Why does this matter? Biodiversity, the vast web of life that sustains human society, has long been overshadowed by the climate crisis. Yet, both crises are inextricably linked – degraded ecosystems exacerbate climate impacts, while climate change accelerates species loss.

The biodiversity agenda, however, must tackle unique obstacles. As agreed at COP15 in Montreal in 2022, countries committed to submitting ambitious national biodiversity strategies (MBSAPs), detailed roadmaps for halting biodiversity loss by 2030. Yet only 44 out of 196 parties submitted these plans on time.

The balance – predominantly developing nations – point to a lack of funding, citing the challenges of executing such detailed commitments without adequate financial backing.

COP16 also sought to advance the global “30×30” initiative, a pledge to protect 30% of the planet’s land and oceans by 2030. Nevertheless, discussions underscored how vulnerable these targets are to insufficient funding and competing national interests. High-biodiversity countries, often in the Global South, face the dual challenge of conserving their ecosystems while pursuing economic growth.

One of the most significant outcomes was the formal inclusion of Indigenous communities in biodiversity governance. Indigenous representatives secured a permanent advisory role within COP processes, granting them a direct voice in conservation decision-making. This move is seen as a recognition of their traditional ecological knowledge, which is vital for managing biodiversity sustainably.

The establishment of the Cali Fund was another key development, is a voluntary revenue-sharing mechanism designed to channel resources from multinational corporations that profit from biodiversity.

Companies in sectors such as pharmaceuticals, agriculture and cosmetics will be encouraged to contribute either 1% of their profits or 0.1% of their revenues if their assets exceed $20 million or annual sales surpass $50 million. The fund aims to support biodiversity conservation projects, particularly in developing countries rich in genetic resources.

Despite these achievements, COP16 revealed persistent challenges. Wealthier nations pledged an additional $163 million to the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund, bringing its total to $400 million.

This is still far from the $20 billion target set for 2025, leaving developing nations struggling to implement biodiversity action plans. Many high-biodiversity countries cite financial constraints as the primary barrier to progress.

Another unresolved issue was the monitoring framework intended to track biodiversity goals. Delegates debated which indicators to prioritise, but disagreements over methodologies left nearly 700 negotiation points unresolved. This delay, compounded by the lack of quorum in the final plenary, means several key decisions will now be revisited at COP17 in Armenia  in 2026.

The unfinished business of COP16 will resume in Bangkok in October 2025, where the intersessional meeting will continue deliberations on unresolved issues, including financing, governance and data standards.

With mounting global pressures on ecosystems, the pathway to achieving COP16’s biodiversity goals is clear but fraught – accelerating action requires bridging persistent financial divides and leveraging commitments into enforceable policy.

While COP16 delivered significant milestones, including the elevation of Indigenous voices and the creation of the Cali Fund, its abrupt conclusion highlighted the difficulties in achieving global consensus. As biodiversity and climate crises deepen, these negotiations will play a pivotal role in shaping the planet’s ecological future.

Why does this matter? Plastic pollution is one of the gravest threats to marine environments, aquatic biodiversity, and the communities and industries that rely on the planet’s oceans. Despite this, plastic production, consumption, and pollution continue to rise, with the world consuming four times more plastic than it did in the 1990s.

The IMO’s appeal to the fishery and shipping sectors is crucial as these industries contribute significantly to marine pollution. For example, 640,000 tonnes of lost or discarded fishing gear – known as “ghost gear” – enter the ocean annually, accounting for around 10% of global marine plastic pollution.

Shipping, on the other hand, is responsible for large amounts of microplastic pollution, often via spills of plastic pellets.

Alongside the IMO’s proposed anti-plastic pollution alliance, several national governments have taken decisive action.

Barbados, a state that is disproportionately impacted by plastic pollution, launched a new National Action Plan in July aimed at reducing plastic pollution by 73% over the next decade.

Action was taken after the UN-endorsed Plastic Drawdown tool revealed that 500 tonnes of plastic had seeped into the Barbadian environment in one year, heavily polluting the island’s seas.

