In European marine environments, various fishing gears contact the seabed, including mobile bottomcontacting gears (MBCGs) towed across the seabed. This study evaluates innovative alternatives to bottom trawling in EU marine protected areas (MPAs), examining their effectiveness, feasibility, and environmental and socioeconomic impacts. The findings indicate that innovations in gear technology are insufficient to meet conservation goals. Voluntary adoption of these innovations is low, suggesting the need for mandatory regulations. Consequently, the study recommends excluding MBCGs from MPAs vulnerable to bottom fishing. No current innovations achieve lighter impacts without affecting catch rates, potentially increasing the overall environmental footprint as fishers increase effort to compensate for reduced efficiency.
Authors
Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services, European Parliament, Bastardie, François
- Catalogue number
- QA-03-24-064-EN-N
- Citation
- European Parliament, Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services, Bastardie, F., Exploring the viability of innovative fishing technologies as an alternative to bottom trawling in European marine protected areas – An environmental and socioeconomic analysis , European Parliament, 2024, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2861/360141
- DOI
- https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2861/360141
- ISBN
- 978-92-848-1954-6
- Pages
- 94
- Published in
- Belgium
- Themes
- Fisheries policy
Table of Contents
- Exploring the viability of innovative fishing technologies as an alternative to bottom trawling in European marine protected areas 1
- Exploring the viability of innovative fishing technologies as an alternative to bottom trawling in European marine protected areas 3
- Executive summary 5
- Table of contents 8
- List of figures 10
- Annex - List of figures 12
- List of tables 13
- 1. Why has a ban on bottom trawling in MPAs been suggested 15
- 1.1. The issue with bottom trawling 15
- 1.2. Considerations for developing innovative gears 18
- 1.3. Proposed approach scope and methodology 23
- 2. Innovations to reduce physical contact with the seabed 24
- 2.1. Innovative management avoiding a full exclusion from protected areas 24
- 2.2. A review of gear modifications and innovative gears 27
- 2.3. Switching to passive gears targeting demersal species 38
- 2.4. Barriers to the uptake of innovations in fisheries 41
- 3. Anticipating the socioeconomic and environmental impacts of mitigating the effects of bottom trawling or displacing it away from MPAs 45
- 3.1. Not all MPAs are vulnerable to MBCGs 47
- 3.2. Not all fishing techniques are active in MPAs 50
- 3.3. Mitigation andor effort displacement from vulnerable MPAs to MBCGs 52
- 3.4. Bottom trawling effects on organic carbon remineralisation 59
- 4. Gathering expert opinions on the possibility of continuing MBCG use in MPAs 61
- 4.1. Stakeholders preferred options for mitigating MBCG fisheries 62
- 4.2. Feasible options according to stakeholders 64
- 5. Goal of environmental protection in EU waters and policy coherence 68
- 5.1. Good Environmental Status and restoration of the EU seabed to GES 68
- 5.2. Coherence with EU objectives and potential ethical social and regulatory impact on policy proposals 69
- 7. References 78
- 8. Annex Questionnaire survey 84
- 9. Annex Case studies 85
- 9.1. ItalianCroatian Jabuka Pomopit GFCM4120173 85
- 9.2. Gulf of Lion seasonal closure in French and Spanish EEZs 86
- 9.4. Marine park of Mer dIroise in French Brittany 90
- 9.5. Fishing Restricted Area FRA in West of Gela Basin East of Adventure Bank East of Malta Bank GFCM4220185 92
