Fish Thematic Assessment

Measures taken in the OSPAR Maritime Area to manage and conserve marine fish

Section summary for the OSPAR Maritime area:

• The dominant pressure on fish populations in the North-East Atlantic is the extraction of biomass through fishing activities, which lies outside OSPAR’s competence to manage; however, Article 4 of Annex V of the OSPAR Convention requires it to cooperate with other competent bodies, an explicit objective of the NEAES 2030.
• OSPAR has identified 22 fish species that are considered to be under threat and/or in decline in the North-East Atlantic and has taken national and collective actions to protect and conserve 21 of these species. 
• Fisheries management regulations have resulted in the harvesting of more fish stocks so as to move to levels considered sustainable, and a shift from fish stock management to an ecosystem perspective, with the introduction of measures to protect vulnerable habitats and species. However, concerns remain, including in relation to by-catch.

The section development has been supported by the collation of relevant measures: measures of relevance to fish communities included in this section

Section overview

This section describes the responses for minimising the effect of human activities, their resulting pressures or impacts on the ecosystem services, and the aim to improve the state of fish in the North-East Atlantic. These responses can include the development of policy, legislation, and measures to manage or regulate specific human activities or to mitigate impacts on ecosystem services.

The full diversity of fish species within the OSPAR Maritime Area is considered in this section. It is recognised that only a sub-set of these species is represented in the indicator assessments, while another sub-set of fish species has been nominated by OSPAR Contracting Parties as being of particular concern and thus listed as threatened and/or in decline.

The primary focus is on the responses adopted by the OSPAR Commission for implementing the Contracting Parties’ commitments under the OSPAR Convention and the strategic objectives of the North-East Atlantic Environment Strategy (NEAES) 2030. Article 22 of the OSPAR Convention requires that the Contracting Parties report to the OSPAR Commission at regular intervals on the steps they have taken to implement OSPAR Decisions and Recommendations, the effectiveness of those measures and the problems encountered in their implementation. This section aims to describe the progress made in implementing these measures and whether they are working in terms of achieving the ambitions set out in the NEAES 2030. The section attempts to set OSPAR’s responses in the wider policy context and to examine the responses of other competent organisations, where these are pertinent to fish in the context of the North-East Atlantic. This wider perspective is particularly important, given that the dominant pressure on fish populations in the North-East Atlantic is the extraction of biomass through fishing activities, which themselves lie outside of OSPAR’s competence to manage, as stated in Article 4, Annex V of the OSPAR Convention. 

There are several entry points within the NEAES 2030 for future action relating to fish, in particular:

Strategic Objective 5: Protect and conserve marine biodiversity, ecosystems and their services to achieve good status of species and habitats, and thereby maintain and strengthen ecosystem resilience. 

S5.O4: By 2025 at the latest OSPAR will take appropriate actions to prevent or reduce pressures to enable the recovery of marine species and benthic and pelagic habitats in order to reach and maintain good environmental status as reflected in relevant OSPAR status assessments, with action by 2023 to halt the decline of marine birds.

S5.O5: By 2025 OSPAR will have implemented all agreed measures to enable the recovery of OSPAR Listed threatened and/or declining species and habitats and will take additional measures as needed. 

S5.O6: Where the knowledge base is insufficient to achieve OSPAR’s biodiversity objectives, OSPAR will take action to improve regional coordination for collection and sharing of data, information and knowledge, with elasmobranchs as a priority by 2023. 

Strategic Objective 7: Ensure that uses of the marine environment are sustainable, through the integrated management of current and emerging human activities, including addressing their cumulative impacts. 

S7.O6: OSPAR will work with relevant competent authorities and other stakeholders to minimise, and where possible eliminate, incidental by-catch of marine mammals, birds, turtles and fish so that it does not represent a threat to the protection and conservation of these species and will work towards strengthening the evidence base concerning incidental by-catch by 2025. 

Cross-cutting issue: 

SX.O2: By 2024 OSPAR will initiate discussions on the development of a practical approach for regional-scale ecosystem-based management, including through the ‘Collective Arrangement’ and in cooperation with fisheries management bodies and other competent organisations, in order to strengthen ecosystem resilience to climate change and to safeguard the marine environment, its biodiversity and ecosystem services.

There are a number of linkages to other thematic assessments, including:

The reader is referred to the following feeder reports for additional information on some of the key human activities affecting fish:

Measures adopted by OSPAR

This section focuses on measures that have been adopted by OSPAR and draw on efforts to protect and conserve fish species of particular concern, including the establishment of an ecologically coherent and well managed network of Marine Protected Areas, as well as specific measures that OSPAR has adopted to address human activities and pressures and improve the conservation status of these species.

The implementation status of all OSPAR measures was reported in 2021: Implementation of OSPAR measures - A progress report.

Addressing fish species in decline and under threat in the North-East Atlantic

OSPAR Contracting Parties have identified 22 fish species that are of particular concern in the North-East Atlantic and included in the OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats (Agreement 2008-06) (the OSPAR List). The species listed include bony fish, sharks, skates and rays, commercially targeted species and those that are considered to be vulnerable– some highly mobile and others that tend to cluster.