Five key policies form the basis of the National Action Plan. Among these, a ban on single-use plastic bags, a relaunch of the country’s plastic bottle return scheme, and improvements in the separation of recyclables.

Fiji also banned single-use plastic in 2021 as it fights its own battle against marine plastic pollution, of which just 28% originated from the Pacific Island.

Despite the emergence of meaningful action on a regional and industrial level, international plastic treaty progress has been frustratingly slow. In March 2022 at the UN Environment Assembly, 175 nations committed to formulating a legally binding treaty aimed at tackling the full life cycle of plastics.

The aim was to have a legally binding agreement focused on curbing plastic pollution agreed upon by 2024 or 2025. A draft has since been drawn up, but significant differences over the treaty’s scope remain.

Fossil fuel-producing nations argue that recycling and clean-up are the solution. However, the 127 members of the “High Ambition Coalition” propose more stringent production curbs and restrictions on their use in certain products.

While the global community struggles to mount a coordinated attack on marine plastic pollution, innovative companies, such as Novelplast, are developing solutions. Instead of a waste product, the company treats used plastic as a valuable resource by upcycling used PET and polyester feedstocks into recycled products.

With the plastic production industry expected to double in capacity by 2040, re-evaluating society’s perception of plastic from a single to multi-use material is key to reducing pollution levels.

Bureo is another firm championing a similar mindset by converting abandoned fishing nets into high-quality fabrics. The company has established collection initiatives in six countries, successfully recycling over 4.5 million kg of nets since 2013.

As plastic continues to pollute the planet’s oceans, the tireless work of innovative companies, industry groups, and regional governments hold the key to ensuring meaningful reductions to marine plastic pollution. The world’s oceans cannot wait for world leaders to reach an agreement.

Debate currently exists over whether to establish a Marine Protected Area covering the entire Arctic Ocean or just focus on specific areas within national boundaries.

Why does this matter? The Arctic Ocean hosts a wealth of biodiversity and resources. With minimal human intervention, over 21,000 known species have adapted to thrive in the cold and inhospitable Arctic environment.

For the people living in the Arctic, the abundant biodiversity provides not only food but “the everyday context and basis for social identity, cultural survival and spiritual life.” Currently, the ocean is open territory with many fearing an “unprecedented free-for-all” when the ice melts.

What’s happening? As the Arctic’s floating sea ice continues to melt, the region is increasingly exposed to fishing, shipping, mining, and pollution. Efforts to protect the Arctic Ocean’s fragile ecosystem include designating the central Arctic Ocean as a marine protected area (MPA).

The disappearing ice threatens ecosystems above and below the water, and the absence of a natural barrier allows ships to exploit untouched fish populations and seabed minerals. A patchwork of treaties offers some protection, but international cooperation is crucial.

Debate exists over whether to establish an MPA covering the entire Arctic Ocean or focus on specific areas within national boundaries. (The Guardian)

Why does this matter? The Arctic Ocean hosts a wealth of biodiversity and resources. With minimal human intervention, over 21,000 known species have adapted to thrive in the cold and inhospitable Arctic environment.

For the people living in the Arctic, the abundant biodiversity provides not only food but “the everyday context and basis for social identity, cultural survival and spiritual life.” Currently, the ocean is open territory with many fearing an “unprecedented free-for-all” when the ice melts.

Legal patchwork – Preventing overexploitation will require the development of mutually agreed regulations. Much of the Arctic Ocean falls within the eight Arctic states’ 200-mile exclusive economic zones (EEZ), where some MPAs already exist, with Canada’s Tuvaijuittuq MPA being the largest. Outside of the EEZs, a sparse and time-sensitive patchwork of legal frameworks governs the Arctic Ocean’s high seas.

Among these is a 16-year commercial fishing ban, agreed among nine nations and the EU after several years of negotiations in 2018. The language used within the agreement indicates that commercial fishing will one day take place, with the ban’s timespan allowing research to form a science-based management plan.

