essay on marine conservation

Protecting Marine Ecosystems

Learn about the types and goals of marine protected areas.

Biology, Ecology, Earth Science, Oceanography, U.S. History

Loading ...

Learning materials, upcoming event.

• Explorer Classroom: Shipwrecks and Shipworms with Reuben Shipway | October 31

How do oceans affect you? If you live far from the coast , you might think they don’t. But life on this planet depends on the ocean. Its cover almost three-quarters of the planet and hold 97 percent of Earth’s water. The phytoplankton that live on the oceans’ surface produce half of the oxygen in the atmosphere . Oceans are a vital source of food and other resources and an economic engine for many communities.

For all the ocean provides us, we haven ’t always been so responsible in our stewardship . “The ocean was thought of as a dumping ground for so long,” says Caitlyn Toropova of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). “There was a sense that there was no way we could harm it because it is so vast .” But human activities are having a negative impact on many of the world’s oceans, jeopardizing marine life, habitats , and ecosystems . These threats include overfishing or destructive fishing, coastal development , pollution and runoff , and the introduction of non-native species . Climate change is also having a big effect by causing warming seas and ocean acidification . The realization that something needs to be done to stem or reverse the damage has led to the creation of marine protected areas (MPAs). Broadly speaking, a marine protected area (MPA) is a region of the ocean where human activity is limited. Specifics differ around the globe, but the United States defines a marine protected area as “any area of the marine environment that has been reserved by federal , state, tribal, territorial, or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for part or all of the natural and cultural resources therein.” There are approximately 5,000 designated MPAs around the world but many more that are not officially recognized, says Toropova, the conservation group’s coordination officer for marine protected areas. The United States has 1,700 MPAs. That may sound like a lot, but less than one percent of the world’s oceans is protected. Countries around the world have committed to protecting 10 percent, Toropova says. But “even though there’s been an increase in the past 10 years, at the current rate it would take 100 years to reach that goal,” she says. MPA Goals While all MPAs are designed to limit human activity, there are different types of marine protected areas with different goals. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) developed a system that relies on a site’s five functional characteristics: conservation focus , level of protection , permanence of protection, constancy of protection, and ecological scale of protection.

A site’s conservation focus and its level of protection are the most important characteristics. A conservation focus asks what an MPA was created to protect. It could be the water’s natural heritage —such as its biodiversity , habitat , population, or ecosystems —or its cultural heritage , which reflects the country’s maritime history and connections to the sea. Or it might have been created for sustainable production, where the focus is on managing the removal of living resources such as plants, fish, or shellfish . A level of protection determines what kinds of activities are prohibited , restricted , or allowed in a marine protected area. Here are the varying levels of protection MPAs provide, according to NOAA’s framework:

• Uniform multiple-use MPAs allow activities, including fishing or taking other living resources from the water, across the entire protected area.
• Zoned multiple-use MPAs allow people to take resources but limits where or when they can do so to lessen the impact on the area.
• Zoned multiple-use MPAs with no-take zones are MPAs that allow many activities but have at least one zone where people are prohibited from taking any marine resources .
• No-take MPAs or zones restrict people from taking any natural or cultural resources.

Types of MPAs There are different types of marine protected areas. They may differ in their conservation focus and level of protection. Marine reserves are usually no-take MPAs, and therefore prohibit any taking of resources . Activities that aren’t allowed include fishing and mining . Other activities, such as swimming and boating, are often permitted. Many reserves have a strong education or research focus. Natural Bridges State Marine Reserve in California is one example. Located on the edge of the city of Santa Cruz, it covers 1.5 square kilometers (0.58 miles). Natural Bridges was created to protect surfgrass and sandy beach, which provide habitat for a variety of species. Fishing, drilling , and mining are not allowed at the MPA. Recreational activities like kayaking and swimming are allowed.

Marine sanctuaries have special conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, cultural, archaeological, scientific, educational, or aesthetic qualities. Most are multiple-use areas but may be zoned with no-take areas. The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary is one of 13 U.S. sanctuaries. Located on the southern tip of Florida, it holds a wealth of natural resources, including the largest living coral reef in North America. The marine sanctuary is vast, covering 9,500 square kilometers (3,667 square miles). The rich variety of habitats includes seagrass beds and mangrove swamps . Thousands of species live in the Keys, sponges, jellies, anemones, mussels, oysters, and coral among them.

The sanctuary also holds cultural resources that offer a glimpse of the area’s maritime history. Since the European arrival to Florida in the 1500s, many ships have sunk in the waters off Florida. Artifacts from these shipwrecks rest in the sanctuary. With its natural and cultural resources, it’s not surprising the Florida Keys draws visitors: more than 4 million people each year. Commercial fishing is vital to the economy of the Keys, where more than 20 million pounds of seafood are caught annually, according to NOAA. The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary is a multiple-use MPA, with commercial, sport, and recreational fishing allowed in some zones. In other zones, only scientific research is allowed. Most of the park encourages a wide variety of recreational activities. National parks are large areas preserved in their natural state as public property. They are designed to protect the natural and cultural objects and wildlife within the park. Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve in Alaska, which covers more than 13,200 square kilometers (5,100 square miles), includes tidewater glaciers , snow-capped mountain ranges, ocean coastlines, deep fjords , and freshwater rivers and lakes. The conservation focus is on the arctic ecosystem. Commercial and recreational fishing are allowed but limited. Sport fishermen seek Pacific halibut and different species of salmon , such as sockeye, king, and coho, in Glacier Bay. Recreational activities such as kayaking, rafting, and boat tours are allowed.

Wildlife refuges conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of people. Breton National Wildlife Refuge , in the Gulf of Mexico off Louisiana, covers about 52 square kilometers (20 square miles) and is only accessible by boat. The focus of protection is its ecosystem . One goal is to provide a haven for nearly two dozen species of birds, from nesting and wading seabirds to waterfowl and wintering shorebirds. They include endangered species like the piping plover, the least tern, and the brown pelican. The refuge suffered serious damage when Hurricane Katrina struck in 2005, and much of the land eroded . Breton National Wildlife Refuge allows recreational fishing, but commercial fishing is prohibited . Wildlife viewing is a popular recreational activity, but because so much land was lost during Katrina, camping is no longer permitted. Stakeholders Stakeholders are individuals, communities, or organizations with an interest in the marine protected area. As the above examples show, different types of MPAs provide different opportunities for stakeholders . The general public uses MPAs for recreation such as fishing, kayaking, sailing, boat tours, snorkeling, or wildlife viewing. There are usually few regulations on recreational activities. Commercial fishermen rely on the waters and the marine life in them for their livelihood. Most MPAs try to strike a balance between protecting resources and allowing for the sustainable extraction of those resources . As a result, there are very few no-take areas that prohibit all extraction . Many MPAs, however, do limit commercial fishing by where or when it can be done. Different seafood , such as salmon or lobster, have different seasons when it is safe and legal to harvest them. Scientists and researchers use marine protected areas to study marine life and habitats . MPAs are "living laboratories" for scientists and researchers, where they can monitor and measure the health of species, ecosystems , and human impact. As Toropova of the IUCN says, “Everything we depend on in life comes from the ocean .”

Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument Papahanaumokuakea, the area surrounding the remote and uninhabited Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, is the largest marine protected area (MPA) in the United States. The MPA is 362,072 square kilometers (139,797 square miles). Like most MPAs, it is multiple-use. The area's tuna and lobster fisheries remain open to seasonal use, while the remote islands provide protected areas for endangered species like the Hawaiian monk seal.

Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Last Updated

August 29, 2024

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

Press Release

Study in nature: protecting the ocean delivers a comprehensive solution for climate, fishing and biodiversity.

Southern Line Islands

Photograph by Southern Line Islands

Groundbreaking global study is the first to map ocean areas that, if strongly protected, would help solve climate, food and biodiversity crises

London, UK (17 March 2021) —A new study published in the prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal Nature today offers a combined solution to several of humanity’s most pressing challenges. It is the most comprehensive assessment to date of where strict ocean protection can contribute to a more abundant supply of healthy seafood and provide a cheap, natural solution to address climate change—in addition to protecting embattled species and habitats.

An international team of 26 authors identified specific areas that, if protected, would safeguard over 80% of the habitats for endangered marine species, and increase fishing catches by more than eight million metric tons. The study is also the first to quantify the potential release of carbon dioxide into the ocean from trawling, a widespread fishing practice—and finds that trawling is pumping hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the ocean every year, a volume of emissions similar to those of aviation.

“Ocean life has been declining worldwide because of overfishing, habitat destruction and climate change. Yet only 7% of the ocean is currently under some kind of protection,” said Dr. Enric Sala, explorer in residence at the National Geographic Society and lead author of the study, Protecting the global ocean for biodiversity, food and climate .

“In this study, we’ve pioneered a new way to identify the places that—if strongly protected—will boost food production and safeguard marine life, all while reducing carbon emissions,” Dr. Sala said. “It’s clear that humanity and the economy will benefit from a healthier ocean. And we can realize those benefits quickly if countries work together to protect at least 30% of the ocean by 2030.”

To identify the priority areas, the authors—leading marine biologists, climate experts, and economists—analyzed the world’s unprotected ocean waters based on the degree to which they are threatened by human activities that can be reduced by marine protected areas (for example, overfishing and habitat destruction). They then developed an algorithm to identify those areas where protections would deliver the greatest benefits across the three complementary goals of biodiversity protection, seafood production and climate mitigation. They mapped these locations to create a practical “blueprint” that governments can use as they implement their commitments to protect nature.

The study does not provide a single map for ocean conservation, but it offers a first-in-kind framework for countries to decide which areas to protect depending on their national priorities. However, the analysis shows that 30% is the minimum amount of ocean that the world must protect in order to provide multiple benefits to humanity.

“There is no single best solution to save marine life and obtain these other benefits. The solution depends on what society—or a given country—cares about, and our study provides a new way to integrate these preferences and find effective conservation strategies,” said Dr. Juan S. Mayorga, a report co-author and a marine data scientist with the Environmental Market Solutions Lab at UC Santa Barbara and Pristine Seas at National Geographic Society.

The study comes ahead of the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, which is expected to take place in Kunming, China in 2021. The meeting will bring together representatives of 190 countries to finalize an agreement to end the world’s biodiversity crisis. The goal of protecting 30% of the planet’s land and ocean by 2030 (the “30x30” target) is expected to be a pillar of the treaty. The study follows commitments by the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, the European Commission and others to achieve this target on national and global scales.

Safeguarding Biodiversity

The report identifies highly diverse marine areas in which species and ecosystems face the greatest threats from human activities. Establishing marine protected areas (MPAs) with strict protection in those places would safeguard more than 80% of the ranges of endangered species, up from a current coverage of less than 2%.

The authors found that the priority locations are distributed throughout the ocean, with the vast majority of them contained within the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zones of coastal nations.

The additional protection targets are located in the high seas—those waters governed by international law. These include the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (a massive underwater mountain range), the Mascarene Plateau in the Indian Ocean, the Nazca Ridge off the west coast of South America and the Southwest Indian Ridge, between Africa and Antarctica.

"Perhaps the most impressive and encouraging result is the enormous gain we can obtain for biodiversity conservation—if we carefully chose the location of strictly protected marine areas,” said Dr. David Mouillot, a report co-author and a professor at the Université de Montpellier in France. “One notable priority for conservation is Antarctica, which currently has little protection, but is projected to host many vulnerable species in a near future due to climate change."

Shoring up the Fishing Industry

The study finds that smartly placed marine protected areas (MPAs) that ban fishing would actually boost the production of fish—at a time when supplies of wild-caught fish are dwindling and demand is rising. In doing so, the study refutes a long-held view that ocean protection harms fisheries and opens up new opportunities to revive the industry just as it is suffering from a recession due to overfishing and the impacts of global warming.

“Some argue that closing areas to fishing hurts fishing interests. But the worst enemy of successful fisheries is overfishing—not protected areas,” Dr. Sala said.

The study finds that protecting the right places could increase the catch of seafood by over 8 million metric tons relative to business as usual.

“It’s simple: When overfishing and other damaging activities cease, marine life bounces back,” said Dr. Reniel Cabral, a report co-author and assistant researcher with the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management and Marine Science Institute at UC Santa Barbara. “After protections are put in place, the diversity and abundance of marine life increase over time, with measurable recovery occurring in as little as three years. Target species and large predators come back, and entire ecosystems are restored within MPAs. With time, the ocean can heal itself and again provide services to humankind.”

Soaking up Carbon

The study is the first to calculate the climate impacts of bottom trawling, a damaging fishing method used worldwide that drags heavy nets across the ocean floor. It finds that the amount of carbon dioxide released into the ocean from this practice is larger than most countries’ annual carbon emissions, and similar to annual carbon dioxide emissions from global aviation.

“The ocean floor is the world’s largest carbon storehouse. If we’re to succeed in stopping global warming, we must leave the carbon-rich seabed undisturbed. Yet every day, we are trawling the seafloor, depleting its biodiversity and mobilizing millennia-old carbon and thus exacerbating climate change. Our findings about the climate impacts of bottom trawling will make the activities on the ocean’s seabed hard to ignore in climate plans going forward,” said Dr. Trisha Atwood of Utah State University, a co-author of the paper.

The study finds that countries with the highest potential to contribute to climate change mitigation via protection of carbon stocks are those with large national waters and large industrial bottom trawl fisheries. It calculates that eliminating 90% of the present risk of carbon disturbance due to bottom trawling would require protecting only about 4% of the ocean , mostly within national waters.

Closing a Gap

The study’s range of findings helps to close a gap in our knowledge about the impacts of ocean conservation, which to date had been understudied relative to land-based conservation.

“The ocean covers 70% of the earth—yet, until now, its importance for solving the challenges of our time has been overlooked,” said Dr. Boris Worm, a study co-author and Killam Research Professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. “Smart ocean protection will help to provide cheap natural climate solutions, make seafood more abundant and safeguard imperiled marine species—all at the same time. The benefits are clear. If we want to solve the three most pressing challenges of our century—biodiversity loss, climate change and food shortages —we must protect our ocean.”

Additional Quotes from Supporters and Report Co-Authors

Zac Goldsmith, British Minister for Pacific and the Environment, UK

Kristen Rechberger, Founder & CEO, Dynamic Planet

Dr. William Chueng, Canada Research Chair and Professor, The University of British Columbia, Principal Investigator, Changing Ocean Research Unit, The University of British Columbia

Dr. Jennifer McGowan, Global Science, The Nature Conservancy & Center for Biodiversity and Global Change, Yale University

Dr. Alan Friedlander, Chief Scientist, Pristine Seas, National Geographic Society at the Hawai'i Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawai'i

Dr. Ben Halpern, Director of the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS), UCSB

Dr. Whitney Goodell, Marine Ecologist, Pristine Seas, National Geographic Society

Dr. Lance Morgan, President and CEO, Marine Conservation Institute

Dr. Darcy Bradley, Co-Director of the Ocean and Fisheries Program at the Environmental Market Solutions Lab, UCSB

The study, Protecting the global ocean for biodiversity, food and climate , answers the question of which places in the ocean should we protect for nature and people. The authors developed a novel framework to produce a global map of places that, if protected from fishing and other damaging activities, will produce multiple benefits to people: safeguarding marine life, boosting seafood production and reducing carbon emissions. Twenty-six scientists and economists contributed to the study.

Study’s Topline Facts

• Ocean life has been declining worldwide because of overfishing, habitat destruction and climate change. Yet only 7% of the ocean is currently under some kind of protection.
• A smart plan of ocean protection will contribute to more abundant seafood and provide a cheap, natural solution to help solve climate change, alongside economic benefits.
• Humanity and the economy would benefit from a healthier ocean. Quicker benefits occur when countries work together to protect at least 30% of the ocean.
• Substantial increases in ocean protection could achieve triple benefits, not only protecting biodiversity, but also boosting fisheries’ productivity and securing marine carbon stocks.

Study’s Topline Findings

• The study is the first to calculate that the practice of bottom trawling the ocean floor is responsible for one gigaton of carbon emissions on average annually. This is equivalent to all emissions from aviation worldwide. It is, furthermore, greater than the annual emissions of all countries except China, the U.S., India, Russia and Japan.
• The study reveals that protecting strategic ocean areas could produce an additional 8 million tons of seafood.
• The study reveals that protecting more of the ocean--as long as the protected areas are strategically located--would reap significant benefits for climate, food and biodiversity.

Priority Areas for Triple Wins

• If society were to value marine biodiversity and food provisioning equally, and established marine protected areas based on these two priorities, the best conservation strategy would protect 45% of the ocean, delivering 71% of the possible biodiversity benefits, 92% of the food provisioning benefits and 29% of the carbon benefits.
• If no value were assigned to biodiversity, protecting 29% of the ocean would secure 8.3 million tons of extra seafood and 27% of carbon benefits. It would also still secure 35% of biodiversity benefits.
• Global-scale prioritization helps focus attention and resources on places that yield the largest possible benefits.
• A globally coordinated expansion of marine protected areas (MPAs) could achieve 90% of the maximum possible biodiversity benefit with less than half as much area as a protection strategy based solely on national priorities.
• EEZs are areas of the global ocean within 200 nautical miles off the coast of maritime countries that claim sole rights to the resources found within them. ( Source )

Priority Areas for Climate

• Eliminating 90% of the present risk of carbon disturbance due to bottom trawling would require protecting 3.6% of the ocean, mostly within EEZs.
• Priority areas for carbon are where important carbon stocks coincide with high anthropogenic threats, including Europe’s Atlantic coastal areas and productive upwelling areas.

Countries with the highest potential to contribute to climate change mitigation via protection of carbon stocks are those with large EEZs and large industrial bottom trawl fisheries.

Priority Areas for Biodiversity

• Through protection of specific areas, the average protection of endangered species could be increased from 1.5% to 82% and critically endangered species from 1.1% to and 87%.
• the Antarctic Peninsula
• the Mid-Atlantic Ridge
• the Mascarene Plateau
• the Nazca Ridge
• the Southwest Indian Ridge
• Despite climate change, about 80% of today’s priority areas for biodiversity will still be essential in 2050. In the future, however, some cooler waters will be more important protection priorities, whereas warmer waters will likely be too stressed by climate change to shelter as much biodiversity as they currently do. Specifically, some temperate regions and parts of the Arctic would rank as higher priorities for biodiversity conservation by 2050, whereas large areas in the high seas between the tropics and areas in the Southern Hemisphere would decrease in priority.

Priority Areas for Food Provision

• If we only cared about increasing the supply of seafood, strategically placed MPAs covering 28% of the ocean could increase food provisioning by 8.3 million metric tons.

The Campaign for Nature works with scientists, Indigenous Peoples, and a growing coalition of over 100 conservation organizations around the world who are calling on policymakers to commit to clear and ambitious targets to be agreed upon at the 15th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Kunming, China in 2021 to protect at least 30% of the planet by 2030 and working with Indigenous leaders to ensure full respect for Indigenous rights.

Media Contact

The National Geographic Society is a global nonprofit organization that uses the power of science, exploration, education and storytelling to illuminate and protect the wonder of our world. Since 1888, National Geographic has pushed the boundaries of exploration, investing in bold people and transformative ideas, providing more than 15,000 grants for work across all seven continents, reaching 3 million students each year through education offerings, and engaging audiences around the globe through signature experiences, stories and content.

To learn more, visit www.nationalgeographic.org or follow us on Instagram , LinkedIn, and Facebook .

We want to hear from you! Let us know what you think about our website.

interstitialRedirectModalTitle

interstitialRedirectModalMessage

• Show search

Land & Water Stories

Conserving Our Ocean

The ocean’s future is our future. We must relieve the pressure on the ocean so it can continue to sustain us.

Why is the ocean so important?

Covering more than 70% of Earth’s surface, the ocean plays an essential role in each of our lives, no matter where we live. The ocean is the heart of our planet, pumping oxygen, nutrients, water and weather around the globe. This constant circulation directly and indirectly provides the food and water we need to live and forms the backbone of our economies.

Stats out of the Blue

Half of the oxygen we breathe comes from the natural processes of ocean plankton. That’s every other breath.

Since the Industrial Revolution, the ocean has absorbed about 90% of the excess heat in our atmosphere.

More than 3 billion people depend on fish and other ocean species for food and income.

Only 8% of the ocean is legally protected.

The ocean’s future is our future.

Sign up for our monthly Nature News updates to learn how we’re conserving the ocean and all that it provides.

By submitting this form, you agree to receive email updates from The Nature Conservancy and consent to our Privacy Policy . You can unsubscribe at any time.

9 Reasons to Thank the Ocean

There’s more than just fish in the sea! Explore what else the ocean provides, from crucial medicines to inspiration for music and dance.

Read: 9 Ways You Depend on a Healthy Ocean

The ocean: our greatest climate ally

The ocean’s coral reefs and oyster beds shelter marine life and protect our shores by breaking up wave energy and storm surges.

On the edges of the ocean, coastal wetlands—such as mangroves, salt marshes and seagrass meadows—protect our shores, too. They also draw in carbon as they grow and transfer it into their leaves, stems and the rich soils held by their roots.

This “blue carbon” can remain in the soil for thousands of years. In fact, coastal wetlands store five times more carbon per hectare than rainforests, helping to limit further climate change.

A short explainer on Blue Carbon

Take a Two-Minute Deep Dive

Green Up Your Inbox.

Get updates from nature every month.

Acting for the ocean

Though the ocean is one of our greatest allies against climate change, absorbing most of the excess heat and carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, it’s been paying a steep price.

Warming, acidification, overfishing and pollution increasingly threaten the ocean’s ability to sustain us, as our demands on it—for food, energy and water—continue to mount.

The stakes have never been higher. That’s why TNC is supporting the world’s goal to protect 30% of the ocean by 2030.

To contribute to that goal by 2030, we intend to conserve 4 billion hectares—that’s more than 10% of the world’s ocean area —while working with communities on solutions that help protect 100 million people at severe risk of climate-related emergencies.

Learn more about our 2030 goals and how you can get involved.

Our ocean strategies.

Click the tiles for details on our top ocean conservation strategies and real examples of our work around the world.

Protect & Restore Ocean Habitats

We help protect, restore and improve the management of ocean habitats by:

• Helping coastal countries create sustainable funding to protect their ocean areas (such as by refinancing billions of dollars in debt to secure conservation funds )
• Establishing new protected areas, rebuilding lost reefs and reseeding mangroves, seagrasses and kelp forests
• Sharing the latest science through online and in-person learning platforms, such as the Reef Resilience Network and Global Mangrove Watch , that reach nearly 1 million people and help them to better manage and restore critical marine ecosystems

Reduce Climate’s Impact on Oceans

We tackle climate risks and build coastal resilience by:

• Drastically cutting emissions and removing carbon from the atmosphere.
• Helping coastal communities plan for and adapt to our changing climate through nature-based solutions, such as restoring reefs, mangroves , salt marshes and other habitats that guard against climate-charged storms, sea level rise and erosion.
• Protecting “super reefs” that can survive hotter ocean temperatures , and using them to seed new generations of resilient corals.
• Financing coastal conservation through cutting-edge projects, such as blue carbon resilience credits and insurance policies for reefs and mangroves that pay out when natural disasters strike.

Thriving Fisheries & Aquaculture

Food production has put major pressure on the ocean. Improving how we grow and catch this food can relieve this pressure and restore ocean health. We work with partners to promote responsible fishing and farming and restore healthy fish populations, including by:

• Applying the latest science to make fish and shrimp farming more sustainable and supporting seaweed and shellfish farms that benefit farmers and help restore ocean health.
• Using our FishPath engagement process and tool to help fisheries managers in at least 15 countries set their coastal fisheries on the path to sustainability .
• Partnering with the Marshall Islands and Walmart to transform the global canned tuna supply chain , including by using technology (such as on-board video cameras and sensors) to prevent illegal fishing and limit bycatch of turtles, sharks and dolphins.

The People Working to Save Corals

Just Keep Surfing

Incredible ocean photos. See what your support could protect.

The Survival Secrets of “Super Reefs”

By Sarah Wakefield Adhya

The Vanishing Kelp Forest

By Catherine Zuckerman

Radical Collaboration Can Save Coral Reefs

By Dr. Lizzie McLeod

Conserving Fresh Water for Life on Earth

Take action!

Become an Ocean Guardian.

Donate to support our work for our incredible ocean.

The 100 largest global mpas.