The OSPAR List, which was first adopted in 2003 and updated in 2008 and 2021, guides the OSPAR Commission in setting priorities for its further work to conserve and protect marine biodiversity under Annex V to the OSPAR Convention. OSPAR Recommendations have been adopted for 21 of the listed fish species. The purpose of these Recommendations is to agree national and collective actions to strengthen the protection of the listed species, recover their status and ensure that they are effectively conserved in the OSPAR Maritime Area. A common understanding of the Recommendations was adopted in 2013 (Agreement 2013-13). The Recommendations are broad in nature, addressing a range of human activities and pressures. The actions to be taken nationally include steps to ensure appropriate national legislation for the protection of the listed fish species, consideration of how to strengthen the knowledge base, monitoring and assessment, steps to manage key human activities, calls for the designation of MPAs, and awareness raising. The collective actions include coordination of monitoring and assessment, enhanced knowledge exchange, collaboration and cooperation with relevant competent organisations in addressing key pressures such as fishing and shipping, and research. 

The most recent implementation reporting took place in 2019, with the next round due in 2025. A detailed overview of the scope and range of actions implemented in this reporting round can be found in the OSPAR Overview assessment of implementation reporting. The level of implementation of the Recommendations varies considerably. OSPAR Contracting Parties have reported progress in their implementation for 20 of the listed fish species. The reporting did not include measures for the houting, as the Recommendation on furthering the protection and conservation of houting was only adopted in 2021, or for the bluefin tuna, for which OSPAR has not adopted any measure.

Progress in implementation of national actions:

As stated in Article 4, Annex V of the Convention, OSPAR has agreed that no programme or measure concerning a question relating to the management of fisheries must be adopted under this Annex. However, where the Commission considers that action is desirable in relation to such a question, it must draw that question to the attention of the relevant competent authority or international body. Where action within the competence of the Commission is desirable to complement or support action by those authorities or bodies, the Commission must endeavour to cooperate with them. 

Given the limitations on the programmes and measures that can be adopted on questions relating to the management of fisheries, the reports relating to all the Recommendations on fish species refer to actions being undertaken through relevant competent authorities and that help to implement the respective Recommendations. Within the EU, fisheries management actions are implemented through the Common Fisheries Policy, for example the Deep-sea Access Regulation (2016/2336), and environmental objectives through the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). For diadromous species the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the EU Habitats Directive were also noted as relevant. Equivalent national measures are found in non-EU Member States. Outside national jurisdiction, reports cited the implementation of regulations under the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC).

For Bony fish the engagement of Contracting Parties in national-level implementation is focused on the places where these species are considered to be of concern. The various actions have included the enactment of national legislation, both to protect species and, in the cases of the allis shad and sea lamprey, also their habitats; regulations governing the keeping of non-native fish species used for cultural purposes, for example the sturgeon; restoration, recovery and restocking efforts for a number of diadromous fish species such as salmon, eel and shad; and the use of area-based management. The Netherlands has highlighted the importance of eel grass (Zostera spp) restoration as a precursor to the return of the long-snouted seahorse in its waters. The reporting indicated that the monitoring routines for bony fish species were generally well established. The restoration of commercial species such as cod is a regular part of fisheries management routines and progress has been reported in the development of routines for deep-water species such as orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus). 

Engagement and awareness-raising activities were reported for a number of species, including stakeholder meetings, awareness campaigns on species identification and stock status, the sharing of best fishing practice, and the production of guides, for example: 

• Allis shad identification and handling guide for fishers; 
• Identification guidelines to promote the release of sea lamprey from fishing gear;
• In Spain, a website for seahorse projects providing information on researchers to help share information and connect stakeholders: http://proyectohippocampus.iim.csic.es/proyectos.html.

Elasmobranchs There was very weak evidence of national measures being taken for highly mobile fish species such as elasmobranchs, partly because of reliance on fisheries management but also because of practical difficulties in targeting measures.  In these cases, the emphasis could be placed more on collective actions to engage with the NEAFC, the EU and other relevant fisheries management bodies and, for areas outside national jurisdiction, to build on cooperation through the Collective Arrangement.
One example of sub-national action is the Wales angel shark action plan. This was developed in recognition of this species’ sensitivity to accidental capture and its 58% decline in the Welsh and Irish waters that provide its key refuge.
Some EU Member States referred to having followed advice from ICES and the European Commission Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) to inform their management. For sharks, EU Member States refer to the EU bans on landing and retaining these species. Outside the EU, there are bans in place for several of the listed shark species, including leafscale gulper shark, porbeagle, spurdog and Portuguese dogfish. France and Spain reported using the EU MSFD as a framework for restoring populations of gulper sharks, and there were a number of examples of the use of MPAs as a conservation measure (see section: The OSPAR network of Marine Protected Areas). 

The reporting indicated a high level of monitoring and research activity being carried out to improve knowledge of the distribution, life histories and behaviour of listed elasmobranch species. This ranges from commissioning new research to improving regular data collections. Several Contracting Parties indicate that they are working to improve the data that they submit to ICES for species assessments.  

Some Contracting Parties are using population size, condition and distribution for sharks and rays as an indicator for MSFD reporting.  Data collection for some shark species appears to use a varied approach, drawing on research projects but also combining academic input with citizen science. 

Are these measures working?:

For the majority of OSPAR listed fish species, the status assessments suggest that the measures in place are having the desired effect of improving their conservation  status . For many of these species, fishing is the biggest threat, the regulation of which is outside OSPAR’s mandate. OSPAR Recommendations have generated a range of conservation actions at the national level, although it has been difficult to objectively assess the level of implementation of many, and at this stage it is not possible to state whether or not they have proven to be effective. The reporting has provided some good examples of other actions, such as awareness raising, including the development of identification guides and information campaigns. Several of these efforts were designed to help commercial fishers and on-board observers identify protected shark, skate and ray species and improve their reporting of by-catch. They include:

• HAROkit (http://www.vliz.be/nl/harokit): tools to support fishers to correctly identify sharks and rays; 
• Shark Trust identification guides for all shark species with the support of government bodies. Their web pages provide a range of information on shark species, including the angel shark (www.sharktrust.org);
• An identification guide of sharks, rays and skates developed by the Swedish Species Information Centre, on commission from the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management, to help in identifying different species of sharks, rays and skates and thus improve the reporting of incidental by-catch. The guide has been distributed to all commercial fishers in the Swedish part of the Greater North Sea (Region II).

