you can also visit the Eurostat website
Related challenges
One of the most important prerequisites for sustainable fisheries is access to reliable fishing grounds, especially for small-scale fisheries near the coast. From the perspective of commercial fisheries, the main source of conflict tends to be spatial exclusion (such as the imposition of no-take zones or areas with limited access to fisheries), although conflicts can also arise from a more general lack of integration between fisheries management and conservation [6]. From the perspective of area-based conservation, the need to conserve fish stocks in line with MSFD objectives and fishing practices outside MPAs can be a conflicting element. Specific dimensions of challenges related to area-based conservation are listed below.
- Spatial exclusion
Spatial measures (e.g., no-take zones in Marine Protected Areas) proposed by the authorities can be a strong source of conflict. Fishers often object to such proposals, given that they might imply relocating to less productive fishing grounds, travelling further from the fishing port, or changes in fishing gear, all resulting in additional costs or a loss in revenue. In EU Member States with small sea spaces, spatial measures may result in the total loss of fishing areas rather than merely relocation. At the same time, restricting fishing areas is likely to increase pressure, especially on smaller operations working closer to the coast.
- Spatial context
Given that fishing often takes place across the exclusive economic zones of several states, conflicts can also take place between different states. Although fisheries management is harmonized across the EU according to Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) rules, different countries still take individual approaches, which can make coordination difficult. Countries also have different ways of dealing with conflicts between fisheries and area-based marine conservation, ranging from spatial and temporal closures and restrictions to managing bycatch to restricting certain high impact fishing techniques. Access arrangements and relevant allocation rules are usually based on different criteria, leading to location-specific rules as to who may fish or how, when, or where. Rights of access may be granted based on historic connections to fishing grounds [7], but also other social and environmental considerations including spatial prerequisites usually also come into play.
Impacts caused by fishing can reduce the conservation benefits of area-based approaches to marine conservation [8]. Even when total bans on certain activities are in place within MPA boundaries, habitats and species are still affected by pressures originating from outside of the protected area. This is most obvious in the case of water or noise pollution [9], but extractive practices such as fishing reduce the available biomass and therefore also have impacts. For marine conservation to be effective, it is important that its design and management includes a wide range of stakeholders – including all the sectors that will be affected by, or will themselves affect, protected areas or species [10]. Fisheries and marine conservation are in fact closely interrelated: a thriving fishing industry requires healthy stocks, while marine conservation can benefit from sustainable fishing practices and the environmental knowledge of fishers.
- Noise pollution
Underwater noise generated by the movement and operation of fishing vessels and gear contributes to an increased level of noise in the ocean. Underwater noise and vibrations affect numerous marine species in several different ways. Marine mammals are especially affected as it interferes with their ability to transmit and receive acoustic information. Anthropogenic noise can change marine mammals' behaviour and cause them to feed less or to produce fewer calves. Moreover, it should be noted that the amount of noise generated varies by vessel size: large vessels for example tend to create louder noise with low frequency, which has the potential to be propagated for long distances. Additionally, the shape and functioning of the propeller, as well as the speed of the ship also corelates to the noise emitted (the higher the speed, the higher the noise). The use dynamic positioning systems, albeit uncommon in fishing vessels at present, is also associated with the generation of potentially damaging noise levels.
- Accidental spillage of hazardous substances
This encompasses the accidental discharge of hydrocarbons and oils spills into the ocean. All vessels can pose a threat to marine biodiversity through accidental spillage of oil and hydrocarbons or through the periodic discharge of waste water into the marine environment.
- Litter pollution
Plastic marine litter is not a new challenge, but one that has become increasingly serious all over the world. Although great attention has been given to marine litter, there is a broad consensus that a significant proportion of marine litter is not visible, as it has sunk beneath the surface. This is especially alarming, as plastic in the oceans will in time breakdown into very small fragments (micro- and nanoplastics) that pollute marine waters and marine life [11]. Abandoned, lost, or discarded fishing gear creates twin problems. Not only does it add to the volume of these plastic particles in the water over time, but until it does, it “ghost fishes”, catching and killing fish and other marine organisms [12]. Litter produced by fishing practices can also have considerable impacts, especially in the case of lost fishing gear, leading to abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFGs) also known as «ghost fishing » which is a multidimensional threat. Ghost nets can not only promote the spread of invasive alien species and harmful microalgae by providing a micro-environment for them to travel to sites where they can cause habitat degradation - but nets can also accumulate more marine litter, that may lead to the smothering of benthic communities, entanglement of boats, loss of further fishing gear, and can generate other negative coastal socioeconomic impacts. Marine litter is becoming a major problem in our oceans, as well as causing inefficiencies in the fishery sector as it is treated as an externality that is internalized through the price of fish [13] [14].
