Responses to improve the state of marine food webs
Food webs are the umbrella that connects all biodiversity components from primary producers to apex predators, and their various interactions and energy transfers across trophic levels must be taken into account. Understanding food web structure and changes is critical in order to formulate policy that can lead to appropriate management responses. Responses that address climate change, fishing and pollution, in particular eutrophication, have been identified as important for supporting good environmental status of ecosystems representing food webs in the North-East Atlantic. Because of these complex networks of interactions, pressures and management responses can have both direct and indirect effects on living organisms, leading to cascading effects along the food chains. This is why it is crucial to adopt an integrated view of the food webs which gives global consideration to this complexity.
There are opportunities for OSPAR to strengthen its response to support food webs, including by taking a broader ecosystem approach to the implementation of actions to strengthen the status of OSPAR listed species and habitats and by further developing the OSPAR MPA network, including OECMs, and implementing the strategic objectives to address eutrophication. Strengthening cooperation with those bodies that have competence for managing human activities outside of OSPARs mandate will be critical to success.
Food webs are the umbrella that connects all biodiversity components from primary producers to apex predators, and their various interactions and energy transfers across trophic levels must be taken into account. Understanding food web structure and changes is critical in order to formulate policy that can lead to appropriate management responses. Responses that address climate change, fishing and pollution, in particular eutrophication, have been identified as important for supporting good environmental status of ecosystems representing food webs in the North-East Atlantic. Because of these complex networks of interactions, pressures and management responses can have both direct and indirect effects on living organisms, leading to cascading effects along the food chains. This is why it is crucial to adopt an integrated view of the food webs which gives global consideration to this complexity.
There are opportunities for OSPAR to strengthen its response to support food webs, including by taking a broader ecosystem approach to the implementation of actions to strengthen the status of OSPAR listed species and habitats and by further developing the OSPAR MPA network, including OECMs, and implementing the strategic objectives to address eutrophication. Strengthening cooperation with those bodies that have competence for managing human activities outside of OSPARs mandate will be critical to success.
Section overview
This section describes the responses to minimise the effect of human activities and their resulting pressures or impacts on the ecosystem services, and the efforts to improve the state of food webs 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.
Food webs are the umbrella that connects all biodiversity components from primary producer to apex predator, and their various interactions and energy transfers across trophic levels must be taken into account. Understanding food web structure and changes is critical in order to formulate policy that can lead to appropriate management responses. Responses that address climate change, fishing and pollution, in particular eutrophication, have been identified as important for supporting good environmental status of food webs in the North-East Atlantic (Machado et al., 2021).
This section considers the responses taken to ensure the maintenance of healthy and functioning food webs across all regions of the OSPAR Maritime Area, including those in the coastal and shelf seas as well as deep seas within and outside national jurisdiction. In many cases, the objective of sustaining functioning food webs is not expressed explicitly as measures, but rather presented implicitly in the context of applying the ecosystem approach, one of the core principles guiding the work of the OSPAR Commission.
The primary focus is on responses that have been adopted by the OSPAR Commission to implement the Contracting Parties’ commitments under the OSPAR Convention and the strategic objectives of the North-East Atlantic Environment Strategy. Article 22 of the OSPAR Convention requires the Contracting Parties to 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 the implementation of these measures and whether these measures are working in terms of achieving the ambitions set out in the North-East Atlantic Environment Strategy (NEAES) 2030. The section attempts to set OSPAR’s responses in the wider policy context and looks at responses by other competent organisations, where these address food webs in the context of the North-East Atlantic.
In NEAES 2030, safeguarding ecosystem function and resilience features in three of the 12 strategic objectives and is implied in others that aim to avoid adverse effects on the marine environment.
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;
Strategic Objective 6: Restore degraded benthic habitats in the North-East Atlantic when practicable to safeguard their ecosystem function and resilience to climate change and ocean acidification;
Strategic Objective 9: Safeguard the structure and functions of the seabed/marine ecosystems by preventing significant habitat loss and physical disturbance due to human activities.