The reporting also included suggestions for strengthening actions that conserve the habitats on which certain fish species depend, building on the example of conserving Zostera beds for the long-snouted seahorse.

The adoption of a Roadmap for the implementation of collective actions within the Recommendations for the protection and conservation of OSPAR listed Species and Habitats (2017-2025) (The Roadmap) has supported the implementation of collaborative efforts across thematic boundaries within OSPAR, as well as informing or supporting actions implemented at the national level. However, it is not yet possible to report on the impact or effectiveness of these collective actions.

To improve our understanding of a measure’s effectiveness, it is necessary to be able to track whether a response is reducing the human activity or pressure of concern, and whether that in turn results in an improvement in the status of the species in question. Progress is being made in understanding the linkages between activities, pressures and status, but there remain a number of challenges that limit the ability to determine whether or not the measures are effective: the need for more spatial data to fill large gaps, especially for beyond the coastal zone; the fact that the Recommendations address many actions – some specific, others more general, making it difficult to link cause and effect for individual actions and to determine where more effort could have the greatest effect; and finally, the need to take into account the time lag between taking an action and confirming whether it is having the desired effect. This time lag depends on a number of factors specific to each species' life history.

A number of the OSPAR listed fish species also feature in listings under other regional and global instruments, including the Prohibited Fish Species Lists under legislation within the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List (2010), the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (for EU Member States transposed into Council Regulation 338/97), the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) and the EU Red List. Where there are overlaps in the species listings, this is identified in the relevant OSPAR Recommendation. The EU Habitats Directive is relevant for a very small number of diadromous fish, with crossover for two species on the OSPAR List, namely sturgeon (Acipenser sturio) and houting (Coregonus oxyrhynchus), and emphasis placed on the freshwater phase of the lifecycle.

Inclusion of listed fish species within Environmental Impact Assessments

Consideration of the approval of marine licences for certain activities and projects must include some kind of environmental impact assessment (EIA). In 2010 OSPAR adopted Recommendation 2010-05, with the aim of ensuring that the features of the OSPAR List are specifically taken into consideration when environmental impact assessments (EIAs) of human activities are prepared. The most recent reporting on the implementation of Recommendation 2010/05 took place in 2020. Contracting Parties that are EU Member States reported that they give effect to this Recommendation through national legislation adopted to implement the EU Environmental Impact Directive (2014/52/EU). Some Contracting Parties also point to other relevant legislation that complements their EIA and strategic environmental assessment (SEA) obligations.  For example, the EU Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC), including the Natura 2000 network and the Habitats Directive assessments, as a requirement for any plan or project likely to have an effect on a protected site, and the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC). The United Kingdom Fisheries Act contains an obligation to minimise and where possible eliminate by-catch of sensitive marine species. It encompasses the relevant species in the OSPAR List and covers the significant human impact of fisheries. Another example is the EU Deep-sea Access Regulation (2016/2336), which requires an EIA for exploratory fishing in areas where fisheries have not previously existed.

Is the measure working?:

Overall, the approach of using EIA and SEA legislation is an important mechanism to promote the protection of OSPAR listed threatened and/or declining species and habitats. The fact that the OSPAR List (Agreement 2008-06) and OSPAR Recommendation 2010/05 are non-binding can mean that effective implementation is dependent on overlaps with national practice.

Current reporting on the application of Recommendation 2010/05 focuses on the extent to which species and habitats on the OSPAR List are expressly included within the scope of EIAs/SEAs; it is not possible to determine whether these assessments have resulted in effective mitigation measures or otherwise resulted in the reduction of impacts, and this could be a useful area for further good practice sharing. Lack of knowledge about the distribution and status of habitats has been identified as a practical barrier. 

Within the NEAES 2030 (S5.O3), OSPAR will establish a mechanism by 2024 to provide that, where Contracting Parties are authorising human activities under their jurisdiction or control that may conflict with the conservation objectives of OSPAR MPAs in the ABNJ, those activities are subjected to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA).

The OSPAR network of Marine Protected Areas

Within OSPAR, Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are understood as areas for which protective, conservation, restorative or precautionary measures have been instituted for the purpose of protecting and conserving species, habitats, ecosystems or ecological processes in the marine environment. In 2003, OSPAR adopted Recommendation 2003/03 to establish an ecologically coherent and well managed network of MPAs; this was then amended in 2010. By 1 October 2021, the OSPAR network of MPAs numbered 583, including eight that had been collectively designated in ABNJs. The network of MPAs has a total surface area of 1 468 053 km², covering 10,8% of the OSPAR Maritime Area, thus achieving the spatial coverage component of Aichi Biodiversity target 11 of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Sustainable Development Goal 14, target 14.5, namely, to conserve at least 10% of coastal and marine areas by 2020. See:  Report and assessment of the status of the OSPAR network of Marine Protected Areas in 2021

MPAs as a response for the conservation of fish species:

Concerning other mobile species, MPAs are a tool forming part of a wider suite of management measures. MPAs offer the potential to reduce or remove activities and pressures in those critical locations that may have implications for the conservation status of fish species, with particular focus on vulnerable species that have clumped or discrete population distributions. Examples reported within this species grouping included the designation of MPAs for seahorses, lamprey, common skate complex and cod. MPAs also play an important role in creating migratory corridors for highly mobile fish species.

