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. • Icelandic fishers align themselves unambiguously with marine conservation. • Biodiversity conservation and fisheries management goals were synonymous for many stakeholders. • Stakeholders noted a lack of synergy between fisheries and nature conservation efforts.