• Advisory Board
• Policy Dialogues
• Organigramme
• Intergovernmental Support
• Capacity Building
• Climate Action
• Global Partnerships
• Leaving No One Behind
• Science, Technology and Innovation
• Strengthening Institutions
• Thought Leadership
• Latest from DESA
• Publications
• Policy Briefs
• Working Papers
• UN DESA Voice

5 reasons you should care about our ocean

Our ocean is in serious trouble. Heating, pollution, acidification, and oxygen loss pose serious threats to the health of the ocean and to all living beings who call this vast planetary resource their home. Why should you care? Here are 5 reasons:

1. The ocean regulates our climate and provides the air we breathe

Our ocean mitigates non-renewable industry pollution by absorbing 25 per cent of all carbon emission, while generating 50 per cent of the oxygen we need to survive. It not only functions as the lungs of the planet, providing us with the air we breathe, but also as the world’s largest carbon sink helping to combat the negative impacts of climate change. Additionally, the ocean has taken up more than 90 per cent of the excess heat in the climate system helping to regulate temperatures on land. Thus, climate action depends on a healthy ocean, and a healthy ocean requires urgent climate action.

2. The ocean feeds us

The ocean and its biodiversity provide our global community with 15 per cent of the animal protein we eat. In least developed countries, seafood is the primary source of protein to over 50 per cent of the population. It is therefore critical to protect the ocean’s biodiversity and practice sustainable fishing strategies for continued consumption. Currently, more than 10 million tons of fish go to waste every year because of destructive fishing practices. This is enough to fill 4,500 Olympic-sized swimming pools. Without significant change, UNESCO predicts more than 50 per cent of the world’s marine species may face extinction by 2100.

3. It provides jobs and livelihoods

The ocean provides livelihoods to 3 billion people, nearly 50 per cent of the entire global population. Marine fisheries provide 57 million jobs globally. The blue economy is a strong industry that allows many to make their living and provide for their families. However, over 60 per cent of the world’s major marine ecosystems that underpin these livelihoods are being used unsustainably, with a significant portion being completely degraded. Additionally, according to UNEP, pollution from the 11 million tons of plastic that enters the ocean annually, costs an estimated US $13 billion, including clean-up costs and financial losses from fisheries and additional ocean-based industries. It is critical that we stop polluting our ocean.

4. The ocean is a tool for economic development

The ocean is a significant economic tool. Ocean economies are among the most rapidly growing in the world. The market value of marine and coastal resources and the developing industry is estimated by UNDP to be US $3 trillion per year, which is about 5 per cent of total global gross domestic product. Thus, developing countries’ access to the ocean and shorelines allow them to develop and attract foreign direct investments and direct industry production within the state. Additionally, 80 per cent of tourism happens in coastal areas. The ocean-related tourism industry grows an estimated US $134 billion every year. However, for states to utilize their ocean resources, we must work together as a global community to protect the ocean. It is estimated that the loss of tourism due to coral bleaching alone is as much as $12 billion annually. With ocean levels rising as the temperature of our planet increases, coastline-specific tourism and energy industries are at risk along with the 680 million people who live in low-lying coastal areas, a number that is expected to rise to one billion by 2050.

5. We need a healthy ocean to survive

The ocean affects us all in positive ways, no matter if you live on the coastline or in the desert. It provides climate regulation, food, jobs, livelihoods, and economic progress. Thus, we must work together to protect and save the ocean for the sake of our future survival on this planet. To learn more about the state of our ocean and what you can to today to help, visit the  2022 UN Ocean Conference website . Make your voluntary commitments  here  to save our ocean and follow the Conference taking place in Lisbon, Portugal, from 27 June to 1 July 2022, live via  UN Web TV .

Summit of the Future: ‘Critical’ opportunity for safer, more sustainable and equitable world

12 September 2024 -  A once-in-a-generation UN summit bringing together countries from around the world marks a critical opportunity for far-reaching agreements on international collaboration for a safer, more sustainable and more equitable world, said UN Secretary-General António Guterres on Thursday as part of a global call to action to support the  Summit of the Future , which begins on 22 September. 

Summit of the Future aims to make the UN more effective

11 September 2024  - Negotiations continue ahead of the  Summit of the Future  at UN Headquarters this month, where world leaders will enhance cooperation to tackle critical challenges facing the international community and address gaps in global governance. 

Call for ‘solutions across the board’ as 79th General Assembly opens

10 September 2024  - The 79th session of the UN General Assembly opened on Tuesday afternoon in New York, with incoming President Philemon Yang outlining a vision of unity...

About UN DESA

Un desa products, un desa divisions.

• Office of Intergovernmental Support and Coordination for Sustainable Development
• Division for Sustainable Development Goals
• Population Division
• Division for Public Institutions and Digital Government
• Financing for Sustainable Development Office
• Division for Inclusive Social Development
• Statistics Division
• Economic Analysis and Policy Division
• United Nations Forum on Forests
• Capacity Development Programme Management Office

Internet Explorer lacks support for the features of this website. For the best experience, please use a modern browser such as Chrome, Firefox, or Edge.

Protecting Marine Life

Healthy marine species like whales, sea turtles, coral, and salmon are important for maintaining balanced and thriving ocean ecosystems. We work to protect marine species populations from decline and extinction, conduct research to understand their health and environment, and evaluate and monitor human activities that might affect them to ensure future generations may enjoy them.

Protecting Marine Life Navigation Block

Endangered Species

Marine Mammals

Marine Life in Distress

Viewing Marine Life

Featured news.

Stranding Network Helps Young Killer Whale Stranded on Carmel Beach

Harbor Seals Consume up to a Third of Steelhead Migrating out of Nisqually River Delta

Why Can’t Killer Whales Find and Capture Food? The Ocean Is too Noisy

Explore related topics, endangered species act.

Under the ESA, we protect more than 150 critically imperiled species, including 63 foreign species. We determine which species are listed under the ESA, designate critical habitat, and develop and implement recovery plans.

Marine Mammal Protection Act

The MMPA makes it our job to protect all whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, and sea lions. This law prohibits, with certain exceptions, the "take" of marine mammals—including harassment, hunting, capture, collection, or killing—in U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the high seas.

Permits & Authorizations

Activities that might impact marine life often require permits and authorizations. These activities can include scientific research, photography, commercial fishing, construction projects, and other actions.

Consultations

We advise and collaborate with federal agencies and tribes on activities that may impact endangered species, marine mammals, and marine habitats to ensure they are not harmed.

Enforcement

Our enforcement officers and special agents enforce the laws and regulations meant to ensure the protection of marine mammals and other protected species.

Population Assessments

We collect and analyze data on the marine mammal and sea turtle populations by gathering scientific information on a species or stock’s population structure, life history characteristics and productivity rates, abundance, and threats.

Advertisement

Safeguarding marine life: conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems

• Point-of-View
• Open access
• Published: 07 March 2022
• Volume 32 , pages 65–100, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Delphi Ward   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1802-2617 1 , 2 ,
• Jessica Melbourne-Thomas 2 , 3 ,
• Gretta T. Pecl 1 , 2 ,
• Karen Evans 3 ,
• Madeline Green 2 , 3 ,
• Phillipa C. McCormack 2 , 4 ,
• Camilla Novaglio 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Rowan Trebilco 2 , 3 ,
• Narissa Bax 1 , 2 , 5 ,
• Madeleine J. Brasier 1 ,
• Emma L. Cavan 6 ,
• Graham Edgar 1 ,
• Heather L. Hunt 7 ,
• Jan Jansen 1 ,
• Russ Jones 8 ,
• Mary-Anne Lea 1 , 2 ,
• Reuben Makomere 9 ,
• Chris Mull 10 ,
• Jayson M. Semmens 1 ,
• Janette Shaw 1 , 2 ,
• Dugald Tinch 11 ,
• Tatiana J. van Steveninck 3 , 12 &
• Cayne Layton   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3390-6437 1 , 2  

20k Accesses

24 Citations

39 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Marine ecosystems and their associated biodiversity sustain life on Earth and hold intrinsic value. Critical marine ecosystem services include maintenance of global oxygen and carbon cycles, production of food and energy, and sustenance of human wellbeing. However marine ecosystems are swiftly being degraded due to the unsustainable use of marine environments and a rapidly changing climate. The fundamental challenge for the future is therefore to safeguard marine ecosystem biodiversity, function, and adaptive capacity whilst continuing to provide vital resources for the global population. Here, we use foresighting/hindcasting to consider two plausible futures towards 2030: a business-as-usual trajectory (i.e. continuation of current trends), and a more sustainable but technically achievable future in line with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. We identify key drivers that differentiate these alternative futures and use these to develop an action pathway towards the desirable, more sustainable future. Key to achieving the more sustainable future will be establishing integrative (i.e. across jurisdictions and sectors), adaptive management that supports equitable and sustainable stewardship of marine environments. Conserving marine ecosystems will require recalibrating our social, financial, and industrial relationships with the marine environment. While a sustainable future requires long-term planning and commitment beyond 2030, immediate action is needed to avoid tipping points and avert trajectories of ecosystem decline. By acting now to optimise management and protection of marine ecosystems, building upon existing technologies, and conserving the remaining biodiversity, we can create the best opportunity for a sustainable future in 2030 and beyond.

Similar content being viewed by others

Marine Biodiversity and Climate Change: Multidimensional Approaches for “The Ocean We Want” by 2030

Marine Biodiversity: Opportunities for Global Governance and Management Coherence

Rebuilding marine life

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

The diversity of life in the oceans, marine biodiversity, is declining globally at an alarming rate (Lotze et al. 2019 ; Worm et al. 2006 ), driven by multiple interacting anthropogenic stressors, which are degrading marine ecosystem function, shifting species’ distributions, and initiating the formation of novel ecosystems with unknown characteristics and services (e.g. Harborne and Mumby 2011 ; Pecl et al. 2017 ). These losses threaten the wellbeing and survival of much (arguably all) of humankind that fundamentally depends on the many services provided by marine biodiversity and ecosystems, including climate regulation, coastal protection, food and medicinal products, recreational activities, and livelihoods (Peterson and Lubchenco 1997 ; Selig et al. 2018 ). These ecosystems also possess unique, often intangible, inherent values making them crucial to the health and wellbeing of peoples around the world. As such, safeguarding marine biodiversity and ecosystem function into the future is a task of critical importance. The challenge is to conserve existing biodiversity, while increasing the capacity to forecast ecological trajectories and future ecosystem states to inform sustainable management long-term (Cheung 2019 ). Ecological forecasts are needed for developing adaptation strategies to guide ecosystems towards states that support a high diversity of functions and species. Stemming the rate of biodiversity loss at all levels – including genetic, taxonomic, community, ecosystem, and functional diversity – will leave marine species and ecosystems with a wider breadth of adaptive pathways, thus increasing the likelihood of resilience, rather than extinction, in future seas.

Marine ecosystems and biodiversity have undergone rapid and profound changes in the Anthropocene (e.g. Estes et al. 2011 ; Jackson 2001 ; Pimiento et al. 2020 ). Marine and coastal ecosystem changes resulting from human activity have steeply accelerated in the last ~ 150 years (Bindoff et al. 2019 ; Halpern et al. 2019 ). Identifying pre-industrial environmental ‘baselines’ to enable the quantification of ecological changes is challenging and often unfeasible, not only because ecosystems continuously change in response to environmental phenomena, but also since in many cases anthropogenic pressures began before Western scientific monitoring commenced (Jackson 1997 ; Jennings and Blanchard 2004 ; Roberts 2007 ). An emerging “mass extinction” event is thought to be underway in the oceans (Lotze et al. 2019 ; Payne et al. 2016 ) caused by the combined (and sometimes synergistic) effects of overfishing (Blanchard et al. 2017 ; FAO 2018 ), habitat degradation and loss (IPBES 2019 ), pollution, eutrophication, oxygen depletion, introduced pests, and ocean warming (Breitburg et al. 2018 ; Doney 2010 ). These cumulative stressors have, in some cases, led to dramatic and difficult-to-reverse shifts in ecosystem state – or “ecosystem collapses” (e.g. Beaugrand et al. 2015 ; Biggs et al. 2018 ; Möllmann and Diekmann 2012 ). Indeed, historical ecosystem states may have increasingly limited relevance in the context of substantial and ongoing impacts, particularly as a result of climate change. Despite these pervasive impacts and trajectories of ecosystem degradation, there is still reason for hope, as marine biodiversity and ecosystems continue to support the services upon which societies rely and the recovery of many degraded marine ecosystems is considered achievable by 2050, if there is sufficient will and targeted effort (Duarte et al. 2020 ).

A common approach to conservation in the marine realm is the implementation of ‘Marine Protected Areas’ (MPAs) that secure ecosystems by separating them from human use and/or limiting extractive/destructive processes. This approach is upheld in United Nations processes including the Aichi Targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While MPAs are, and will continue to be, a fundamental and effective conservation tool when properly implemented and managed (see Edgar et al. 2014 ; Gownaris et al. 2019 ), human population growth, and activities contributing to unsustainable lifestyles, continue to threaten marine ecosystems beyond the boundaries of MPAs (Cafaro 2021 ; Halpern et al. 2019 ). Safeguarding marine biodiversity and ecosystems into the future will therefore require more holistic and inclusive approaches. It is not possible to secure all (or even the majority) of the marine estate as MPAs, nor is it desirable in contexts where stewardship is high and people are able to live in balance with ecosystems (Cinner et al. 2016 ; Gilchrist et al. 2020 ; Stewart et al. 2020 ). Indeed, some evidence suggests that the greatest conservation outcomes arise where communities are most intimately connected to their local ecosystems and the associated decision-making processes (e.g. Nikitine et al. 2018 ; Wells and White 1995 ). It is therefore imperative that we consider how to improve and optimise conservation outcomes in ‘non-protected’ areas. This will require a fundamental recalibration of the way individuals, communities, industries, and financial markets perceive and interact with the marine environment. Setting ambitious goals for marine conservation is fundamental (Díaz et al. 2020 ), but importantly, failure to achieve previous globally agreed biodiversity conservation targets (Díaz et al. 2019 ; UN 2020 ) highlights the need to innovate our approach to achieving conservation goals.

Here, we use a forecasting/hindcasting approach to consider two plausible futures for 2030. These two futures encompass 1) a business-as-usual future that results from a continuation of current trajectories, and 2) a more sustainable, aspirational, but technically achievable future in line with progress towards achieving the UN SDGs. The coming decade will be defined by great uncertainty and complexity, with major transformations needed to move towards a sustainable future (Sachs et al. 2019 ). Development and communication of a ‘mobilising narrative’ that envisions a positive yet possible future is a first step towards outlining concrete actions to anticipate and constructively respond to future challenges (Nash et al. 2021a , this issue). We acknowledge that the current COVID-19 pandemic is causing major changes to economies and socio-ecological systems at local, national and global scales. The business-as-usual scenario we describe here is based on evidence from the recent past prior to the pandemic, and assumes a general return to this trajectory over the next few years. We note however, that current disruptions to the global ocean, environment, and society because of COVID-19 may present a platform for change and an opportunity to ‘reset’ trajectories in the coming decade (Sandbrook et al. 2020 ). The sustainable future presented here is one option for such a shift. Our goal is to highlight potential opportunities associated with moving towards one version of a more-sustainable future, rather than providing an exhaustive exploration of every option.

The UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021–2030) is a timely opportunity to align global focus on arresting and reversing the degradation of marine environments, and to ensure ocean science supports improvements towards the sustainable and equitable development of the world’s oceans (Pendleton et al. 2020 ). In considering our two plausible futures for 2030, we identify key drivers of change that differentiate these futures, and use these as a basis for identifying concrete actions that align with achieving the more sustainable future. We identify choices and actions across various scales (e.g. local, regional, national, international) to arrive at a more desirable future for the oceans in the context of our rapidly changing climate. The aspirational, more sustainable, scenario is intended to highlight a vision of what is achievable if society “chooses” to work collaboratively towards a future more closely aligned with achieving the UN SDGs (Nash et al. 2021a , this issue, for additional context).

This paper is part of the larger 'Future Seas' project, the aim of which was to leverage interdisciplinary knowledge to address the grand challenges for the oceans in the coming decade. As part of Future Seas, the approach for addressing these grand challenges was developed by a core team (Nash et al. 2021a ) and discussed, tested and refined through a series of workshops with the broader group of Future Seas participants. Future Seas participants were assembled into author teams, and each team addressed a separate grand challenge following the same methods, which are described in detail by Nash et al. ( 2021a ) and summarised here.

The overarching goal of this paper was to describe a technically feasible pathway towards 2030 through which we could improve the status of marine ecosystems and biodiversity globally (or at least, stem their loss). In this process, subgoals included 1) identifying 4–6 key drivers of change in marine ecosystems and biodiversity; 2) describing the likely business-as-usual future for 2030 based on current trends in these drivers; 3) describing a more sustainable but achievable future state of the drivers and human-marine ecosystem interactions; 4) identifying specific actions that could feasibly shift us from the business-as-usual trajectory towards the more sustainable future we described; 5) identifying timeframes, key actors and scale for actions in the pathway.

Our approach for developing these alternative futures and pathway was to apply established foresighting and hindcasting techniques that are used in futures analysis and scenario development in the socio-ecological literature (Nash et al. 2021a ; Planque et al. 2019 ; Rintoul et al. 2018 ) (also see Fig.  1 for an overview). The process involved collaboration among our interdisciplinary co-author team for co-constructed scenario development during a series of workshops and meetings. Disciplines represented by our team include law, governance, management, fisheries, and economics, along with Indigenous leadership, ecologists and other biophysical scientists. Given our location, most authors are Australian (12), but authors also come from UK (3), Canada (2), Haida Nation (Canada, 1), New Zealand (1), Italy (1), Germany (1), The Netherlands (1) and Kenya (1). The team also consulted with an international group of Traditional Owners and Indigenous knowledge holders, and community representatives (see Fischer et al. 2021 ; Mustonen et al. 2021 , both this issue).

An overview of the methods followed to develop alternative scenarios of 2030 for marine ecosystem and biodiversity conservation (* from Nash et al. 2021a , this issue)

Prior to developing future scenarios, we considered the underlying assumptions articulated in Nash et al. ( 2021a ) as being broadly applicable across a wide range of global challenges for marine systems and confirmed their relevance to developing the two plausible futures for marine biodiversity and conservation by 2030. Assumptions included i) general ocean resource use and knowledge production continue, ii) no new major international agreements are ratified (however, existing discussions will continue), iii) the globe is locked into some degree of climate change over the coming decade, iv) human populations will continue to increase and v) no new large-scale human conflicts emerge. Moreover, we assumed that vi) demand for seafood will continue to rise and that vii) food insecurity, in terms of availability, access, utilisation and stability, will remain a challenge for some regions and people (see Farmery et al. 2021 , this issue), and that viii) climate-driven redistribution of species in the ocean will continue as per projected trends (see Melbourne-Thomas et al. 2021 , this issue).

To identify broad drivers of change relevant to the state of marine ecosystem and biodiversity, we first brainstormed all drivers affecting marine ecosystems, with participants writing individual drivers on post-it notes. In doing so, we aimed to identify Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal and Environmental (PESTLE) drivers to ensure consideration of different driver types (Nash et al. 2021a ). We then grouped these individual drivers into broader, umbrella drivers. For example, fishing-related drivers, deep-sea mining, shipping, marine renewable energy were all eventually grouped together under the sectoral stewardship umbrella driver. These umbrella drivers are intended to represent broad mechanisms, or ‘levers’, that could feasibly be influenced or modified to improve conservation of marine biodiversity and ecosystems over the course of the next 10 years (2021–2030) (see Nash et al. 2021 for full details of methods). We then mapped umbrella drivers on two axes: 1) degree of impact on marine ecosystems and biodiversity and 2) degree of influence that society has over the driver, as we were particularly interested in umbrella drivers central to how marine biodiversity could play out in the future (high impact) and that society had the potential to influence (high influence).

Using the umbrella drivers with both high impact and high influence, we then forecast a likely ‘business-as-usual’ 2030 future based on current trends (following Merrie et al. 2018 ), and a ‘sustainable 2030’ future, in line with pushing towards achieving the SDGs, that is achievable if conscious actions are taken to guide the drivers towards that more aspirational future. To do this, the group brainstormed and discussed a vision for the state of the drivers in 2030 based on our shared understanding of current trends and opportunities. Sub-groups of the author team then researched individual driver trends to inform the analysis and the description of the business-as-usual and sustainable futures for each driver. All authors then reviewed the narratives and assessed the feasibility of the futures described for 2030. We then hindcast the actions required to shift from the ‘business-as-usual’ trajectory towards the more ‘sustainable 2030’ future and continued using a ‘PESTLE framework’ to ensure the generation of actions from across a wide range of categories. Importantly, the premise was that the knowledge and technology to support the actions must already exist – i.e. that there is already the capability to affect the changes we recommend. The resulting actions were temporalized to collectively form an action pathway to achieve the sustainable 2030 future, whilst iterative revisions were made between the pathway and the narrative of the sustainable future, to ensure they were realistic and technically achievable, in the judgement of the author team. It is thus important to note that the development of the scenarios, actions and pathways was not linear, but rather was iterative to ensure internal consistency (Fig.  1 ). Please also refer to Supplementary Table 1 for further clarification of the methodology and the scope of the paper.

Three important considerations affected what was considered within the scope of our methodological approach. 1) We note that up to and beyond 2030, the driver with the greatest impact on global marine ecosystems and biodiversity is anthropogenic climate change (Cafaro 2021 ; IPCC 2019 ; Trisos et al. 2020 ). Consequently, cutting greenhouse gas emissions is the action with the greatest potential benefit to the state of global marine ecosystems in the long term. Given the ‘known’ pathway to address impacts associated with climate change (e.g. IPCC 2019 ), and the necessity to focus on outcomes that are attainable and actionable within the next decade, we primarily examine how to reduce other impacts on marine life (e.g. resource exploitation) and increase the resilience of marine ecosystems to adapt in the face of ongoing climate change. However, our suggested actions in no way lessen the critical importance of reducing emissions without delay nor the transformations needed to supress warming in line with the Paris Agreement (Schleussner et al. 2016 ). 2) Many of the challenges addressed by the other papers in this special issue also affect marine ecosystems and efforts to conserve them. Where there was overlap between the challenges, this affected the level of detail we considered on those aspects of our challenge on safeguarding marine life, and we refer to those papers for additional insights and solutions. For a detailed articulation of potential actions to support mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change in marine systems, please see Trebilco et al. ( 2021 , this issue) and Melbourne-Thomas et al. ( 2021 , this issue). Likewise, anticipated global trends in the demand for seafood and other products, such as energy and minerals, and the growth of activities to meet such demand will significantly impact the conservation of marine biodiversity and ecosystems into the future. These topics are discussed in full in Farmery et al. ( 2021 ), Bax et al. ( 2021 ) and Novaglio et al. ( 2021 ) in this issue. Increased pollution due to human activities is another key factor influencing our ability to conserve biodiversity and is extensively considered in Willis et al. ( 2021 , this issue). Societal and institutional mechanisms that influence the fate of marine biodiversity, which we consider here only briefly, are explored in more detail elsewhere in this issue, and include ocean literacy Kelly et al. ( 2021 ) and ocean governance Haas et al. ( 2021 ), in addition to Indigenous rights, access and management Fischer et al. ( 2021 ).

Lastly and most importantly, 3) we note that the scenarios we describe are just two of many possible futures, and that the experiences and worldviews of the co-authors influence decisions on which drivers and actions to focus on. As such, our vision for the future presented here is likely to differ from those developed by other author groups, and our results should be interpreted within that context. We have nevertheless tried to make our vision relevant to a global audience. The goal here was not to give a prescriptive vision for the future, but to inspire thought, discussion and action, to which others can add their own visions for a better future for marine ecosystems and biodiversity.

Drivers of marine ecosystem conservation outcomes and alternate futures for the year 2030

We identified four key umbrella drivers of marine conservation: (i) financial mechanisms, (ii) sectoral stewardship; (iii) management and governance; and, underpinning these first three drivers in many ways, (iv) social impetus for safeguarding marine ecosystems (Fig.  2 ). These drivers can negatively or positively affect conservation outcomes and thus represent potential axes of impact. Importantly, these drivers interact with each other and have feedbacks between them. Change in all four drivers is required to reach a more sustainable future. For the business-as-usual future, the drivers are assumed to progress throughout the next decade along their current trajectories, and may include both potentially positive or negative changes. Whereas for the sustainable 2030 future, the drivers evolve along aspirational but achievable trajectories. Below we describe the current state and trends of the four drivers and indicate how they may be influenced throughout the upcoming decade to shape the two alternate futures for the year 2030.

Schematic highlighting the relationship between the four key drivers of change with high potential for both impact and influence, on the fate of conservation of marine biodiversity and ecosystems by 2030

Financial mechanisms

Financial or economic mechanisms are powerful drivers of conservation, and routinely influence the management and conservation of marine ecosystems around the world (Innes et al. 2015 ; Rydén et al. 2020 ; Sumaila et al. 2021 ). Typically, however, global economic systems are characterised by processes that prioritise profit and exploitation of resources over the long-term conservation of biodiversity and associated ecosystem services (e.g. Sethi et al. 2010 ). Greater emphasis on marine ecosystem health (and the benefits and services provided by those ecosystems) is needed when balancing economic returns with environmental cost.