MPAs are the only explicit management measure within the EU MSFD. OSPAR’s work can add value to fish species conservation through the development of an ecologically coherent and well-managed network of MPAs within and beyond areas of national jurisdiction, with particular focus on vulnerable species such as large elasmobranchs (skates, rays, angel shark, etc.) or species with clumped or discrete population distributions such as the seahorse or sea lamprey.

The Recommendations for the conservation and protection of fish species listed as threatened and/or declining by OSPAR include an action to consider sites that might justify selection as Marine Protected Areas for populations of these species. 

The 2019 implementation reporting against these Recommendations identified a number of examples of action taken by OSPAR Contracting Parties at the national level. Seven Contracting Parties have designated MPAs with sea lamprey as a qualifying feature; coherent protection and management of estuaries and rivers was noted as a key factor in the case for this species. One Contracting Party reflected that its inland fisheries management authority is implementing a lamprey reporting project that may drive future site selection. Six Contracting Parties have shad as a designated feature at multiple MPAs, including areas important to that species for foraging, breeding and migration. 

There was evidence of national MPA measures being taken for skate species in the United Kingdom and in Spain, where two marine areas relevant to thornback ray have been protected (El Cachucho MPA-SAC and Banco de Galicia SCI) and included in the OSPAR MPA network. No sites have been selected for the common skate complex.

Contracting Parties expressed differing views regarding the implementation of MPAs for the protection and conservation of shark species. In the main, Contracting Parties reported that these species are highly mobile or occur in very low numbers, or that it had not been possible to identify critical habitat and MPA designation was therefore not considered suitable. The United Kingdom was undertaking consultation on a proposed MPA to protect basking shark, but the outcome was not reported. Spain reported MPAs in its waters that are relevant to some shark species, including the Portuguese dogfish, the leafscale gulper shark and the gulper shark.

Ecological coherence of the OSPAR MPA network for fish species:

The criteria for understanding whether the MPA network can be considered ecologically coherent include how well represented the OSPAR listed marine fish species are within the network (representativity) and the number of MPAs where these species occur (replication) – see Table R.1. This factor can help identify where the network may need to be further strengthened; it is not presented as an assessment of the measures in place or of their implementation. For widely distributed and/or highly migratory species, MPAs may need to be sufficiently large to encompass the species’ entire distribution. In this instance, other means to regulate fishing mortality would be appropriate.

The one out, all out principle applies, so that, if there is either insufficient representativity or replication within the network for one region where the species is under threat and/or decline, the ecological coherence criterion is not met. Only four of the 20 species of fish listed by OSPAR as threatened and/or declining (with Recommendations in place) are considered to be adequately represented and replicated by the OSPAR MPA network. Attention is required across all OSPAR Regions, to varying degrees.

Table R.1: Overview of the ecological coherence (representation and replication) of threatened and declining fish species within the OSPAR MPA network (Source: Table 2.6 of the 2021 MPA status assessment)

Key:

The number indicates MPAs where a species is identified as a conservation objective.

*Recommendation pending

Management status of the OSPAR MPA network:

At the 2010 OSPAR Ministerial Meeting in Bergen, Norway, OSPAR ministers committed to ensuring that the OSPAR MPA network is well managed, namely that coherent management measures have been set up and are being implemented to achieve the conservation objectives of the protected features of OSPAR MPAs. While there is no formal agreement on what constitutes ‘well managed’ in terms of an MPA, four questions have been posed to help understand the progress of implementation: whether the MPA management has been documented, whether measures to achieve the conservation objectives of the MPA are being implemented, whether monitoring is in place to assess if the measures are working and, finally, whether the MPA is moving towards its intended conservation objectives.

OSPAR has made progress in managing the MPA network. The 2021 status assessment showed that 88% of OSPAR MPAs have either full or partial management information in place which is publicly documented. The report showed a 17% rise in the implementation of measures considered to be required to achieve conservation objectives, signifying an overall 83% increase since assessments began in 2016. Another area of improvement is the increase in monitoring to detect progress made towards achieving conservation objectives. The assessment showed that 75% of OSPAR MPAs have either full or partial monitoring programmes in place, albeit these are largely based on the ability to monitor sea users’ compliance with the rules and regulations associated with OSPAR MPAs, as opposed to direct site condition monitoring, which is costly. Nearly half of OSPAR MPAs are thought to be moving towards achieving their conservation objectives. It is important to note that this percentage has increased over time, from 36%, then 44% and 49%, in 2016, 2018 and 2021, respectively. Despite improvements in understanding the management status of the MPA network, it is still difficult to determine whether the protected features of the OSPAR MPAs are moving towards their conservation objectives owing to lack of site-specific information or long-term monitoring programmes, as noted above.  

Future OSPAR work should focus on implementing the management measures considered necessary to achieve the conservation objectives of the protected features of MPAs. In parallel, there is a need to establish long-term monitoring programmes to evaluate the effectiveness of management measures and be able to conclude with greater confidence whether the conservation objectives of the protected features of MPAs are being achieved. In addition, work should progress on improving methods of evaluating the degree to which the OSPAR MPA network is capable of managing a more sophisticated assessment of whether the network is delivering a genuine conservation benefit to targeted habitats, species and ecological processes, as well as to the wider marine environment.

Regarding OSPAR MPAs in ABNJs, Contracting Parties are committed to coordinating on MPA objectives through their national delegations to other relevant competent organisations. There should be continued effort to further the Collective Arrangement (OSPAR Agreement 2014-09) and to cooperate through other mechanisms, such as Memoranda of Understanding, with relevant competent authorities, enabling them to consider the appropriate management actions to help deliver the conservation objectives for OSPAR MPAs in ABNJs.   

