The open consultation "Protecting biodiversity: nature restoration targets under EU biodiversity strategy" covers three separate EU biodiversity policy initiatives and the Baltic Sea Centre's reply concern Evaluation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Below, you find our additional reply to the consultation questionnaire.


Protect nature

Many studies and reports show the poor or bad status for species and habitats in the EU, including protected species and habitats. Despite ambitious targets, the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 has failed to protect species and habitats in the EU, which is our main critique. In the marine environment, protected areas have been significantly expanded since 2011, but unfortunately have not had the intended effect – to protect species and habitats – due to the fact that there are often no or too weak restrictions on which activities that are permitted in these areas. 

There is a significant amount of activities like commercial fishing, dredging, construction, shipping and boat traffic that occur in Natura2000 areas, which have contributed to the failure to achieve the targets 1 and 4 in the Strategy. 

The quality of protection is key, relating for instance to what kind of human activities are allowed in the protected area. Management requirements must be strongly incentivized and monitored as per full implementation of the Nature Directives and Marine Directive. 

All marine protected areas (MPA) are not in need of the same kind of protection, thus the management requirements and restrictions on activities should be adapted to fit the purpose of the MPA. Strict protection will be important to protect sensitive species and/or habitats. In areas with strict protection all potential disturbing activities should be regulated. Also, buffer zones may be needed around strictly protected areas. Recent research from Stockholm University has showed that buffer zones may be important to protect species and/or habitats from sediment resuspension from bottom trawling.

Turbidity and sedimentation can have negative effects on e.g. fish, benthic organisms and habitats. Connectivity is another important issue to consider, ensuring that the network of protected areas is functional for the species and habitats it aims to preserve, allowing for movement of individuals and gene flow. Protection should not only be geographically defined but also have temporal dimensions, e.g. taking spawning areas and times for fish into consideration. 

Environmental considerations in the CFP

The European Common fisheries policy (CFP) is a complex balancing act between environmental considerations and socio-economics. In a reform of CFP some years back, the main aim was to reduce the negative impacts of fishing on marine ecosystems caused by excessive and non-selective catches, and the use of fishing methods that have given rise to extensive by-catches and physical damage to the seabed. 

This would be achieved e.g. through increased coordination between the EU's environmental and fisheries policy, where multi-annual plans and decisions on quotas would be based on the basis of scientific assessments of the impact of fisheries on the entire marine ecosystem. Environmental protection would thus be better integrated into the fisheries policy. 

However, this pursued coordination of environmental and fisheries policy has largely failed. Even though the reform brought several improvements, important shortcomings remain. Environmental law research shows that the CFP has not been coordinated with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Water Framework Directive, which is particularly noteworthy, as these frameworks are comprehensive in the management of marine ecosystems – where fish species often play a key role. 

Some years after the reform of the CFP, the negative consequences of the lack of coordination between environmental and fisheries policy have now been manifested. Fishing quotas continue to exceed the scientific recommendations, and multi-annual plans do not to a sufficient extent take the connections in the ecosystems and the ecological functions of the species into account. Also, as mentioned above, many marine protected areas lack still lack regulations for fishing. 

There are several examples of negative consequences of not taking environmental considerations in EU fisheries policy; one example is the continued decline in cod stocks in the Baltic Sea, where the fishing quotas recommended by research have been consistently exceeded. The radical decline in cod stocks has led to fundamental changes in the Baltic Sea ecosystem. 

If the target for healthy and productive marine environments are to be achieved - and fishing can continue to be pursued in the long term as well - further measures must therefore be taken to improve coordination between the two policy areas as soon as possible. Otherwise, there is a risk that the important ecosystem services that the sea provides, and on which society depends, will be lost. 

 

April 4, 2021