More recently, the UN High Seas Treaty was adopted, the first ever legally binding treaty governing international waters. Although a promising step, the Treaty has significant gaps. For example, countries can veto MPAs and continue fishing or drilling unpenalised. Our previous blog post discusses the Treaty’s successes and shortfalls, available here.

Deep-sea mining is also a concern for the region, which is rich in polymetallic nodules. Norway aims to open a mining area roughly the size of Germany, retrieving nodules at a depth of 4,000m. As discussed in last month’s blog post, the deep sea is a biodiverse and largely unexplored region, with the impacts of mining relatively unknown.

A study by Flora and Fauna contends that “damage caused by deep-seabed mining would be extensive and irreversible”. Recently, the International Seabed Authority decided to delay the release of deep-sea mining regulations until 2024 after facing intense political and scientific scrutiny.

Fully protected – Countering the complex patchwork of frameworks, the 90 North Foundation are lobbying for the creation of a “fully protected” MPA that would prohibit any human activity across the entire Arctic Ocean, including shipping, mining, fishing and drilling.

The proposed North Pole Marine Reserve would be the world’s largest wildlife reserve at over 1.7 million square miles, making a significant contribution to the 30×30 goal agreed at COP15. The findings from the scientific community reinforce calls for MPAs – according to a study published by the IUCN, fully protected MPAs have been shown to increase biomass by 670%.

In a separate study led by the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, MPAs were found to increase the health and wealth of nearby communities.

MPAs, however, are difficult to enforce and can be ineffective if incorrectly implemented. For example, China’s self-imposed squid fishing bans are failing, according to a report by Oceana. Analysis of AIS data from Global Fishing Watch shows that three of China’s bans were in areas with minimal or no prior fishing activity, whilst unsustainable practices continued elsewhere.

Creating a successful and effective Arctic MPA hinges on collective action at the global scale. Despite its flaws, the UN High Seas Treaty serves as a positive reminder that international collaboration on marine conservation is possible.

Source: The Guardian

Why does this matter? – The UN High Seas Treaty couldn’t have come soon enough. The 2022 IUCN Red List report found that 10% or 42,108 marine species are at risk of extinction, with 41% of those also affected by climate change. Worryingly, this figure is likely to be far higher – just 67% of fishes, 15% of reef corals, 11% of molluscs and 0.1% of green algae have been assessed for extinction. Species may be lost before they can be added to the Red List. The 30×30 Pledge, made at the UN Biodiversity Conference in December, is an agreement to address this issue by protecting a third of land and sea by 2030. Without the High Seas Treaty, the 30×30 pledge would likely fail.

These include the formation of marine protected area (MPA) legislation, the equitable sharing of genetic resources and the requirement of environment impact assessments (EIA’s) for countries considering large ocean projects. However, as is often the case with international agreements, each comes with caveats.

Marine protected areas – Currently, only 1% of the high seas are protected, leaving marine life at risk of overfishing, shipping traffic and the effects of climate change. Protecting the high seas has previously been inherently difficult. However, the treaty establishes formal legislation, creating a legal framework for the creation and enforcement of MPAs on the high seas for the first time. Countries will be able to propose areas for protection which will be voted on by signatories of the treaty.

Genetic resources – Marine genetic resources include any genetic plant, microbial or animal found in the sea that has actual or potential value, for example, krill, coral sponges, or seaweeds. Marine genetic resources are already generating revenue for pharmaceutical companies and garnering scientific attention, with more uses expected to emerge in the future. The management of these resources and the profit they generate was a contentious point. However, an agreement was made that countries will be permitted to gather resources under the condition that profits are shared equitably. The details of this arrangement are yet to be finalised; however, a share of profits will go to a global marine conservation fund, with richer countries contributing a higher proportion.

Environment impact assessments – The EIA section comprises the longest part of the UN High Seas treaty and was at the centre of negotiations. This legislation covers high seas and national waters, meaning countries that wish to conduct activities that could cause “substantial pollution” or “harmful changes to the marine environment” within their jurisdiction will need to complete an EIA. These assessments quantify potential damage whilst advancing our understanding of ocean ecosystems. However, EIAs are expensive and require array of technology and expertise, making it difficult for poorer nations.