Is this measure working?:

OSPAR is progressing towards key metrics in terms of area-based protection; however, there are still gaps in geographic coverage (particularly in the Arctic region), ecological coherence and in the understanding of whether or not management is effective. The 2030 North-East Atlantic Environment Strategy (NEAES 2030) commits the Contracting Parties to further development of the OSPAR network of MPAs and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) by 2030, in order to cover at least 30% of the OSPAR Maritime Area and ensure that it is representative, ecologically coherent and effectively managed to achieve its conservation objectives (Objective S5.O1 of the NEAES 2030). This ambition is in line with the global target under negotiation within the Convention on Biological Diversity. 

The OSPAR mandate is restricted when it comes to the management of certain human activities such as fisheries. Here, effective implementation relies on action by the Contracting Parties for areas within national jurisdiction, and with other competent organisations in areas beyond national jurisdiction. However, the common ambition of a regionally coherent network is important and brings useful attention to the protection of threatened and /or declining habitats. Under the NEAES 2030, OSPAR has committed to establishing a mechanism by 2024 to provide that, where Contracting Parties are authorising human activities under their jurisdiction or control that may conflict with the conservation objectives of OSPAR MPAs in ABNJs, those activities are subjected to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA).

The requirement for regular reporting provides a valuable mechanism for tracking progress and accountability. There is, however, a need to continue improving the availability of data relating to the OSPAR MPA network in order to inform those responsible for managing the various human activities in the marine environment. This includes providing information on protected features, and the management plans that are in place, and the development necessary in order to deliver on NEAES S11.O2: “By 2023, and every six years thereafter, OSPAR will assess at a regional scale the OSPAR network of marine protected areas in respect of the resilience of marine biodiversity to climate change, with the aim of ensuring that the network provides a good representation of species and habitats and that its spatial design and management regime remains relevant.”

Understanding the management effectiveness of the MPAs within the network and of the network itself, remains an important gap to address. By 2022, OSPAR has committed to identifying barriers to the effective management of MPAs and, by 2024, to taking steps to address them appropriately to enable all OSPAR MPAs to achieve their conservation objectives (NEAES S5.O2).

Other OSPAR measures responding to relevant human activities and pressures

Fish and shellfish harvesting (professional, recreational) [Extraction of living resources]:
The Collective Arrangement between competent international organisations on cooperation and coordination regarding selected areas in areas beyond national jurisdiction in the North-East Atlantic (Collective Arrangement, OSPAR Agreement 2014-09) is a formal agreement between legally competent authorities with responsibility for managing human activities in the Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJs) in the North-East Atlantic. To date, the Arrangement has been adopted by the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) and the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) and focuses on selected geographic areas. In the case of OSPAR, the Arrangement applies to MPAs designated outside national jurisdiction, and in the case of the NEAFC, it applies to certain areas with fishery closures. The respective organisations maintain a list of these areas in Annex 1 to the Arrangement. There is a strong overlap in these geographic regions enabling each to act within its own field of competence in a manner that is coherent and complementary. 

The Collective Arrangement has successfully provided a framework for productive dialogue not only between OSPAR and the NEAFC, but also with other relevant competent organisations. In 2017, a joint commitment was submitted, under target 4.c of SDG 14, which commits both secretariats to further promoting the Collective Arrangement and widening its collaborative scope with the secretariats of other intergovernmental organisations and bodies in other regions and sectors.

Please refer to Important measures taken by other competent bodies for more information about measures implemented by other competent organisations relevant to OSPAR’s work,  OSPAR Feeder Report 2021 - Fisheries and to Gaps and opportunities to read more about the gaps and opportunities for OSPAR under the NEAES 2030.

Renewable energy generation (wind, wave and tidal power), including infrastructure, Nuclear energy and, Transmission of electricity and communications (cables) [Production of energy]:

OSPAR Feeder Report 2021 – Offshore Renewable Energy Generation
Commitments to increase renewable energy production are leading to the rapid and, in some areas, extensive development of marine renewable infrastructure. In 2008, OSPAR produced guidance on the environmental considerations for offshore wind farm development (OSPAR 2008-03). This guidance is intended to help approval authorities identify issues that might be associated with the environmental impacts of development at all stages of operation and decommissioning, including the avoidance of impacts on fish at their different life stages. In the case of fish, the siting of structures should avoid essential habitats such as nursery zones, spawning grounds and migration routes. Food webs could also be impacted by fish aggregation, collision risks, electromagnetic fields from cables, and behavioural responses to noise, although all of these require further research and monitoring.

The guidance also refers to other measures relevant to managing the impacts of renewable energy infrastructure development, including the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (2014/52/EU).  A 2020 survey of OSPAR Contracting Parties showed that the offshore wind guidance was generally being fully implemented or that implementation was in progress, although not all Contracting Parties provided information for the survey. OSPAR also maintains a database of individual marine renewable developments, including tidal and wave as well as offshore wind. 

For OSPAR Contracting Parties that are also EU Member States, the European Commission’s offshore renewable energy strategy (2020/741) refers to the Birds and Habitats Directives to ensure that developments do not have negative impacts on listed species or habitats, and that any potential impacts are reduced or minimised. Guidance has been developed under the EU (Commission notice (2020) 7730) as well as the Wildlife Sensitivity Mapping Manual, which provides practical guidance for renewable energy planning within the European Union. OSPAR’s NEAES 2030 states: “By 2023, OSPAR will develop common principles and by 2024 develop guidance to promote and facilitate sustainable development and scaling up of offshore renewable energy in a way that cumulative environmental impacts are minimised.” (S12.O4).