Broadly speaking, development and application of financial mechanisms are influenced by each of our drivers, including social and sectoral demand for “green” solutions; governance incentives, disincentives and requirements for accountability and best practice; as well as changes from within the finance sector. We note that shifting to a circular economy (Stahel 2016 ) will help reduce impacts on marine life but will not be achieved within a decade. Below we highlight specific financial resources and mechanisms that can be changed to improve marine conservation.

Financial resources and tools can be used to drive positive change for marine environments and redistribute pressure on marine resources, reduce stressors, and support ecosystem restoration; however there is currently a large marine conservation funding shortfall (e.g. it has recently been estimated that an extra US$149.02 billion per year is required to achieve SDG 14, Johansen and Vestvik 2020 ). At present, the dominant mechanism for financing conservation activities is via grants from governments or philanthropic sources (Bos et al. 2015 ). These grants can be sporadic in nature and allocated on timescales too short to fully achieve optimal conservation outcomes, or for the societal benefits of the conservation activities to be felt (Bos et al. 2015 ). To better conserve marine environments, greater security of funding sources and mechanisms is required (Bos et al. 2015 ; Fujita et al. 2013 ; Johansen and Vestvik 2020 ; Tirumala and Tiwari 2020 ).

Market-based mechanisms for raising such revenue can involve incentives and disincentives; for example investment in ecosystem services such as blue carbon and fees, taxes or fines for the use (or misuse) of marine services, resources, or spaces. Other financial disincentives include biodiversity offsets or performance bonds paid as a security against harming ecosystems (Bos et al. 2015 ; Deutz et al. 2020 ). Overall however, most mechanisms are under-utilized or poorly applied. For example, some subsidies for commercial fishing support activities that are otherwise unprofitable, and waste capital (estimated at US$35 billion in 2009, Sumaila et al. 2016 ), and which could be better employed to boost sustainability and efficiencies in the sector (Schuhbauer et al. 2017 , 2020 ). Many ecosystem services remain unvalued or undervalued (e.g. nutrient cycling, biodiversity supporting fisheries productivity), and rarely do users pay for all the services they financially benefit from (Fujita et al. 2013 ; also see Haas et al. 2021 ).

Safeguarding marine environments therefore requires an urgent recalibration from within the financial sector, and an alignment with climate change mitigation commitments and sustainability goals (e.g. Schelske et al. 2020 ). Restructuring investment markets and reducing risks associated with private-sector investment in marine sustainability are critical for this (e.g. Fujita et al. 2013 ; Tirumala and Tiwari 2020 ). One mechanism developed recently is ‘blue bonds’, which enable developing countries to attract and leverage philanthropic investment to refinance national debt and fund marine conservation and sustainability projects (The World Bank Group 2020 ; TNC 2020 ). New financial mechanisms and frameworks will be required to scale up investment and ensure stable funding for marine conservation and sustainability, but must also be implemented transparently and with appropriate representation (Alexander et al. 2021 ; Tirumala and Tiwari 2020 ). This might include greater involvement of the private sector and a suite of financial mechanisms including, for example, biodiversity offsets, paying for use of ecosystem services, and blended finance (Deutz et al. 2020 ; Johansen and Vestvik 2020 ).

Sectoral stewardship

Terrestrial and marine industries are affecting and driving change in marine ecosystems. Many terrestrial agricultural, silvicultural, and manufacturing industries contribute to the input of harmful sediments, chemicals, and nutrients into marine environments, while tourism, construction and extractive industries (such as fishing, oil and gas and mining) also directly and indirectly impact species, habitats, and ecosystems (Luypaert et al. 2020 ). The scope of this driver is focused on the role that industries (including individual companies and industrial organisations) play in shaping and contributing to interactions with marine ecosystems and conservation outcomes. Sectoral decisions affecting interactions with marine ecosystems can broadly be influenced by management and governance structures, social demand for sustainable products and services, and financial market conditions, as well as by leadership from influential industry bodies and actors.

The nature and strength of sectoral stewardship is influenced by the regulatory environment for industries whose actions affect marine ecosystems. Regulation and mitigation efforts to reduce the impacts of industry interactions in the marine environment are typically reactive, with the result that interventions are often implemented too late to be effective, or need to be in place for extended periods in order to be effective (e.g. Constable et al. 2000 ). Decision making is often siloed within industries, such that cumulative effects – from other industries and drivers – are often inadequately considered in regulation (Link and Browman 2017 ; Stephenson et al. 2019 ). This is especially critical in coastal zones, where the vast majority of marine activities occur, and where terrestrial and marine activities often interact to produce significant environmental impacts (Bax et al. 2021 ; Willis et al. 2021 , both this issue). However, siloed decision-making is also of increasing concern in offshore waters, where the blue economy is expanding (Novaglio et al. 2021 ). Implementation of measures that might assist in the recovery of ecosystems can be slow and ineffective because of competing interests in these regions, and although most activities are monitored to some extent, many lack adequately designed or enforceable regulation frameworks (Cinquemani 2019 ; Hofman 2019 ). Implementation of integrated, ecosystem-based management requiring monitoring of impacts and transparent, balanced consideration of trade-offs can therefore empower sectors to make sustainable changes (Stephenson et al. 2021 ).

International, multinational, and transnational ownership structures can enable corporations to avoid governmental oversight and regulations, often at the cost of environmental integrity (Folke et al. 2019 ; Sterner et al. 2019 ). This influence can undermine the setting of effective conservation measures, particularly where those measures might have economic impacts for industries. Conversely, this also means that large transnational corporations and industries can have disproportionate power to stem declines in marine biodiversity and promote shifts towards more sustainable outcomes (Folke et al. 2019 ; Virdin et al. 2021 ). Many businesses and industries are increasingly becoming more active in addressing environmental concerns and conservation, often as a response to consumer demand (GSIA 2018 ). However, difficulty assessing claims to sustainability and concerns over “green-washing” act as a barrier to greater investment in green businesses, and curbs the growth and potential for greater positive contributions from industries to conservation outcomes (de Silva et al. 2019 ; Lewis et al. 2016 ; Walker and Wan 2012 ). Increasing transparency and accountability, e.g. with development of standard metrics for assessing environmental impacts, could therefore greatly influence the market landscape and decision-making within industries.

Management and governance

Approaches to ocean management and associated governance and legal frameworks have evolved incrementally as disparate responses to specific environmental issues (e.g. pollution from land-based sources), into increasingly integrated and strategic approaches, such as integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) (e.g. Glaeser 2019 ). Modern approaches to managing marine biodiversity now incorporate many different tools, operating at a range of scales. Conservation management frameworks can comprise top-down approaches in which policy and legislative instruments implement international conventions and agreements and meet national priorities; or bottom-up approaches including customary or Indigenous, ecosystem-based and stakeholder-based approaches to resource management. Many frameworks seek to integrate a mixture of top-down and bottom-up approaches, with varying levels of social and ecological ‘success’ (e.g. Singleton 2009 ).

Several legally-binding international conventions and agreements focus on reducing anthropogenic impacts on the marine environment (see Table 1 ). They vary in many ways including in their compliance mechanisms, state party membership and the political dynamics that accompany their implementation. This regime is extremely complex, comprising autonomous, non-hierarchical and partially-overlapping institutions, agreements, and authorities (Alter and Raustiala 2018 ); and despite the number of legal instruments and institutions, marine biodiversity and ecosystem health have continued to decline (UN 2020 ). The international regime for marine environmental governance is facing a host of new challenges, including physical changes such as ocean acidification and warming, and challenges to the fitness and capacity of the governance regime itself. For example, resource distributions and global priorities are increasingly contested, and global and regional geo-political dynamics are changing, exacerbating the complexity of marine environmental governance (Spalding and de Ycaza 2020 ). It is also becoming more difficult for current international governance regimes to achieve an effective balance between implementing strong, clear and enforceable obligations on the one hand, and enhancing the kind of broad, global participation that will be required to address global marine environmental problems. Aspirational targets such as the Aichi Targets under the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the United Nations SDGs, may play an important role in guiding future priority setting and building momentum for global marine conservation (e.g. Spalding and de Ycaza 2020 ). However, robust, inter-governance regime coordination mechanisms and strong, effective action at national and regional levels will be crucial to improving the success of marine conservation and governance in the future (e.g. Grip 2017 ).

Beyond consideration of fishing effects on some biodiversity components in high seas areas (e.g. conservation measures implemented through Regional Fisheries Management Organisations), there remain significant gaps in legal and management arrangements for biodiversity conservation in these regions. Negotiations are currently underway with a focus on developing an international legally binding treaty on marine Biodiversity in areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (the BBNJ Treaty) (Ban et al. 2014 ; Humphries and Harden-Davies 2020 ). Once finalised, this will go some way to filling such governance gaps. Biodiversity conservation frameworks and action plans have also been established at regional scales, including under the UNEP Regional Seas Programme, obliging state parties to either collectively or individually set up or enhance measures to protect fragile ecosystems (e.g. in the Southern Ocean and Western Indian Ocean regions, see Oral 2015 ).

Most developed and developing countries have national and regional governance frameworks for marine conservation and sustainability; however, their implementation varies widely. This variation can be attributed to several factors including differences in policy priorities, diverse approaches to ocean management, and capacity challenges that hinder effective governance (see Islam and Shamsuddoha 2018 ). Limitations in capacity and capability have resulted in uneven outcomes for marine species and ecosystems, and can undermine conservation or management efforts where species and ecosystems are shared across jurisdictions. It can also limit the ability of countries to effectively take part in negotiations, resulting in geographic disparity in overall achievement of priorities for conservation of the marine environment (Halvorssen 2019 ). Marine conservation may also be given a relatively low priority when compared to other development priorities. For example, recent research demonstrates that a majority of countries prioritise socio-economic SDGs over the marine environment-based SDG 14 and that efforts to achieve SDG 14 are allocated less funding than any other SGD priority (Custer et al. 2018 ; Johansen and Vestvik 2020 ).

Although many frameworks across numerous countries aspire to incorporate integrated approaches to ocean management (such as marine spatial planning, ICZM and ecosystem approaches), in most cases management frameworks still only address single sector activities (e.g. fishing, energy extraction, shipping). While this simplifies priority setting and actions to achieve those priorities, a lack of integration can result in conflicting priorities between sectors and uneven access to ocean resources, including cultural heritage (Jones et al. 2016 ). This can lead to patchy outcomes for the conservation of species, communities and ecosystems, particularly where they are affected by cumulative impacts from multiple sectors and across multiple jurisdictions. Opportunities for more sustainable governance exist (Haas et al. 2021 ; Rudolph et al. 2020 ) and ultimately, this driver can be influenced by social pressure, including the expectation that marine spaces and biodiversity will be sustainably managed, sectoral support for ecosystem-based management, and through securing sufficient funding to implement and sustain integrated management.

Social impetus for marine ecosystem conservation

Social impetus for conservation has the potential to generate tremendous power for change. However, industrialisation and globalisation have resulted in a general loss of connection between people and environments and ecosystems (see also Kelly et al. 2021 , this issue). Communities across the world depend directly and indirectly on marine ecosystems (see also Nash et al. 2021b , this issue); however, for many people conservation of marine biodiversity is a luxury, for example when the only options for accessing protein or generating a livelihood are based on unsustainable activities (Adams et al 2004 ; Cinner et al 2014 ; Glaser et al 2018 ). Addressing inequality, poverty and social justice is therefore critical for influencing social impetus for marine conservation (see also Alexander et al 2021 , this issue).

In many cases, individuals are unaware of the impact their everyday actions have on the health and function of marine environments and the ecosystem services they provide (Bleys et al. 2017 ). However, greater interpersonal connectivity and access to knowledge seems to be increasing awareness of some impacts and issues facing the marine environment (Boulianne et al. 2020 ). Importantly, social connection – the shared emotional relationships between individuals or cohorts (Clark et al. 2017 ; Seppala et al. 2013 ) – centred on environmental sustainability is needed for awareness of marine environmental issues to translate to social impetus for sustained conservation action on conservation issues. Social connection can also help promote a shared identity and set of norms and values around concepts such as ‘ecological sustainability’ (e.g. such as those related to jobs and money). Further, a lack of connection and trust can hamper the social understanding and accurate communication of these often-complex issues (Ives et al. 2017 ).

Currently, many of the environmental issues that attract considerable public and media attention and action (such as oil spills and reduction in single-use plastics, Eddy 2019 ; Edgar et al. 2003 ) tend to be singular, easily observed problems for which solutions can be simply articulated (also see Kelly et al. 2021 , this issue), rather than the far more damaging, complex and cumulative impacts that marine ecosystems face. Advancing ocean literacy and empowering people to make informed choices that support marine conservation (e.g. through access to information) are particularly important for influencing social impetus (Kelly et al. 2021 ; Nash et al. 2021b , this issue). Where conservation efforts result in reduced delivery of benefits, substantial structural resistance to those efforts can occur (Alexander et al. 2021 this issue). Social impetus for conservation is more likely to be strong where conservation outcomes can be linked to proximal economic benefits and societal survival (Kauder et al. 2018 ). However, linking conservation goals and strategies with social dependencies on the services marine ecosystems provide can be a powerful mechanism for creating collective action (Barnaud et al. 2018 ).

Plausible Futures for 2030

Business-as-usual 2030 – ‘too little, too late is tragically common’.

Along the business-as-usual trajectory towards 2030, there will certainly be progress made relative to the beginning of the decade, with increased implementation of conservation measures (e.g. improved design and establishment of MPAs, improved monitoring through use of technology), improved management and regulatory frameworks with associated reductions in some pressures and steady increases in habitat restoration (see below). However, much of the progress in conservation outcomes is geographically biased and overall the trajectory for marine ecosystem health continues on a decline (grey line, Fig.  3 ). Positive progress, and the actions that facilitated them, seem likely to be too sporadic and reactive to ensure the widespread improvements needed in many regions; this is driven largely by unequal availability (and thus inequality) of financial resources and expertise devoted to improving conservation outcomes. Decision-making and drivers of conservation outcomes and marine ecosystem health are still mostly siloed and isolated from one another, leading to insufficient collaboration and consideration of cumulative impacts. Ultimately, it seems that progress and concordant conservation benefits will be best summarised as ‘too little, too late,’ and continue to be obstructed by commercialisation of exploitation. Under this scenario, by 2030:

Implementation of integrated, marine spatial planning has increased, but is undertaken in approximately only 30% of EEZ’s globally (IOC-UNESCO 2017 , 2018 )

Social impetus for safeguarding and recovering marine ecosystems has increased sporadically (e.g. Agardy 2005 ; Hawkins et al. 2016 ; Kelly et al. 2018 ; Wynveen et al. 2014 )

Management of the marine estate remains predominantly siloed, reactive, and often lacks strategic conservation goals (e.g. Alvarez-Romero et al. 2018 )

Lobbying continues to impede the development and/or implementation of new financial or regulatory mechanisms to mitigate impacts on marine ecosystems (e.g. Etzion 2020 ; Folke et al. 2019 )

Increased demand for sustainable products and services drives sporadic improvements in some industries/companies, but this has yet to trigger a broader shift in practices that improve or minimise harm to marine environments (e.g. Lim 2017 )

Geographic bias in marine ecosystem research, management, and conservation continues (e.g. Alvarez-Romero et al. 2018 ; Di Marco et al. 2017 )

Negotiations for a new UN treaty on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdictions (BBNJ) have proceeded very slowly (noting the effect of the coronavirus pandemic on the scheduling of conferences of the parties and intersessional activities) and seem increasingly unlikely to result in strong, legally binding conservation obligations (Tiller et al. 2019 ), even as extractive industries continue expanding in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

The trajectories of marine biodiversity change we envisage under a business-as-usual scenario (grey line) and under our more sustainable but technically achievable scenario (blue line). The y-axis represents marine biodiversity and the x-axis represents time. Figure format inspired by a graphic by A Islaam, IIASA

Sustainable 2030—‘building momentum for conservation success’

In the sustainable 2030 scenario, while there still remains considerable room for improvement, the overall trajectory of ecosystem decline present at the beginning of the decade has been arrested (blue line, Fig.  3 ), with increasing momentum and a rapidly growing number of success stories resulting in clear reversal in some regions and ecosystems (Abelson et al. 2016 ). Pressures on many marine environments have declined due to more collaborative and proactive regulation, aided by increased action to address the inequality of resources available to support regulation and management. Indeed, well-resourced, cross-disciplinary integrated management emerges as a cornerstone of the positive conservation outcomes that are occurring, and which have taken place at all scales, from local to international. Under this scenario, by 2030:

Integrated, ecosystem-based management of marine ecosystems has been widely implemented (e.g. Delacámara et al. 2020 ; Link and Browman 2017 ; Stephenson et al. 2021 ; Stephenson et al. 2019 )

There is increased social impetus and empowerment for the safeguarding of marine ecosystems (e.g. Hawkins et al. 2016 ; Kelly et al. 2018 )

Community-members and decision-makers are better informed about the importance of marine ecosystems and positive practical actions they can take (e.g. Artelle et al. 2018 ; Kaplan-Hallam and Bennett 2017 )

Growing interdisciplinary collaborations and cross-sectorial regulations reduce negative impacts on marine ecosystems and promote a shift towards a more circular economy (e.g. Stahel 2016 ; Kirchherr et al. 2017 )

Greater emphasis on environmental impacts in triple-bottom-line accounting, in conjunction with financial mechanisms, to support and rebuild marine ecosystems (e.g. Bos et al. 2015 ; Dichmont et al. 2020 )

Capacity-building in under-resourced communities decreases regional inequalities in development and implementation of integrated spatial management (Alvarez-Romero et al. 2018 ; IOC-UNESCO 2017 )

Improved ecological monitoring and forecasting, and the transfer of such information, both of which enable more proactive, flexible, and adaptive management (e.g. Pendleton et al. 2020 )

Improved monitoring, evaluation and adaptation of management strategies and plans (Ehler 2014 ; IOC-UNESCO 2017 )

Negotiations for a new UN BBNJ treaty have proceeded slowly (noting the effect of the coronavirus pandemic on the scheduling of conferences of the parties and intersessional activities) but seem increasingly likely to result in legally binding conservation obligations, and important States have indicated that they intend to ratify the treaty.

Pathway to achieving a sustainable future

We identified a series of actions, each associated with one or more of our drivers, that together could form a pathway for achieving a more sustainable 2030 future for marine biodiversity and ecosystems (Tables 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ). These actions are grouped in four categories, which correspond with overarching goals for our pathway (listed below). Within each category we identify when actions commence on the spectrum from short-term (2021–2025), medium term (2025–2030) and long-term (2030 and beyond). We also identify who, amongst governments, industry and research institutions, might need to undertake those actions, as well as describing the scales (local, regional, global) that are applicable for each action. For each action we also specify the driver (or in some cases two drivers) which that action addresses.

The four categories/overarching goals for our sets of actions within the pathway are:

To improve capacity for flexible and adaptive biodiversity and ecosystem-based management in the marine environment (Table 2 ; see also Haas et al. 2021 , this issue). The actions in this category mostly address the management & governance driver described above.

To make access to data and expertise more equitable (Table 3 ). This includes financial mechanisms (e.g. increased funding, incentives) to make data more accessible as well as capacity building in regions with fewer resources to research and implement adaptive management. Actions in this category collectively address all four of our drivers.

To foster social empowerment and connection with conservation of the marine environment through improved ocean literacy (Table 4 ; see also Kelly et al. 2021 , this issue). These actions include formal and informal education, citizen science, and mechanisms for increasing accessibility of information to the public about a) status of marine ecosystems, and b) progress in safeguarding marine ecosystems. These actions together address our social impetus driver.

To implement market and financial mechanisms that support marine conservation (Table 5 ). This set of actions consider consumer choice and transparency in supply chains (see also Farmery et al. 2021 , this issue), as well as financial incentives and disincentives for industry (see Novaglio et al. 2021 , this issue), and addresses all four of our drivers, but most specifically the sectoral stewardship and financial mechanisms drivers.

Relationships between the drivers and our overarching goals towards the more sustainable future are illustrated in Fig.  4 . Importantly, successful examples of the implementation of many of the actions we describe already exist – which highlights that this pathway is achievable with sufficient political and socioeconomic will. We describe some examples of these ‘bright spots’ in Table 6 , pertaining to a series of different habitat or biodiversity components, and summarise who undertook specific actions and at what scale, as well as the factors that enabled specific actions, to realise these examples of success.

Relationships between the umbrella drivers of marine ecosystem change on the left, and our overarching goals for a more sustainable 2030 on the right. Filaments between the nodes represent the actions presented in Tables 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , coloured according to the goal to which they primarily contribute

In this paper we have developed and outlined a technically achievable pathway to a future for marine ecosystems and biodiversity where the trajectory of ecosystem decline present at the beginning of the decade has been stemmed, and examples of conservation success, e.g. ‘bright spots’ are rapidly growing in size and number. In developing the set of actions described in Tables 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 we endeavoured to generate a condensed list of key actions over the 2021–2030 timeframe that could form a feasible pathway towards the more sustainable future we have described for marine ecosystems globally, considering the four key drivers of change identified. Of course, in reality, there is a vast amount to be done to address the complex challenge of safeguarding marine life, and a range of factors that might influence the effectiveness and ultimate success of these actions. In the following sections we discuss five factors that we consider to be particularly important in determining capacity for action to address the drivers in a way that sets us on the pathway to a more sustainable future. These factors are: (1) connection to marine ecosystems and behavioural change; (2) empowering local communities, Indigenous management and partnerships; (3) access to accurate, up-to-date information; (4) overcoming barriers to integrated, ecosystem-based management; and (5) shifting towards a more equitable, circular economy. We acknowledge that there is a significant (and continually developing) body of literature around all five of these topics, and so in the following sections we attempt to distil the key ways in which they might influence capacity for the actions identified in our results, and hence affect the likelihood of achieving a more sustainable future for marine biodiversity. We note that addressing these factors won’t fix marine biodiversity conservation, however they can contribute to shifting our drivers within this decade, and then in the longer term (beyond 2030) these drivers will be positioned to improve marine conservation.

Connection to marine ecosystems and behavioural change

It is not possible for all 7.8 billion people on Earth to feel deeply connected with marine ecosystems. However, actions to increase individuals’ connection with marine spaces and nature in general is likely to increase pro-environmental behaviour and attitudes, with the added benefit of improving wellbeing (Evans et al. 2018a ; Kelly et al. 2021 ; Nash et al. 2021b ; Rosa and Collado 2019 ; White et al. 2019 ). The drivers for improving human connectedness to marine environments are outlined in Kelly et al. ( 2021 , this issue) and include education, cultural connections, technological developments and knowledge exchange and science-policy interconnections. Those authors identify five key challenges to improving ocean literacy including the need to i) expand educational programs beyond those that are youth-focused to include all components of society; ii) expand programs to local contexts and cultures to improve ocean literacy across regions, languages and cultures; iii) expand the focus on single issues and guide holistic understanding of issues affecting the ocean and sustainable approaches to marine resource use and management; iv) maximise the utility of technology in achieving ocean literacy; and v) adopt more inclusive approaches to decision making. Kelly et al. ( 2021 ) develop an ocean literacy toolkit and provide a practical pathway for improving societal connections to the marine environment, and in doing so support improved societal impetus for conservation actions.

Changing the way individuals and society consider marine ecosystems can also benefit from using diverse means of communication to reach different people in different contexts. Art, storytelling, and humour can all allow people to diverge from their normal thought processes, and to connect with information and marine environments in a different way (e.g. Curtis et al. 2012 ; Dahlstrom 2014 ; Dahlstrom and Scheufele 2018 ; Lenda et al. 2020 ; Paterson et al. 2020 ). Games can also be used to develop mechanistic understanding of how cumulative human actions and policies impact marine ecosystems (e.g. https://www.mspchallenge.info/ ) , and how trade-offs in their management might affect enjoyment of marine spaces.

Leveraging behavioural science is also increasingly recognised as key to support conservation outcomes and sustainable choices and actions by consumers and communities (Bennett et al. 2017 ). For example, Cinner ( 2018 ) describes how, because people generally prefer to maintain the status quo, setting default options so that people need to “opt out” rather than “opt in” to sustainable options can be an effective strategy. Moreover, if people perceive environmental problems as being beyond the power of individuals to effect change, then directly facilitating sustainable choices (e.g. opt-out vs. opt-in to sustainable options), can boost the feeling of making a difference and so propel further action.