Issues unaddressed – Although positive, there are holes in the treaty. Firstly, protected areas cannot be placed in areas with existing fishing agreements, regardless of their sustainability or fishing methods. Additionally, countries that oppose MPAs are exempted, meaning they can continue environmentally damaging practices within them.

Secondly, the treaty does not overrule authorities that oversee existing activities. Organisations including the International Seabed Authority – whose director was recently accused of abandoning neutrality – remain in control of existing deep-sea mining projects. A recent study found deep-sea mining to be highly destructive to ocean ecosystems that are typically undisturbed, causing irreversible damage.

Critics also argue the treaty does not address overfishing. Overfishing is a major diver of dwindling fish numbers and high extinction rates – in 2017, 34% of fish stocks were overfished. However, the words “fish” or “fishing” are only mentioned 6 times in the treaty, all falling under the genetic resources section, whereby any existing fishing practices are exempt.

Finally, the treaty overlooks many of the symptoms of problems in the ocean. These include on-land nutrient pollution, leading to vast “dead zones“, or government subsidies, one of the main drivers of overfishing. A recent study found that over half of the high seas fishing grounds would not be profitable without government subsidies. In most cases, bottom trawling – seen as one of the most damaging methods of fishing – is only profitable due to subsidies.

The High Seas treaty represents a positive step for global ocean governance, demonstrating collaboration at a time of bitter international relations. The treaty, however, is only the first step, with more work to be done in order to combat the serious drivers of ocean decline.

Source:
United Nations

The study’s findings show marine protected areas (MPAs) can achieve “win-win-win” results for the environment, local communities and fishing industries. This is the first time an MPA has demonstrated protection to highly mobile, migratory species on a large scale and shows their benefits travel beyond the boundaries of MPAs to support broader ocean biodiversity, strengthening the argument for introducing more no-fishing zones – particularly across migratory routes which can benefit species including tuna, sharks and turtles.

MPAs are known to be one of the most effective measures for improving marine conservation. Approximately 6.2% of the global ocean is currently protected through MPAs, but less than half of this – just 2.4% – are fully or highly protected from fishing activity and its associated impacts, according to the Marine Protection Atlas. While it is well understood that marine protected areas offer protection to some sedentary species including lobsters or coral, the spillover benefits of MPAs to marine life in nearby areas have previously been questioned.

The Papahanaumokuakea reserve is around four times the size of California’s land mass and was expanded six years ago. The area spans a cluster of atolls and small low-lying islands and contain a diverse range of coral reefs, submerged banks and lagoons. Hawaiian endemic species make up around 25% of the species found within the reserve. It is also a key breeding ground for the Hawaiian monk seal and a critically important nesting area for green sea turtles. Commercial fishing within the reserve is banned, while additional measures including officer patrols, surveillance flights and US coastguard vessel visits also deter illegal fishing activities.

Researchers from the University of Hawaii and the University of Wisconsin-Madison used a statistical technique known as “difference in difference” to compare catch rates of marine life from 2016 to 2019 with those recorded between 2010 to 2013 – prior to the reserve’s expansion – across the reserve’s central areas with areas located further away.

The biggest fish catch increases were located between 100 and 200 nautical miles away from the reserve’s borders. Alongside catch rate growth (the number of tuna caught per every 1,000 hooks deployed) for tuna species, catch rates for all fish species combined rose by 8%.

The researchers’ findings are a success for marine biodiversity alongside the broader fishing industry, of which tuna generates approximately $40bn in revenue each year and supports employment for millions globally. From a social perspective, yellowfin and bigeye tuna hold cultural significance for local Hawaii communities and represent a key part of their diet.

Marine reserves have delivered simultaneous positive environmental and socio-ecological impacts elsewhere. An MPA established off Mallorca’s coast, for instance, has generated a tenfold return on its investment and improved marine biodiversity, water quality, slowed coastal erosion, boosted tourism and local fishing catches.