Extraction of oil and gas, including infrastructure and Extraction of minerals [Extraction of non-living resources]:

OSPAR Feeder Report 2021 - Extraction of non-living resources
Aggregate extraction: Management of aggregate extraction is carried out in accordance with ICES (and OSPAR) guidelines (OSPAR Agreement 2014-06), which ICES considers fit for purpose). However, the ICES guidelines are subject to a forthcoming review.

Coastal defence and flood protection, Land claim, Canalisation and other water course modifications, and Restructuring of seabed morphology, including dredging and depositing of materials [Physical]:  
The dredging and the dumping of waste and other matter has been well regulated since the Oslo Convention came into force in 1974. OSPAR has adopted Guidelines for the management of dredged material at sea (Agreement 2014-06), designed to assist Contracting Parties in managing dredged material in ways that will prevent and eliminate pollution in accordance with Annex II to the 1992 OSPAR Convention, and to protect marine species and habitats in the OSPAR Maritime Area in accordance with Annex V. These set out a Best Environmental Practice approach for minimising both the amount of material dredged and the impacts of dredging and disposal. The Guidelines include specific information on appropriate placement of dredged material in relation to the OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats (OSPAR Agreement 2008-06). National authorities use the Guidelines to manage dredging and dumping and to minimise effects on the marine environment; they serve as a tool that Contracting Parties which are also EU Member States can use to manage dredged material that is subject to current European Directives (such as Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC, Marine Strategy Framework Directive 2008/56/EC, the Natura 2000 areas under the Birds and Habitat Directives 2009/147/EC and 92/43/EEC). Directive 2008/98/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on Waste (the Waste Framework Directive) has also been identified by Contracting Parties as having implications for the management of dredged material, in addition to relevant national legislation.

Since 2000, the assessment and licensing procedures for dredged materials in most OSPAR countries have included action levels for contaminant loads based on the OSPAR Guidelines. Since 1998, OSPAR has also had guidelines in place on the dumping of fish waste (OSPAR Agreement 1998-21). The management of dredged material should respect natural processes of sediment balance. Selecting the appropriate location for a dumpsite is essential for minimising environmental impact. Several dumpsites have been relocated by applying the OSPAR Guidelines. For example, a planned site in the Weser estuary was relocated after a site survey detected a mussel bank. Dumpsites have also been relocated or closed to avoid impacts on MPAs, fisheries and shipping. The ban on dumping vessels or aircraft has been implemented successfully. 

A report on the use of the OSPAR Guidelines for the management of dredged material at sea was presented to OSPAR’s Environmental Impacts of Human Activities Committee (EIHA) in 2020. Contracting Parties reported that the guidelines were being fully implemented in the majority of the OSPAR Maritime Area (§6.46 OSPAR Feeder Report 2021 - Shipping). Under the NEAES 2030, OSPAR will assess, review and potentially revise the OSPAR criteria, guidelines and procedures relating to the dumping of wastes or other matter and to the placement of matter by 2023 (S7.O4).

Marine litter

OSPAR Marine Litter Thematic Assessment

Marine litter has the potential to detrimentally impact both fish populations and fishery activities, and fishery activities also provide a pathway for the introduction of marine litter. 
The first OSPAR Regional Action Plan for Marine Litter contained a range of national and common actions to be taken by OSPAR Contracting Parties to combat marine litter (OSPAR Agreement 2014-01). In 2022 OSPAR adopted the Second Regional Action Plan for Marine Litter (OSPAR Agreement 2022-05) and will continue the work to prevent and significantly reduce marine litter in the North-East Atlantic. It incorporates an action to build an evidence base for understanding harm and developing appropriate measures; an action to prevent abandoned, lost and discarded fishing gear; continued support for the Fishing For Litter initiative (Recommendation 2016/01); a scheme that works with key stakeholders to remove marine litter from the sea and the seabed; and actions to implement and progress awareness raising, including a recommendation on sustainability education programmes for fishers (OSPAR Recommendation 2019/01).

The  OSPAR Marine Litter Thematic Assessment reports that there are positive signs of a decrease in the quantities of litter found on OSPAR beaches and of floating litter in the North Sea over the last 10 years. When considered against the upward trend in plastic production and consumption in Europe over a similar period, this suggests that progress has been made in preventing plastics from entering the marine environment. The successful implementation of OSPAR’s Second Regional Action Plan will be crucial to building and maintaining the momentum for achieving OSPAR’s objective to prevent inputs of and significantly reduce marine litter.

Other relevant activities

There are a number of other human activities with relevance to the status of fish populations on which OSPAR has not taken measures. These include tourism and leisure infrastructure and leisure activities. Urban and industrial uses, transport, dredging aspects relating to shipping, and infrastructure are included under coastal defence, land claim and other considerations. Responses relating to aquaculture are referred to in Important measures taken by other competent bodies below.

Important measures taken by other competent bodies

This section highlights measures taken by other competent bodies that are relevant for improving the status of fish in the North-East Atlantic. As stated above, the extraction of fish biomass through fisheries activities is the most significant human activity affecting the status of fish populations in the North-East Atlantic and is the focus of this section.

General conservation measures

Under the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC), biodiversity-related aspects of fish are reported under Descriptor 1 (Biodiversity), with some aspects of fish community status included under Descriptor 4 (Food webs). Commercial fish species are reported under MSFD Descriptor 3 (Commercial fish and shellfish), which specifically addresses the impact of fishing activities on target species, and under which the goal of Good Environmental Status (GES) is deemed to have been reached when: “Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock”. Descriptor 6 is also relevant, as it relates to the structure and function of the seafloor and benthic ecosystems, important for supporting many fish species. There are established connections between the MSFD and the Common Fisheries Policy in its latest form. 