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 cross-linkages to these thematic assessments, including all biodiversity thematic assessments:
The reader is referred to the following feeder reports for additional information on some of the key human activities affecting food webs:
Responses addressing the State of marine food webs
OSPAR has not adopted any specific measures with the explicit objective of supporting the state, function or resilience of food webs. There are, however, several examples of measures that could have particular relevance to ecosystem function and resilience.
The implementation status of all OSPAR Measures was reported on in 2021: Implementation of OSPAR Measures, A Progress Report.
Addressing species and habitats in decline and under threat
The OSPAR Contracting Parties have identified 18 habitats of particular concern in the North-East Atlantic, which have been included in the OSPAR List of Threatened and/or declining species and habitats (Agreement 2008-06) (the OSPAR List). This list, first adopted in 2003 and updated in 2008 and 2021, guides the OSPAR Commission in setting priorities for its further work on the conservation and protection of marine biodiversity in implementing Annex V to the OSPAR Convention. Recommendations for actions to protect and conserve 16 of these habitats were adopted by OSPAR between 2010 and 2016. Kelp forests and Haploops habitats on muddy seabeds were included in the OSPAR List at the OSPAR Ministerial Meeting in 2021 and Recommendations for their protection and conservation were adopted in parallel.
The purpose of these Recommendations is to agree actions to be taken nationally and collectively to strengthen the protection of the listed habitats, 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). They 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 a given species or habitat, consideration of how to strengthen the knowledge base, monitoring and assessment, steps to manage key human activities, calls for the designation of MPAs within their jurisdiction, and awareness raising. The collective actions include coordination of monitoring and assessment, enhancing knowledge exchange, collaborating and maintaining cooperation with relevant competent organisations on how to address key pressures (such as fishing and shipping), and research.
From a food web perspective, this set of measures is significant, as it aims to retain species and habitats that are functionally important in the north-east Atlantic, particularly certain apex predators and habitats. The significance of the interconnection between protection of habitats and species has been identified in reporting: for example, the Netherlands has highlighted the importance of eel grass (Zostera spp) restoration as a precursor to the return of the long nosed seahorse in its waters.
Are these measures working?:
The reporting by Contracting Parties demonstrates that the OSPAR Recommendations on protection and conservation have generated conservation action at the national level. Contracting Parties are stepping up the protection of features that are threatened on a regional scale through various awareness-raising activities and by introducing national measures and legislation to regulate the human activities that causing pressures on these features and establishing monitoring programmes to assess their status. Many of these actions are also being taken as part of national responses to EU legislation such as the EU Habitats Directive. It is difficult to separate out the actual effects of such actions and to evaluate the impact of the OSPAR measures.
The adoption of the 2017-2025 Roadmap for the implementation of collective actions within the Recommendations for the protection and conservation of OSPAR listed Species and Habitats (The Roadmap) has supported the collaborative efforts made across thematic boundaries within OSPAR as well as inform or support the actions implemented at national level. However, it is not yet possible to report on the impact or effectiveness of these collective actions.
The most recent implementation reporting took place in 2019, with the next reporting due in 2025. A detailed overview of the scope and range of actions implemented in this reporting round can be found in OSPAR Overview assessment of implementation reporting.
Kelp. © Scottish National Heritage
The OSPAR network of Marine Protected Areas and their role in supporting food webs
Within OSPAR, Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are understood as areas in which protective, conservation, restorative or precautionary measures have been instituted for the purpose of protecting and conserving marine species, habitats, ecosystems or ecological processes (as defined in Recommendation 2003/3 implementing Annex V of the OSPAR Convention). In 2003, OSPAR adopted a Recommendation to establish an ecologically coherent and well managed network of MPAs, which was then amended in 2010. By 1 October 2021, the OSPAR Network of MPAs numbered 583, including eight collectively designated within ABNJs. The MPA network has a total surface area of 1 468 053 km2, covering 10,8% of the OSPAR Maritime Area and achieving the spatial coverage component of Aichi Biodiversity target 11 of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as well as Sustainable Development Goal 14, target 14.5, “by 2020, conserve at least 10 % of coastal and marine areas.” See: OSPAR Report and Assessment of the Status of the OSPAR network of Marine Protected Areas in 2021 .
