No abstract

No abstract

As a response to increasing human pressures on marine ecosystems, the legislation aimed at improving the conservation and management of marine coastal areas in European and Contiguous Seas (ECS) underwent crucial advances. ECS, however, still remain largely affected by increasing threats leading to biodiversity loss. Here, by using emblematic case studies and expert knowledge, we review current conservation tools, comparing their application in different areas to assess their effectiveness, potential for synergies, and contradictions. Despite regional differences in their application, the existing legislative frameworks have the potential to regulate human activities and to protect marine biodiversity. However, four challenges remain to be addressed to fully achieve environmental policy goals: (1) Lack of shared vision representing a limitation in transboundary collaboration. Although all EU countries are committed to fulfil EU Directives and other binding international legislative acts, a remarkable heterogeneity exists among countries in the compliance with the common legislation on conservation and in their degree of implementation. (2) Lack of systematic procedures for the selection of protected marine sites. Regional and national approaches in designating Natura

An up-to-date systematic review and unofficial codification of the national fisheries legislation was performed, along with an up-to-date systematic review of environmental, archaeological and maritime legislation, about spatio-temporal restrictions of fishing activities by all fishing gears in the Aegean Sea. Spatio-temporal restrictions established by the European Union and the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean were also reviewed. A database was built, including detailed information on the Fisheries Restricted Areas (FRAs) being identified. All FRAs were mapped, as polygons in Geographic Information System shapefiles. The national fisheries, environmental, archeological and maritime legal framework comprises of 32, 2, 37 and 43 legal acts respectively; EU and GFCM legislation consists of one Regulation and one Recommendation respectively. A total of 511 national (254 of fisheries, 21 of environmental, 85 of archaeological and 151 of the maritime legislation), 6 EU and 4 international FRAs were identified, out of which 85.2% are located in the Aegean Sea and 14.8% in Crete. Towed or mobile gears are restricted in 88.5% of the FRAs, while static gears are restricted in only 10.2% of FRAs. Fish stocks and Posidonia oceanica beds protection are the most common reasons for regulating fishing activities (25.3% and 25.0% respectively). Most of the FRAs (85.4%) impose permanent closures. National fisheries, environmental, archaeological, maritime, EU and international FRAs cover 25.8%, 1.0%, 1.1%, 0.4%, 13.5% and 22.6% of the study area, respectively. The present study provides valuable information for the Maritime Spatial Planning in the Aegean Sea.