Fish and shellfish harvesting (professional, recreational) and Hunting and collecting for other purposes [Extraction of living resources]:

OSPAR Feeder Report 2021 - Fisheries
As noted above, OSPAR does not itself have the competence to address questions relating to the management of fisheries. However, given that this is the most important human activity affecting fish communities, OSPAR maintains a watching brief on responses taken to address fisheries management by the relevant competent organisations. 

Fisheries management responses are set within the context of the global framework for fisheries management and the common principles set out in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UN, 1982 (known as UNCLOS)), which includes a call for a maximum sustainable yield (MSY) approach to managing fisheries; the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UN, 1992a (known as UNCED)), including Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 which highlights a precautionary approach. The United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement of 1995 (UN, 1995 (known as the UNFSA)) and the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for responsible fisheries also call for a precautionary approach. 

Within the North-East Atlantic, the key responses are the national fisheries management legislation of those Contracting Parties that are not EU Member States and the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) for those Contracting Parties that are also EU Member States. Also, the Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) manage particular aspects of fisheries within the North-East Atlantic, including the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), which regulates certain fisheries outside of national jurisdiction, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO).

The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP, 1380/2013 as amended by 2017/2092) is a set of rules for sustainably managing European fishing fleets and conserving fish stocks. Sitting within the CFP and important in its own right is the Regulation on the conservation of fishery resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through a set of technical measures, adopted in 2019 (2019/1241). It provides for important measures regulating by-catch, vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) and the conservation of commercial fish. The Regulation sets out technical measures concerning: (a) the taking and landing of marine biological resources; (b) the operation of fishing gear; and (c) the interaction of fishing activities with marine ecosystems, including the use of closed areas, the prohibition of catches of certain species and regulations on gear.  While the primary role of the Regulation is to support CFP implementation, it also aligns with the objectives of EU conservation regulations including the Habitats Directive, the Birds Directive, and the MSFD.

All the non-EU coastal states in the OSPAR Maritime Area have fisheries management regulations analogous to those under the EU CFP. These coastal states are Iceland, Denmark in respect of the Faroe Islands and Greenland, the United Kingdom and Norway. In addition, the NEAFC is responsible for the regulation of high seas fisheries (those beyond coastal states’ exclusive economic zones). Case Study from Benthic TA: – The Norwegian national measures for holistic management of open seas marine ecosystems, including benthic habitats

Examples of responses to address by-catch: NEAFC has implemented a number of measures relating to by-catch and discards. The unregulated use of gillnets in deep water is potentially damaging to deep-water stocks owing to excessive soak times and consequent high discard levels, and the long-term impact of lost or abandoned gears. Accordingly, until measures are adopted by the NEAFC to regulate these fisheries, vessels operating in the NEAFC Regulatory Area are not allowed to deploy gillnets, entangling nets or trammel nets at any position where the charted depth is greater than 200 m. All such nets have been removed from the NEAFC Regulatory Area since 1 February 2006. In 2010 the NEAFC adopted a discard ban which was subsequently extended in 2023, with each Contracting Party ensuring that its fishing vessels operating in the Regulatory Area are prohibited from discarding or releasing catches of any of the species listed in the binding Recommendation. The NEAFC also bans the targeting of the following deep-water species on the OSPAR List: gulper shark, leafscale gulper shark, Portuguese dogfish, porbeagle, and basking shark. Article 7 of the NEAFC Scheme of Enforcement requires a series of actions to be taken by NEAFC Contracting Parties in order to reduce abandoned, lost or discarded fishing gear, marine debris, and by-catch through ghost gear.  

Management and conservation of deep-sea fisheries: There are examples of responses to manage impacts on habitats or species that are particularly vulnerable. These measures are informed by ICES scientific advice, and there is strong alignment between its list of vulnerable species and habitats and the deep-sea species and habitats on the OSPAR List.  The NEAFC has had in place measures to protect Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems from bottom fishing since 2005. These measures, including restricted and closed areas, are consolidated in Recommendation 19:2014, as amended. The NEAFC also has an approach in place to protect deep-sea stocks from unsustainable exploitation, in the form of the NEAFC Approach to Conservation and Management of deep-sea species (2016) combined with the Deep-Sea Fisheries Recommendation, 9:2018. Furthermore, EU 2016/2336 Regulation (EU) 2016/2336 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2016 aligns with the relevant resolutions of the UN General Assembly, in particular Resolutions 61/105 and 64/72. It sets out specific measures for regulating fishing in the deep seas as well as the international waters of the North-East Atlantic and is known as the Deep-sea Regulation. It aims to improve knowledge and prevent adverse impacts on VMEs, thus ensuring the long-term conservation of deep-sea fish stocks.

NEAFC has also implemented a series of recommendations on vulnerable species of concern to OSPAR. For example, Recommendation 2020-08 focuses on the conservation and management of the basking shark, prohibiting directed fishing and requiring release. These recommendations are based on the advice of the ICES and reviewed periodically. 