Empowering local communities, Indigenous management and partnerships

The magnitude of the challenges facing the health and management of marine ecosystems requires innovative solutions that are capable of being implemented across all geospatial scales. Adopting a ‘bottom-up’, locally-driven approach would not only empower greater connection of local communities to their marine environments (as discussed above) but could also increase impetus for action at broader scales. However, not all communities that depend on marine ecosystems do so sustainably (e.g. Cinner et al. 2016 ; Dambacher et al. 2007 ; Glaser et al. 2018 ), and addressing poverty and social well-being are critical elements for achieving sustainable resource use and conservation (i.e. achieving SDG 14 depends also on achieving other SDGs) (Chaigneau et al. 2019 ; Coulthard et al. 2011 ; Nash et al. 2020 ). Resourcing may also be more limited at local scales and local communities are limited in the extent to which they can (independently, at least) mitigate local impacts from global challenges such as climate change. Given the variability in the capacity of local communities to safeguard marine ecosystems, and the global scale of pressures facing them, it is important to both strengthen local communities’ power to protect their local environments and also support them more effectively through integrated regional management structures. In particular, the diversity of the local communities needs to be represented in positions of responsibility in local and regional ecosystem management, monitoring and research to ensure whole-of-community support for the conservation goals and processes. If well supported, diverse decision-making teams have greater capacity to generate and explore innovative approaches to challenges and show greater thoroughness of decision-making processes and accuracy of assessments (Cheruvelil et al. 2014 ; Hong and Page 2004 ; Phillips et al. 2014 ), which are fundamental for improving marine ecosystem management.

The need to empower Indigenous Peoples to manage their cultural marine spaces is especially important. Indigenous Peoples have suffered from loss of territory and resources due to both the depletion of their environments by Western/global pressures and, with a few exceptions (e.g. Gwaii Haanas, and S G aan K inghas-Bowie Seamount, both Canada), the actions of the West to conserve these now dwindling resources/environments (e.g. access to cultural fishing waters restricted due to marine reserves) (Tauli-Corpuz et al. 2020 ). Yet many Indigenous Peoples still have the experience and knowledge required to sustainably manage these ecosystems (see Reid et al. 2020 and the case study below). Recognition of this, along with opportunities and support (where necessary) for Indigenous Peoples to develop and formalize their own marine ecosystem management plans and objectives (Fischer et al. 2021 ; Mustonen et al. 2021 , both this issue), is likely to result in improved marine ecosystem health at the same time as advancing equity for Indigenous Peoples (e.g. Alexander et al. 2021 ; Artelle et al. 2019 ; Ban and Frid 2018 ; Rist et al. 2019 ).

Local and Indigenous knowledge is currently under-recognised in ecosystem management activities and frameworks (Jones et al. 2020b ; Ogar et al. 2020 ; Reid et al. 2020 ). Indigenous ecological knowledge is a complex system of intergenerational, experiential observations, beliefs, practices and values that has evolved as a response to interactions between culture and environment (e.g. Alexander et al. 2019 ; Jackson et al. 2017 ; Yunupingu and Muller 2009 ). The rich understanding Indigenous People have for their local environment is inseparable from their cultural values and practices (Frainer et al. 2020 ), and in many cases comprises experience and knowledge for adapting practices to large environmental change. Yet, even where Western ecosystem management frameworks try to draw on Indigenous knowledge, they often seek to separate the ecological knowledge from the cultural perspective and practices to which it belongs, and so divorce the knowledge from its context (e.g. Yunupingu and Muller 2009 ). Moving forward, greater emphasis on developing pluralistic knowledge frameworks and methods for bridging the separate knowledge frameworks will enable richer, and more informed management of ecosystems and people, with greater conservation and human outcomes (e.g. Alexander et al. 2019 ; Gavin et al. 2018 ; Kaiser et al. 2019 ; Reid et al. 2020 ). Importantly, the best approaches for doing so are likely to differ between cultures and environments, but a number of case studies and meta-analyses provide examples for how this can be done, e.g. Table 7 , Alexander et al. ( 2019 ) (although many of these are from developed nations, i.e. Canada, New Zealand).

Access to accurate, up-to-date information

To be able to choose actions that support conservation of marine ecosystems, both society and decision makers need access to clear, accurate, and up-to-date information on the pressures being placed on the marine environment and solutions for reducing those pressures (see also Kelly et al. 2021 , this issue). In order to provide accurate up-to-date information for decision making, information needs to be made available in real-time and in formats that are digestible to those that need and utilise this information (e.g. Lowerre-Barbieri et al. 2019 ). This requires improved dataflows, rapid analyses, reliable interpretation and accessible delivery. It will also require that all information generators (industry, business, society) make information accessible (Evans et al. 2018b ). Ultimately, mechanisms that can bring all of these varying data sources together to provide key indicators that can be tracked and translated into forms that conservation managers can both understand and use are needed (Evans et al. 2019 ). Effective use of historical datasets is also needed – these data are needed to develop skill in forecasts and an understanding of what past activities have occurred in order to understand future risk. This will require digitising information that is not in digital formats, updating data in out-dated formats (that result in data not being able to be used anymore) and making these available through easy to access dataflows. Targeted efforts in this regard have been undertaken with oceanographic data (Woodruff et al. 2005 ). Further, large scale assessments relating to the marine environment, currently released at scales of 5 or more years, are recognising the need to provide information in more digestible formats (e.g. the interactive atlas of the most recent working group 1 assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, see https://interactive-atlas.ipcc.ch/ ), in ways that allow for updating of information on more frequent time scales (e.g. for example on annual time scales such as that of the World Meteorological Organisation’s state of the global climate reports, see https://public.wmo.int/en/our-mandate/climate/wmo-statement-state-of-global-climate . These efforts need to be expanded to include information on marine ecosystems.

Methods for communication can include technological tools such as environmental dashboards, or computer and smartphone applications. These tools can provide information on the current status of marine ecosystems and the future threat of climate change (Melbourne-Thomas et al. 2021 ; Trebilco et al. 2021 , this issue) and economic activities (Novaglio et al. 2021 , this issue) to these systems. They can provide information about ecological outcomes of government policies and link consumers to supply chains and sustainability information on products (Farmery et al. 2021 , this issue), and ultimately provide steps that individuals can implement to contribute to positive outcomes for marine environments. Increased uptake and positive outcomes are more likely if the information is locally specific and place-based.

Overcoming barriers to integrated, ecosystem-based management

As identified in our drivers of change for conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems, movement towards integrated, ecosystem-based management (EBM) will be a key factor in working towards a more sustainable future. Implementing EBM and ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) has been a goal in international environmental laws – implicitly since the 1980s and, more recently, explicitly in legal instruments such as fisheries management agreements and in principles and guidance developed under the Convention for Biological Diversity (Enright and Boteler 2020 ). However, there remain significant challenges for its effective implementation through formal legal instruments, including the need for co-operation between agencies and more practical guidance about its implementation in different regions and at different governance scales, and the fundamental need for greater political willpower (Enright and Boteler 2020 ; Rudd et al. 2018 ). There have been calls for ecosystem approaches that integrate across multiple sectors, and for expanding the concepts of integrated coastal zone management (Post and Lundin 1996 ) to open ocean systems. Stephenson et al. ( 2019 ) describe a pathway towards integrated management for marine systems, identify steps for implementation and consider factors that might enable or inhibit progress towards integrated management. A detailed treatment of actions to progress the successful implementation of integrated, ecosystem-based management is beyond the scope of our study (although many of the actions we identify in Tables 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 could help address this challenge, and build on what is described by Stephenson et al. 2019 ). Important barriers to achieving integrated EBM and EBFM more broadly are:

Increased need for understanding of the cumulative effects of the pressures caused by the activities of multiple sectors across multiple jurisdictions (current knowledge gaps are also a consequence of the limited implementation of EBM)

That adaptive management, while crucial to effective EBM approaches, remains controversial, difficult to implement and enforce, and absent from, or afforded mere lip-service in, most existing legal and policy frameworks (e.g. Enright and Boteler 2020 ).

A lack of indicators and reference levels to measure achievements towards EB(F)M, limiting the capacity to implement effective adaptive management approaches

Limitations in our understanding about the social dimensions of EBM (which encompasses socio-economic-ecological dimensions), particularly in the coastal zone (Le Tissier 2020 )

Lack of tools that consider all dimensions and dynamics, but are efficient and accessible.

Since EBM is most often system-specific, EBM frameworks need to be tailored to fit the specific context of different systems.

Limited experience in coordinated planning across agencies and jurisdictions – a task that is fundamental to EBM. In particular, EBM planning involves: (1) cross-jurisdictional engagement for natural systems that cross State and Continental boundaries, and (2) integration of management activities between conservation and resource extraction agencies.

Overcoming these barriers requires secure funding and support for the managers at all levels, to learn and implement ecosystem-based approaches, and could include use of novel technology for testing and monitoring outcomes of management decisions (Fulton 2021 ). Engagement of stakeholders with ecosystem-based management process is also fundamental, and can be enhanced by employing knowledge brokers and graphic artists who facilitate communication between different disciplines and stakeholders, and working with psychologists to understand biases that may create barriers to participation (Fulton 2021 ; Stephenson et al. 2019 ). Finally, clarifying systems and processes for monitoring and responding to changes in marine ecosystems (e.g. through information transfer, as discussed in the section above) could enable adaptive management requirements to be formalized in legal and policy frameworks.

Shifting towards a more equitable, circular economy

Changing the economic model of profit at the cost of marine ecosystems is critical for marine conservation in the long term. Capitalism has enabled the situation where businesses profit through disproportionately impacting marine ecosystems, but the consequent loss of ecosystem services is felt by all. For example, fewer than 100 companies are responsible for half of the global decline in surface ocean pH to 2015 and 42–50% of increase in mean surface warming to 2010 (Ekwurzel et al. 2017 ; Licker et al. 2019 ). Escaping the heavy hand of capitalist interests will require strong governance and, ultimately, social pressure for stronger regulation and more equitable economic markets and sustainability (see also Novaglio et al. 2021 ; Virdin et al. 2021 ). It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss in detail how to change the economic model, however many of our recommended actions could contribute to such a shift. This includes accounting for the economic value of ecosystem goods and services in decision-making processes and increased accountability and transparency around taxation and subsidisation of organisations that pollute or otherwise harm marine ecosystems and development of indicators to support those. While these actions are not sufficient to change the economic model, they are critical steps for safeguarding marine ecosystems into the future.

Human–environment interactions and COVID

The recent evolution of the COVID-19 global pandemic has changed the course of the next decade and has affected some of the aspects discussed in this paper. For instance, in some countries, a shift in the allocation of funding to new priorities (e.g. medical therapies and research) might delay progress towards meeting some of the UN SDGs (Bates et al. 2020 ). In addition, reduced food supply during the lockdown in some regions may have elicited illegal fishing (e.g. rural India, Pinder et al. 2020 ), and reduced control of invasive alien species may have resulted in these species expanding their range (evidence from land, Manenti et al. 2020 ), with important consequences on biodiversity. While we recognise the disruptive effects of COVID-19 on individuals, society and the environment, we also believe that the pandemic has prompted some positive changes. For example, it has led society to reconsider values and priorities and to discuss alternative economic models that would result in improved societal and environmental outcomes (Cohen 2020 ). Most importantly, COVID-19 has highlighted the strong link between humans and nature and has demonstrated that large-scale societal changes have the potential to reduce human impacts and benefit biodiversity conservation (Bates et al. 2020 ). Such benefits include, for example, cleaner air and cleaner and quieter water (Thomson and Barclay 2020 ), and increased breeding success for some threatened species due to reduced exploitation during lockdown (Bates et al. 2020 ; Manenti et al. 2020 ). Regardless of the negative or positive nature of its consequences, COVID-19 has created momentum to catalyse societal consent and undertake actions that will place us on a trajectory towards a more sustainable future. Capitalising on this ephemeral momentum is an opportunity we cannot afford to miss.

Conclusions

Our global dependence on marine resources and ecosystem services has resulted in the severe degradation of many systems. These impacts are exacerbated by climate change, which is now the long-term driver with the greatest impact on marine ecosystems and biodiversity. However, there are still many opportunities to mitigate cumulative, more immediate impacts in our oceans, with the critical need to protect and maintain biodiversity and ecosystem function broadly recognised. Conservation programs tend to fail because they do not consider social dimensions of conservation (Bennett et al. 2017 ). These human elements need to be a core focus for improving conservation success, but the question is how to do ‘human-centred’ conservation in a way that ultimately still prioritises biodiversity and ecosystems. This paper is a step in that direction.

We highlight four key drivers of change: financial mechanisms; sectoral stewardship; management and governance; and social impetus for safeguarding marine ecosystems. Importantly, we highlight how considering the interrelationships between these drivers can identify concrete actions for forming a pathway to a more sustainable future. Furthermore, we outline the key factors that determine the capacity for societies to address the drivers.

While individual methods for communication of up-to-date information pertinent to conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems, such as environmental dashboards, or computer and smartphone applications, currently exist and their use is expanding, centralised communication frameworks that act as synapses linking multiple systems and communities across the globe remain aspirational. Such global communication systems would further enhance the clear approach outlined in this paper of incorporating local awareness and knowledge into providing solutions to global scale problems. We highlight how this localised approach allows global issues to be tackled at more tractable scales that create a feeling that change is indeed achievable.

We have articulated an optimistic, sustainable future for global oceans with respect to the conservation of marine biodiversity and ecosystems and importantly, we have outlined how such a future is technically feasible by 2030. This future would go a long way to achieving the UN SDG 14 ‘Life Below Water’ Target 14.2 ‘Protect and Restore Ecosystems’. It should be noted, however, that this target has one indicator: The proportion of national exclusive economic zones managed using ecosystem-based approaches. As over fifty percent of the world’s oceans constitute the high seas (FAO 2020 ), which are not addressed within SDG 14.2, we purport that in order to more fully achieve a sustainable future for global oceans, mechanisms to develop dynamic ecosystem-based management in the high seas must be included in this future.

Availability of data and material

Not applicable.

Code availability

Abelson A et al (2016) Upgrading marine ecosystem restoration using ecological-social concepts. Bioscience 66:156–163

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Adams WM et al (2004) Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science 306:1146–1149

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Addison PFE, Bull JW, Milner-Gulland EJ (2019) Using conservation science to advance corporate biodiversity accountability. Conserv Biol 33:307–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13190

Agardy T (2005) Global Marine conservation policy versus site-level implementation: the mismatch of scale and its implications. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300:242–248

Article   Google Scholar  

Alexander SM et al (2019) Bridging Indigenous and science-based knowledge in coastal and marine research, monitoring, and management in Canada. Environ Evidence 8:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-019-0181-3

Alexander KA et al (2021) Equity of our future oceans: reflections on outcomes and practice. Rev Fish Biol Fisher. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-021-09661-z

Alter KJ, Raustiala K (2018) The rise of international regime complexity. Annual Rev Law Social Sci 14:329–330

Alvarez-Romero JG et al (2018) Research advances and gaps in marine planning: towards a global database in systematic conservation planning. Biol Cons 227:369–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.06.027

Artelle KA, Zurba M, Bhattacharyya J, Chan DE, Brown K, Housty J, Moola F (2019) Supporting resurgent Indigenous-led governance: A nascent mechanism for just and effective conservation. Biol Cons 240:108284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108284

Artelle KA, Stephenson J, Bragg C, Housty JA, Housty WG, Kawharu M, Turner NJ (2018) Values-led management: the guidance of place-based values in environmental relationships of the past, present, and future. Ecol Soc 23:35

Baco AR, Brendan Roark E, Morgan NB (2019) Amid fields of rubble scars and lost gear signs of recovery observed on seamounts on 30- to 40-year time scales. Sci Adv. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw4513

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ban NC, Frid A (2018) Indigenous peoples’ rights and marine protected areas. Mar Policy 87:180–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.10.020

Ban NC et al (2014) Systematic conservation planning: a better recipe for managing the high seas for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. Conserv Lett 7:41–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12010

Barnaud C et al (2018) Ecosystem services, social interdependencies, and collective action: a conceptual framework. Ecol Soc 23:15. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-09848-230115

Bates AE, Primack RB, Moraga P, Duarte CM (2020) COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdown as a “Global Human Confinement Experiment” to investigate biodiversity conservation. Biolog Conserv 248:108665

Bax N et al (2021) Ocean resource use: building the coastal blue economy. Rev Fish Biol Fisher. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-021-09636-0

BC Treaty Commission (2020) https://www.bctreaty.ca/ Accessed Mar 2020

Beaugrand G et al (2015) Synchronous Marine pelagic regime shifts in the Northern Hemisphere. Philos Trans R Soc B-Biol Sci 370:20130272. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0272

Bennett EM et al (2016) Bright spots: seeds of a good Anthropocene. Front Ecol Environ 14:441–448. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1309

Bennett NJ et al (2017) Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biol Cons 205:93–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006

Biggs R, Peterson GD, Rocha JC (2018) The regime shifts database: a framework for analyzing regime shifts in social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 23:9. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-10264-230309

Bindoff NL et al. (2019) Chapter 5: Changing ocean, marine ecosystems, and dependent communities. In: Pörtner HO et al. (eds) IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate

Blanchard JL et al (2017) Linked sustainability challenges and trade-offs among fisheries, aquaculture and agriculture. Nat Ecol Evol 1:1240–1249. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0258-8

Bleys B, Defloor B, Van Ootegem L, Verhofstadt E (2017) The environmental impact of individual behavior: self-assessment versus the ecological footprint. Environ Behav 50:187–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517693046

Bolin JA, Schoeman DS, Pizà-Roca C, Scales KL (2020) A current affair: entanglement of humpback whales in coastal shark-control nets. Remote Sens Ecol Conserv 6:119–128. https://doi.org/10.1002/rse2.133

Bos M, Pressey RL, Stoeckl N (2015) Marine conservation finance: the need for and scope of an emerging field. Ocean Coast Manag 114:116–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.06.021

Boulianne S, Lalancette M, Ilkiw D (2020) “School strike 4 climate”: social media and the international youth protest on climate change. Med Commun 8:208–218

Breitburg D et al (2018) Declining oxygen in the global ocean and coastal waters. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam7240

Cafaro P (2021) Climate ethics and population policy: a review of recent philosophical work WIREs. Clim Change. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.748

Chaigneau T, Coulthard S, Brown K, Daw TM, Schulte-Herbruggen B (2019) Incorporating basic needs to reconcile poverty and ecosystem services. Conserv Biol 33:655–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13209

Cheruvelil KS, Soranno PA, Weathers KC, Hanson PC, Goring SJ, Filstrup CT, Read EK (2014) Creating and maintaining high-performing collaborative research teams: the importance of diversity and interpersonal skills. Front Ecol Environ 12:31–38. https://doi.org/10.1890/130001

Cheung WWL (2019) Predicting the future ocean: pathways to global sustainability. In: Cisneros-Montemayor AM, Cheung WLC, Ota Y (eds) Predicting future oceans. Elsevier Inc., Amsterdam, pp 3–15

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Cinner J (2018) How behavioural science can help conservation. Science 362:889–890. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau6028

Cinner J, Marnane MJ, McClanahan TR, Almany GR (2006) Periodic closures as adaptive coral reef management in the Indo-Pacific. Ecol Soc 11:31

Cinner JE, Daw T, Huchery C, Thoya P, Wamukota A, Cedras M, Abunge C (2014) Winners and losers in Marine conservation: fishers’ displacement and livelihood benefits from marine reserves. Soc Nat Resour 27:994–1005. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2014.918229

Cinner JE et al (2016) Bright spots among the world’s coral reefs. Nature 535:416–419. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18607

Cinquemani S (2019) Can the public trust doctrine save the high seas? Environ Claims J 31:218–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/10406026.2018.1546465

Clark JL, Algoe SB, Green MC (2017) Social network sites and well-being: the role of social connection. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 27:32–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417730833

Cohen MJ (2020) Does the COVID-19 outbreak mark the onset of a sustainable consumption transition? Sustain: Sci Pract Policy 16:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2020.1740472

Constable AJ (2011) Lessons from CCAMLR on the implementation of the ecosystem approach to managing fisheries. Fish Fish 12:138–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2011.00410.x

Constable AJ, de la Mare WK, Agnew DJ, Everson I, Miller D (2000) Managing fisheries to conserve the Antarctic marine ecosystem: practical implementation of the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). ICES J Mar Sci 57:778–791. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmsc.2000.0725

Coulthard S, Johnson D, McGregor JA (2011) Poverty, sustainability and human wellbeing: a social wellbeing approach to the global fisheries crisis. Global Environ Change 21:453–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.003

Curtis DJ, Reid N, Ballard G (2012) Communicating ecology through art: what scientists think. Ecol Soc 17:3. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-04670-170203

Custer S, DiLorenzo M, Masaki T, Sethi T, . HA (2018) Listening to Leaders 2018: Is development cooperation tuned-in or tone-deaf? AidData at William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA

Cvitanovic C, Hobday AJ (2018) Building optimism at the environmental science-policy-practice interface through the study of bright spots. Nat Commun 9:3466. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05977-w

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Dahlstrom MF (2014) Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111(Suppl 4):13614–13620. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320645111

Dahlstrom MF, Scheufele DA (2018) (Escaping) the paradox of scientific storytelling. PLoS Biol 16:e2006720. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2006720

Dambacher JM, Brewer DT, Dennis DM, MacIntyre M, Foale S (2007) Qualitative modelling of gold mine impacts on Lihir Island’s socioeconomic system and reef edge fish community. Environ Sci Technol 41:555–562

Delacámara G, Higgins TGO, Lago M, Langhans S (2020) Ecosystem-based management: moving from concept to practice. In: O’Higgins T, Lago M, DeWitt T (eds) Ecosystem-based management, ecosystem services and aquatic biodiversity. Springer, Cham, pp 39–60

de Silva GC, Regan EC, Pollard EHB, Addison PFE (2019) The evolution of corporate no net loss and net positive impact biodiversity commitments: understanding appetite and addressing challenges. Bus Strateg Environ 28:1481–1495. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2379

Deutz A et al (2020) Financing nature: closing the global biodiversity financing gap. The Paulson Institute, The Nature Conservancy and the Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability

Di Marco M et al (2017) Changing trends and persisting biases in three decades of conservation science. Global Ecol Conserv 10:32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2017.01.008

Díaz S et al (2019) Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366:eaax3100. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw3100

Díaz S et al (2020) Set ambitious goals for biodiversity and sustainability. Science 370:411–413. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe1530

Dichmont CM et al (2020) Operationalizing triple bottom line harvest strategies. ICES J Mar Sci 78:731–742. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsaa033

Diggon S, Butler C, Heidt A, Bones J, Jones R, Outhet C (2021) The Marine plan partnership: indigenous community-based marine spatial planning. Mar Policy 132:103510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.04.014

Doney SC (2010) The growing human footprint on coastal and open-ocean biogeochemistry. Science 328:1512–1516

Duarte CM et al (2020) Rebuilding Marine life. Nature 580:39–51. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2146-7

Eddy TD (2019) Climate change drowned out by plastic. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 29:848

Edgar GJ, Snell HL, Lougheed LW (2003) Impacts of the Jessica oil spill: an introduction. Mar Pollut Bull 47:273–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0025-326x(03)00155-3

Edgar GJ et al (2014) Global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key features. Nature 506:216–220. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13022

Edgar GJ, Bates AE, Bird TJ, Jones AH, Kininmonth S, Stuart-Smith RD, Webb TJ (2016) New approaches to marine conservation through the scaling up of ecological data. Annual Rev Mar Sci 8:435–461. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-122414-033921

Ehler C (2014) A guide to evaluating marine spatial plans. IOC Manuals and Guides, 70; ICAM Dossier 8, UNESCO, Paris, France. http://msp.ioc-unesco.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Evaluating-Marine-Spatial-Plans.pdf

Ekwurzel B, Boneham J, Dalton MW, Heede R, Mera RJ, Allen MR, Frumhoff PC (2017) The rise in global atmospheric CO2, surface temperature, and sea level from emissions traced to major carbon producers. Clim Change 144:579–590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-1978-0

Enright SR, Boteler B (2020) The ecosystem approach in international marine environmental law and governance. In: O’Higgins T, Lago M, DeWitt T (eds) Ecosystem-based management, ecosystem services and aquatic biodiversity. Springer, Cham

Google Scholar  

Estes JA et al (2011) Trophic downgrading of planet earth. Science 333:301–306. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1205106

Etzion D (2020) Corporate engagement with the natural environment. Nat Ecol Evol 4:493. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1142-5

Evans GW, Otto S, Kaiser FG (2018a) Childhood origins of young adult environmental behavior. Psychol Sci 29:679–687. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741894

Evans K, Bax NJ, Smith DC (2018b) Enhancing the robstness of a national assessment of the marine environment. Mar Policy 98:133–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.08.011