From a climate change mitigation perspective, the establishment of MPAs can play a key role in enhancingblue carbon sinks and supporting carbon sequestration. Declaring MPAs protects important, carbon-rich marine habitats such as seagrass and salt marshes from physical disturbances such as bottom-trawling and other damaging fishing practices. Greater protection for marine life will further enable carbon sequestration, particularly from larger fish species such as sharks and tuna, which are known to be carbon stores, with each fish estimated to be 10% to 15% carbon.

However, it’s worth noting that the benefits of no-fishing zones can only be achieved if they are supported by sufficient regulations and enforcement. Governments, such as the UK government have been widely criticised by environmental groups for declaring MPAs but failing to implement the regulations necessary to ensure proper protection across the areas, describing them as “paper parks”. Earlier this year, data found over 90% of the UK’s offshore MPAs are still being bottom-trawled and dredged.

Source: The Guardian

What’s happening? United Nations member states have failed to finalise a treaty on conserving biodiversity in the high seas – the 60% of the world’s oceans that is not covered by any national jurisdiction. A two-week meeting concluded without an agreement in New York on 18 March. The discussions were the fourth round of negotiations since 2018. Talks focused on the creation of marine reserves, environmental impact assessments for potentially harmful activities, the sharing of marine genetic resources and the transfer of marine technology to developing countries. Observers still expect an agreement to be reached by the end of 2022.

Why does this matter? Almost two-thirds of the world’s oceans lie outside of national jurisdictions, also known as Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ). According to scientists, these international waters account for up to 95% of all occupied habitats on Earth, with millions of species yet to be discovered. However, only 1.2% of the high seas are currently under protection. In the absence of effective governance mechanisms, these ecosystems are facing growing threats from various industrial and illegal activities as well as climate change.

The share of stocks fished at unsustainable levels, for example, has risen from 10% in 1974 to 33% in 2015. At the same time, shipping volumes have increased by 1,600% since 1982, leading to increased noise pollution and higher risks of collisions between large marine species and industrial vessels. Oil and gas explorations, water contamination with plastics and chemicals, and habitat destruction are also threatening marine life in international waters, while emerging activities such as geoengineering and deep-sea mining are expected to put further pressure on sensitive species.

In order to address these problems, experts have called for an international legal framework focused on conserving biodiversity in the oceans. While there are more than 20 high sea governance organisations with varying mandates – covering activities such as whaling, shipping and mining – there is currently no cross-sectoral regulatory authority. In 2017, the UN General Assembly voted in favour of establishing such a legal framework, known as the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdictions (BBNJ) treaty or Treaty of the High Seas, which was meant to be developed over four rounds of negotiations.

The proposed framework focuses on four key areas: the equitable sharing of marine genetic resources, the establishment of management tools such as Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), standards for environmental impact assessments of industrial activities, and the transfer of technology and knowledge to developing countries.

Last month, more than 100 countries stressed their ambitions for stronger environmental protection at the One Ocean summit in France, raising hopes for a successful outcome at the fourth and last round of talks. Nevertheless, the UN delegates failed to reach an agreement in New York, which participants blamed on the “glacial pace” of negotiations. Some countries, including Russia and Iceland, have been accused of deliberately prolonging the talks and seeking to water down environmental protections by excluding fishing from the agreement – even though healthy ecosystems are proven to benefit commercial fish stocks. A 2018 study found that fully protected MPAs, for instance, host 670% more fish biomass than unprotected areas and can also boost fish stock outside of their boundaries through the migration of adult fish and the dispersal of larvae.

To advance the negotiations for the BBJN treaty, the UN General Assembly has to approve additional rounds of talks, but experts are worried time is running out to reach an agreement in time for another critical environmental initiative: the international “30×30” pledge aimed at protecting 30% of the world’s oceans by the end of the decade. Without the BBNJ framework, establishing MPAs in international waters would be legally challenging, which means that countries signing up to the pledge at the forthcoming Biodiversity Summit in China in May would have to create MPAs in their national jurisdictions. To reach the 30% target, this would require an area almost as large as all EEZs combined.