Marine mammals, turtles as well as other species of unintended bycatch are at risk from becoming entangled into fishing nets. For example, the case of dolphins and fishing in Corsica (France). They found dolphin communities all around the island but with fewer observed on the eastern side. They also identified angered fishers, which had reached a critical point in the face of increased attacks by bottlenose dolphins on their nets. Aggression towards dolphins and accidental capture were the consequences.
Conflicts with marine conservation can arise from certain fishing practices, in particular such bottom trawling, that can have significant and lasting impacts on habitats and organisms other than the target species.
Most fishing practices, such as some techniques of bottom trawling, have impacts on non-target species and therefore on the broader ecosystem (incl. sea bottom morphology, sediment structure, biochemical balance).
Related enablers
- Protect specific biodiversity hotspots through legislation
The first option used to mitigate the potential adverse effects of human activities is the creation of protected areas with high ecosystem value where specific regulation concerning human activities, such as fishing applies. As the level of protection can range from simple declarations to extensively regulated areas, several different management tools can be implemented with various intensity in the restrictions: Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs), Special Areas (MARPOL) Natura 2000 areas, Ecological and Fishery Protection Zones (ZERP), Zones of Biological Protection (ZTB), a Fisheries Restricted Areas (FRAs), etc. Positive effects of effective conservation on both fish stocks and the fisheries sector are evident in cases where appropriate management tools, technical measures, and fishing capacity control are implemented. Although their usefulness and the exact benefits to fisheries continue to be debated, there is evidence that fish stock recovery areas or ‘no-take areas’ can aid the recovery of commercially important species [15]. Benefits to nearby fisheries, both through spill-over and the export of offspring from protected stock has also been recorded. ‘No-take’ areas can also help set positive management precedents.
- MSP Transboundary consultation
In areas subject to conflict between activities that have a transboundary character, it is important for countries to agree on harmonized regulations. In reaching a joint solution, it is also important to come to a shared understanding of terminology and traditional practices. Careful planning, and implementation of transnational consultation as set out in the EU MSP Directive can play an important role. To ensure a more harmonised approach, it is important to consider transnational consultation early in the MSP process, especially given the fact that Member States have different national fisheries management mechanisms in place and use different tools for implementing these. While MSP based consultation does not directly solve the conflict, it is one of the pre-requirements for the implementation of spatial planning or other techniques and can to a certain extent prevent conflicts from occurring in the first place. In such cases, coherence through shared understanding of terminology and technical requirements for implementing policy is encouraged.
- Communicate the value of MPAs to fishers
Marine protected areas (MPAs) and their values are usually not well known to the public, or have little aesthetic value. Scientists can have an important role in communicating the most up to date information, which can serve as a basis for a more informed cross-sectoral discussion and decision-making. The presentation of research results by a third party rather than the MSP authority may lead to a more balanced discussion. In some cases, it has been beneficial for authorities to engage with fishers and fishing associations prior to joint meetings with other stakeholders. These smaller and more informal meetings are a useful way of becoming familiar with the fishers’ concerns, their traditions and ways of defining fishing, and can be a first step towards establishing common ground for conflict resolution.
Estimating the bio-economic effects of fishery closure(s) is a useful way of determining the utility of this management measure and its socio-economic impacts. While it is helpful to monitor the effect of a measure once it is in place, it is equally useful to model different scenarios in anticipation of closure. Models are available that estimate the impact of an envisioned measure through time (e.g., in 5 years). They consider various parameters, such as the impact of a suggested closure on each fleet, the impact on different ports, the distribution of benthic communities and impacts on benthic habitats. Considering any likely economic impacts (and their expected changes over time) is of particular relevance. The DISPLACE tool [16], developed by DTU Aqua, is one example of such a tool. It is a complex model that uses data from each vessel, integrating all available stock data, fleet data per harbour, the technical characteristics of the vessels, the market price of the fish captured, fuel consumption, trawl and survey data, and other economic data, etc. The output of the model is a list of bio-economic indicators that can inform the decision-making process when considering possible fishery closure(s). The results obtained with the DISPLACE tool have been used in several meetings with stakeholders (FAO, AdriaMed, GFCM; projects: ECOAST, DORY, ECOSEA) to show the bio-economic effects of spatial restriction for some type of fisheries, for example bottom trawling.
As explained previously, both the fishing sector and marine protection/restoration activities have complex governance models and scattered players. All relevant actors should be involved in developing joint solutions to mitigate the impacts of fishing on the marine environment. Agreements can be thought of between fishing associations and MPAs or other authorities to jointly implement good practices. Additionally, increasing awareness and training efforts for the general public but also notably for fishers is important as without their understanding of the problem and compliance, even the most advanced technologies will not resolve the issue. Tools that inform and engage stakeholders may help to improve compliance with mandatory and voluntary measures that are implemented to protect vulnerable species and populations. More concretely there are some measures that would benefit from an early and stakeholder engagement and communication.