Evans K et al (2019) The global integrated world ocean assessment: linking observations to science and policy across multiple scales. Front Mar Sci 6:298. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00298

FAO (2018) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture: meeting the sustainable development goals. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome

FAO (2020) Common Oceans, A partnership for sustainability in the ABNJ. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/in-action/commonoceans/en/ . Accessed Sept 2020

Farmery A et al (2021) Food for all: designing sustainable and secure future seafood systems. Rev Fish Biol Fisher. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-021-09663-x

Fischer M et al (2021) Empowering her guardians to nurture our oceans future. Rev Fish Biol Fisher. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-021-09679-3

Folke C et al (2019) Transnational corporations and the challenge of biosphere stewardship. Nat Ecol Evolut 3:1396–1403. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0978-z

Frainer A et al (2020) Opinion: cultural and linguistic diversities are underappreciated pillars of biodiversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 117:26539–26543. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2019469117

Fujita R, Lynham J, Micheli F, Feinberg PG, Bourillon L, Saenz-Arroyo A, Markham AC (2013) Ecomarkets for conservation and sustainable development in the coastal zone. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 88:273–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2012.00251.x

Fulton EA (2021) Opportunities to improve ecosystem-based fisheries management by recognizing and overcoming path dependency and cognitive bias. Fish Fish 22:428–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12537

Gattuso J-P et al (2018) Ocean solutions to address climate change and its effects on marine ecosystems. Front Mar Sci 5:337. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00337

Gavin MC, McCarter J, Berkes F, Mead ATP, Sterling EJ, Tang R, Turner NJ (2018) Effective biodiversity conservation requires dynamic, pluralistic, partnership-based approaches. Sustainability 10:1846

GBRMPA (2020) Land-based run-off. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-work/threats-to-the-reef/declining-water-quality . Accessed Sept 2020

Gilchrist H, Rocliffe S, Anderson LG, Gough CLA (2020) Reef fish biomass recovery within community-managed no take zones. Ocean Coast Manag 192:105210

Glaeser B (2019) Human-nature relations in flux: two decades of research in coastal and ocean management. In: Wolanski E, Day JW, Elliott M, Ramachandran R (eds) Coasts and estuaries. Elsevier, pp 641–659

Glaser M, Plass-Johnson JG, Ferse SCA, Neil M, Satari DY, Teichberg M, Reuter H (2018) Breaking resilience for a sustainable future: thoughts for the anthropocene. Front Mar Sci 5:34. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00034

Gownaris NJ, Santora CM, Davis JB, Pikitch EK (2019) Gaps in protection of important ocean areas: a spatial meta-analysis of ten global mapping initiatives. Front Mar Sci 6:650. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00650

Green ME, Meyer L, Fetterplace L (2019) Otlet; International Network and Digital Infrastructure for Research Scientists to Source Biological Samples MarXiv, doi:1031230/osfio/uhdtq doi:doi: https://doi.org/10.31230/osf.io/uhdtq

Gregr EJ et al (2020) Cascading social-ecological costs and benefits triggered by a recovering keystone predator. Science 368:1243–1247. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay5342

Grip K (2017) International marine environmental governance: a review. Ambio 46:413–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0847-9

GSIA (2018) Global sustainable investment review. Global Sustainable Investment Alliance. http://www.gsi-alliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/GSIR-20201.pdf . http://www.gsi-alliance.org

Haas B et al (2021) The future of ocean governance. Rev Fish Biol Fisher. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-020-09631-x

Halpern BS et al (2019) Recent pace of change in human impact on the world’s ocean. Sci Rep 9:11609. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-47201-9

Halvorssen AM (2019) Equality among unequals in international environmental law: differential treatment for developing countries. Routledge, Abingdon-on-Thames

Book   Google Scholar  

Harborne AR, Mumby PJ (2011) Novel ecosystems: altering fish assemblages in warming waters. Curr Biol 21:R822–R824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.08.043

Hawkins JP, O’Leary BC, Bassett N, Peters H, Rakowski S, Reeve G, Roberts CM (2016) Public awareness and attitudes towards marine protection in the United Kingdom. Mar Pollut Bull 111:231–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.07.003

Hindell MA et al (2020) Tracking of marine predators to protect Southern Ocean ecosystems. Nature 580:87–92. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2126-y

Hofman RJ (2019) Stopping overexploitation of living resources on the high seas. Mar Policy 103:91–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.02.037

Hong L, Page SE (2004) Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101:16385–16389

Humphries F, Harden-Davies H (2020) Practical policy solutions for the final stage of BBNJ treaty negotiations. Mar Policy 122:104214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104214

Innes J, Pascoe S, Wilcox C, Jennings S, Paredes S (2015) Mitigating undesirable impacts in the marine environment: a review of market-based management measures. Front Marine Sci. https://doi.org/10.1080/10.3389/fmars.2015.00076

IOC-UNESCO 2nd International Conference on Marine-Maritime spatial planning, 15–17 March 2017. In, UNESCO, Paris, 2017. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and European Commission – DGMARE 2017, UNESCO, Paris, France. https://www.mspglobal2030.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/mspconf2017_finalreport.pdf

IOC-UNESCO (2018) Status of MSP. Marine Spatial Planning Programme of the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization International Oceanographic Commission. http://msp.ioc-unesco.org/world-applications/status_of_msp . Accessed Aug 2019

IPBES (2019) The global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany

IPCC (2019) Summary for Policymakers. In: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [H.O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama, N. Weyer (eds.)]. https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/citation/

ISC (2019) First Nations in British Columbia, Indigenous Services Canada. https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/DAM/DAM-INTER-BC/STAGING/texte-text/inacmp_1100100021016_eng.pdf . Accessed Mar 2020

Islam MM, Shamsuddoha M (2018) Coastal and marine conservation strategy for Bangladesh in the context of achieving blue growth and sustainable development goals (SDGs). Environ Sci Policy 87:45–54

Ives CD et al (2017) Human–nature connection: a multidisciplinary review. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 26–27:106–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.05.005

Jackson JBC (1997) Reefs since Columbus. Coral Reefs 16:23–32

Jackson J (2001) What was natural in the coastal oceans? Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98:5411–5418

Jackson A-M, Mita N, Hakopa H (2017) Hui-te-ana-nui - Understanding kaitiakitanga in our marine environment. Te Koronga, University of Otago. Report prepared for Ngā Moana Whakauka – Sustainable Seas National Science Challenge, Dunedin, New Zealand. https://www.sustainableseaschallenge.co.nz/tools-and-resources/hui-te-ana-nui-understanding-kaitiakitanga-in-our-marine-environment/

Jennings S, Blanchard JL (2004) Fish abundance with no fishing: predictions based on macroecological theory. Ecology 73:632–642

Johansen DF, Vestvik RA (2020) The cost of saving our ocean - estimating the funding gap of sustainable development goal 14. Mar Policy 112:103783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103783

Jones R, Rigg C, Lee L (2010) Haida marine planning: First Nations as a partner in marine conservation. Ecol Soc 15:12

Jones PJS, Lieberknecht LM, Qiu W (2016) Marine spatial planning in reality: introduction to case studies and discussion of findings. Mar Policy 71:256–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.04.026

Jones R, Doubleday N, Bailey M, Paul K, Taylor F, Pulsifer P (2020) Reconciliation and indigenous ocean management in canada: current status. In: Sumaila R, Armitage D, Bailey M, Cheung WLC (eds) Canada’s oceans: pathways to sustainability in a sea of change. UBC Press, Vancouver

Jones R, Doubleday N, Bailey M, Paul K, Taylor F, Pulsifer P (2020) Reconciliation and indigenous ocean management in canada: the path forward. In: Sumaila R, Armitage D, Bailey M, Cheung WLC (eds) Canada’s oceans: pathways to sustainability in a sea of change. UBC Press, Vancouver

Kaiser BA et al (2019) The importance of connected ocean monitoring knowledge systems and communities. Front Mar Sci 6:309. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00309

Kaplan-Hallam M, Bennett NJ (2017) Adaptive social impact management for conservation and environmental management. Conserv Biol 32:304–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12985

Kauder B, Potrafke N, Ursprung H (2018) Behavioral determinants of proclaimed support for environment protection policies. European J Polit Econ 54:26–41

Kelly R, Fleming A, Pecl GT (2018) Social licence for marine conservation science. Front Mar Sci 5:414. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00414

Kelly R et al (2021) Connecting to the oceans: supporting ocean literacy and public engagement. Rev Fish Biol Fisher. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-020-09625-9

Kirchherr J, Reike D, Hekkert M (2017) Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis of 114 definitions. Resour Conserv Recycl 127:221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005

Knowles T, Campbell R (2011) What’s a whale worth? Valuing whales for National Whale Day, a report for the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW). prepared by Economists at Large, Melbourne Australia

Lenda M et al (2020) Effects of amusing memes on concern for unappealing species. Conserv Biol 34:1200–1209. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13523

Le Tissier M (2020) Unravelling the relationship between ecosystem-based management, integrated coastal zone management and marine spatial planning. In: O’Higgins T, Lago M, DeWitt T (eds) Ecosystem-based management, ecosystem services and aquatic biodiversity. Springer, Cham

Lewis E, Pinchot A, Christianson G (2016) Navigating the sustainable investment landscape. Working Paper, World Resources Institute, Washington DC

Licker R, Ekwurzel B, Doney SC, Cooley SR, Lima ID, Heede R, Frumhoff PC (2019) Attributing ocean acidification to major carbon producers. Environ Res Lett 14:124060. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab5abc

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Lim WM (2017) Inside the sustainable consumption theoretical toolbox: Critical concepts for sustainability, consumption, and marketing. J Bus Res 78:69–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.05.001

Link JS, Browman HI (2017) Introduction operationalizing and implementing ecosystem-based management. ICES J Mar Sci J Du Conseil 74:379–381. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsw247

Lotze HK et al (2019) Global ensemble projections reveal trophic amplification of ocean biomass declines with climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 116:12907–12912. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1900194116

Lowerre-Barbieri SK, Catalán IA, Frugård Opdal A, Jørgensen C (2019) Preparing for the future: integrating spatial ecology into ecosystem-based management. ICES J Mar Sci 76:467–476. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsy209

Luypaert T, Hagan JG, McCarthy ML, Poti M (2020) Status of Marine biodiversity in the anthropocene. In: Jungblut S, Liebich V, Bode-Dalby M (eds) YOUMARES 9 - the oceans: our research, our future. Springer, Cham, pp 57–82

Manenti R, Mori E, Di Canio V, Mercurio S, Picone M, Caffi M, Rubolini D (2020) The good, the bad and the ugly of COVID-19 lockdown effects on wildlife conservation: insights from the first European locked down country. Biol Conserv 249:108728

MaPP (2017) Snapshot haida gwaii, marine plan partnership for the North Pacific Coast. https://mappocean.org/category/snapshots/haida-gwaii-snapshots/ . Accessed Mar 2020

MaPP (2019) Snapshot regional, marine plan partnership for the North Pacific Coast. https://mappocean.org/category/snapshots/regional-snapshots/ . Accessed Mar 2020

MaPP (2020) Marine Plan Partnership for the North Pacific Coast. http://mappocean.org/about-mapp/ Accessed Mar 2020

Melbourne-Thomas J et al (2021) Poleward bound: adapting to climate-driven species redistribution. Rev Fish Biol Fisher. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-021-09641-3

Merrie A, Keys P, Metian M, Österblom H (2018) Radical ocean futures-scenario development using science fiction prototyping. Futures 95:22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2017.09.005

Möllmann C, Diekmann R (2012) Marine ecosystem regime shifts induced by climate and overfishing. Adv Ecol Res 47:303–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-398315-2.00004-1

MPA Network (2020) MPA Network of the Northern Shelf Bioregion. http://www.mpanetwork.ca . Accessed Mar 2020

Mustonen T et al (2021) Who is the Ocean? Preface to the Future Seas 2030 special issue. Rev Fish Biol Fisher. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-021-09655-x

Nash KL et al (2020) To achieve a sustainable blue future, progress assessments must include interdependencies between the sustainable development goals one. Earth 2:161–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.01.008

Nash KL, Alexander K, Melbourne-Thomas J, Novaglio C, Sbrocchi C, Villanueva C, Pecl GT (2021) Developing achievable alternate futures for key challenges during the UN decade of ocean science for sustainable development. Rev Fish Biol Fisher. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-020-09629-5

Nash KL et al (2021) Oceans and society: feedbacks between ocean and human health. Rev Fish Biol Fisher. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-021-09669-5

Neilson J et al (2013) The recovery of atlantic swordfish: the comparative roles of the regional fisheries management organization and species biology. Rev Fish Sci 21:59–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641262.2012.754842

Nikitine J, Wilson AMW, Dawson TP (2018) Developing a framework for the efficient design and management of large scale marine protected areas. Mar Policy 94:196–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.05.012

NOAA (2008) North West Pacific Ocean, Reports on identification of VMEs and assessment of impacts caused by bottom fishing activities on VMEs and marine species. NOAA Fisheries, USA. Tokyo NPFC. https://www.npfc.int/reports-identification-vmes-and-assessment-impacts-caused-bottom-fishing-activities-vmes-and-marine

Noad MJ, Kniest E, Dunlop RA (2019) Boom to bust? Implications for the continued rapid growth of the Eastern Australian humpback whale population despite recovery. Populat Ecol 61:198–209. https://doi.org/10.1002/1438-390X.1014

Novaglio et al. (2021) Deep aspirations: towards a sustainable offshore Blue Economy. Rev Fish Biol Fisher. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-020-09628-6

Ogar E, Pecl G, Mustonen T (2020) Science must embrace traditional and indigenous knowledge to solve our biodiversity crisis one. Earth 3:162–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.07.006

Oral N (2015) Forty years of the UNEP regional seas programme: from past to future. In: Rayfuse R (ed) Research handbook on international marine environmental law. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, UK, pp 339–362

Parks Canada (2019) Chiix̱uu Tll iinasdll: nurturing seafood to grow. https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/bc/gwaiihaanas/nature/conservation/restauration-restoration/nurture-nourrir-1 .

Paterson SK, Le Tissier M, Whyte H, Robinson LB, Thielking K, Ingram M, McCord J (2020) Examining the potential of art-science collaborations in the anthropocene: a case study of catching a wave. Front Mar Sci 7:340. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00340

Payne JL, Bush AM, Heim NA, Knope ML, McCauley DJ (2016) Ecological selectivity of the emerging mass extinction in the oceans. Science 353:1284–1286

PNCIMA (2017) Pacific North Coast integrated management area plan. Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA) Initiative. https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/publications/pncima-zgicnp/index-eng.html

PNCIMA (2020) Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area (PNCIMA). Fisheries and Oceans Canada. https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/management-gestion/pncima-zgicnp-eng.html . Accessed 2020

Pecl GT et al (2017) Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science 355:9214. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aai9214

Pendleton L, Evans K, Visbeck M (2020) We need a global movement to transform ocean science for a better world. Proc Natl Acad Sci 117:9652–9655. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2005485117

Peterson CH, Lubchenco J (1997) Marine ecosystem services. In: Daily GC (ed) Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington D.C

Phillips KW, Medin D, Lee CD, Bang M, Bishop S, Lee DN (2014) How diversity works. Sci Am 311:42–47

Pimiento C et al (2020) Functional diversity of marine megafauna in the anthropocene science. Advances 6:eaay7650. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay7650

Pinder AC, Raghavan R, Britton JR, Cooke S (2020) COVID-19 and biodiversity: the paradox of cleaner rivers and elevated extinction risk to iconic fish species. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 30:1061–1062

Planque B et al (2019) A participatory scenario method to explore the future of marine social-ecological systems. Fish Fish 20:434–451. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12356

Post JC, Lundin CG (1996) Guidelines for integrated coastal zone management. Environmentally Sustainable Development Studies and Monographs Series No. 9. The World Bank, Washington D.C.

Reid AJ et al (2020) “Two-Eyed Seeing”: an Indigenous framework to transform fisheries research and management. Fish Fish 22:243. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12516

RFA (2019) Reconciliation framework agreement. Transport Canada. https://tc.canada.ca/en/reconciliation-framework-agreement .

Rintoul SR et al (2018) Choosing the future of antarctica. Nature 558:233–241. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0173-4

Rist P et al (2019) Indigenous protected areas in Sea Country: indigenous-driven collaborative marine protected areas in Australia. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 29:138–151. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3052

Roberts C (2007) The unnatural history of the sea. Island Press/Shearwater Books, Washington DC

Rosa CD, Collado S (2019) Experiences in nature and environmental attitudes and behaviors: setting the ground for future research. Front Psychol 10:763. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00763

Rudd MA et al (2018) Ocean ecosystem-based management mandates and implementation in the North Atlantic. Frontiers in Marine Science. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00485

Rudolph TB, Ruckelshaus M, Swilling M, Allison EH, Osterblom H, Gelcich S, Mbatha P (2020) A transition to sustainable ocean governance. Nat Commun 11:3600. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17410-2

Article   CAS   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Rydén O, Zizka A, Jagers SC, Lindberg SI, Antonelli A (2020) Linking democracy and biodiversity conservation: empirical evidence and research gaps. Ambio 49(2):419–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01210-0

Sachs JD, Schmidt-Traub G, Mazzucato M, Messner D, Nakicenovic N, Rockström J (2019) Six transformations to achieve the sustainable development goals. Nat Sustain 2:805–814

Salomon AK, Kii’iljuus Barb JW, White XE, Tanape N Sr, Happynook TM (2015) First Nations perspectives on sea otter conservation in British Columbia and Alaska: insights into coupled human–ocean systems. In: Larsen SE, VanBlaricom GR (eds) sea otter conservation. Academic Press, Cambridge

Sandbrook C, Gómez-Baggethun E, Adams WM (2020) Biodiversity conservation in a post-COVID-19 economy. Oryx. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0030605320001039

Schelske O, Wilke B, Retsa A, Rutherford-Liske G, de Jong R (2020) Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Index. Swiss Re Institute. https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/topics-and-risk-dialogues/climate-and-natural-catastrophe-risk/expertise-publication-biodiversity-and-ecosystems-services.html#/

Schleussner C-F et al (2016) Science and policy characteristics of the paris agreement temperature goal. Nat Clim Chang 6:827–835. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3096

Schuhbauer A, Chuenpagdee R, Cheung WWL, Greer K, Sumaila UR (2017) How subsidies affect the economic viability of small-scale fisheries. Mar Policy 82:114–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.013

Schuhbauer A, Skerritt DJ, Ebrahim N, Le Manach F, Sumaila UR (2020) The global fisheries subsidies divide between small- and large-scale fisheries. Front Mar Sci 7:539214. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.539214

Selig ER et al (2018) Mapping global human dependence on marine ecosystems. Conserv Lett 12:e12617. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12617

Seppala E, Rossomando T, Doty JR (2013) Social connection and compassion: important predictors of health and well-being. Soc Res 80:411–430

Sethi SA, Branch TA, Watson R (2010) Global fishery development patterns are driven by profit but not trophic level. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107:12163–12167. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1003236107

Singleton S (2009) Native People and planning for Marine Protected Areas: How “Stakeholder” processes fail to address conflicts in complex, real-world environments. Coast Manag 37:421–440

Smith JN, Kelly N, Childerhouse S, Redfern JV, Moore TJ, Peel D (2020) Quantifying ship strike risk to breeding whales in a multiple-use marine park: the Great Barrier Reef. Front Mar Sci 7:67. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00067

Spalding AK, de Ycaza R (2020) Navigating Shifting Regimes of Ocean Governance From UNCLOS to Sustainable Development Goal 14. Environ Soc Adv ReS 11:5–26. https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2020.110102

State of Queensland (2018) Reef 2050 Water Quality Improvement Plan, 2017–2022. Queensland Government and Australian Government

Stahel WR (2016) Circular economy. Nature 531:435–438

Stephenson RL et al (2019) A practical framework for implementing and evaluating integrated management of marine activities. Ocean Coast Manag 177:127–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.04.008

Stephenson RL et al (2021) The quilt of sustainable ocean governance: patterns for practitioners. Front Mar Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.630547

Sterner T et al (2019) Policy design for the anthropocene. Nat Sustain 2:14–21. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0194-x

Stewart BD et al (2020) Marine conservation begins at home: how a local community and protection of a small bay sent waves of change around the UK and beyond. Front Mar Sci 7:76

Sumaila UR, Lam V, Le Manach F, Swartz W, Pauly D (2016) Global fisheries subsidies: an updated estimate. Mar Policy 69:189–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.12.026

Sumaila UR et al (2021) Financing a sustainable ocean economy. Nat comm 12:3259. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23168-y

Tauli-Corpuz V, Alcorn J, Molnar A, Healy C, Barrow E (2020) Cornered by PAs: adopting rights-based approaches to enable cost-effective conservation and climate action. World Dev 130:104923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104923

The World Bank Group (2020) Blue Bonds issuance: Frequently Asked Questions. World Bank Group, Washington DC, USA. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2018/10/29/sovereign-blue-bond-issuance-frequently-asked-questions . Accessed Oct 2020

Thomson DJM, Barclay DR (2020) Real-time observations of the impact of COVID-19 on underwater noise. J Acoust Soc Am 147:3390–3396. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0001271

Tiller R, De-Santo E, Mendenhall E, Nyman E (2019) The once and future treaty: towards a new regime for biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Mar Policy 99:239–242

Tirumala RD, Tiwari P (2020) Innovative financing mechanism for blue economy projects. Mar Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104194

TNC (2020) Blue Bonds: An Audacious Plan to Save the World’s Oceans. The Nature Conservancy, https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-insights/perspectives/an-audacious-plan-to-save-the-worlds-oceans/ . Website accessed: 2nd October 2020. https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-insights/perspectives/an-audacious-plan-to-save-the-worlds-oceans/ . Accessed 2nd October 2020

Trebilco R et al (2021) Warming world, changing ocean: mitigation and adaptation to support resilient marine systems. Rev Fish Biol Fisher. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-021-09678-4

Trisos CH, Merow C, Pigot AL (2020) The projected timing of abrupt ecological disruption from climate change. Nature 580:496–501. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2189-9

UN (2020) Global biodiversity outlook 5. UN Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. https://www.cbd.int/gbo5

UNEP (2006) United Nations Environment Programme, Annual Report of the Secretary General. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/7476/-UNEP%202006%20Annual%20Report-2007755.pdf

Virdin J et al (2021) The Ocean 100: transnational corporations in the marine economy. Sci Adv 7:eabc8041. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abc8041

Vörösmarty CJ et al (2018) Scientifically assess impacts of sustainable investments. Science 359:523–525. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao3895

Walker K, Wan F (2012) The harm of symbolic actions and green-washing: corporate actions and communications on environmental performance and their financial implications. J Bus Ethics 109:227–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1122-4

Wells S, White AT (1995) Involving the community. In: Gubbay S (ed) Marine protected areas. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 61–84

White MP et al (2019) Spending at least 120 min a week in nature is associated with good health and wellbeing. Sci Rep 9:7730. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44097-3

Wilkinson MD et al (2016) The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data 3:160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18

Willis K et al (2021) Cleaner seas: reducing marine pollution. Rev Fish Biol Fisher. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-021-09674-8

Woodruff SD, Diaz HF, Worley SJ, Reynolds RW, Lubker SJ (2005) Early ship observational data and icoads. Clim Change 73:169–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-005-3456-3

Worm B et al (2006) Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science 314:787–790. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1132294

Wynveen CJ, Kyle GT, Sutton SG (2014) Environmental worldview, place attachment, and awareness of environmental impacts in a marine environment. Environ Behav 46:993–1017. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916513484325

Yunupingu D, Muller S (2009) Cross-cultural challenges for Indigenous sea country management in Australia. Australas J Environ Manag 16:158–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2009.9725232

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is part of the ‘Future Seas’ initiative ( www.FutureSeas2030.org ), hosted by the Centre for Marine Socioecology at the University of Tasmania. This initiative delivers a series of journal articles addressing key challenges for the UN International Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development 2021–2030. The general concepts and methods applied in many of these papers were developed in large collaborative workshops involving more participants than listed here as co-authors, and we are grateful for their collective input. We are particularly grateful to Anita McBain, Kimberley Norris, Scott Ling, and Sutej Hugu for suggestions and input at different stages of the process. We also thank two anonymous reviewers and the editor for their contributions and insights. Funding for Future Seas was provided by the Centre for Marine Socioecology, IMAS, MENZIES and the College of Arts, Law and Education, and the College of Science and Engineering at UTAS, and Snowchange from Finland. We acknowledge support from a Research Enhancement Program grant from the DVCR Office at UTAS. GTP was supported by an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship, ELC was funded by an Imperial College Research Fellowship and CM was funded by an Endeavour Research Fellowship. We acknowledge and pay respect to the Traditional Owners and custodians of Sea Country all around the world, and recognise their collective wisdom and knowledge of our oceans and coasts.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions. Centre for Marine Socioecology, IMAS, MENZIES and the College of Arts, Law and Education, and the College of Science and Engineering at UTAS, and Snowchange from Finland.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Castray Esplanade, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia

Delphi Ward, Gretta T. Pecl, Camilla Novaglio, Narissa Bax, Madeleine J. Brasier, Graham Edgar, Jan Jansen, Mary-Anne Lea, Jayson M. Semmens, Janette Shaw & Cayne Layton

Centre for Marine Socio-Ecology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia

Delphi Ward, Jessica Melbourne-Thomas, Gretta T. Pecl, Madeline Green, Phillipa C. McCormack, Camilla Novaglio, Rowan Trebilco, Narissa Bax, Mary-Anne Lea, Janette Shaw & Cayne Layton

CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Castray Esplanade, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia

Jessica Melbourne-Thomas, Karen Evans, Madeline Green, Camilla Novaglio, Rowan Trebilco & Tatiana J. van Steveninck

Adelaide Law School, The University of Adelaide, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia

Phillipa C. McCormack

South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute, Stanley, Falkland Islands

Narissa Bax

Silwood Park Campus, Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Berkshire, SL5 7PY, UK

Emma L. Cavan

Department of Biological Sciences, University of New Brunswick, PO Box 5050, Saint John,, New Brunswick, E2L 4L5, Canada

Heather L. Hunt

Hereditary Chief, Haida Nation, PO Box 1451, Skidegate, B.C., V0T 1S1, Canada

Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia

Reuben Makomere

Integrated Fisheries Lab, Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, B3H 4R2, Canada

Tasmanian School of Business & Economics, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia

Dugald Tinch

Carmabi, Caribbean Research and Management of Biodiversity, Piscaderabaai z/n, Willemstad, Curaçao

Tatiana J. van Steveninck

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Delphi Ward or Cayne Layton .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest, ethical approval, consent to participate, consent for publication, additional information, publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ward, D., Melbourne-Thomas, J., Pecl, G.T. et al. Safeguarding marine life: conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries 32 , 65–100 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-022-09700-3

Download citation

Received : 30 October 2020

Accepted : 25 January 2022

Published : 07 March 2022

Issue Date : March 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-022-09700-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Ecosystem management
• Ecosystem services
• Indigenous knowledge
• Integrated management
• Stewardship
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Foresighting/hindcasting
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 07 July 2022

A global horizon scan of issues impacting marine and coastal biodiversity conservation

• James E. Herbert-Read   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0243-4518 1   na1 ,
• Ann Thornton   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7448-8497 2   na1 ,
• Diva J. Amon   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3044-107X 3 , 4 ,
• Silvana N. R. Birchenough   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5321-8108 5 ,
• Isabelle M. Côté   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5368-4061 6 ,
• Maria P. Dias   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7281-4391 7 , 8 ,
• Brendan J. Godley 9 ,
• Sally A. Keith   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9634-2763 10 ,
• Emma McKinley   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8250-2842 11 ,
• Lloyd S. Peck   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3479-6791 12 ,
• Ricardo Calado 13 ,
• Omar Defeo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8318-528X 14 ,
• Steven Degraer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3159-5751 15 ,
• Emma L. Johnston   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2117-366X 16 ,
• Hermanni Kaartokallio 17 ,
• Peter I. Macreadie   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7362-0882 18 ,
• Anna Metaxas   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1935-6213 19 ,
• Agnes W. N. Muthumbi 20 ,
• David O. Obura   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2256-6649 21 , 22 ,
• David M. Paterson 23 ,
• Alberto R. Piola   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5003-8926 24 , 25 ,
• Anthony J. Richardson   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9289-7366 26 , 27 ,
• Irene R. Schloss   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5917-8925 28 , 29 , 30 ,
• Paul V. R. Snelgrove   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6725-0472 31 ,
• Bryce D. Stewart 32 ,
• Paul M. Thompson   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6195-3284 33 ,
• Gordon J. Watson   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8274-7658 34 ,
• Thomas A. Worthington   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8138-9075 2 ,
• Moriaki Yasuhara   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0990-1764 35 &
• William J. Sutherland 2 , 36  

Nature Ecology & Evolution volume  6 ,  pages 1262–1270 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

29k Accesses

43 Citations

694 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Ocean sciences
• Science, technology and society
• Scientific community

The biodiversity of marine and coastal habitats is experiencing unprecedented change. While there are well-known drivers of these changes, such as overexploitation, climate change and pollution, there are also relatively unknown emerging issues that are poorly understood or recognized that have potentially positive or negative impacts on marine and coastal ecosystems. In this inaugural Marine and Coastal Horizon Scan, we brought together 30 scientists, policymakers and practitioners with transdisciplinary expertise in marine and coastal systems to identify new issues that are likely to have a significant impact on the functioning and conservation of marine and coastal biodiversity over the next 5–10 years. Based on a modified Delphi voting process, the final 15 issues presented were distilled from a list of 75 submitted by participants at the start of the process. These issues are grouped into three categories: ecosystem impacts, for example the impact of wildfires and the effect of poleward migration on equatorial biodiversity; resource exploitation, including an increase in the trade of fish swim bladders and increased exploitation of marine collagens; and new technologies, such as soft robotics and new biodegradable products. Our early identification of these issues and their potential impacts on marine and coastal biodiversity will support scientists, conservationists, resource managers and policymakers to address the challenges facing marine ecosystems.

Similar content being viewed by others

The Marine Spatial Planning Index: a tool to guide and assess marine spatial planning

Marine ecosystem-based management: challenges remain, yet solutions exist, and progress is occurring

Habitat Protection Indexes - new monitoring measures for the conservation of coastal and marine habitats

The fifteenth Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity will conclude negotiations on a global biodiversity framework in late-2022 that will aim to slow and reverse the loss of biodiversity and establish goals for positive outcomes by 2050 1 . Currently recognized drivers of declines in marine and coastal ecosystems include overexploitation of resources (for example, fishes, oil and gas), expansion of anthropogenic activities leading to cumulative impacts on the marine and coastal environment (for example, habitat loss, introduction of contaminants and pollution) and effects of climate change (for example, ocean warming, freshening and acidification). Within these broad categories, marine and coastal ecosystems face a wide range of emerging issues that are poorly recognized or understood, each having the potential to impact biodiversity. Researchers, conservation practitioners and marine resource managers must identify, understand and raise awareness of these relatively ‘unknown’ issues to catalyse further research into their underlying processes and impacts. Moreover, informing the public and policymakers of these issues can mitigate potentially negative impacts through precautionary principles before those effects become realized: horizon scans provide a platform to do this.

Horizon scans bring together experts from diverse disciplines to discuss issues that are (1) likely to have a positive or negative impact on biodiversity and conservation within the coming years and (2) not well known to the public or wider scientific community or face a substantial ‘step-change’ in their importance or application 2 . Horizon scans are an effective approach for pre-emptively identifying issues facing global conservation 3 . Indeed, marine issues previously identified through this approach include microplastics 4 , invasive lionfish 4 and electric pulse trawling 5 . To date, however, no horizon scan of this type has focused solely on issues related to marine and coastal biodiversity, although a scan on coastal shorebirds in 2012 identified potential threats to coastal ecosystems 6 . This horizon scan aims to benefit our ocean and human society by stimulating research and policy development that will underpin appropriate scientific advice on prevention, mitigation, management and conservation approaches in marine and coastal ecosystems.

We present the final 15 issues below in thematic groups identified post-scoring, rather than rank order (Fig. 1 ).

Numbers refer to the order presented in this article, rather than final ranking. Image of brine pool courtesy of the NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research, Gulf of Mexico 2014. Image of biodegradable bag courtesy of Katie Dunkley.

Ecosystem impacts

Wildfire impacts on coastal and marine ecosystems.

The frequency and severity of wildfires are increasing with climate change 7 . Since 2017, there have been fires of unprecedented scale and duration in Australia, Brazil, Portugal, Russia and along the Pacific coast of North America. In addition to threatening human life and releasing stored carbon, wildfires release aerosols, particles and large volumes of materials containing soluble forms of nutrients including nitrogen, phosphorus and trace metals such as copper, lead and iron. Winds and rains can transport these materials over long distances to reach coastal and marine ecosystems. Australian wildfires, for example, triggered widespread phytoplankton blooms in the Southern Ocean 8 along with fish and invertebrate kills in estuaries 9 . Predicting the magnitude and effects of these acute inputs is difficult because they vary with the size and duration of wildfires, the burning vegetation type, rainfall patterns, riparian vegetation buffers, dispersal by aerosols and currents, seasonal timing and nutrient limitation in the recipient ecosystem. Wildfires might therefore lead to beneficial, albeit temporary, increases in primary productivity, produce no effect or have deleterious consequences, such as the mortality of benthic invertebrates, including corals, from sedimentation, coastal darkening (see below), eutrophication or algal blooms 10 .

Coastal darkening

Coastal ecosystems depend on the penetration of light for primary production by planktonic and attached algae and seagrass. However, climate change and human activities increase light attenuation through changes in dissolved materials modifying water colour and suspended particles. Increased precipitation, storms, permafrost thawing and coastal erosion have led to the ‘browning’ of freshwater ecosystems by elevated organic carbon, iron and particles, all of which are eventually discharged into the ocean 11 . Coastal eutrophication leading to algal blooms compounds this darkening by further blocking light penetration. Additionally, land-use change, dredging and bottom fishing can increase seafloor disturbance, resuspending sediments and increasing turbidity. Such changes could affect ocean chemistry, including photochemical degradation of dissolved organic carbon and generation of toxic chemicals. At moderate intensities, limited spatial scales and during heatwaves, coastal darkening may have some positive impacts such as limiting coral bleaching on shallow reefs 12 but, at high intensities and prolonged spatial and temporal extents, lower light-regimes can contribute to cumulative stressor effects thereby profoundly altering ecosystems. This darkening may result in shifts in species composition, distribution, behaviour and phenology, as well as declines in coastal habitats and their functions (for example, carbon sequestration) 13 .

Increased toxicity of metal pollution due to ocean acidification

Concerns about metal toxicity in the marine environment are increasing as we learn more about the complex interactions between metals and global climate change 14 . Despite tight regulation of polluters and remediation efforts in some countries, the high persistence of metals in contaminated sediments results in the ongoing remobilization of existing metal pollutants by storms, trawling and coastal development, augmented by continuing release of additional contaminants into coastal waters, particularly in urban and industrial areas across the globe 14 . Ocean acidification increases the bioavailability, uptake and toxicity of metals in seawater and sediments, with direct toxicity effects on some marine organisms 15 . Not all biogeochemical changes will result in increased toxicity; in pelagic and deep-sea ecosystems, where trace metals are often deficient, increasing acidity may increase bioavailability and, in shallow waters, stimulate productivity for non-calcifying phytoplankton 16 . However, increased uptake of metals in wild-caught and farmed bivalves linked to ocean acidification could also affect human health, especially given that these species provide 25% of the world’s seafood. The combined effects of ocean acidification and metals could not only increase the levels of contamination in these organisms but could also impact their populations in the future 14 .

Equatorial marine communities are becoming depauperate due to climate migration

Climate change is causing ocean warming, resulting in a poleward shift of existing thermal zones. In response, species are tracking the changing ocean environmental conditions globally, with range shifts moving five times faster than on land 17 . In mid-latitudes and higher latitudes, as some species move away from current distribution ranges, other species from warmer regions can replace them 18 . However, the hottest climatic zones already host the most thermally tolerant species, which cannot be replaced due to their geographical position. Thus, climate change reduces equatorial species richness and has caused the formerly unimodal latitudinal diversity gradient in many communities to now become bimodal. This bimodality (dip in equatorial diversity) is projected to increase within the next 100 years if carbon dioxide emissions are not reduced 19 . The ecological consequences of this decline in equatorial zones are unclear, especially when combined with impacts of increasing human extraction and pollution 20 . Nevertheless, emerging ecological communities in equatorial systems are likely to have reduced resilience and capacity to support ecosystem services and human livelihoods.

Effects of altered nutritional content of fish due to climate change

Essential fatty acids (EFAs) are critical to maintaining human and animal health and fish consumption provides the primary source of EFAs for billions of people. In aquatic ecosystems, phytoplankton synthesize EFAs, such as docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) 21 , with pelagic fishes then consuming phytoplankton. However, concentrations of EFAs in fishes vary, with generally higher concentrations of omega-3 fatty acids in slower-growing species from colder waters 22 . Ongoing effects of climate change are impacting the production of EFAs by phytoplankton, with warming waters predicted to reduce the availability of DHA by about 10–58% by 2100 23 ; a 27.8% reduction in available DHA is associated with a 2.5 °C rise in water temperature 21 . Combined with geographical range shifts in response to environmental change affecting the abundance and distribution of fishes, this could lead to a reduction in sufficient quantities of EFAs for fishes, particularly in the tropics 24 . Changes to EFA production by phytoplankton in response to climate change, as shown for Antarctic waters 25 , could have cascading effects on the nutrient content of species further up the food web, with consequences for marine predators and human health 26 .

Resource exploitation

The untapped potential of marine collagens and their impacts on marine ecosystems.

Collagens are structural proteins increasingly used in cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals and biomedical applications. Growing demand for collagen has fuelled recent efforts to find new sources that avoid religious constraints and alleviate risks associated with disease transmission from conventional bovine and porcine sources 27 . The search for alternative sources has revealed an untapped opportunity in marine organisms, such as from fisheries bycatch 28 . However, this new source may discourage efforts to reduce the capture of non-target species. Sponges and jellyfish offer a premium source of marine collagens. While the commercial-scale harvesting of sponges is unlikely to be widely sustainable, there may be some opportunity in sponge aquaculture and jellyfish harvesting, especially in areas where nuisance jellyfish species bloom regularly (for example, Mediterranean and Japan Seas). The use of sharks and other cartilaginous fish to supply marine collagens is of concern given the unprecedented pressure on these species. However, the use of coproducts derived from the fish-processing industry (for example, skin, bones and trims) offers a more sustainable approach to marine collagen production and could actively contribute to the blue bio-economy agenda and foster circularity 29 .

Impacts of expanding trade for fish swim bladders on target and non-target species

In addition to better-known luxury dried seafoods, such as shark fins, abalone and sea cucumbers, there is an increasing demand for fish swim bladders, also known as fish maw 30 . This demand may trigger an expansion of unsustainable harvests of target fish populations, with additional impacts on marine biodiversity through bycatch 30 , 31 . The fish swim-bladder trade has gained a high profile because the overexploitation of totoaba ( Totoaba macdonaldi) has driven both the target population and the vaquita ( Phocoena sinus) (which is bycaught in the Gulf of Mexico fishery) to near extinction 32 . By 2018, totoaba swim bladders were being sold for US$46,000 kg −1 . This extremely lucrative trade disrupts efforts to encourage sustainable fisheries. However, increased demand on the totoaba was itself caused by overexploitation over the last century of the closely related traditional species of choice, the Chinese bahaba ( Bahaba taipingensis) . We now risk both repeating this pattern and increasing its scale of impact, where depletion of a target species causes markets to switch to species across broader taxonomic and biogeographical ranges 31 . Not only does this cascading effect threaten other croakers and target species, such as catfish and pufferfish but maw nets set in more diverse marine habitats are likely to create bycatch of sharks, rays, turtles and other species of conservation concern.

Impacts of fishing for mesopelagic species on the biological ocean carbon pump

Growing concerns about food security have generated interest in harvesting largely unexploited mesopelagic fishes that live at depths of 200–1,000 m (ref. 33 ). Small lanternfishes (Myctophidae) dominate this potentially 10 billion ton community, exceeding the mass of all other marine fishes combined 34 and spanning millions of square kilometres of the open ocean. Mesopelagic fish are generally unsuitable for human consumption but could potentially provide fishmeal for aquaculture 34 or be used for fertilizers. Although we know little of their biology, their diel vertical migration transfers carbon, obtained by feeding in surface waters at night, to deeper waters during the day across many hundreds and even thousands of metres depth where it is released by excretion, egestion and death. This globally important carbon transport pathway contributes to the biological pump 35 and sequesters carbon to the deep sea 36 . Recent estimates put the contribution of all fishes to the biological ocean pump at 16.1% (± s.d. 13%) (ref. 37 ). The potential large-scale removal of mesopelagic fishes could disrupt a major pathway of carbon transport into the ocean depths.

Extraction of lithium from deep-sea brine pools

Global groups, such as the Deep-Ocean Stewardship Initiative, emphasize increasing concern about the ecosystem impacts from deep-sea resource extraction 38 . The demand for batteries, including for electric vehicles, will probably lead to a demand for lithium that is more than five times its current level by 2030 39 . While concentrations are relatively low in seawater, some deep-sea brines and cold seeps offer higher concentrations of lithium. Furthermore, new technologies, such as solid-state electrolyte membranes, can enrich the concentration of lithium from seawater sources by 43,000 times, increasing the energy efficiency and profitability of lithium extraction from the sea 39 . These factors could divert extraction of lithium resources away from terrestrial to marine mining, with the potential for significant impacts to localized deep-sea brine ecosystems. These brine pools probably host many endemic and genetically distinct species that are largely undiscovered or awaiting formal description. Moreover, the extremophilic species in these environments offer potential sources of marine genetic resources that could be used in new biomedical applications including pharmaceuticals, industrial agents and biomaterials 40 . These concerns point to the need to better quantify and monitor biodiversity in these extreme environments to establish baselines and aid management.

New technologies

Colocation of marine activities.

Climate change, energy needs and food security have moved to the top of global policy agendas 41 . Increasing energy needs, alongside the demands of fisheries and transport infrastructure, have led to the proposal of colocated and multifunctional structures to deliver economic benefits, optimize spatial planning and minimize the environmental impacts of marine activities 42 . These designs often bring technical, social, economic and environmental challenges. Some studies have begun to explore these multipurpose projects (for example, offshore windfarms colocated with aquaculture developments and/or Marine Protected Areas) and how to adapt these concepts to ensure they are ‘fit for purpose’, economically viable and reliable. However, environmental and ecosystem assessment, management and regulatory frameworks for colocated and multi-use structures need to be established to prevent these activities from compounding rather than mitigating the environmental impacts from climate change 43 .

Floating marine cities

In April 2019, the UN-HABITAT programme convened a meeting of scientists, architects, designers and entrepreneurs to discuss how floating cities might be a solution to urban challenges such as climate change and lack of housing associated with a rising human population ( https://unhabitat.org/roundtable-on-floating-cities-at-unhq-calls-for-innovation-to-benefit-all ). The concept of floating marine cities—hubs of floating structures placed at sea—was born in the middle of the twentieth century and updated designs now aim to translate this vision into reality 44 . Oceanic locations provide benefits from wave and tidal renewable energy and food production supported by hydroponic agriculture 45 . Modular designs also offer greater flexibility than traditional static terrestrial cities, whereby accommodation and facilities could be incorporated or removed in response to changes in population or specific events. The cost of construction in harsh offshore environments, rather than technology, currently limits the development of marine cities and potential designs will need to consider the consequences of more frequent and extreme climate events. Although the artificial hard substrates created for these floating cities could act as stepping stones, facilitating species movement in response to climate change 46 , this could also increase the spread of invasive species. Finally, the development of offshore living will raise issues in relation to governance and land ownership that must be addressed for marine cities to be viable 47 .

Trace-element contamination compounded by the global transition to green technologies

The persistent environmental impacts of metal and metalloid trace-element contamination in coastal sediments are now increasing after a long decline 48 . However, the complex sources of contamination challenge their management. The acceleration of the global transition to green technologies, including electric vehicles, will increase demand for batteries by over 10% annually in the coming years 49 . Electric vehicle batteries currently depend almost exclusively on lithium-ion chemistries, with potential trace-element emissions across their life cycle from raw material extraction to recycling or end-of-life disposal. Few jurisdictions treat lithium-ion batteries as harmful waste, enabling landfill disposal with minimal recycling 49 . Cobalt and nickel are the primary ecotoxic elements in next-generation lithium-ion batteries 50 , although there is a drive to develop a cobalt-free alternative likely to contain higher nickel content 50 . Some battery binder and electrolyte chemicals are toxic to aquatic life or form persistent organic pollutants during incomplete burning. Increasing pollution from battery production, recycling and disposal in the next decade could substantially increase the potentially toxic trace-element contamination in marine and coastal systems worldwide.

New underwater tracking systems to study non-surfacing marine animals

The use of tracking data in science and conservation has grown exponentially in recent decades. Most trajectory data collected on marine species to date, however, has been restricted to large and near-surface species, limited by the size of the devices and reliance on radio signals that do not propagate well underwater. New battery-free technology based on acoustic telemetry, named ‘underwater backscatter localization’ (UBL), may allow high-accuracy (<1 m) tracking of animals travelling at any depth and over large distances 51 . Still in the early stages of development, UBL technology has significant potential to help fill knowledge gaps in the distribution and spatial ecology of small, non-surfacing marine species, as well as the early life-history stages of many species 52 , over the next decades. However, the potential negative impacts of this methodology on the behaviour of animals are still to be determined. Ultimately, UBL may inform spatial management both in coastal and offshore regions, as well as in the high seas and address a currently biased perspective of how marine animals use ocean space, which is largely based on near-surface or aerial marine megafauna (for example, ref. 53 ).

Soft robotics for marine research

The application and utility of soft robotics in marine environments is expected to accelerate in the next decade. Soft robotics, using compliant materials inspired by living organisms, could eventually offer increased flexibility at depth because they do not face the same constraints as rigid robots that need pressurized systems to function 54 . This technology could increase our ability to monitor and map the deep sea, with both positive and negative consequences for deep-sea fauna. Soft-grab robots could facilitate collection of delicate samples for biodiversity monitoring but, without careful management, could also add pollutants and waste to these previously unexplored and poorly understood environments 55 . With advancing technology, potential deployment of swarms of small robots could collect basic environmental data to facilitate mapping of the seabed. Currently limited by power supply, energy-harvesting modules are in development that enable soft robots to ‘swallow’ organic material and convert it into power 56 , although this could result in inadvertently harvesting rare deep-sea organisms. Soft robots themselves may also be ingested by predatory species mistaking them for prey. Deployment of soft robotics will require careful monitoring of both its benefits and risks to marine biodiversity.

The effects of new biodegradable materials in the marine environment

Mounting public pressure to address marine plastic pollution has prompted the replacement of some fossil fuel-based plastics with bio-based biodegradable polymers. This consumer pressure is creating an economic incentive to adopt such products rapidly and some companies are promoting their environmental benefits without rigorous toxicity testing and/or life-cycle assessments. Materials such as polybutylene succinate (PBS), polylactic acid (PLA) or cellulose and starch-based materials may become marine litter and cause harmful effects akin to conventional plastics 57 . The long-term and large-scale effect of the use of biodegradable polymers in products (for example, clothing) and the unintended release of byproducts, such as microfibres, into the environment remain unknown. However, some natural microfibres have greater toxicity than plastic microfibres when consumed by aquatic invertebrates 58 . Jurisdictions should enact and enforce suitable regulations to require the individual assessment of all new materials intended to biodegrade in a full range of marine environmental conditions. In addition, testing should include studies on the toxicity of major transition chemicals created during the breakdown process 59 , ideally considering the different trophic levels of marine food webs.

This scan identified three categories of horizon issues: impacts on, and alterations to, ecosystems; changes to resource use and extraction; and the emergence of technologies. While some of the issues discussed, such as improved monitoring of species (underwater tracking and soft robotics) and more sustainable resource use (marine collagens), may have some positive outcomes for marine and coastal biodiversity, most identified issues are expected to have substantial negative impacts if not managed or mitigated appropriately. This imbalance highlights the considerable emerging pressures facing marine ecosystems that are often a byproduct of human activities.

Four issues identified in this scan related to ongoing large-scale (hundreds to many thousands of square kilometres) alterations to marine ecosystems (wildfires, coastal darkening, depauperate equatorial communities and altered nutritional fish content), either through the impacts of global climate change or other human activities. There are already clear impacts of climate change, for example, on stores of blue carbon (for example, ref. 60 ) and small-scale fisheries (for example, ref. 61 ) but the identification of these issues highlights the need for global action that reverses such trends. The United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021–2030) is now underway, aligning with other decadal policy priorities, including the Sustainable Development Goals ( https://sdgs.un.org/ ), the 2030 targets for biodiversity to be agreed in 2022, the conclusion of the ongoing negotiations on biodiversity beyond national jurisdictions (BBNJ) ( https://www.un.org/bbnj/ ), the UN Conference on Biodiversity (COP15) ( https://www.unep.org/events/conference/un-biodiversity-conference-cop-15 ) and the UN Climate Change Conference 2021 (COP26) ( https://ukcop26.org/ ). While some campaigns to allocate 30% of the ocean to Marine Protected Areas by 2030 are prominently aired 62 , the unintended future consequences of such protection and how to monitor and manage these areas, remain unclear 63 , 64 , 65 .

