Search

The dataset presented in this article contains information about marine Area-Based Management Tools (ABMTs) used to assess their contribution to the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Following the scope of the analysis, ABMTs were identified by scrutinizing international and regional legal sources related to ocean management in the fields of marine conservation, fisheries, deep sea bed mining, underwater natural and cultural heritage, environmental conservation, and marine spatial planning. Legal sources were screened to depict the following characteristics of individual ABMTs: i) management objectives; ii) authorities responsible for delivering such objectives; iii) the system of management and planning entailed in the ABMT including the zoning type; and iv) the specific spatial scope and domain each ABMT refer to in vertical depth and horizontal domain. Data were generated through an internal expert elicitation. Experts, initially trained in the data analysis and related protocol, contributed to the data production because of their specific knowledge and experience in ocean management. This dataset represents a unique source of information for advancing research about monitoring and assessment of the achievement of sustainable development goals that encompasses different types of ABMTs.

Area-Based Management Tools (ABMTs) are spatial instruments for conservation and managing different forms of ocean use. A multitude of ABMTs exists in marine areas within and beyond national jurisdiction, ranging from tools for the regulation of specific human activities (e.g. fisheries, shipping, or mining) to cross-sectoral tools (e.g. such as marine protected areas, MPAs, and marine spatial planning, MSP). By applying expert elicitation and reviewing scientific and grey literature we evaluate the contribution of ABMTs to sustainable development goals (SDGs) as set out under the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including for SDG 14 that directly addresses the conservation and sustainable use of oceans, seas, and marine resources. We find that fisheries-related and conservation-related ABMTs, and MSP offer the greatest potential contributions to SDG 14 and to SDGs in general. Moreover, there is high complementarity and synergy among different ABMTs for most SDG 14 targets and other SDGs, with the exception of SDG target 14.6 Prohibit fisheries subsidies and SDG 7 Affordable and clean energy. We find that some ABMTs contribute directly to goal attainment, while others contribute in more nuanced or even unexpected ways. Furthermore, context-specific factors that relate to political and legal factors, enforceability, transparency, governance structure, and inclusivity are crucial for unlocking the full potential of ABMTs of attaining multiple SDGs, as shown through examples. The major challenge to face in the next decade is ensuring durable and equitable outcomes from ABMT implementation by coordinating ABMT initiatives established by different organisations and responsible authorities. It is also critical that outcomes are monitored and evaluated across environmental, social, economic, governance, and health dimensions, with indicators addressing management effectiveness and not only ABMT area coverage.

Local, regional and global targets have been set to halt marine biodiversity loss. Europe has set its own policy targets to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) of marine ecosystems by implementing the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) across member states. We combined an extensive dataset across five Mediterranean ecoregions including 26 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), their reference unprotected areas, and a no-trawl case study. Our aim was to assess if MPAs reach GES, if their effects are local or can be detected at ecoregion level or up to a Mediterranean scale, and which are the ecosystem components driving GES achievement. This was undertaken by using the analytical tool NEAT (Nested Environmental status Assessment Tool), which allows an integrated assessment of the status of marine systems. We adopted an ecosystem approach by integrating data from several ecosystem components: the seagrass Posidonia oceanica, macroalgae, sea urchins and fish. Thresholds to define the GES were set by dedicated workshops and literature review. In the Western Mediterranean, most MPAs are in good/high status, with P. oceanica and fish driving this result within MPAs. However, GES is achieved only at a local level, and the Mediterranean Sea, as a whole, results in a moderate environmental status. Macroalgal forests are overall in bad condition, confirming their status at risk. The results are significantly affected by the assumption that discrete observations over small spatial scales are representative of the total extension investigated. This calls for large-scale, dedicated assessments to realistically detect environmental status changes under different conditions. Understanding MPAs effectiveness in reaching GES is crucial to assess their role as sentinel observatories of marine systems. MPAs and trawling bans can locally contribute to the attainment of GES and to the fulfillment of the MSFD objectives. Building confidence in setting thresholds between GES and non-G

The increasing consideration of gender balance in conservation science and practice has been reflected in the setting of global commitments. Yet, women remain under-represented in science and conservation decision-making. We compiled and analyzed data on the representation of women in hiring, publishing, funding, and leadership positions in European Union marine sciences and conservation. To explore scientists' perceptions of gender imbalance in marine sciences and conservation more broadly, we conducted a global survey and analyzed 764 questionnaires from 42 countries. Participants were also asked to identify measures that promote gender equity. We found a consistent pattern of women being under-representated across institutions and nations characterized by a relatively balanced representation of men and women in early career stages and a growing gap in later stages, with women occupying only 13% to 24% of senior positions. The same pattern was found in publishing, funding, and leadership of research institutes. Survey results demonstrate that most marine scientists are aware of the general and persistent gender bias, and perceive that it may compromise our ability to effectively solve conservation problems. Measures that increase fairness in evaluations (e.g. for hiring) and that support work-life balance ranked high, whereas gender-oriented measures, such as gender-specific scholarships, received less support. Our findings suggest that mechanisms promoting a fairer share of family responsibilities and transparent processes in hiring and evaluation are the most promising path to a more balanced participation of women in scientific leadership and conservation decision-making. Such measures may benefit not only women but diversity more generally

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

Like most ocean regions today, the European and contiguous seas experience cumulative impacts from local human activities and global pressures. They are largely in poor environmental condition with deteriorating trends. Despite several success stories, European policies for marine conservation fall short of being effective. Acknowledging the challenges for marine conservation, a 4-year multi-national network, MarCons, supported collaborative marine conservation efforts to bridge the gap between science, management and policy, aiming to contribute in reversing present negative trends. By consolidating a large network of more than 100 scientists from 26 countries, and conducting a series of workshops over 4 years (2016–2020), MarCons analyzed challenges, opportunities and obstacles for advancing marine conservation in the European and contiguous seas. Here, we synthesize the major issues that emerged from this analysis and make 12 key recommendations for policy makers, marine managers, and researchers. To increase the effectiveness of marine conservation planning, we recommend (1) designing coherent networks of marine protected areas (MPAs) in the framework of marine spatial planning (MSP) and applying systematic conservation planning principles, including re-evaluation of existing management zones, (2) designing MPA networks within a broader transboundary planning framework, and (3) implementing integrated land-freshwater-sea approaches. To address inadequate or poorly informed management, we recommend (4) developing and implementing adaptive management plans in all sites of the Natura 2000 European conservation network and revising the Natura 2000 framework, (5) embedding and implementing cumulative effects assessments into a risk management process and making them operational, and (6) promoting actions to reach ‘good environmental status’ in all European waters. To account for global change in conservation planning and management, we further recommend (7) developin

In the Anthropocene, marine ecosystems are rapidly shifting to new ecological states. Achieving effective conservation of marine biodiversity has become a fast-moving target because of both global climate change and continuous shifts in marine policies. How prepared are we to deal with this crisis? We examined EU Member States Programs of Measures designed for the implementation of EU marine environmental policies, as well as recent European Marine Spatial Plans, and discovered that climate change is rarely considered operationally. Further, our analysis revealed that monitoring programs in marine protected areas are often insufficient to clearly distinguish between impacts of local and global stressors. Finally, we suggest that while the novel global Blue Growth approach may jeopardize previous marine conservation efforts, it can also provide new conservation opportunities. Adaptive management is the way forward (e.g., preserving ecosystem functions in climate change hotspots, and identifying and targeting climate refugia areas for protection) using Marine Spatial Planning as a framework for action, especially given the push for Blue Growth

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 po

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 po