MPAs as a response to conserve food webs:
Signs of recovery among predator species have been observed in the MPAs protecting coral reefs (Dell et al., 2015), with an expected increase in higher trophic levels and larger species/ guilds such that fish within MPAs feed higher up the food chain than those in adjacent non-MPAs. This may be the result of more diverse food webs and hence greater prey choice and availability in MPAs, and implies that MPAs affect not only ecosystem structure (abundance and diversity) but also functioning (through consumption, growth and production) (Dell et al., 2015). As a result, the designation of effectively managed MPAs has been identified as a valid management response for strengthening food web structure and functioning (Soler et al., 2015). Modelling has suggested that highly protected MPAs benefit not only biodiversity but also fishery yields and the sequestering of blue carbon (Sala, 2021).
Further examples exist of Other Effective Conservation Measures (OECMs) and fishery closures being used to manage fishing pressure and protect seabird prey species in order to support the marine food web. Thus, fishing for sandeels has been limited in Scottish coastal waters in order to protect black-legged kittiwakes and other dependent predators (see Case Study by Daunt et al., 2008, and also Greenstreet et al., 2006).
OSPAR Network of MPAs (as of 1 October 2021). Source: Report and assessment of the status of the OSPAR network of Marine Protected Areas in 2021
Case study: The East Coast UK Sandeel Closure: an OECM contributing to the conservation of marine food webs
Due to their importance as a food source for seabird species, following advice from the ICES, in 1999 the United Kingdom Government called for a moratorium on sandeel fishing adjacent to North Sea seabird colonies, due to concerns over declining seabird numbers (primarily kittiwakes[1]. This resulted in the precautionary closure of all commercial sandeel fisheries in 2000 over an extensive area of the east coast of the United Kingdom (Figure R.1 in red).
Figure R.1: East Coast UK Sandeel Closure. Reproduced from ICES (2017)
Sandeels (Ammodytes marinus and A. tobianus). © Keith Mutch Marine Scotland
The East Coast UK Sandeel Closure remains in place, and the ICES has advised that the reopening threshold is that the breeding success of seabirds (particularly kittiwakes) should be greater than ‘0,7 fledged chicks per well-built nest’. However, this threshold has not been accepted by the European Commission and no further reopening criteria have been proposed or approved[3]. This means that the measure is likely to remain in place in the longer term – a key factor in the success of an OECM.
The above-mentioned recommendation by the ICES resulted in an ‘Ecological Quality Objective (EcoQO)’ issued by OSPAR in respect of sandeels. The EcoQO ‘seeks to maintain safe levels of fish species by management of fisheries based on the precautionary principle’[4].
The closure is enforced under the following European legislation:
- Article 29a of Council Regulation (EC) No. 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms[5];
- Regulation (EU) No 227/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 March 2013, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 and Council Regulation (EC) No 1434/98 specifying conditions under which herring may be landed for industrial purposes other than direct human consumption[5];
- Division 5, Annex III of Council Regulation (EC) No 41/2007 of 21 December 2006 fixing for 2007 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required[6];
- The restriction has been retained following the exit of the United Kingdom from the EU and is mentioned in Annex V (North Sea), Part C of Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 of the European Parliament and of the Council[7].
The target for this management measure is that sandeel biomass must be sufficient to ensure no impairment to recruitment levels while also ensuring adequate prey availability to support and sustain healthy seabird populations[1,3]. Since the closure in 2000, surveys have identified both an increase in sandeel numbers and improved kittiwake breeding success[6].
Sandeels, Ammodytes marinus and A. tobianus, specifically the lesser sandeel (A. marinus), are an important food source for many seabirds, in particular kittiwakes. Research studies have determined that once sandeels become established on the seabed, they will stay within a small range and their removal from these areas can quickly deplete their populations. A study by Wright et al. (1998)[8] identified that the sandeels in this area are ‘reproductively isolated’ from other aggregations in Sandeel Area 4, which makes them more vulnerable to decline.
By providing protection for sandeels in the North Sea, this OECM offers an indirect conservation benefit to seabird numbers and therefore supports the marine food web.
