Author: Inne Withouck, VLIZ Flanders Marine Institute
Lists of protected species, used in various European and sea basin policies, are a reflection of which biodiversity is prioritised for protection. A set of scientific criteria[1] are generally used to decide which species should be protected, such as how threatened they are. But charismatic and commercial species are also commonly prioritised, so ultimately, the selection of species to protect is a value judgement (Milner-Gulland et al., 2018). VLIZ is responsible for MSP4BIO’s ‘Scoping and gap analysis’ work package, for which we conducted a screening of criteria, species and habitat lists that are currently being used to prioritise protection of marine biodiversity. For species lists, the World Register of Marine Species (WRMS) database, hosted by VLIZ, was an important resource. As well as providing biological information on a total of 510 176 species[2], the database also includes the “Species importance to society”[3]. The “Species importance to society” variable indicates whether a species is part of one or more species lists compiled on global, continental or sea basin levels. Since MSP4BIO is a European project, lists were selected that included species residing in European waters.
The ’Species importance to society” trait includes the following species lists relevant for MSP4BIO:
Table 1 Species lists included in the study, extracted from the WoRMs database
 | the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species |
 | the CITES list of endangered species (Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) |
 | the ASFIS List of Species for Fishery Statistics Purposes from the FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN) |
 | species prioritised in European Directives (Birds Directive annexes, Habitats Directive annexes, MSFD) |
 | the HELCOM Red List of Baltic Sea species in danger of becoming extinct |
 | the OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species & Habitats |
In total, 36 873 brackish/marine genera, species and subspecies were identified to be on one or more of these lists. 5 764 (sub)species were found to be in two or more lists and 425 taxa in three or more lists. Five species stood out as appearing on six of the seven included lists: the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), the harbour porpoise Phocoena Phocoena (as well as three subspecies), the European eel Anguilla anguilla, porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus) and the European sea sturgeon (Acipenser sturio) (see Table 2). All are in the OSPAR list of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats, the MSFD list of indicator species and the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. All except the European sea sturgeon are also in the HELCOM Red List of Baltic Sea species, and all except the harbour porpoise are on the FAO List of Species for Fishery Statistics Purposes. All except the porbeagle and the European eel are in the Habitats Directive list, and all except the Atlantic salmon are in the CITES list. None are in the Birds Directive list.
Table 2 Five species (groups) included in six of the seven lists available on the WoRMs database, illustrated with post stamps from the WoRMs images database
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) | European eel (Anguilla Anguilla) | European sea Sturgeon[FR1] (Acipenser sturio) |
Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)  | Porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus) | |
| Sources images: Atlantic salmon: https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=image&tid=127186&pic=19488 European eel: https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=image&tid=126281&pic=17275 Harbour porpoise: https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=image&tid=137117&pic=20580 Porbeagle shark: https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=image&tid=105841&pic=20363 Sturgeon: https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=image&tid=126279&pic=17006 | ||
Many species are protected, for many different reasons, but this analysis shows how the ‘most protected’ species are all commercial or charismatic species (and all have post stamps dedicated to them). This confirms how conservation inevitably involves value judgements. However, protection of these species can improve protection for lesser known species as well (Albert et al., 2018). It has also been argued that focusing on protecting culturally important species can increase the interest of relevant actors to engage in co-management setups for conservation (Freitas et al., 2020).
As well as the ‘Species Importance to Society’ lists, MSP4BIO also considered additional lists at international, European and sea basin levels. As well as species lists, habitat and criteria lists were also collected. This compilation is informing further work in the MSP4BIO project, to assist biodiversity mainstreaming in marine spatial planning and conservation planning. To find out more about the species, habitats and criteria compiled as part of the MSP4BIO project, check out our Deliverable report here:
References
Albert, C., Luque, G. M., & Courchamp, F. (2018). The twenty most charismatic species. PLoS ONE, 13(7), e0199149. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199149
Freitas, C. T., Lopes, P. F. M., Campos-Silva, J. V., Noble, M. M., Dyball, R., & Peres, C. A. (2020). Co-management of culturally important species: A tool to promote biodiversity conservation and human well-being. People and Nature, 2(1), 61-81. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10064
Milner-Gulland, E. J., Garcia, S., Arlidge, W., Bull, J., Charles, A., Dagorn, L., Fordham, S., Graff Zivin, J., Hall, M., Shrader, J., Vestergaard, N., Wilcox, C., & Squires, D. (2018). Translating the terrestrial mitigation hierarchy to marine megafauna by-catch. Fish and Fisheries, 19(3), 547-561. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12273
[1] Such as the IUCN Red List criteria: https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/categories-and-criteria
[2] Source: https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=stats
[3] More information: https://www.marinespecies.org/traits/aphia.php?p=attrdefinitions
