Marine nature conservation and conflicts with fisheries

Abstract

Globally, conflicts between marine nature conservation and fishery interests are common and increasing, and there is often a glaring lack of dialogue between stakeholders representing these two interests. There is a need for a stronger and enforced coordination between fishing and conservation authorities when establishing marine protected areas for conservation purposes. We propose that an appropriate instrument for such coordination is a broad ecosystem-based marine spatial planning procedure, representing neither nature conservation nor fishery. Strategic environmental assessment for plans and programmes and environmental impact assessment for projects are commonly used tools for assessing the environmental impacts of different human activities, but are seldom used for evaluating the environmental effects of capture fisheries. The diversity of fisheries and the drastic effects of some fisheries on the environment are strong arguments for introducing these procedures as valuable supplements to existing fisheries assessment and management tools and able to provide relevant environmental information for an overall marine spatial planning process. Marine protected areas for nature conservation and for protection of fisheries have different objectives. Therefore, the legal procedure when establishing marine protected areas should depend on whether they are established for nature conservation purposes or as a fisheries resource management tool. Fishing in a marine protected area for conservation purpose should be regulated according to conservation law. Also, we argue that marine protected areas for conservation purposes, in the highest protection category, should primarily be established as fully protected marine national parks and marine reserves.

A Sustainability Compass for policy navigation to sustainable food systems

“… Marine biodiversity is endangered by the presence of toxic substances (with plastics being in the focus of recent discussions), disturbances by unsustainable fishery practices (e.g. trailing gears) affecting target and non-target species as well as ecosystems, and by alteration of its chemical status, particularly reduction of the pH leading to coral bleaching ( Grip and Blomqvist, 2020 ; Price, 2001 ; Wang et al, 2021 ). While the chemical effect is captured already by emissions of GHGs and Nr, we suggest the size of fisheries as a proxy for emissions of plastics and disturbances, using ‘total’ fisheries in the absence of better data on ‘sustainable fisheries'.…”

Marine spatial planning: Coordinating divergent marine interests

“…According to UNCLOS, the state usually controls the use of marine resources under its sovereignty and responsibility, unlike the situation on land. Provided international conventions and agreements are respected, and that there is a political will, marine spatial planning should be a “real” planning, where the “property owner”, the state, decides how the marine resources should be used (Grip and Blomqvist 2020 ).…”

Marine Protected Areas: At the Crossroads of Nature Conservation and Fisheries Management

“…This apparent mismatch, however, may not be evident under all circumstances. For certain areas, the diverging objectives of the conservation and fisheries sector in terms of relative MPA coverage can in fact overlap, which may help to minimize trade-offs (Gaines et al, 2010) with the ultimate goal of manifesting the role of MPAs as an integral part of an effective ecosystem-based management of living marine resources (Grip and Blomqvist, 2020).…”