References
[1] https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication Reports/Expert Group Report/acom/2016/WKSAND/WKSAND_2016.pdf ICES. 2017. Report of the Benchmark on Sandeel (WKSand 2016), 31 October - 4 November 2016, Bergen, Norway. ICES CM 2016/ACOM:33. 319 pp. https://doi.org/10.17895/ices.pub.7718
[4] https://www.ospar.org/documents?v=7169
[5] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A01998R0850-20140101
[6] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2007/41/annex/III/part/A/division/5
[7] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2019/1241#f00033
[8] Wright, P., Verspoor, E., Anderson, C., Donald, L., Kennedy, F., Mitchell, A., Munk, P., Pedersen, S.A., Jensen, H., Gislason, H. and Lewy, P. 1998. Population structure in the lesser sandeel (Ammodytes marinus) and its implications for fishery-predator interactions. Final report to DG XIV 94/C 144/ 04 Study Proposal No. 94/071, October 1998
N.B. new information is available in the WKTOPS workshop report on OECMs from 2021. One of the case studies used was the North East UK Sandeel Closed Area. (Report on pages 11 and 94).
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 assessment reveals a 17% rise, to 83%, in the implementation level of measures considered necessary for achieving conservation objectives, since assessments began in 2016. Another area of improvement is the increase in monitoring to be able to detect progress made towards achieving the conservation objectives. The assessment showed that 75% of OSPAR MPAs have either full or partial monitoring programmes, although 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 the percentage of OSPAR MPAs achieving or moving towards their conservation objectives has increased over time, from 36% to 44% and then 49%, for 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 in OSPAR MPAs are moving towards their conservation objectives, owing to lack of site-specific information or long-term monitoring programmes, as noted above.
For OSPAR MPAs in ABNJs, efforts should be made to further the Collective Arrangement (OSPAR Agreement 2014-09) and to cooperate through other mechanisms, such as Memoranda of Understanding, with relevant competent management authorities, so that they can consider appropriate management actions to help deliver the conservation objectives for OSPAR MPAs in ABNJs.
Is this measure working?:
OSPAR is progressing towards establishing 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. Under the North-East Atlantic Environment Strategy (NEAES) 2030, the Contracting Parties have committed to further develop the OSPAR network of MPAs and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) by 2030 so as 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). This ambition is in line with the global target under negotiation within the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The mandate of OSPAR is restricted when it comes to the management of certain human activities, and thus effective implementation relies on action taken by the Contracting Parties in 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. Within NEAES 2030, OSPAR has committed to establishing a mechanism by 2024 whereby, when Contracting Parties are seeking to authorise human activities under their jurisdiction or control that may conflict with the conservation objectives of OSPAR MPAs in an ABNJ, those activities are subjected to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA).
There is still a need to improve the availability of the data relating to the OSPAR MPA network for those that have the responsibility to manage different human activities. This includes not only information on the features that are protected but also the management objectives and the plans that are in place, to ensure that the MPAs are delivering expected conservation outcomes. This will be a requirement for Contracting Parties to deliver on NEAES S11.O2. By 2023, and every six years thereafter, OSPAR will assess at a regional scale the OSPAR network of MPAs 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.
Other OSPAR measures responding to relevant human activities and pressures:
Fish and shellfish harvesting (professional, recreational) [Extraction of living resources]:
As set out 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 that 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 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 (see section 3).
Eutrophication:
Eutrophication Thematic Assessment
The input of nutrients to eutrophication can arise from a number of human activities: Agriculture [Cultivation of living resources]; Industrial uses [Urban and industrial uses] and Waste treatment and disposal [Urban and industrial uses]. Changes in nutrient input can affect phytoplankton primary production and trigger a bottom-up trophic cascade in which changes in primary production then impact fish populations. The effect of eutrophication or nutrient input is measured through a series of pelagic food web indicators: FW2, FW6 and FW9.