Source: Bloomberg

What’s happening? The migration habits and biology of brown crabs are affected by underwater power cables that mesmerise the crustaceans, according to research conducted at the St Abbs marine station in the Scottish Borders. Researchers have found that the electromagnetism produced by the cables affects the creatures’ blood cells. The crabs are attracted to the cables, which are used for offshore renewable energy, when they emit an electromagnetic field of 500 microteslas or more, according to Professor Alastair Lyndon.

Why does this matter? It’s important to recognise the lesser-known impacts of renewable energy infrastructure on marine biodiversity, given the key role clean energy has to play in the net-zero transition. While renewable projects are clearly a sustainable energy option, their impacts on ecosystems, marine habitats and the fishing industry should also be considered.

The temporary stunning of crabs isn’t necessarily an issue in itself (though it may be uncomfortable), but it delays typical behaviour such as foraging for food or finding mates. Altered activity levels can also alter sugar metabolism rates in the crabs in a similar manner to humans. Changing blood cell levels within the crabs’ bodies could also increase their susceptibility to bacterial infections. Additionally, traditional migration patterns of male brown crabs, which typically move upwards along Scotland’s east coast, could be disrupted. This may result in a build-up of crabs in the south and scarcity in the north-east. Such abnormal distributions could influence marine ecosystem interactions and food webs, given brown crabs are active predators and feed on a range of crustaceans and molluscs, such as mussels, and are known to scavenge for food along the seabed.

On a larger scale, migratory changes could increase the instability of catch levels for local Scottish fisheries in some areas, posing risks to the UK’s fishing sector. Crabs are the second-most valuable crustacean species across the UK fleet following the langoustine. UK fisheries caught around 60% of the 2019 global total catch of around 50,000 tonnes. Maintaining optimal crab and lobster populations for catches is also important to increase their quality and can contribute to longer-term benefits to the wider marine environment, according to researchers of a four-year University of Plymouth field study.

Clean energy projects can result in other detrimental impacts for marine habitats. Conservation groups have raised concerns over the UK’s offshore wind projects, for example, which can disrupt vulnerable carbon-storing habitats such as saltmarsh, seagrass and deep-sea mud habitats.

The acoustics of piling offshore wind turbines into the seabed as well as underwater sound generated from operational offshore wind farms are also a source of noise pollution for aquatic life. However, with the right planning renewable projects can be co-used to boost marine populations and reintroduce species. Van Oord, for instance, deployed oyster reef structures at its Borssele offshore wind farm in efforts to boost the North Sea’s oyster population amid a revival of Europe’s flat oyster beds.

Increased monitoring and tracking of marine life populations will contribute to knowledge on the impacts of offshore renewable energy development. Scientists from the University of Plymouth recently deployed devices to track the movements of the endangered crawfish, which are important to small-scale coastal fisheries. Employing tech-based mitigation solutions can also help – Sercel recently launched Bluepulse, a marine acoustic source aiming to protect marine life from high-frequency noises.

Source: Journal of Marine Science and Engineering

Why does this matter? As the report outlines, fisheries are both vulnerable to climate change impacts and also contribute to it, through direct vessel emissions and fishing equipment disrupting the seabed. Protecting the ocean and its marine habitats – which can sequester more carbon per unit area than forests – is critical to mitigating climate change. In the UK, saltmarsh and seagrass meadows store around 220 million tonnes of blue carbon, 93% of which is sequestered in marine sediments.

The report highlights three key areas to be addressed. First, tackling direct emissions from fishing vessels. UK fishing fleets generate an estimated 914.4 kilotons of CO2 annually – the equivalent of the annual energy usage of over 110,000 US households. WWF, the MCS and RSPB highlight that over half of the UK’s fleet still in operation is over 30 years old. Most vessels in this ageing fleet are powered by carbon-intensive heavy fuel oils, while half relies heavily on diesel.

Second, marine biodiversity should be improved by minimising and potentially reversing damage from poor practices and destructive fishing gear. Around 87% of fish caught by UK vessels use a combination of demersal and beam trawl, and seine nets, which damage muddy sediments and seagrass. When disturbed from the seabed carbon re-mineralises into the ocean and can be released back into the atmosphere, increasing greenhouse gas levels.

