fermer
retour en haut de la page

Fishing reaches the depths but marine conservation remains superficial

The ocean is a three-dimensional environment with an important vertical dimension, depth, which structures unique ecosystems and specific human uses. However, marine management and conservation tools are dominated by a two-dimensional representation of the ocean, which neglects this vertical stratification. While this reductionist representation of the ocean was compatible with mainly coastal human uses, the expansion of the human footprint towards the high seas and the deep ocean requires a new approach that takes into account this vertical complexity. Taking into account the depth of the ocean is particularly important given the new targets of the Montreal-Kunming agreements, including the goal of achieving 30% marine protection coverage by 2030, as well as the recent international treaty for the management of biodiversity in the high seas.

 

In this context, researchers from Criobe and the University of Washington have developed a new approach to assess the distribution of human impacts and conservation efforts across the three dimensions of the ocean: latitude, longitude and depth. To do this, a typology of the main ecological units across the depths (Figure 1) is superimposed on a two-dimensional typology of marine ecoregions to define three-dimensional ecoregions.

 

Figure 1: Depth reached by fishing activities by gear type. The depth of the pictograms representing each machine indicates the maximum depth at which these machines operate.

 

Using this new typology, the team assessed the global three-dimensional distribution of conservation efforts and fishing activities, which today constitute the main direct human pressure on marine ecosystems. The analyses are based on public databases, such as the Global Fishing Watch for fishing activities, the World Database on Protected Area for conservation efforts, and GEBCO for bathymetric data.

 

The results revealed that the different depths of the ocean, which correspond to unique ecosystems, benefit from very disparate conservation efforts. While the shallowest ecosystems (0 to 30 m) are the best protected, the deeper ecosystems, including the mesophotic (30 to 150 m), the rariphotic (150 to 300 m) and the abyss (3500 to 6000 m), have still not reached the 10% protection coverage target set by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and which should have been achieved by 2020. In contrast, the 3D footprint of fishing activities extends across all depths, with 37% of global fishing activities operating in the deep ocean, below 300 m.

 

On the other hand, the results show that conservation efforts are disproportionately directed towards areas where the least fishing activity takes place, a phenomenon of avoidance called “residual conservation”. In other words, the areas most impacted by human pressures most often remain unprotected. In addition, marine areas of strong protection, where extraction regulations are strict, and which provide the greatest ecological benefits, are underrepresented in all ecoregions and depths, with only 1.4% coverage globally.

 

The weaknesses of the global network of marine protected areas highlighted by this study call for a more holistic representation of the ocean, taking into account its vertical structure and the complex processes of connectivity linking the pelagic to the benthic. Improving ecological representation at all depths, increasing strong protection coverage, and prioritizing areas most impacted by human uses must be the priority of conservation strategies at the national and global levels.

Taxation of Agricultural Land in Europe: A Comparative Approach

Within the European Union (EU), agriculture is the subject of a long-standing, well-established and well-known common policy with the largest budget (386.6 billion euros for the period 2021-2027, i.e. 32% of the European budget). It is also affected by the internal market policy. In addition, various EU environmental directives apply to agricultural land. This is the case for biodiversity (Birds Directive, Habitats Directive, Environmental Liability Directive), environmental assessment (Projects Directive, Plans and Programmes Directive), water (Water Framework Directive, Nitrates Directive, Sewage Sludge Directive, Floods Directive, etc.). The EU is also party to several international conventions in the field of biodiversity that concern agricultural land (Convention on Biological Diversity, Bern Convention, Bonn Convention, Ramsar Convention, etc.).

 

Although European agriculture is subject to this threefold harmonization process, the rules for taxing agricultural land seem to differ quite a lot from one state to another. However, taxation affects several aspects of agricultural and environmental policies. It can encourage or discourage the profitability of agriculture, encourage the practice of a particular type of agriculture that is more or less favorable to biodiversity, and encourage or discourage a change in the use of agricultural land. Taxation of agricultural land therefore has multiple effects, both on the agricultural land itself and on agricultural, land use, urban planning and environmental policies. Moreover, within the debates on possible biodiversity policy strategies, the taxation of agricultural land and its modalities may favor one option or another.