IUU fishing: Illegal, unregulated or unreported fishing activity (IUU), in contravention of fisheries agreements and management regimes, poses a significant global threat to fish stocks and the wider ocean ecosystem. Globally, the OSPAR Contracting Parties (whether individually or within the EU) are parties to the FAO Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (PSMA), which came into force in 2016. NEAFC implements a Port State Control system which preceded the PSMA and is aligned with or exceeds its minimum standards. This sets out measures which parties must apply when foreign vessels seek entry into ports, thus blocking the marketing of fish captured by IUU fishing (more information in FAO, 2023). Within the OSPAR Maritime Area, the controls on IUU fishing include the following:

• In the NEAFC area, non-Contracting Party fishing vessels appearing to engage in IUU activities are placed on lists of concern. Investigations are made into vessels on the NEAFC’s ‘A list’; if there are no extenuating circumstances, the vessel is placed on the ‘B list’. Vessels on the B list face severe restrictions on their activity in the NEAFC area, and potentially beyond (NEAFC, 2020).
• In the EU, Regulation 1005/2008, establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, came into force in 2010, to ensure that only fishery products certified as legal can be imported into or exported from the European Union.
• In the Arctic, a new agreement to prevent unregulated high-seas fisheries in the central Arctic Ocean was signed in 2018 by Arctic coastal states (Norway, Canada, Denmark, Russia and the United States), the EU, Iceland, China, Japan and the Republic of Korea. The parties will not allow their own vessels to fish in the international part of the central Arctic Ocean until international conservation and management measures have been established; this applies for an initial period of 16 years once the agreement comes into force and can be extended. Part of this area is already covered by NEAFC management measures (see NEAFC, 2018).

The use of Sustainability indices: The certification of fisheries highlights the sustainability credentials of a fishery and communicates that designation through the supply chain, including to consumers. The most widespread scheme is that operated by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). This takes account of the sustainability of fish stocks, environmental impacts, and effective fisheries management. For example, a fishery cannot be certified if it causes significant or long-term damage to seafloor habitats or other vulnerable marine ecosystems. According to MSC’s annual report for 2018-19, the proportion of the total fishing catch in the North-East Atlantic that is MSC certified is in the range 40-60% (Marine Stewardship Council, 2020). Fisheries added to the MSC certification list and mentioned in recent reports include the Faroe Islands ling and tusk fishery, and the Russian red king crab fishery in the Barents Sea (Marine Stewardship Council, 2019a). Fisheries can also have their MSC certification suspended.

Marine aquaculture, Freshwater aquaculture, Agriculture and Forestry [Cultivation of living resources]:
Aquaculture is a driver of the status of fish populations: planktivorous fish are harvested and used to feed farmed fish. Disease and parasites are also issues of concern. Within the EU, Regulation EU 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 is concerned with transmissible animal diseases and amending and repealing certain acts in the area of animal health (Animal Health Law). It has superseded the Aquatic Animal Health Directive (2006/88/EC) and regulates animal health issues in aquaculture establishments in relation to certain species taken from the wild into captivity, as well as parasite control in farmed fish.

Regional differences

Fisheries represent the most significant impact on the status of fish communities across the OSPAR Maritime Area. Fisheries management has been implemented at national or regional scale in all OSPAR Regions, including in areas outside of national jurisdiction.

Additional human activities are focused more on coastal areas of the Greater North Sea and Celtic Seas, with potential for cumulative effects. The anticipated increase in offshore renewable energy development, particularly in the Greater North Sea, is likely to indirectly reduce the pressure from fishing activities in this region.

Gaps and opportunities

Are we doing enough?:

With the exception of some skates and rays, most of the OSPAR listed fish species are assessed as having poor status, and there are still gaps in the OSPAR MPA network for almost all of the fish species on the OSPAR List. The coverage is considered as being ecologically coherent for only houting, long-snouted seahorses, allis shad and salmon, among the species for which MPAs may be a useful management tool.

Fisheries management regulations have resulted in the harvesting of more fish stocks to levels considered sustainable, and a shift from fish stock management to an ecosystem perspective, including the introduction of measures to protect vulnerable habitats and species. However, concerns remain in relation to by-catch, the need to integrate concepts of ecosystem function into fisheries management regulation, such as the idea of trophic cascades, and how management regimes can take account of the impact of fisheries on the pelagic habitat and food webs. Further work to progress the alignment of fisheries management and environmental protection responses is also required.

Climate change has important implications for fish communities and stocks, including changes in recruitment and productivity and range shifts, with implications for management. The focus for these actions lies outside OSPAR’s remit, but underlies all other responses.

Are there other types of responses that could be undertaken by OSPAR to improve the status of fish communities?:

Two key objectives of the NEAES 2030 are particularly relevant. First, as a cross-cutting issue, OSPAR will initiate discussions on the development of a practical approach for regional-scale ecosystem-based management, including through the ‘Collective Arrangement’ and in cooperation with fisheries management bodies and other competent organisations, in order to strengthen ecosystem resilience to climate change and to safeguard the marine environment, its biodiversity and ecosystem services (SX.O2). 

In addition, OSPAR will work with relevant competent authorities and other stakeholders to minimise, and where possible eliminate, incidental by-catch of marine mammals, birds, turtles and fish so that it does not represent a threat to the protection and conservation of these species and will work towards strengthening the evidence base concerning incidental by-catch by 2025 (S7.O6). This will give increased attention to the effects of incidental by-catch, including for protected fish species; OSPAR should take into consideration relevant by-catch studies conducted in the framework of OSPAR, the European Commission and ICES and their conclusions to come.

Other areas for potential OSPAR response could include:

• Progressing the work on understanding the management effectiveness of MPAs, and sharing experience and best practice on management actions that best achieve the conservation objectives as related to fish communities; 
• Mitigation responses to support job changes in areas where the fishing industry has declined;
• Restoring certain habitats to produce co-benefits for some fish species. OSPAR Benthic Habitats Thematic Assessment ;
• Studying the implications of removing fish from the wild (wrasse and lumpfish) for use as cleaner fish to manage parasite levels in farmed fish, including the genetic interaction of escaped cleaner fish; this has been identified by ICES as worthy of further investigation (ICES, 2020).