Third, the UK’s marine habitats require increased protection to improve their ability to act as a carbon sink, the report states, as blue carbon is further extracted when fish stocks are depleted. The first UK fish stock audit post-Brexit, published earlier this year, found only three of the UK’s top ten fish populations are fished at or under their maximum sustainability yield. Alongside fish and shellfish, larger species are also considered carbon stores, with species such as tuna estimated to be 10% to 15% carbon. This leaves the ocean system when they are fished.

Adopting a climate-smart approach would support the UK’s Fisheries Act, passed last year, which recognises climate impacts in fisheries but has yet to take action in addressing the issue.

Companies are developing solutions to decarbonise vessels, with some exploring alternative fuels such as hydrogen and ammonia to cut carbon from larger, long-range maritime transport. On a smaller scale, electrification is being looked at by several figures in the maritime industry, such as Bio Feeder, which announced plans to charter Norway’s first electric fish feed vessel this summer. Others are experimenting with sail-powered cargo fleets, such as Timbercoast, while SailCargo’s Ceiba vessel combines traditional timber sailing masts with solar-powered engines to achieve commercial-scale zero-carbon shipping.

For smaller fishing vessels, returning to traditional methods could be more appropriate. Cornwall-based Fal Oysters fishery is rooted in low-emission fishing practices, using just sail power and a lower impact approach to harvesting seafood.

To better protect the UK’s blue carbon-storing habitats, bottom trawling is set to be banned within Marine Protected Area (MPA) networks and increased limitations are due to be enforced outside of MPAs.

Less-destructive alternatives such as bottom longlines will require incentives to encourage positive action. Certain initiatives are aiming to reinvent less disruptive fishing gear, such as the Cyprus-based project SEALIVE, which is developing bio-based fishing nets made with natural materials including micro-algae. The nets are also compostable on an industrial scale.

Source:

https://media.mcsuk.org/documents/Climate_Smart_Fishing_Report_FINAL.pdf

What’s happening? A coastal and ocean industries sustainability plan which calls for blue economy sectors to work in partnership to combat climate change has been launched by the European Commission. The EU’s blue economy has a turnover of over €650bn ($794bn) and supports almost five million direct jobs. The Commission’s plan outlines measures for the blue economy to become more circular and less polluting, with the overall aim to support the EU’s attempts to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.

Why does this matter? The Commission’s proposed plan is attempting to simultaneously protect marine habitats and biodiversity while improving the sustainability of marine-related industries, both of which will play a key role in mitigating climate change.

The plan targets sectors including aquaculture, maritime transport, coastal tourism and shipbuilding, and will support the objectives of the European Green Deal and the EU’s 2050 Zero Pollution Action Plan. The development of offshore renewables such as floating wind and tidal energy, for instance, support the EU’s 2050 target of reaching 300 GW of installed offshore energy. The role of ports will also be explored, with plans to develop them into green “energy hubs” for cleaner power including hydrogen and other low-carbon fuels supporting the decarbonisation of maritime transport.

Measures to shift blue economy sectors to a more circular mode of operation will also be promoted, which includes developing renewed standards for fishing gear to target ocean pollution, and ship recycling. The sustainability of seafood production is to be targeted through new standards, in addition to funding research in innovative food sources such as algae and cell-based seafood.

The agenda includes aims to protect 30% of the EU’s sea area to reduce biodiversity loss and increase fish stocks, through the establishment of marine protected areas to better protect nature and also coastlines from erosion and flooding. The Commission also points to the climate mitigation benefits of such action. Alongside the obvious reasons for protecting biodiversity, the role of large fish species such as tuna and sharks as carbon stores should be recognised as another incentive for conservation – particularly given the fact that Europe’s waters and coastal environments are home to nearly 50,000 species.