Discussing technical measures of fisheries management could help to reduce conflicts between fishery and area-based marine conservation. For example, optimum mesh size for selected target species could be discussed with fishers, as well as the choice of hauls or less damaging fishing equipment. Each of these technical measures comes with different costs and benefits. For example, 12h hauls need two round trips per day to the area concerned, which doubles diesel costs, so changing to 12h hauls is usually only economically feasible if fishing sites closer to the port are chosen. Different fishing techniques are also associated with experience and costs. For example, an investment in accessory equipment for longline fishing can be largely covered by one season of fishing. However, the real difference in cost of fishing practices comes from the extra hours of work added to the working day. In this context the MSP process can be a useful point of entry into discussions on various management measures and what might work in each specific context. More environmentally friendly fishing practices may mean less bottom trawling as this has major environmental impacts, therefore reducing conflicts with environmental protection. However, shifting to static gear may mean environmental impacts which are different but no less important: gill-nets can kill harbour porpoises, dolphins and diving seabirds. There is unlikely to be a one size fits all solution given the many different types of fisheries and broader ecological and socioeconomic contexts. Whatever the local context, it is important that technical and spatial measures work in synergy.
Fisheries conservation measures can include fisheries conservation areas, where it is the fishers themselves that close certain areas for conservation reasons. This is, for example, the approach taken in the MPA of the Cap d'Agde coast (France), where fishermen were involved in the definition and zoning of highly protected areas. The creation of a highly protected area was a direct request from fishermen, who wanted to better conserve the resources associated with fishing. They have also contributed to the monitoring and surveillance within the park.
Marine litter is becoming a major problem in our oceans causing inefficiencies in the fishing sector as it is treated as an externality that is internalized through the price of fish. The introduction of a so-called fishing-for-litter market provides a direct incentive for them to maximize overall welfare through resource recovery, i.e., by converting plastic waste into a new valuable resource [17] [18].
Spatial management approaches in fisheries tend to be linked to static boundaries and coarse temporal scales, although the dynamic of interactions between fish and their environments has long been recognized. Dynamic assessment of the impacts of temporal fishery closures through dynamic data collection and analysis can contribute to more informed planning and more optimal solutions. Instead of only considering the traditional static bans, such tools can enable planners to take a more dynamic approach, where the size and temporal dimension of a closure can be revised for each new version of the maritime spatial plan.
- References
DISCLAIMER: This page is based on the previous existing section “MSP Sectors and Conflicts” presented on the European MSP Platform, and where you can find the related fiche here.
Other references:
[6] Jones, J.S.P., Lieberknecht, L.M., Qiu. W., (2016). Marine spatial planning in reality: Introduction to case studies and discussion of findings. Marine Policy, 71, pp 256-264. Available at: https://ac.elscdn.com/S0308597X16302147/1-s2.0-S0308597X16302147-main.pdf?_tid=f57eb811-2283-499b8ad1-d3f4d1a74987&acdnat=1525350417_e1c119f5bf51162927510f189cb37a60
[7] Grieve, C., (2009). Environmental and Social Criteria for Allocating Access to Fisheries Resources. Available at: http://www.fundacionlonxanet.org/assets/PDF/Minarzos.pdf
[8] Coomber, F.G., D’Incà, M., Rosso, M., Tepsich, P., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., and Moulins, A., (2016). Description of the vessel traffic within the north Pelagos Sanctuary: inputs for marine spatial planning and management implications within an existing international Marine Protected Area. Marine Policy 69, pp.102-113.
[9] Blau, J. and Green, L., (2015). Assessing the impact of a new approach to ocean management: Evidence to date from give oceans plans. Marine Policy 56, pp. 1-8
[10] Dehens, L. A. & Fanning, L.M., (2018). What counts in making marine protected areas (MPAs) count? The role of legitimacy in MPA success in Canada. Ecological Indicators 86, pp. 45-57.
[11] EU marGnet Project. https://www.margnet.eu/
[12] REDCYCLE Project. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVCdSvirBM4
[13] Nguyen, L & Brouwer, R (2022). Fishing for Litter: Creating an Economic Market for Marine Plastics in a Sustainable Fisheries Model. Front. Mar. Sci., Sec. Marine Pollution, Vol. 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.722815
[14] European Parliament resolution on the impact on fisheries of marine litter (2019/2160(INI)). Available at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2021-0030_EN.html
[15] Dahlgren, C. & Tewfik, A. (2015). Benefits of No-take Zones for Belize and the Wider Caribbean Region. Proceedings of the 67th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute November 3 - 7, 2014 Christ Church, Barbados, pp. 264-271.
[16] DISPLACE project. Available at: http://displace-project.org/blog/
[17] Nguyen, L & Brouwer, R (2022). Fishing for Litter: Creating an Economic Market for Marine Plastics in a Sustainable Fisheries Model. Front. Mar. Sci., Sec. Marine Pollution, Vol. 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.722815
[18] EMFF story : https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/video/I-175441
Existing co-existence and multi-use initiatives
CONTRIBUTE TO THE COMPENDIUM AND SUBMIT YOUR CASE STUDY HERE