The European Commission's “30% by 2030" target aims to introduce spatial measures to protect the seabed. A key question is, how do we ensure that spatial measures are located in the correct place maximizing ecological and socio-economic aims? In addressing this question it is useful to determine the likely consequences on fisheries across various options set within the overlying 30 x 30 management objective.
In 2021 ICES provided the European Commission with advice (as a series of interactive maps and tables for many EU regions) on management scenarios to reduce mobile bottom-fishing disturbance to seabed habitats and how these could affect fisheries landings and their value. A key purpose of the advice was to inform the setting of threshold values for the environmental quality to be achieved for seabed habitats under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD).
The European Commission has requested ICES to update its 2021 advice, using the latest data. WKD6STAKE will further develop the approach adopted in previous advice on trade-offs. It identified and prioritized five analyses and associated management measures that can be used to easily communicate options (and trade-offs) to improve the health of the seafloor.
While the 2021 ICES advice to the European Commission only included areas for which data was available (Baltic, Celtic, North Sea and Bay of Biscay Iberian Coast) the focus of this workshop was to operationalize the assessment for many of the regions in the Mediterranean and Black Sea. As such input from experts directly involved in policy work is particularly important at WKD6STAKE for the later (sub)regions (Mediterranean and Black Sea).
Stakeholder engagement
WKD6STAKE wass organized as a stakeholder workshop and aimed at experts who have a policy role or interest in balancing spatial management of fisheries and conservation/sustainable use.
Guiding questions that stakeholders provided input on:
- are the outputs of the model's five management scenarios (i.e. the html reports for each region) what you would expect?
- if not, where are the key issues to address?
- what advantages are there in letting the model choose the areas over marine managers applying criteria for choosing areas.
- If there are additional criteria that help the fishing industry, what are they?
- are we expressing costs correctly?
- is the spatial scale of the output suitable (for environmental policies, for fisheries management)?
- are there additional parameters / considerations in the model that require addition?
- how do we identify other sources of squeeze of the fishing footprint? - telling the difference between de facto exclusion or multi-use areas
- displacement – how can we capture this – what parameters do you think drive relocation?