Advancing efforts to preserve biodiversity, alongside the growing size of offshore renewables projects, may result in tensions due to pressures on the amount of available space in the ocean. As such, the EU will establish a “Blue Forum” to facilitate discussions between different sea users to enable cooperative, sustainable use of the ocean. One solution already being explored is multi-use offshore projects that combine offshore infrastructure with biodiversity initiatives, such as Van Oord’s deployment of reef structures at the Borssele offshore wind farm to boost the North Sea’s oyster population.

To facilitate all this the European Investment Bank Group, which comprises the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund, will work with member states to support blue innovation and blue bioeconomy initiatives. The Commission is also encouraging private investments to follow ocean sustainability standards such as the EU-sponsored Sustainable Blue Economy Finance Initiative.

On a larger scale, the establishment of strategies aiming to improve the sustainability of marine habitats and related sectors is gaining traction. Last year, the leaders of 14 countries joined the world’s biggest ocean sustainability initiative, pledging to eliminate overfishing, restore shrinking fish populations and end the movement of plastic pollution into the sea over the next decade. Australia recently announced AUD100m ($77.4m) in ocean protection funding, which will go toward the restoration of habitats and industries including fisheries.

Source: www.euractiv.com

What’s happening? The UK government will create the Global Ocean Wildlife Analysis Network, a £2m ($2.8m), four-year project under its Blue Belt Programme that will assess and monitor ocean biodiversity and coastal ecosystems in UK Overseas Territories. The project will see Blue Abacus deploy 66 baited remote underwater video systems, covering four million sq km across the Atlantic, Southern, Indian and Pacific Oceans, while the data generated will offer insights on how to protect these diverse coastal regions.

Why does this matter? In order to protect marine biodiversity, gathering accurate data on species numbers and distribution can help to inform the right decisions. Using remote monitoring technology to pull back the “blue curtain” and obtain information on ocean ecosystems is one way of doing this.

The Global Ocean Wildlife Analysis Network will be the world’s first project to trial a network of stereo-baited underwater camera system in open ocean ecosystems. The non-intrusive Baited Remote Underwater Video Systems (BRUVS), provided by project partner Blue Abacus, will consist of two small action cameras in a carbon fibre frame, which will gather data on populations including loggerhead turtles, black triggerfish and sea snakes. Recently adapted for use in open ocean environments, the camera system has previously been deployed in shallow reef habitats to monitor species.

Monitoring fish populations, their sizes and distributions across the ocean can detect which species are in recovery or in decline – helping to bolster understanding of the local conservation strategies that can be introduced.

The UK’s Blue Belt Programme was established in 2016 and given £20m of funding to promote the long-term protection of marine environments across the UK Overseas Territories (UKOTs), which include Ascension Island, the Cayman Islands, British Antarctic Territory and Tristan da Cunha. It aims to provide long-term protection for the four million square kilometres of marine environment across the UKOTs, through gaining greater scientific understanding and developing evidence-based marine management strategies.

Closer to home, the UK’s own blue belt was recently expanded to include 41 more protected marine zones around its coastline, bringing the total to 355 over an area almost twice the size of England. Activities considered harmful to local species, such as dredging and large offshore development, will be banned under the programme.

Restorative measures such as this can not only improve biodiversity and conserve the ocean’s natural ecosystem services, but prove beneficial economically too. A report by WWF and Sky Ocean Rescue found that the UK’s economy could be boosted by as much as £50bn if its marine stocks and habitats are allowed to regenerate and recover from overfishing and other destructive practices.

Larger-scale coastline ocean preservation agreements are gaining traction. The High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy – the world’s largest ocean sustainability initiative to date ­– was agreed last year by the leaders of 14 countries including Australia, Indonesia and Kenya.

The nations have agreed to end subsidies contributing to overfishing, combat illegal fishing and regenerate fish populations across 40% of the world’s coastlines. The roadmap for the initiative highlights the creation of global data networks as one of its building blocks – techniques such as those deployed under the Global Ocean Wildlife Analysis Network will be fundamental to achieving this.

Source: www.energylivenews.com/2021/04/05/uk-launches-worlds-largest-ocean-monitoring-system/