Another set of issues related to anticipated increases in marine resource use and extraction (swim bladders, marine collagens, lithium extraction and mesopelagic fisheries). The complex issue of mitigating the impacts on marine conservation and biodiversity of exploiting and using newly discovered resources must consider public perceptions of the ocean 66 , 67 , market forces and the sustainable blue economy 68 , 69 .

The final set of issues related to new technological advancements, with many offering more sustainable opportunities, albeit some having potentially unintended negative consequences on marine and coastal biodiversity. For example, trace-element contamination from green technologies and harmful effects of biodegradable products highlights the need to assess the step-changes in impacts from their increased use and avoid the paradox of technologies designed to mitigate the damaging effects of climate change on biodiversity themselves damaging biodiversity. Indeed, the impacts on marine and coastal biodiversity from emerging technologies currently in development (such as underwater tracking or soft robotics) need to be assessed before deployment at scale.

There are limitations to any horizon scanning process that aims to identify global issues and a different group of experts may have identified a different set of issues. By inviting participants from a range of subject backgrounds and global regions and asking them to canvass their network of colleagues and collaborators, we aimed to identify as broad a set of issues as possible. We acknowledge, however, that only about one-quarter of the participants were from non-academic organizations, which may have skewed the submitted issues and how they were voted on. However, others 3 reported no significant correlation between participants’ areas of research expertise and the top issues selected in the horizon scan conducted in 2009. Therefore, horizon scans do not necessarily simply represent issues that reflect the expertise of participants. We also sought to achieve diversity by inviting participants from 22 countries and actively seeking representatives from the global south. However, the final panel of 30 participants spanned only 11 countries, most in the global north. We were forced by the COVID-19 pandemic to hold the scan online and while we hoped that this would enable participants to engage from around the world alleviating broader global inequalities in science 63 , digital inequality was in fact enhanced during the pandemic 70 . Our experience highlights the need for other mechanisms that can promote global representation in these scans.

This Marine and Coastal Horizon Scan seeks to raise awareness of issues that may impact marine and coastal biodiversity conservation in the next 5–10 years. Our aim is to bring these issues to the attention of scientists, policymakers, practitioners and the wider community, either directly, through social networks or the mainstream media. Whilst it is almost impossible to determine whether issues gained prominence as a direct result of a horizon scan, some issues featured in previous scans have seen growth in reporting and awareness. Others 3 found that 71% of topics identified in the Horizon Scan in 2009 had seen an increase in their importance over the next 10 years. Issues such as microplastics and invasive lionfish had received increased research and investment from scientists, funders, managers and policymakers to understand their impacts and the horizon scans may have helped motivate this increase. Horizon scans, therefore, should primarily act as signposts, putting focus onto particular issues and providing support for researchers and practitioners to seek investment in these areas.

Whilst recognizing that marine and coastal environments are complex social-ecological systems, the role of governance, policy and litigation on all areas of marine science needs to be developed, as it is yet to be established to the same extent as in terrestrial ecosystems 71 . Indeed, tackling many of the issues presented in this scan will require an understanding of the human dimensions relating to these issues, through fields of research including but not limited to ocean literacy 72 , 73 , social justice, equity 74 and human health 75 . Importantly, however, horizon scanning has proved an efficient tool in identifying issues that have subsequently come to the forefront of public knowledge and policy decisions, while also helping to focus future research. The scale of the issues facing marine and coastal areas emphasizes the need to identify and prioritize, at an early stage, those issues specifically facing marine ecosystems, especially within this UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development.

Identification of issues

In March 2021, we brought together a core team of 11 participants from a broad range of marine and coastal disciplines. The core team suggested names of individuals outside their subject area who were also invited to participate in the horizon scan. To ensure we included as many different subject areas as possible within marine and coastal conservation, we selected one individual from each discipline. Our panel of experts comprised 30 (37% female) marine and coastal scientists, policymakers and practitioners (27% from non-academic institutions), with cross-disciplinary expertise in ecology (including tropical, temperate, polar and deep-sea ecosystems), palaeoecology, conservation, oceanography, climate change, ecotoxicology, technology, engineering and marine social sciences (including governance, blue economy and ocean literacy). Participants were invited from 22 countries across six continents, resulting in a final panel of 30 experts from 11 countries (Europe n  = 17 (including the three organizers); North America and Caribbean n  = 4; South America n  = 3; Australasia n  = 3; Asia n  = 1; Africa n  = 2). All experts co-authored this paper.

To reduce the potential for bias in the identification of suitable issues, each participant was invited to consult their own network and required to submit two to five issues that they considered new and likely to have a positive or negative impact on marine and coastal biodiversity conservation in the next 5–10 years ( Supplementary Information text describes instructions given to participants). Each issue was described in paragraphs of ~200 words (plus references). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, participants relied mainly on virtual meetings and online communication using email, social-media platforms, online conferences and networking events. Through these channels ~680 people were canvassed by the participants, counting all direct in-person or online discussions as individual contacts but treating social-media posts or generic emails as a single contact. This process resulted in a long list of 75 issues that were considered in the first round of scoring (see Supplementary Table 1 for the full list of initially submitted issues).

Round 1 scoring

The initial list of proposed issues was then shortened through a scoring process. We used a modified Delphi-style 76 voting process, which has been consistently applied in horizon scans since 2009 (refs. 4 , 77 ) (see Fig. 2 for the stepwise process). This process ensured that consideration and selection of issues remained repeatable, transparent and inclusive. Panel members were asked to confidentially and independently score the long list of 75 issues from 1 (low) to 1,000 (high) on the basis of the following criteria:

Whether the issue is new (with ‘new’ issues scoring higher) or is a well-known issue likely to exhibit a significant step-change in impact

Whether the issue is likely to be important and impactful over the next 5–10 years

Whether the issue specifically impacts marine and coastal biodiversity

Left and right columns show the process for the first and second rounds of scoring, respectively.

Participants were also asked whether they had heard of the issue or not.

‘Voter fatigue’ can result in issues at the end of a lengthy list not receiving the same consideration as those at the beginning 76 . We counteracted this potential bias by randomly assigning participants to one of three differently ordered long-lists of issues. Participants’ scores were converted to ranks (1–75). We had aimed to retain the top 30 issues with the highest median ranks for the second round of assessment at the workshop but kept 31 issues because two issues achieved equal median ranks. In addition, we identified one issue that had been incorrectly grouped with three others and presented this as a separate issue. The subsequent online workshop to discuss this shortlist, therefore, considered the top-ranked 32 issues (Fig. 3a ) (see Supplementary Table 2 for the full list).

a , Round 1. Each point represents an individual issue. For all issue titles, see Supplementary Table 1 . Issues in dark blue were retained for the second round. Issues that were ranked higher were generally those that participants had not heard of (Spearman rank correlation = 0.38, P  < 0.001). b , Round 2. Scores as in round 1. For titles of the second round of 32 issues, see Supplementary Table 2 . The 15 final issues (marked in red) achieved the top ranks (horizontal dashed line) and had only been heard of by 50% of participants (vertical dashed line). Red circles, squares and triangles denote issues relating to ecosystem impacts, resource exploitation and new technologies, respectively. The two grey issues marked with crosses were discounted during final discussions because participants could not identify the horizon component of these issues.

Source data

Workshop and round 2 scoring.

Before the workshop, each participant was assigned up to four of the 32 issues to research in more detail and contribute further information to the discussion. We convened a one-day workshop online in September 2021. The geographic spread of participants meant that time zones spanned 17 h. Despite these constraints, discussions remained detailed, focused, varied and lively. In addition, participants made use of the chat function on the platform to add notes, links to articles and comments to the discussion. After discussing each issue, participants re-scored the topic (1–1,000, low to high) based on novelty and the issue’s importance for, and probable impact on, marine and coastal biodiversity (3 participants out of 30 did not score all issues and therefore their scores were discounted). At the end of the selection process, scores were again converted to ranks and collated. Highest-ranked issues were then discussed by correspondence focusing on the same three criteria as outlined above, after which the top 15 horizon issues were selected (Fig. 3b ).

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19703485.v1 . Source data are provided with this paper.

Díaz, S. et al. Set ambitious goals for biodiversity and sustainability. Science 370 , 411–413 (2020).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Sutherland, W. J. & Woodroof, H. J. The need for environmental horizon scanning. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24 , 523–527 (2009).

Sutherland, W. J. et al. Ten years on: a review of the first global conservation horizon scan. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34 , 139–153 (2019).

Sutherland, W. J. et al. A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2010. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25 , 1–7 (2010).

Sutherland, W. J. et al. A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2016. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31 , 44–53 (2016).

Sutherland, W. J. et al. A horizon scanning assessment of current and potential future threats facing migratory shorebirds. Ibis 154 , 663–679 (2012).

Article   Google Scholar  

Bowman, D. M. J. S. et al. Vegetation fires in the Anthropocene. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1 , 500–515 (2020).

Tang, W. et al. Widespread phytoplankton blooms triggered by 2019–2020 Australian wildfires. Nature 597 , 370–375 (2021).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Silva, L. G. M. et al. Mortality events resulting from Australia’s catastrophic fires threaten aquatic biota. Glob. Change Biol. 26 , 5345–5350 (2020).

Abram, N. J., Gagan, M. K., McCulloch, M. T., Chappell, J. & Hantoro, W. S. Coral reef death during the 1997 Indian Ocean Dipole linked to Indonesian wildfires. Science 301 , 952–955 (2003).

Solomon, C. T. et al. Ecosystem consequences of changing inputs of terrestrial dissolved organic matter to lakes: current knowledge and future challenges. Ecosystems 18 , 376–389 (2015).

Sully, S. & van Woesik, R. Turbid reefs moderate coral bleaching under climate related temperature stress. Glob. Change Biol. 26 , 1367–1373 (2021).

Blain, C. O., Hansen, S. C. & Shears, N. T. Coastal darkening substantially limits the contribution of kelp to coastal carbon cycles. Glob. Change Biol. 27 , 5547–5563 (2021).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Stewart, B. D. et al. Metal pollution as a potential threat to shell strength and survival in marine bivalves. Sci. Total Environ. 755 , 143019 (2021).

Roberts, D. A. et al. Ocean acidification increases the toxicity of contaminated sediments. Glob. Change Biol. 19 , 340–351 (2013).

Hauton, C. et al. Identifying toxic impact of metals potentially released during deep-sea mining—a synthesis of the challenges to quantifying risk. Front. Mar. Sci . 4 , 368 (2017).

Chaudhary, C. et al. Global warming is causing a more pronounced dip in marine species richness around the equator. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118 , e2015094118 (2021).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Burrows, M. T. et al. Geographical limits to species-range shifts are suggested by climate velocity. Nature 507 , 492–495 (2014).

Yasuhara, M. et al. Past and future decline of tropical pelagic biodiversity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117 , 12891–12896 (2020).

Pandolfi, J. M. et al. Are U.S. coral reefs on the slippery slope to slime? Science 307 , 1725–1726 (2005).

Hixson, S. M. & Arts, M. T. Climate warming is predicted to reduce omega-3, long-chain, polyunsaturated fatty acid production in phytoplankton. Glob. Change Biol. 22 , 2744–2755 (2016).

Hicks, C. C. et al. Harnessing global fisheries to tackle micronutrient deficiencies. Nature 574 , 95–98 (2019).

Colombo, S. M. et al. Projected declines in global DHA availability for human consumption as a result of global warming. Ambio 49 , 865–880 (2020).

Lam, V. W. et al. Climate change, tropical fisheries and prospects for sustainable development. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1 , 440–454 (2020).

Antacli, J. C. et al. Increase in unsaturated fatty acids in Antarctic phytoplankton under ocean warming and glacial melting scenarios. Sci. Total Environ. 790 , 147879 (2021).

Maire, E. et al. Micronutrient supply from global marine fisheries under climate change and overfishing. Curr. Biol. 18 , 4132–4138 (2021).

Lim, Y. S., Ok, Y. J., Hwang, S. Y., Kwak, J. Y. & Yoon, S. Marine collagen as a promising biomaterial for biomedical applications. Mar. Drugs 17 , 467 (2019).

Article   CAS   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Xu, N. et al. Marine-derived collagen as biomaterials for human health. Front. Nutr. 8 , 702108 (2021).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Vieira, H., Leal, M. C. & Calado, R. Fifty shades of blue: how blue biotechnology is shaping the bioeconomy. Trends Biotechnol. 38 , 940–943 (2020).

Ben-Hasan, A. et al. China’s fish maw demand and its implications for fisheries in source countries. Mar. Policy 132 , 104696 (2021).

Sadovy de Mitcheson, Y., To, A. W. L., Wong, N. W., Kwan, H. Y. & Bud, W. S. Emerging from the murk: threats, challenges and opportunities for the global swim bladder trade. Rev. Fish. Biol. Fish. 29 , 809–835 (2019).

Brownell, R. L. Jr et al. Bycatch in gillnet fisheries threatens critically endangered small cetaceans and other aquatic megafauna. Endang. Species Res. 40 , 285–296 (2019).

Webb, T. J., Vanden Berghe, E. & O’Dor, R. K. Biodiversity’s big wet secret: the global distribution of marine biological records reveals chronic under-exploration of the deep pelagic ocean. PLoS ONE 5 , e10223 (2010).

St. John, M. A. et al. A dark hole in our understanding of marine ecosystems and their services: perspectives from the mesopelagic community. Front. Mar. Sci. 3 , 31 (2016).

Google Scholar  

Thomsen, L. et al. The oceanic biological pump: rapid carbon transfer to depth at continental margins during winter. Sci. Rep. 7 , 10763 (2017).

Roberts, C. M., Hawkins, J. P., Hindle, K., Wilson, R. W. & O’Leary, B. C. Entering the Twilight Zone: The Ecological Role and Importance of Mesopelagic Fishes (Blue Marine Foundation, 2020)

Cavan, E. L., Laurenceau-Cornec, E. C., Bressac, M. & Boyd, P. W. Exploring the ecology of the mesopelagic biological pump. Prog. Oceanogr. 176 , 102125 (2019).

Levin, L. A. et al. Climate change considerations are fundamental to management of deep‐sea resource extraction. Glob. Change Biol. 26 , 4664–4678 (2020).

Li, Z. et al. Continuous electrical pumping membrane process for seawater lithium mining. Energy Environ. Sci. 14 , 3152–3159 (2021).

Jin, M., Gai, Y., Guo, X., Hou, Y. & Zeng, R. Properties and applications of extremozymes from deep-sea extremophilic microorganisms: a mini review. Mar. Drugs 17 , 656 (2019).

Mbow, C. et al. in IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land (eds Shukla, P.R. et al.) 437–550 (IPCC, 2019).

Christie, N., Smyth, K., Barnes, R. & Elliott, M. Co-location of activities and designations: a means of solving or creating problems in marine spatial planning? Mar. Pol. 43 , 254–261 (2014).

Mayer-Pinto, M., Dafforn, K. A. & Johnston, E. L. A decision framework for coastal infrastructure to optimize biotic resistance and resilience in a changing climate. BioScience 69 , 833–843 (2019).

Wang, C. M. & Wang, B. T. in ICSCEA 2019 (eds Reddy, J. N. et al.) 3–29 (Springer, 2020).

Ross, C. T. F. & McCullough, R. R. Conceptual design of a floating island city. J. Ocean Technol. 5 , 120–121 (2010).

Dong, Y.-w, Huang, X.-w, Wang, W., Li, Y. & Wang, J. The marine ‘great wall’ of China: local- and broad-scale ecological impacts of coastal infrastructure on intertidal macrobenthic communities. Divers. Distrib. 22 , 731–744 (2016).

Flikkema, M. M. B., Lin, F.-Y., van der Plank, P. P. J., Koning, J. & Waals, O. Legal issues for artificial floating islands. Front. Mar. Sci. 8 , 619462 (2021).

Richir, J., Bray, S., McAleese, T. & Watson, G. J. Three decades of trace element sediment contamination: the mining of governmental databases and the need to address hidden sources for clean and healthy seas. Environ. Int. 149 , 106362 (2021).

Zhao, Y. et al. A review on battery market trends, second-life reuse, and recycling. Sustain. Chem. 2 , 167–205 (2021).

Li, W., Lee, S. & Manthiram, A. High‐Nickel NMA: a cobalt‐free alternative to NMC and NCA cathodes for lithium‐ion batteries. Adv. Mater. 32 , 2002718 (2020).

Ghaffarivardavagh, R., Afzal, S. S., Rodriguez, O. & Adib, F. in SIGCOMM ’20 Proc. 19th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks 125–131 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2020).

Hazen, E. L. et al. Ontogeny in marine tagging and tracking science: technologies and data gaps. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 457 , 221–240 (2012).

Davies, T. E. et al. Tracking data and the conservation of the high seas: opportunities and challenges. J. Appl. Ecol . 58 , 2703–2710 (2021).

Aracri, S. et al. Soft robots for ocean exploration and offshore operations: a perspective. Soft Robot. https://doi.org/10.1089/soro.2020.0011 (2021).

Li, G. et al. Self-powered soft robot in the Mariana Trench. Nature 591 , 66–71 (2021).

Philamore, H., Ieropoulos, I., Stinchcombe, A. & Rossiter, J. Toward energetically autonomous foraging soft robots. Soft Robot. 3 , 186–197 (2016).

Manfra, L. et al. Biodegradable polymers: a real opportunity to solve marine plastic pollution? J. Hazard. Mater. 416 , 125763 (2021).

Kim, D., Kim, H. & An, Y. J. Effects of synthetic and natural microfibers on Daphnia magna : are they dependent on microfiber type? Aquat. Toxicol. 240 , 105968 (2021).

Degli-Innocenti, F., Bellia, G., Tosin, M., Kapanen, A. & Itävaara, M. Detection of toxicity released by biodegradable plastics after composting in activated vermiculite. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 73 , 101–106 (2001).

Macreadie, P. I. et al. The future of blue carbon science. Nat. Commun. 10 , 3998 (2019).

Short, R. E. et al. Harnessing the diversity of small-scale actors is key to the future of aquatic food systems. Nat. Food 2 , 733–741 (2021).

Watson, J. E. M. et al. Set a global target for ecosystems. Nature 578 , 360–362 (2020).

Obura, D. O. et al. Integrate biodiversity targets from local to global levels. Science 373 , 746 (2021).

Barnes, M. D., Glew, L., Wyborn, C. & Craigie, I. D. Prevent perverse outcomes from global protected area policy. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2 , 759–762 (2018).

Grorud-Colvert, K. et al. The MPA Guide: a framework to achieve global goals for the ocean. Science 373 , eabf0861 (2021).

Jefferson, R. L., McKinley, E., Griffin, H., Nimmo, A. & Fletcher, S. Public perceptions of the ocean: lessons for marine conservation from a global research review. Front. Mar. Sci . 8 , 711245 (2021).

Potts, T., Pita, C., O’Higgins, T. & Mee, L. Who cares? European attitudes towards marine and coastal environments. Mar. Pol. 72 , 59–66 (2016).

Bennett, N. J. et al. Towards a sustainable and equitable blue economy. Nat. Sustain. 2 , 991–993 (2019).

Jouffray, J.-B., Blasiak, R., Norström, A. V., Österblom, H. & Nyström, M. The blue acceleration: the trajectory of human expansion into the ocean. One Earth 2 , 43–54 (2020).

Zheng, Y. & Walsham, G. Inequality of what? An intersectional approach to digital inequality under Covid-19. Inf. Organ. 31 , 100341 (2021).

Blythe, J. L., Armitage, D., Bennett, N. J., Silver, J. J. & Song, A. M. The politics of ocean governance transformations. Front. Mar. Sci. 8 , 634718 (2021).

Brennan, C., Ashley, M. & Molloy, O. A system dynamics approach to increasing ocean literacy. Front. Mar. Sci. 6 , 360 (2019).

Stoll-Kleemann, S. Feasible options for behavior change toward more effective ocean literacy: a systematic review. Front. Mar. Sci. 6 , 273 (2019).

Bennett, N. J. et al. Advancing social equity in and through marine conservation. Front. Mar. Sci. 8 , 711538 (2021).

Short, R. E. et al. Review of the evidence for oceans and human health relationships in Europe: a systematic map. Environ. Int. 146 , 106275 (2021).

Mukherjee, N. et al. The Delphi technique in ecology and biological conservation: applications and guidelines. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6 , 1097–1109 (2015).

Sutherland, W. J. et al. A 2021 horizon scan of emerging global biological conservation issues. Trends Ecol. Evol. 36 , 87–97 (2021).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This Marine and Coastal Horizon Scan was funded by Oceankind. S.N.R.B. is supported by EcoStar (DM048) and Cefas (My time). R.C. acknowledges FCT/MCTES for the financial support to CESAM (UIDP/50017/2020, UIDB/50017/2020, LA/P/0094/2020) through national funds. O.D. is supported by CSIC Uruguay and Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research. J.E.H.-R. is supported by the Whitten Lectureship in Marine Biology. S.A.K. is supported by a Natural Environment Research Council grant (NE/S00050X/1). P.I.M. is supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Grant (DP200100575). D.M.P. is supported by the Marine Alliance for Science and Technology for Scotland (MASTS). A.R.P. is supported by the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research. W.J.S. is funded by Arcadia. A.T. is supported by Oceankind. M.Y. is supported by the Deep Ocean Stewardship Initiative and bioDISCOVERY. We are grateful to everyone who submitted ideas to the exercise and the following who are not authors but who suggested a topic that made the final list: R. Brown (colocation of marine activities), N. Graham and C. Hicks (altered nutritional content of fish), A. Thornton (soft robotics), A. Vincent (fish swim bladders) and T. Webb (mesopelagic fisheries).

Author information

These authors contributed equally: James E. Herbert-Read, Ann Thornton.

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

James E. Herbert-Read

Conservation Science Group, Department of Zoology, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK

Ann Thornton, Thomas A. Worthington & William J. Sutherland

SpeSeas, D’Abadie, Trinidad and Tobago

Diva J. Amon

Marine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

The Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Lowestoft, UK

Silvana N. R. Birchenough

Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada

Isabelle M. Côté

Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Department of Animal Biology, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal

Maria P. Dias

BirdLife International, The David Attenborough Building, Cambridge, UK

Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Penryn, UK

Brendan J. Godley

Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

Sally A. Keith

School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

Emma McKinley

British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge, UK

Lloyd S. Peck

ECOMARE, CESAM—Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies, Department of Biology, University of Aveiro, Santiago University Campus, Aveiro, Portugal

Ricardo Calado

Laboratory of Marine Sciences (UNDECIMAR), Faculty of Sciences, University of the Republic, Montevideo, Uruguay

Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Operational Directorate Natural Environment, Marine Ecology and Management, Brussels, Belgium

Steven Degraer

School of Biological, Earth, and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Emma L. Johnston

Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland

Hermanni Kaartokallio

Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood Campus, Burwood, Victoria, Australia

Peter I. Macreadie

Department of Oceanography, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Anna Metaxas

Department of Biology, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya

Agnes W. N. Muthumbi

Coastal Oceans Research and Development in the Indian Ocean, Mombasa, Kenya

David O. Obura

School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Scottish Oceans Institute, School of Biology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK

David M. Paterson

Servício de Hidrografía Naval, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Alberto R. Piola

Instituto Franco-Argentino sobre Estudios de Clima y sus Impactos, CONICET/CNRS, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina

School of Mathematics and Physics, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Anthony J. Richardson

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Oceans and Atmosphere, Queensland Biosciences Precinct, St Lucia, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Instituto Antártico Argentino, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Irene R. Schloss

Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas (CADIC-CONICET), Ushuaia, Argentina

Universidad Nacional de Tierra del Fuego, Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sur, Ushuaia, Argentina

Department of Ocean Sciences and Biology Department, Memorial University, St John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada

Paul V. R. Snelgrove

Department of Environment and Geography, University of York, York, UK

Bryce D. Stewart

Lighthouse Field Station, School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Cromarty, UK

Paul M. Thompson

Institute of Marine Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK

Gordon J. Watson

School of Biological Sciences, Area of Ecology and Biodiversity, Swire Institute of Marine Science, Institute for Climate and Carbon Neutrality, Musketeers Foundation Institute of Data Science, and State Key Laboratory of Marine Pollution, The University of Hong Kong, Kadoorie Biological Sciences Building, Hong Kong, China

Moriaki Yasuhara

Biosecurity Research Initiative at St Catharine’s (BioRISC), St Catharine’s College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

William J. Sutherland

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

J.E.H.-R. and A.T. contributed equally to the manuscript. J.E.H.-R., A.T. and W.J.S. devised, organized and led the Marine and Coastal Horizon Scan. D.J.A., S.N.R.B., I.M.C., M.P.D., B.J.G., S.A.K., E.M. and L.S.P. formed the core team and are listed alphabetically in the author list. All other authors, R.C., O.D., S.D., E.L.J., H.K., P.I.M., A.M., A.W.N.M., D.O.O., D.M.P., A.R.P., A.J.R., I.R.S., P.V.R.S., B.D.S., P.M.T., G.J.W., T.A.W. and M.Y. are listed alphabetically. All authors contributed to and participated in the process and all were involved in writing and editing the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to James E. Herbert-Read or Ann Thornton .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Ecology & Evolution thanks Camille Mellin, Prue Addison and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary text and Tables 1 and 2.

