MPAs for fisheries management and nature conservation in the Nordic region Thomas Kirk Sørensen MPA Workshop, Bergen, March 2011

The Nordic Region Greenland Iceland Faroe Islands Finland Norway Sweden Denmark

Blæsbjerg, M., Pawlak, J., Sørensen, T.K. & Vestergaard, O. (2009) Nordic Forum on Marine Protected Areas & Marine Spatial Planning - Nordic approaches to integrated marine management Download:

Blæsbjerg, M., Pawlak, J., Sørensen, T.K. & Vestergaard, O. (2009) Characteristics of the Nordic region The Nordic region is a very diverse region but shares many similarities: unique unity, with commonalities such as languages, culture and a common history; fairly high level of fundamental environmental awareness; highly developed regarding technology, economy and education. history of relatively high level of regulation and compliance

Let’s take a quick tour of the Nordic region… …make a few stops to see if we can spot some examples of MPAs that might reconcile fisheries management and nature conservation objectives!

Denmark Natura 2000 (EU) sites designated. Potential set of MPAs but management still not in place. Natura 2000 does not address commercial fish species or their habitat requirements.

Closed areas: Area 1: closed during the 1 st January-31 th March (spawning season), except for fishery with selective gears; ”Kilen” (the triangle) closed 1 st February -31 th March, except for fishery with selective gears; Area 2. closed year round for all fisheries except fisheries with selective gears. Area 3: closed year round for all fisheries, including recreational fisheries; Three year experiment Closed since Jan ’09 to protect Kattegat cod

Finland MPAs are mainly focused around Natura 2000 EU protected sites, which still lack management plans. very few examples of integrating commercial fisheries with Natura 2000 management, as fisheries are small scale with no real conflicts no true no-take zones Finland’s MPA strategy has mainly been focused on nature conservation and recreation while MPAs for fisheries management don’t really exist

Sweden Koster-Väderö Fjord / Kosterhavet National Park Shrimp trawling and fishing for lobster and Norwegian lobster are allowed. Several sea-bed protection areas where bottom trawling, anchoring, and other activities are prohibited. Goals include: a long-term sustainable fishery in balance with the area’s biological diversity, and the improvement of fish and shellfish stocks. Brochure screen dump

Gotska sandön: no-take area for protection of turbot Marine nature reserve implemented in 1987 No-take area implemented in 2006 (360 km2) Important turbot fishing area

Effects on turbot population Turbot in no-take area compared to fished area (results from monitoring in ): lower mortality higher density of small and large turbot higher proportion of females (very few males grow to size targeted in fishery) higher maximum size of females Larval dispersal modelling: net dispersal from no-take area towards fished area

Sweden Swedish colleagues have studied existing nature conservation MPAs and modelled how they function in protecting fish (Sundblad et al. 2011). Conclusion: in this case the most important fish habitats are unprotected. Natura 2000

Norway Area based management measures in Norwegian fisheries management: competition between gears and fleets protection of spawning & nursery areas – permanent and real time closures management of depleted stocks (i.e. coastal cod, redfish, sandeel) & stationary stocks (i.e. lobster and seaweed) protection of vulnerable bottom habitats (i.e. coral reefs)

Norway Norway is currently planning 36 candidate nature conservation MPAs. Strategy: cover a broad range of habitats and thereby also a broad range of species. Some of these are cold water Lophelia coral reef sites that were “re-discovered” in the late 1990’s. By then they were already heavily impacted.

Norway Rapid establishment of protected coral sites, exclusion of bottom contacting fisheries etc. The text of the 1998 legislation (since amended): The aim of this legislation is to protect coral reefs against destruction resulting from fishing activity, and thereby to contribute to a responsible resource management by amongst other things securing reproduction and nursery areas of many fish species. (Armstrong & van den Hove 2008) ©IMR

Ecosystem based, Integrated management plan for the Barents Sea– Lofoten area showing the main fishing areas, shipping lanes, and the area-based framework for hydrocarbon extraction (2006–2010), together with the particularly valuable and vulnerable areas. Olsen E et al. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2007;64: Barents Sea Plan

Norway European lobster (Homarus gammarus) in Norway is listed in the national red list as near threatened. In 2006 four lobster MPAs were implemented along the Norwegian Skagerrak coast, where only hook and line is permitted ( Pettersen et al. 2009).

Iceland Highly adaptive system of temporal and spatial closures with much focus on protection of spawning and juvenile fishes. More recently MPAs to protect coral reefs. Recent studies have shown that the fishery closures are important to protect 3-dimensional habitat forming organisms (pers.comm. S. Ragnarsson).

Faroe Islands Dynamic system of closures: year-round and real time closures. Separate conflicting fisheries Additional no take areas for corals. Figures from Cruz 2007

Greenland No examples of closing areas for fisheries management purposes, mainly nature conservation Ivittuut in southern Greenland protected from trawl fishing in 2000 to protect birds and highly unique Ikka columns. Parts of Melville Bay in NW Greenland protected due to marine and terrestrial mammals. Parts of the Illulisat ice fjord are off limits.

Greenland Northeast Greenland National Park Largest national park in the world 110,000 km2 sea area (3 nm from baseline), mainly fjord landscape Only traditional and line fishing permitted. Has largely been protected by isolation, but climate change may be changing this…

A survey among skippers in the shrimp fleet revealed the presence of a coastal belt with corals in the coastal area between Nuuk and Maniitsoq. Greenland has decided to protect two sites in Source: Management Plan for shrimp fishery in Western Greenland (2010) Greenland

Conclusions All nations of the Nordic region use MPAs in fisheries management and/or nature conservation. Most MPAs are still based on traditional single sector needs. However, there are many lessons we can learn from the MPAs that are planned to work towards achievement of both objectives. The current ”race for space” and the rush to develop marine spatial planning leaves little space for a sector by sector approach to MPAs.

Danish Institute for Fisheries Research Thanks to: Ole Vestergaard, Ulf Bergström, Per Nilsson, Anita Tullrot, Mattias Sköld, Claire Armstrong, Alf R. Kleiven, Erik Olsen, Jón Solmundsson, Michael Haldin, Jan Ekebom, Naja Holm, Stefan Ragnarsson And thank you for your attention!