The eutrophication status of the OSPAR Maritime Area has improved as a result of the OSPAR response to eutrophication and the subsequent implementation of measures adopted by the EU, the European Economic Area and other international forums, including the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC); the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC); the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC); and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC). There are, however, still regional variations and local problem areas, particularly in areas sensitive to nutrient inputs such as estuaries, fjords and bights and in areas affected by river plumes. Work to “Tackle eutrophication, through limiting inputs of nutrients and organic matter to levels that do not give rise to adverse effects on the marine environment” remains a strategic objective for OSPAR within NEAES 2030 (Strategic Objective 1). One of the NEAES operational objectives focuses on the application of nature-based solutions to safeguard the natural capacity of the ecosystem to sequester nutrients through the conservation and restoration of estuarine, coastal and marine habitats (S1.O6).
Introduction or spread of non-indigenous species (NIS):
The introduction of NIS can alter or change the structure and functioning of food webs. Since the 2010 QSR, significant progress has been made in the responses to address NIS; however, they continue to be introduced and this issue will require continued effort to prevent further introductions. Continued implementation of the joint response by OSPAR and HELCOM, the EU MSFD, the Invasive Alien Species Regulation and the International Maritime Organization Ballast Water Management Convention should ensure that some of the gaps identified in monitoring are addressed and also strengthen the monitoring required to reduce bias and data gaps.
Other important measures
General conservation measures:
Under Article 13 of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) (MSFD), EU Member States are required to take measures to achieve or maintain good environmental status by 2020. The status assessments under Article 8 and environmental targets under Article 10 help to identify where these measures are needed. The MSFD notes the importance of coherence and connects to action under the Habitats Directive (including the Natura2000 network). The inclusion of food webs as one of the 11 descriptors is a novel feature of the MSFD. Descriptor 4 requires that for good environmental status “All elements of the marine food webs, to the extent that they are known, occur at normal abundance and diversity and levels capable of ensuring the long-term abundance of the species and the retention of their full reproductive capacity”. In the 2018 evaluation of the programmes of measures reported by Member States, Descriptor 4 was grouped with other biodiversity descriptors according to main species and habitat types (European Commission, 2018), making it difficult to identify those measures taken to address broader ecosystem function and resilience. The 2018 report did, however, identify that Member States had not yet established sufficient linkage between measures to reduce negative impacts from human activities and measures to address the state of marine biodiversity.
Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning sets a high-level ambition: "Healthy marine ecosystems and their multiple services, if integrated in planning decisions, can deliver substantial benefits in terms of food production, recreation and tourism, climate change mitigation and adaptation, shoreline dynamics control and disaster prevention." Action under this directive is considered relevant for food webs.
In the Arctic region, the ecosystem approach was adopted as an overarching principle and approach by Arctic Council Ministers in 2004 as part of the Arctic Marine Strategic Plan (AMSP). In 2011, the Ministers established an expert group on Arctic ecosystem-based management (EBM), which reviewed the ecosystem approach (or EBM) concept and provided a definition along with principles and recommendations that were adopted as part of the Kiruna Declaration in 2013. At Iqaluit in 2015, and at Fairbanks in 2017, the Arctic Council Ministers recognized the need for an ecosystem approach and requested the development of practical guidelines. The first guidelines were published in 2019 to assist scientists, policy-makers, managers and communities in implementing an ecosystem approach for Arctic marine ecosystems, recognising the interconnectivity of marine systems and the role of humans within them.
Climate change measures:
Climate Change Thematic Assessment
The impacts of climate change can drastically affect the structure and function of marine food webs, with implications for ecosystem services (Ullah et al., 2018). The primary global response to addressing climate change is the Paris Agreement, adopted at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP21) in Paris on 12 December 2015. This is a legally binding international treaty on climate change adopted by 196 Parties with the goal of limiting global warming to well below 2˚C above pre-industrial levels, and preferably to 1,5˚C above pre-industrial levels. To achieve this long-term temperature goal, countries are aiming to reach a global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible so as to achieve a climate-neutral world by mid-century. The outputs of the IPCC sixth climate assessment cycle show that, at the current rate of progress, the world is not on track to meet the Paris Agreement goal and climate change action needs to be massively increased if we are to do so.
Fish and shellfish harvesting (professional, recreational) [Extraction of living resources]:
OSPAR Feeder Report 2021 – Fisheries
The management of fisheries has particular relevance for food web dynamics. Fishing activities remove different elements of the food web, which, depending on the target species, will affect different trophic levels and have different implications for food web structure. This can lead to trophic cascades. The assessment of a number of food web indicators can inform management responses from a fish perspective; these include FW3, FW4, FW7 and FW9 (see State section).
