TY - BOOK
T1 - Mapping of marine protected areas and their associated fishing activities: Baltic and North Seas, Atlantic EU Western Waters and Outermost Regions (MAPAFISH)
T2 - Final Report
AU - Feary, David A.
AU - Van Hoey, Gert
AU - Aranda, Martin
AU - Brown, Elliot John
AU - Metz, Sebastien
AU - Reid, Dave
AU - van der Valk, Olga
AU - Castro, Nuno
AU - van Kooten, T
AU - Abreu, S.
AU - Bergman, J
AU - Carvalho, Gary
AU - Eggertssen, M
AU - Emerit, A
AU - Fetterplace, Lachlan
AU - Folhas, H
AU - Hamon, Katell
AU - IJntema, G
AU - Jiménez-Navarro, S
AU - Mangi, Stephen C.
AU - Martín-Sosa, P
AU - Mendoza, José Carlos
AU - Mommens, M-P
AU - Pecceu, Ellen
AU - Pereira, R
AU - Putnis, I
AU - Quirijns, Floor
AU - Robert, M
AU - Sköld, Mattias
AU - Sys, Klaas
AU - Tully, Oliver
AU - Ustups, D
AU - Valentinsson, D
AU - Tamara, Vallina
AU - van der Reijden, Karin
AU - Verlé, Katrien
AU - Wakeford, Robert
PY - 2025
Y1 - 2025
N2 - The European Union (EU) Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 sets the target for protected areas in the EU at 30% of its sea area, one third of which needs to be strictly protected. While there is growing interest in studying the progress of ocean protection, there is a need for an overview of the status of marine protected areas (MPAs) and associated fishing activities in EU waters. This study identifies and characterises fishing activities within and surrounding more than 800 MPAs, and quantitatively assesses them to determine which fishing activities are compatible with MPA conservation objectives. Findings reveal that most MPAs allow some level of commercial or recreational exploitation of fisheries, which can include a range of fishing activities. Fishing activities are not necessarily incompatible with MPA conservation objectives, but this depends on the objectives and the type of fishing activity within MPAs. Using a case study approach, this study examines in more detail the spatial reallocation of fishing activities in response to MPA implementation in eight Member States, while also gathering and describing the perception of relevant stakeholders. The case studies demonstrate that MPA designation and implementation did not bring about any change in fishing behaviour. Changes in fisher behaviour, including fishing effort and landings, were evident only after specific fisheries regulations were put in place. Overall, all this information brought together within a single database, helps to improve the understanding of fishing activities in EU MPAs, while also providing the basis to inform future policy discussions. This work concludes that MPAs in the EU have not been established for fisheries management, but predominantly as a biodiversity conservation tool. The development of MPAs as a fisheries management tool will need to further consider and understand the broader impacts of no-take MPAs and fishing activities on marine ecosystems and include stakeholder involvement at all stages of the planning, designation, and implementation of the MPA. Overcoming the limitations of existing MPAs to address fisheries challenges must entail the designation of MPAs with management plans that are categorically built around conservation objectives that lead to fisheries sustainability.
AB - The European Union (EU) Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 sets the target for protected areas in the EU at 30% of its sea area, one third of which needs to be strictly protected. While there is growing interest in studying the progress of ocean protection, there is a need for an overview of the status of marine protected areas (MPAs) and associated fishing activities in EU waters. This study identifies and characterises fishing activities within and surrounding more than 800 MPAs, and quantitatively assesses them to determine which fishing activities are compatible with MPA conservation objectives. Findings reveal that most MPAs allow some level of commercial or recreational exploitation of fisheries, which can include a range of fishing activities. Fishing activities are not necessarily incompatible with MPA conservation objectives, but this depends on the objectives and the type of fishing activity within MPAs. Using a case study approach, this study examines in more detail the spatial reallocation of fishing activities in response to MPA implementation in eight Member States, while also gathering and describing the perception of relevant stakeholders. The case studies demonstrate that MPA designation and implementation did not bring about any change in fishing behaviour. Changes in fisher behaviour, including fishing effort and landings, were evident only after specific fisheries regulations were put in place. Overall, all this information brought together within a single database, helps to improve the understanding of fishing activities in EU MPAs, while also providing the basis to inform future policy discussions. This work concludes that MPAs in the EU have not been established for fisheries management, but predominantly as a biodiversity conservation tool. The development of MPAs as a fisheries management tool will need to further consider and understand the broader impacts of no-take MPAs and fishing activities on marine ecosystems and include stakeholder involvement at all stages of the planning, designation, and implementation of the MPA. Overcoming the limitations of existing MPAs to address fisheries challenges must entail the designation of MPAs with management plans that are categorically built around conservation objectives that lead to fisheries sustainability.
U2 - 10.2926/9703241
DO - 10.2926/9703241
M3 - Report
BT - Mapping of marine protected areas and their associated fishing activities: Baltic and North Seas, Atlantic EU Western Waters and Outermost Regions (MAPAFISH)
PB - Publications Office of the European Union
ER -