Search

Marine protected areas (MPAs) represent the main tool for halting the loss of marine biodiversity. However, there is increasing evidence concerning their limited capacity to reduce or eliminate some threats even within their own boundaries. Here, we analysed a Europe-wide dataset comprising 31,579 threats recorded in 1692 sites of the European Union's Natura 2000 conservation network. Focusing specifically on threats related to marine species and habitats, we found that fishing and outdoor activities were the most widespread threats reported within MPA boundaries, although some spatial heterogeneity in the distribution of threats was apparent. Our results clearly demonstrate the need to reconsider current management plans, standardise monitoring approaches and reporting, refine present threat assessments and improve knowledge of their spatial patterns within and outside MPAs in order to improve conservation capacity and outcomes. Unlabelled Image • Recreational activities and fishing are the main threats affecting European MPAs. • The majority of the threats occur/act both inside and outside the boundaries of the MPAs. • There is heterogeneity in the distribution of threats across European countries. • Standardised monitoring and assessments are needed to improve conservation capacity and outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For the past two decades, the need to shield strategic maritime interests, to tackle criminality and terrorism at or from the sea and to conserve valuable marine resources has been recognized at the highest political level. Acknowledging and accounting for the interplay between climate change, the vulnerability of coastal populations and the occurrence of maritime criminality should be part of any ocean governance process. Still, given the complex interactions between climate change and socio-economic components of the marine realm, it has become urgent to establish a solid methodological framework, which could lead to sound and effective decisions. We propose that any such framework should not be built from scratch. The adaptation of well tested, existing uncertainty-management tools, such as Cumulative Effect Assessments, could serve as a solid basis to account for the magnitude and directionality of the dependencies between the impacts of climate change and the occurrence of maritime criminality, offering spatial explicit risk evaluations. Multi-Criteria Decision Making could then be employed to better and faster inform decision-makers. These mechanisms could provide a framework for comparison of alternative mitigation and adaptation actions and are essential in assessing responses to tackle maritime crime in the context of climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Marine ecosystems are increasingly threatened by the cumulative effects of multiple human pressures. Cumulative effect assessments (CEAs) are needed to inform environmental policy and guide ecosystem-based management. Yet, CEAs are inherently complex and seldom linked to real-world management processes. Therefore we propose entrenching CEAs in a risk management process, comprising the steps of risk identification, risk analysis and risk evaluation. We provide guidance to operationalize a risk-based approach to CEAs by describing for each step guiding principles and desired outcomes, scientific challenges and practical solutions. We reviewed the treatment of uncertainty in CEAs and the contribution of different tools and data sources to the implementation of a risk based approach to CEAs. We show that a risk-based approach to CEAs decreases complexity, allows for the transparent treatment of uncertainty and streamlines the uptake of scientific outcomes into the science-policy interface. Hence, its adoption can help bridging the gap between science and decision-making in ecosystem-based management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate change (CC) is a key, global driver of change of marine ecosystems. At local and regional scales, other local human stressors (LS) can interact with CC and modify its effects on marine ecosystems. Understanding the response of the marine environment to the combined effects of CC and LS is crucial to inform marine ecosystem-based management and planning, yet our knowledge of the potential effects of such interactions is fragmented. At a global scale, we explored how cumulative effect assessments (CEAs) have addressed CC in the marine realm and discuss progress and shortcomings of current approaches. For this we conducted a systematic review on how CEAs investigated at different levels of biological organization ecological responses, functional aspects, and the combined effect of CC and HS. Globally, the effects of 52 LS and of 27 CC-related stressors on the marine environment have been studied in combination, such as industrial fisheries with change in temperature, or sea level rise with artisanal fisheries, marine litter, change in sediment load and introduced alien species. CC generally intensified the effects of LS at species level. At trophic groups and ecosystem levels, the effects of CC either intensified or mitigated the effects of other HS depending on the trophic groups or the environmental conditions involved, thus suggesting that the combined effects of CC and LS are context-dependent and vary among and within ecosystems. Our results highlight that large-scale assessments on the spatial interaction and combined effects of CC and LS remain limited. More importantly, our results strengthen the urgent need of CEAs to capture local-scale effects of stressors that can exacerbate climate-induced changes. Ultimately, this will allow identifying management measures that aid counteracting CC effects at relevant scales. Unlabelled Image • Local human stressors (LS) and climate change (CC) interact in marine environment. • We review how cumulative effect assessments (CEA) address CC & LS combined effects. • 52 LS & 27 CC stressors explored at different levels of biological diversity. • CC-LS combined effects are context-dependent and vary among and within ecosystems. • Urgency for CEAs to capture LS local effects that can exacerbate CC, to mitigate it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ecosystem-based management requires an assessment of the cumulative effects of human pressures and environmental change. The operationalization and integration of cumulative effects assessments (CEA) into decision-making processes often lacks a comprehensive and transparent framework. A risk-based CEA framework that divides a CEA in risk identification, risk analysis and risk evaluation, could structure such complex analyses and facilitate the establishment of direct science-policy links. Here, we examine carefully the operationalization of such a risk-based CEA framework with the help of eleven contrasting case studies located in Europe, French Polynesia, and Canada. We show that the CEA framework used at local, sub-regional, and regional scales allowed for a consistent, coherent, and transparent comparison of complex assessments. From our analysis, we pinpoint four emerging issues that, if accurately addressed, can improve the take up of CEA outcomes by management: 1) framing of the CEA context and defining risk criteria; 2) describing the roles of scientists and decision-makers; 3) reducing and structuring complexity; and 4) communicating uncertainty. Moreover, with a set of customized tools we describe and analyze for each case study the nature and location of uncertainty as well as trade-offs regarding available knowledge and data used for the CEA. Ultimately, these tools aid decision-makers to recognize potential caveats and repercussions of management decisions. One key recommendation is to differentiate CEA processes and their context in relation to governance advice, marine spatial planning or regulatory advice. We conclude that future research needs to evaluate how effective management measures are in reducing the risk of cumulative effects. Changing governance structures takes time and is often difficult, but we postulate that well-framed and structured CEA can function as a strategic tool to integrate ecosystem considerations across multiple sectorial policies. Unlabelled Image • Eleven contrasting case studies reveal key issues for the operationalization of a risk-based CEA framework • General need to better define CEA context, risk criteria and the roles of scientists, managers and stakeholders • Customized tools for the communication of uncertainty and trade-offs of knowledge and data are demonstrated • Need to differentiate CEA by purpose informing either governance advice, marine spatial planning or regulatory processes • Well-framed CEA as a strategic tool to integrate ecosystem considerations across sectors [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]