{"title":"利益攸关方对冰岛水域 30×30 政策进行反思,发现立法和宣传方面存在差距","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106422","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Other Effective Conservation Measures (OECMs) recognize that various forms of management actions can contribute to biodiversity conservation. OECMs have been criticized for ambiguity, lack of criteria for evaluation and, thereby, inconsistent implementation. Nevertheless, many coastal states aim to evaluate current management actions as candidates for OECMs and count them toward numerical biodiversity conservation goals. Successful implementation requires careful examination of biodiversity benefits and estimation of the social impacts of such actions. There are numerous fisheries restricted areas within the Icelandic Exclusive Economic Zone, some with designated biodiversity conservation goals, whereas the Icelandic Act of Nature Conservation (60/2913) has rarely been used in marine waters. In the current study, complementary methods are used to broadly examine stakeholder views on the efficiency of current legislation, and future policy, to achieve numerical goals on biodiversity conservation. Despite documenting broad willingness of stakeholders to protect ocean space, gaps in legislation and communication are identified both through survey responses and in interviews with key informants. As a first study to document stakeholder perceptions on using fisheries legislation for the purpose of biodiversity conservation, the results have relevance for future policy on reporting fisheries legislation as OECMs, understanding stakeholder perceptions on different actions and, finally, to inform policy on stakeholder involvement, and outreach campaigns, as governments move forward to meet marine conservation goals.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48427,"journal":{"name":"Marine Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gaps in legislation and communication identified as stakeholders reflect on 30×30 policy in Icelandic waters\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106422\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Other Effective Conservation Measures (OECMs) recognize that various forms of management actions can contribute to biodiversity conservation. OECMs have been criticized for ambiguity, lack of criteria for evaluation and, thereby, inconsistent implementation. Nevertheless, many coastal states aim to evaluate current management actions as candidates for OECMs and count them toward numerical biodiversity conservation goals. Successful implementation requires careful examination of biodiversity benefits and estimation of the social impacts of such actions. There are numerous fisheries restricted areas within the Icelandic Exclusive Economic Zone, some with designated biodiversity conservation goals, whereas the Icelandic Act of Nature Conservation (60/2913) has rarely been used in marine waters. In the current study, complementary methods are used to broadly examine stakeholder views on the efficiency of current legislation, and future policy, to achieve numerical goals on biodiversity conservation. Despite documenting broad willingness of stakeholders to protect ocean space, gaps in legislation and communication are identified both through survey responses and in interviews with key informants. As a first study to document stakeholder perceptions on using fisheries legislation for the purpose of biodiversity conservation, the results have relevance for future policy on reporting fisheries legislation as OECMs, understanding stakeholder perceptions on different actions and, finally, to inform policy on stakeholder involvement, and outreach campaigns, as governments move forward to meet marine conservation goals.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48427,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Marine Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Marine Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X24004226\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Marine Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X24004226","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Gaps in legislation and communication identified as stakeholders reflect on 30×30 policy in Icelandic waters
Other Effective Conservation Measures (OECMs) recognize that various forms of management actions can contribute to biodiversity conservation. OECMs have been criticized for ambiguity, lack of criteria for evaluation and, thereby, inconsistent implementation. Nevertheless, many coastal states aim to evaluate current management actions as candidates for OECMs and count them toward numerical biodiversity conservation goals. Successful implementation requires careful examination of biodiversity benefits and estimation of the social impacts of such actions. There are numerous fisheries restricted areas within the Icelandic Exclusive Economic Zone, some with designated biodiversity conservation goals, whereas the Icelandic Act of Nature Conservation (60/2913) has rarely been used in marine waters. In the current study, complementary methods are used to broadly examine stakeholder views on the efficiency of current legislation, and future policy, to achieve numerical goals on biodiversity conservation. Despite documenting broad willingness of stakeholders to protect ocean space, gaps in legislation and communication are identified both through survey responses and in interviews with key informants. As a first study to document stakeholder perceptions on using fisheries legislation for the purpose of biodiversity conservation, the results have relevance for future policy on reporting fisheries legislation as OECMs, understanding stakeholder perceptions on different actions and, finally, to inform policy on stakeholder involvement, and outreach campaigns, as governments move forward to meet marine conservation goals.
期刊介绍:
Marine Policy is the leading journal of ocean policy studies. It offers researchers, analysts and policy makers a unique combination of analyses in the principal social science disciplines relevant to the formulation of marine policy. Major articles are contributed by specialists in marine affairs, including marine economists and marine resource managers, political scientists, marine scientists, international lawyers, geographers and anthropologists. Drawing on their expertise and research, the journal covers: international, regional and national marine policies; institutional arrangements for the management and regulation of marine activities, including fisheries and shipping; conflict resolution; marine pollution and environment; conservation and use of marine resources. Regular features of Marine Policy include research reports, conference reports and reports on current developments to keep readers up-to-date with the latest developments and research in ocean affairs.