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

• Published in: ICES Journal of Marine Science
• Main Authors: van Denderen, P.D., Holah, H., Robson, L.M., Hiddink, J.G., Menot, L., Predeschi, D., Kazanidis, G., Llope, M. (Marcos), Turner, P.J., Stirling, D., Murillo, F.J. (Francisco Javier), Kenny, A., Campbell, N., Allcock, A.L., Braga-Henriques, A., González-Irusta, J.M. (José Manuel), Orejas, C. (Covadonga), Serrano, A. (Alberto), Xavier, J.R., Hopkins, P., Kenchington, E., Nixon, E., Valanko, S.
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Centro Oceanográfico de Gijón 2021
• Subjects: fish; nature conservation; deep water; conservation; exploration; North Atlantic
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/10508/16419; https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsab237

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.