Fisheries management responses are set within the context of the global framework for fisheries management and the common principles set out in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which includes a call for a maximum sustainable yield (MSY) approach to managing fisheries; by the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), including Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 which highlights a precautionary approach; and the 1995 United Nations Straddling Fish Stocks Agreement (known as the UN Fish Stocks Agreement or UNFSA) and the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, which both call for a precautionary approach. Within the North-East Atlantic, the key responses are the national fisheries management legislation for those OSPAR Contracting Parties that are not EU Member States, and the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) under Regulation (EU) No. 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Regulation No. 2017/2092 of the same bodies, for those Contracting Parties that are also EU Member States. Other responses include the Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) that 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 Organisation (NASCO).
The importance of having an ecosystem approach to fisheries management is accepted. However, fisheries management measures tend to focus on the sustainable management of stocks to achieved Maximum Sustainable Yield, and not on maintaining ecosystem function and resilience.
Fisheries management regulations have resulted in less focus on maximising fish-stock harvesting and greater focus on moving to levels considered sustainable, together with a shift from a fish-stock management to an ecosystem-based perspective, including the introduction of measures to protect vulnerable habitats and species. However, there are still concerns, including 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 food webs.
Regional differences
Many of the responses addressing food webs, or more broadly ecosystem function and resilience, are applicable to EU coastal waters, although some, such as the EU Water Framework Directive, are more confined to the coastal zone. Fisheries management in non-EU Member States that are OSPAR Contracting Parties is also applied at the national level and in shelf and deep waters.
The OSPAR MPA network applies across the OSPAR Maritime Area, although with significant gaps in the Arctic and with remaining challenges relating to the management of MPAs in the area beyond national jurisdiction.
Gaps and opportunities
Are we doing enough?:
The ambition to apply an ecosystem approach to the management of human activities is central to the work of OSPAR, but implementation remains challenging. The continued improvement of indicators to inform the development and implementation of responses that take a more integrated approach is critical.
Could other types of responses be undertaken by OSPAR to improve the status of food webs?:
Policy and management response to ensure good environmental status for food webs will require increased integration of monitoring, assessment and action, across all of OSPAR’s strategic objectives. There is also need for appropriate management of human activities and their associated pressures, in particular fisheries and eutrophication, and where these activities fall outside of OSPAR’s mandate to strengthen effective cooperation with those relevant organisations that do have competence.
NEAES 2030 operational objective SX.O2 commits OSPAR to 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. Progress in the implementation of this objective will be an important contribution to developing appropriate responses for food webs.
There are opportunities to apply an ecosystem approach more widely in implementing actions to protect and conserve the OSPAR listed species and habitats. Ecosystem restoration provides another opportunity to support healthy food webs in line with NEAES Strategic Objective 6: “Restore degraded benthic habitats in the North-East Atlantic when practicable to safeguard their ecosystem function and resilience to climate change and ocean acidification”.
With regard to the OSPAR MPA network, understanding the management effectiveness of the MPAs within the network, and the network itself, remains an important gap to address, particularly from the perspective of ecosystem functioning and food webs. By 2022, OSPAR will identify the barriers to effective MPA management, and by 2024 will take steps to address them appropriately to enable all OSPAR MPAs to achieve their conservation objectives (NEAES S5.O2). The contribution of OECMs and improved management of MPAs within and outside national jurisdiction will be an important response for food webs.
With regard to OSPAR MPAs in ABNJs, efforts should continue to further the Collective Arrangement (OSPAR Agreement 2014-09) and to cooperate through other mechanisms, such as Memoranda of Understanding with the relevant competent management authorities, enabling the latter to consider appropriate management actions to help deliver the conservation objectives.
The new approach to ecosystem state being taken by Norway in Region I incorporates several indicators that may be applicable to OSPAR food web assessment. This could be further investigated, to test if these indicators may be applicable to future OSPAR integrated assessments.
| Impact | Cumulative Effects |