For these different reasons, a comparative analysis of the taxation of agricultural land in Europe seemed useful to the French Foundation for Biodiversity Research.

 

The note is available in the downloadable resources section.

 

[Call for proposals] The FRB-CESAB call on systematic reviews has been extended until the 9th of September

The FRB, through its Centre for the Synthesis and Analysis of Biodiversity (CESAB), is funding 2 postdoctoral researchers for up to 18 months, to carry out systematic reviews, using systematic mapping, critical assessment and narrative synthesis of the corpus of selected texts, in order to write a review article for an international scientific journal.

 

 

The project may go as far as either a completed lexicographical analysis or the extraction of statistical data from the corpus and their analysis (meta-analysis).

 

 

  •  Theme 1: State and future of marine biodiversity in a time of global change 
  • Theme 2, in partnership with Agropolis Fondation: Solutions for agro-ecological transition that conserve biodiversity 

 

Pre-proposals deadline : 9th September 2020, 23:59 CEST

More information can be found on the call page

Biomimétisme et biodiversité

Le concept de biomimétisme ou bio-inspiration a été théorisé pour la première fois il y a une vingtaine d’année (cf. Janine Benyus : Biomimicry, Innovation Inspired by Nature). L’approche initiale défend une vision qui considère que cette démarche d’innovation « fait appel au transfert et à l’adaptation des principes et stratégies élaborés par les organismes vivants et les écosystèmes, afin de produire des biens et des services de manière durable, et rendre les sociétés humaines compatibles avec la biosphère ».

 

Le Biomimétisme identifie des solutions naturelles apparues au cours de l’évolution, c’est à dire des fonctions ou des rapports entre structures et fonctions chez les organismes vivants qu’il peut être intéressant de transposer à une fonction d’intérêt humain : sa finalité est de chercher, d’identifier et de d’industrialiser une solution à un problème humain.

 

Cette démarche est nécessairement interdisciplinaire, entre sciences fondamentales et sciences de l’ingénieur, et demande de la part des acteurs économiques la mobilisation de ressources significatives en matière de recherche et développement (R&D).

 

 

Le biomimétisme est la rencontre de plusieurs mondes, l’écologie,
les sciences de l’évolution, la biologie et l’ingénierie,
ou encore une interface entre sciences naturelles et industrie.

 

 

L’association Biomimicry Europa, créée en 2006 pour la promotion du biomimétisme, propose de distinguer trois niveaux d’inspiration : les formes biologiques, les matériaux et processus, les interactions.

 

En matière de recherche et développement, l’Allemagne a longtemps été en tête avec plus de 100 structures de recherche publiques impliquées et dix réseaux territoriaux spécialisés. Le Royaume-Uni et la Suisse sont aussi deux pays fortement impliqués en Europe.

 

En France, l’implication est plus récente, mais actuellement, plus de 175 équipes de recherche s’intéressent au sujet et plus de 100 entreprises font appel à cette démarche. Plusieurs Groupements de recherche (GDR) et Réseaux thématiques pluridisciplinaires (RTP) génèrent des initiatives structurantes autour de la chimie bio-inspirée, la mécanique des matériaux biologiques ou les micro-technologies inspirées des insectes. Le centre européen d’excellence en biomimétisme (Ceebios), créé en 2012, fédère un nombre croissant de grandes entreprises comme L’Oréal, LVMH, Engie, Vicat, Saint-Gobain, et bénéficie du soutien du ministère de la transition écologique et solidaire.

 

Les régions les plus impliquées en matière de R&D (compétences académiques) sont l’Ile-de-France, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes et Nouvelle-Aquitaine, puis, à un niveau sensiblement équivalent, Occitanie, Provence-Alpes-Côte-d’Azur et Grand-Est.