Reporting Summary

Source data fig. 3.

Issue number, final rank and proportion heard of for each issue in round 1 and round 2.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Herbert-Read, J.E., Thornton, A., Amon, D.J. et al. A global horizon scan of issues impacting marine and coastal biodiversity conservation. Nat Ecol Evol 6 , 1262–1270 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01812-0

Download citation

Received : 12 November 2021

Accepted : 24 May 2022

Published : 07 July 2022

Issue Date : September 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01812-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Your browser is ancient! Upgrade to a different browser or install Google Chrome Frame to experience this site.

What Exactly is Marine Conservation Biology?

Learn the difference between marine biology and marine conservation biology—and what the scientists in each field tend to focus on.

Stay Current!

Enter your email and never miss an update

Help save our ocean

This blog was written by Dr. David Shiffman, a marine conservation biologist and public science educator based in Washington, D.C. Renowned for his witty social media presence, he has written for the widely-read ocean science blog Southern Fried Science, and his science writing has appeared in publications including the Washington Post, Scientific American, Gizmodo and Scuba Diving Magazine. Follow along with him on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, and stay tuned for his future contributions to the Ocean Conservancy blog.

If you read my first blog for Ocean Conservancy, you may have noticed that I identified myself as a “marine conservation biologist.” While many people may know that a marine biologist is a scientist who studies organisms that live in the ocean, my introduction as a marine conservation biologist tends to inspire some questions from readers. For example: “What’s the difference between marine biology and marine conservation biology?” and “What exactly does a marine conservation biologist do?” Today, I’m here to answer these questions for you. Let’s dive in!

What is conservation biology?

I’ll start by referencing a powerful essay that was published in 1985, the year after I was born. The Endangered Species Act and the entire environmental movement in the United States were relatively new, with ideas on how to move forward actively discussed by passionate environmentalists and concerned scientists. Michael Soule , who died earlier this year, described conservation biology as an entirely new discipline of science. This type of biology was designed to be practical, focused, applied science that borrows methods and approaches from other closely related fields like ecology, biology and environmental science. By “applied,” I mean that we’re not just talking about learning new information about our natural world for the sake of knowledge. While that is, of course, incredibly important work (because there is so much more still to learn), we’re talking about something different here: using scientific approaches to answer specific questions with immediately obvious real-world implications.

In the case of the Endangered Species Act, for example, we’re of course focusing specifically on preventing the extinction of endangered species. With growing recognition of the threats facing the environment, it was no longer enough to just learn more about the ocean in general. It became more and more clear that it was necessary to learn specific information to try and help stop these problems. Essentially, conservation biology is the use of science to learn how to most effectively protect wildlife and wild places, and marine conservation biology is exactly that, but specifically centered around the ocean.

Marine biologists study living things in the ocean with the open-ended goal of learning more about them. Marine conservation biologists take a more applied and specific approach; for example, they ask not just “Where do sea turtles go?” but “Given that these sea turtles are endangered, what can a greater understanding of their habitat use and how it overlaps with potential threats tell us about how to protect them from threats so their population can recover?”

Marine conservation biology papers often dive much deeper into detail about a proposed policy change, as the goal of many studies is often to find out what needs to be done to solve a specific real-world problem. In marine conservation biology, while publishing a paper is often an important step, it’s not the end of the process—in order to protect our ocean and the wildlife and communities that depend on it, we need to then make sure that the public and decision-makers know there’s a problem in the first place. Then, we must work to pinpoint and communicate what we can do to solve it, either ourselves or by partnering with people or organizations that will communicate our key findings to leadership (or communities that influence those leaders).

What does a typical day look like for you as a marine conservation biologist?

As a marine conservation biologist, many of my days are pretty similar to those of my colleagues in “pure” marine biology, spending time on a research vessel collecting data or digging into academic databases, analyzing samples in a lab or writing up results for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. But unlike several of my colleagues, I also spend a lot of time publicizing and communicating about science, making sure that the right people know what was found, why it matters and what we need to do about it. While this isn’t technically part of some of my job descriptions and isn’t for everyone, I know it’s a vital step in turning scientific results into policy action. Rather than mostly working closely with scientists alone, I also work with environmental advocacy groups, science journalists and government decision-makers on a regular basis.

As you can see, a significant difference is who we frequently collaborate with. Most marine biologists, if asked, can easily name five other scientists in their field, but not necessarily many others in external fields and disciplines. Marine conservation biologists, on the other hand, tend to have colleagues much more diversified in their type of work, such as environmental advocates who advocate for issues related to what they study, journalists whose beat includes their area of expertise or government officials who make decisions that affect their study system.

Of course, it’s also important to note that the role of a marine conservation biologist is also notably different from that of an ocean conservation advocate, such as some of the fine folks who work for Ocean Conservancy. For some, their job is to directly lobby government officials for change, though conservation advocates also often have scientific training and may participate in scientific research projects, too. With that, many environmental non-profits like Ocean Conservancy do employ marine biologists, marine conservation biologists or both, as do academic institutions. In sum, both marine biologists and marine conservation biologists have important and diverse roles to play in a variety of fields!

When did you know you wanted to be a marine conservation biologist?

I’ll first note that I’ve known I wanted to be a marine biologist since I was a toddler. It was in college that I transitioned into the applied side of marine conservation biology as I learned more about the various threats facing the ocean and the core need for scientific data to solve some of these increasingly pressing problems. Today, I use scientific methods and approaches to understand specific threats to endangered species that live in our ocean and what solutions can be used to help protect them.

I’ll end by saying that there are so many paths to a career in the realm of ocean conservation, and my path is just one of them. I hope that this blog helps lift the curtain to show you the “behind the scenes” in the life of a conservation biologist and the type of work we do in the field of ocean conservation!

Recommended reads

As deeply troubling reports continue to come in about ocean waters hitting historic hot temperatures, sectors …

Have you ever walked along the beach and spotted tiny plastic balls or discs? They may …

Do jellyfish have brains? The short answer is no, jellyfish do not have brains. But this …

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Turning PointS: Guest Essay

The Oceans Are Diverse. Their Champions Should Be, Too.

Ocean conservation will succeed only when everyone is part of the effort.

By Asha de Vos

Dr. de Vos is a marine biologist.

This personal reflection is part of a series called Turning Points , in which writers explore what critical moments from this year might mean for the year ahead. You can read more by visiting the Turning Points series page .

Turning Point: In June, the United Nations adopted the Treaty of the High Seas, which established procedures to conserve and sustainably manage the two-thirds of the world’s oceans that lie beyond national boundaries.

I am a South Asian woman of color living and working as a marine conservationist in the global south. I also belong to the tropical majority — the 1.59 billion ocean-dependent people who live in low- to middle-income countries in the tropics.

Because of my background, I have encountered innumerable and unnecessary challenges to have my abilities acknowledged and gain a seat at the decision-making table with regard to marine conservation — despite graduating from top universities, conducting pioneering research on the ocean and its inhabitants and winning local and global recognition for my efforts.

I know that the opportunities I have had and continue to have pale in comparison to those of my counterparts from the global north, while the biases I face and continue to face are many times more.

The assumptions that come with being a person of color from the global south — that we, for instance, lack the knowledge, know-how and interest to participate in marine conservation — have historically been reasons to exclude people like me from participating in efforts to change our ocean’s future trajectory. But it is precisely our background and our localized commitment that makes us critical to this process.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Marine Protected Areas: Tools for Sustaining Ocean Ecosystems (2001)

Chapter: executive summary, executive summary.

Declining yields in many fisheries and the decay of treasured marine habitats such as coral reefs have heightened interest in establishing a comprehensive system of marine protected areas (MPAs) in the United States. MPAs, areas designated for special protection to enhance the management of marine resources, show promise as components of an ecosystem-based approach for conserving the ocean's living assets. However, MPA proposals often raise significant controversy, especially the provisions for marine reserves—zones within an MPA where removal or disturbance of resources is prohibited, sometimes referred to as closed or “no-take” areas. Some of the opposition to MPAs lies in resistance to “fencing the sea,” reflecting a long tradition of open access. This opposition continues despite compelling empirical evidence and strong theoretical arguments indicating the value of using reserves as a tool to improve fisheries management, to preserve habitat and biodiversity, and to enhance the esthetic and recreational value of marine areas. The controversy persists because we lack a scientific consensus on the optimal design and use of reserves and we have only limited experience in determining the costs and benefits relative to more conventional management approaches. The current decline in the health of the ocean's living resources, an indication of the inadequacy of conventional approaches, and the increasing level of threat have made it more urgent to evaluate how MPAs and reserves can be employed in the United States to solve some of the pressing problems in marine management.

RECOGNIZING THE LIMITS

The ocean inspires awe; its vast expanse of water spans most of the earth's surface and fills the deep basins between continents. From the surface, the ocean appears uniform and limitless, seemingly too immense to feel the impacts of human activities. These perceptions led to the philosophy expressed by Hugo Grotius, a Dutchman in the 1600s, that the seas could not be harmed by human deeds and therefore needed no protection. His thinking established the principle of “freedom of the seas,” a concept that continues to influence ocean policy despite clear evidence that human impacts such as overfishing, habitat destruction, drainage of wetlands, and pollution disrupt marine ecosystems and threaten the long-term productivity of the seas.

The flaw in the reasoning expressed by Grotius has been uncovered by research on the biology, chemistry, geology, and physics of the ocean. The sea is not a uniform, limitless expanse, but a patchwork of habitats and water masses occurring at scales that render them vulnerable to disturbance and depletion. The patchiness of the ocean is well known by fishers who do not cast their nets randomly but seek out areas where fish are abundant. There has been an increase in technology and fishing capacity that has led to a corresponding increase in the number of overfished stocks. Destruction of fish habitat as the result of dredging, wetland drainage, pollution, and ocean mining also contributes to the depletion of valuable marine species. As human populations continue to grow, so too does the pressure on all natural resources, making it not only more difficult, but also more critical to achieve sustainability in the use of living marine resources. These concerns have stimulated interest in and debate about the value and utility of approaches to marine resource management that provide more spatially defined methods for protecting vulnerable ocean habitats and conserving marine species, especially marine reserves and protected areas. Based on evidence from existing marine area closures in both temperate and tropical regions, marine reserves and protected areas will be effective tools for addressing conservation needs as part of integrated coastal and marine area management.

MANAGING MARINE RESOURCES

Management of living marine resources presents numerous challenges. The conventional approach typically involves management on a species-by-species basis with efforts focused on understanding population-level dynamics. For example, most fisheries target one or a few species; hence, managers and researchers have concentrated their efforts on understanding the population dynamics and effects of fishing on a species-by-species basis. Although this approach seems less complex, it does not resolve the difficulties of either managing multiple stocks or accurately assessing the status of marine species. This is compounded by the relative inaccessibility of many ocean habitats, the prohibi-

tive expense of comprehensive surveys, and the complex dynamics and spatial heterogeneity of marine ecosystems. In addition, the species-specific approach may fail to address changes that affect productivity throughout the ecosystem. These changes may include natural fluctuations in ocean conditions (such as water temperature), nutrient over-enrichment from agricultural run-off and other types of pollution, habitat loss from coastal development and destructive fishing practices, bycatch of non-target species, and changes in the composition of biological communities after removal of either a predator or a prey species.

In addition to challenges presented by nature, management challenges arise from social, economic, and institutional structures. Regulatory agencies are charged with the difficult but important task of balancing the needs of current users with those of future users of the resource as well as the long-term interests of the general public. Regulatory actions intended to maintain productivity often affect the livelihoods of the users and the stability of coastal communities, generating pressure to continue unsustainable levels of resource use to avoid short-term economic dislocation. Finally, responsibility for regulating activities in marine areas, extending from estuarine watersheds to the deep ocean, is fragmented among a daunting number of local, state, federal, and international entities. This complexity in jurisdictional responsibility often places a major barrier to developing coordinated policies for managing ocean resources across political boundaries. Although the protected area concept, with its emphasis on management of spaces rather than species, is not new and has been used frequently on land, until recently there have been less support and few interagency efforts to institute protected areas as a major marine management measure. MPA-based approaches will shift the focus from agency-specific problem management to interagency cooperation for implementing marine policies that recognize the spatial heterogeneity of marine habitats and the need to preserve the structure of marine ecosystems.

To address these issues, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service requested that the National Research Council's Ocean Studies Board assemble a committee of experts to examine the utility of marine reserves and protected areas for conserving marine resources, including fisheries, habitat, and biological diversity. Although there are other, equally important goals, for MPAs, including recreation, tourism, education, and scientific inquiry, examination of these objectives was not part of this committee's specified statement of task and hence receives less emphasis in this report. The committee was directed to compare the benefits and costs of MPAs to more conventional management tools, explore the feasibility of implementation, and assess the scientific basis and adequacy of techniques for designing marine reserves and protected areas. This report presents the findings of the study and provides recommendations for the application of marine reserves and protected areas as a tool in marine area management.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Effective implementation of marine reserves and protected areas depends on participation by the community of stakeholders in developing the management plan. Federal and state agencies will need to provide resources, expertise, and coordination to integrate individual MPAs into the frame-works for coastal and marine resource management in order to meet goals established at the state, regional, national, or international level. The lead agency will need to first identify all stakeholders, both on- and off-site, and then utilize methods of communication appropriate for various user groups. Additionally, the needs and concerns of affected communities must be evaluated and considered when choosing sites for marine reserves and protected areas. Stakeholders should be encouraged to participate in the process by employing their expertise as well as considering their concerns. Systematic social and economic studies will be required to recognize stakeholder groups, to assess the potential economic impacts of the MPA, and to determine community attitudes and goals.

The task of designing MPAs should follow four sequential steps: (1) evaluate conservation needs at both local and regional levels, (2) define the objectives and goals for establishing MPAs, (3) describe the key biological and oceanic features of the region, and (4) identify and choose site(s) that have the highest potential for implementation.

1. Conservation Needs. Local and regional conservation needs depend on the types of resources, the intensity and nature of human uses, and the physical and biological characteristics of the habitats. Consequently, the first step in planning an MPA is the identification and mapping of habitat types and living marine resources.

2. Objectives and Goals. The second step is the establishment of specific management goals for the proposed MPA. In most cases, the MPA will have multiple objectives such as protection of representative habitats, conservation of rare species, fish stock restoration or enhancement, or safeguarding of historical sites, among others. Ranking and prioritizing these objectives may be guided by local conservation needs and/or regional goals for establishing a network of MPAs. Conflicting objectives may require negotiation, trade-offs, and consideration of social and economic impacts.

There are multiple goals for establishing MPAs, such as conserving biodiversity, improving fishery management, protecting ecosystem integrity, preserving cultural heritage, providing educational and recreational opportunities, and establishing sites for scientific research. However, the focus of this report is on conserving biodiversity and improving fishery management through the use of

MPAs and marine reserves. To promote biodiversity, the siting criteria for an MPA or reserve may include habitat representation and heterogeneity, species diversity, biogeographic representation, presence of vulnerable habitats or threatened species, and ecosystem functioning. To improve fishery management, site choice may depend on the locale of stocks that are overfished to provide insurance against stock collapse or to protect spawning and nursery habitat. Alternatively, a site may be selected to reduce bycatch of nontarget species or juveniles of exploited species.

3. Biological and Oceanic Features. Evaluating the suitability of potential sites under these criteria requires the collection and integration of information on the life histories of exploited or threatened species (e.g., location of spawning and nursery sites, dispersal patterns) and the oceanic features of the region. The latter may include water current and circulation patterns, identification of upwelling zones and other features associated with enhanced productivity, water quality (nutrient inputs, pollution, sedimentation, harmful algal blooms), and habitat maps.

4. Site Identification. Distilling the desired properties of an MPA into a zoning plan that specifies size and location of reserves requires matching the biological and oceanic properties to meet the specified objectives. Guidelines and general principles that can be applied to this task are described below.

Identifying Locations

Choice of sites for MPAs should be integrated into an overall plan for marine area management that optimizes the level of protection afforded to the marine ecosystem as a whole because the success of MPAs depends on the quality of management in the surrounding waters. In coastal areas specifically, MPAs will be most effective if sites are chosen in the broader context of coastal zone management, with MPAs serving as critical components of an overall conservation strategy. Management should emphasize spatially oriented conservation strategies that consider the heterogeneous distribution of resources and habitats. This may include selecting MPA sites based on the location of terrestrial protected areas. For example, locating an MPA adjacent to a national park may provide complementary protections for water quality, restoration of nursery habitat, and recovery of exploited species. Often a single MPA will be insufficient to meet the multiple needs of a region and it will be necessary to establish a network of MPAs and reserves, an array of sites chosen for their complementarity and ability to support each other based on connectivity. Connectivity refers to the capacity for one site to “seed” another location through the dispersal of either adults or larvae to ensure the persistence and maintenance of genetic diversity for the resident protected species.

Sites that meet the ecological and oceanographic criteria must also be evaluated with respect to the patterns of stakeholder use in those areas. Site identifi-

cation should maximize potential benefits, minimize socioeconomic conflicts to the extent practicable, and exclude areas where pollution or commercial development have caused problems so severe that they would override any protective benefit from the reserve and so intractable that the situation is unlikely to improve.

Determining Size

The optimal size of marine reserves and protected areas should be determined for each location by evaluating the conservation needs and goals, quality and amount of critical habitat, levels of resource use, efficacy of other management tools, and characteristics of the species or biological communities requiring protection. The boundaries of many MPAs, such as those in the National Marine Sanctuary Program, have been drawn based on specific topographic features, but deciding on the size of marine reserves (i.e., no-take zones) requires greater consideration of the biological features to meet specific management goals. In many cases, specific attributes of the locale (saltmarsh habitat, spawning and nursery grounds, special features such as coral reefs, seamounts, or hydrothermal vents) will determine the size of an effective reserve. In other cases, the dispersal patterns of species targeted for protection, as well as the level of exploitation, should be considered in deciding how much area to enclose within a reserve. Achieving the various marine management goals out-lined in this report will require establishing reserves in a much greater fraction of U.S. territorial waters than the current level of less than 1%. Proposals to designate 20% of the ocean as marine reserves have focused debate on how much closed area will be needed to conserve living marine resources. The 20% figure was originally derived, in part, from the value fishery managers once recommended for conservation of a fish stock's reproductive potential (i.e., the target spawning potential ratio). For sedentary species, protecting 20% of the population in reserves will help conserve the stock's reproductive capacity and may roughly correlate with 20% of that species' habitat. However, the optimal amount of reserve area required to meet a given management goal may be higher or lower depending on the characteristics of the location and its resident species, as described in Chapter 6 and summarized in Table 6.3 of this report. Size optimization generally will require adjustments to the original management plan based on reserve performance, as determined through research and monitoring. Hence, the first priority for implementing reserve sites should be to include valuable and vulnerable areas rather than to achieve a percentage goal for any given region.

Designating Zones and Designing Networks

Zoning should be used as a mechanism for designating sites within an MPA to provide the level of protection appropriate for each management

goal. In many instances, multiple management goals will be included in an MPA plan and zoning can be used to accomplish some of these goals. These zones may include “ecological reserves” to protect biodiversity and provide un-disturbed areas for research, “fishery reserves” to restore and protect fish stocks, and “habitat restoration areas” to facilitate recovery of damaged seabeds. Frequently, an MPA is established initially to protect a site from threats associated with large-scale activities such as gravel mining, oil drilling, and dredge spoil disposal. Under these MPA-wide restrictions, there is an opportunity to resolve other conflicting uses of marine resources through zoning of areas within the MPA. Networking to provide connectivity (see section “Identifying Locations” ) should be considered in both zoning and siting of MPAs to ensure long-term stability of the resident populations.

Monitoring and Research Needs

The performance of marine reserves should be evaluated through regular monitoring and periodic assessments to measure progress toward management goals and to facilitate refinements in the design and implementation of reserves. Marine reserves should be planned such that boundaries and regulations can be adapted to improve performance and meet changes in management goals. There are three tasks that should be included in a well-designed monitoring program: (1) assess management effectiveness; (2) measure long-term trends in ecosystem properties; and (3) evaluate economic impacts, community attitudes and involvement, and compliance.

Monitoring programs should track ecological and socioeconomic indicators for inputs to and outputs from the reserve at regular time intervals. Inputs might include water quality, sedimentation, immigration of adults and larvae of key species, number of visitors, and volunteer activities. Outputs might include emigration of adults and larvae of key species, changes in economic activity, and educational programs and materials. Within the reserve, monitoring efforts should assess habitat recovery and changes in species composition and abundance.

Research in marine reserves is required to further our understanding of how closed areas can be most effectively used in fisheries and marine resource management. Reserves present unique opportunities for research on the structure, functioning, and variability of marine ecosystems that will provide valuable information for improving the management of marine resources. Whenever possible, management actions should be planned to facilitate rigorous ex-

amination of the hypotheses concerning marine reserve design and implementation. Research in reserves could provide estimates for important parameters in fishery models such as natural mortality rates and dispersal properties of larval, juvenile, and adult fish. Other research programs could test marine reserve design principles such as connectivity or the effect of reserve size on recovery of exploited species. Modeling studies are needed both to generate hypotheses and to analyze outcomes for different reserve designs and applications.

Institutional Structures

Integration of management across the array of federal and state agencies will be needed to develop a national system of MPAs that effectively and efficiently conserves marine resources and provides equitable representation for the diversity of groups with interests in the sea. The recent executive order issued by the White House on May 26, 2000, initiates this process through its directive to NOAA (Department of Commerce) to establish a Marine Protected Area Center in cooperation with the Department of the Interior. The goal of the MPA Center shall be “to develop a framework for a national system of MPAs, and to provide Federal, State, territorial, tribal, and local governments with the information, technologies, and strategies to support the system.” Establishment of a national system of MPAs presents an opportunity

to improve regional coordination among marine management agencies;

to develop an inventory of existing MPA sites; and

to ensure adequate regulatory authority and funds for enforcement, research, and monitoring.

Effective enforcement of MPAs will be necessary to obtain cooperation from affected user groups and to realize the potential economic and ecological benefits. Also, coordination among agencies with different jurisdictions will improve the representation of on-site and off-site user groups so that the general public's cultural and conservation values, as well as commercial and recreational activities, receive consideration. Under current management approaches, these interests are often addressed by different agencies independently of each other and may result in short-term policies that are inconsistent with the nation's long-term goals.

What are the consequences of not developing a national system of marine reserves and protected areas? Are conventional management strategies sufficient to ensure that our descendents will enjoy the benefits of the diversity and abundance of ocean life? One purpose of this report is to compare conventional

management of marine resources with proposals to augment these management strategies with a system of protected areas. Although it may seem less disruptive to rely on the familiar, conventional management tools, there are costs associated with maintaining a status quo that does not meet conservation goals. Hence, our relative inexperience in using marine reserves to manage living resources should not serve as an argument against their use. Rather, it argues that implementation of reserves should be incremental and adaptive, through the design of areas that will not only conserve marine resources, but also will help us learn how to manage marine species more effectively. The dual realities that the earth's resources are limited and that demands made on marine resources are increasing, will require some compromise among users to secure greater benefits for the community as a whole. Properly designed and managed marine reserves and protected areas offer the potential for minimizing short-term sacrifice by current users of the sea and maximizing the long-term health and productivity of the marine environment.

Although the ocean-and the resources within-seem limitless, there is clear evidence that human impacts such as overfishing, habitat destruction, and pollution disrupt marine ecosystems and threaten the long-term productivity of the seas. Declining yields in many fisheries and decay of treasured marine habitats, such as coral reefs, has heightened interest in establishing a comprehensive system of marine protected areas (MPAs)-areas designated for special protection to enhance the management of marine resources. Therefore, there is an urgent need to evaluate how MPAs can be employed in the United States and internationally as tools to support specific conservation needs of marine and coastal waters.

Marine Protected Areas compares conventional management of marine resources with proposals to augment these management strategies with a system of protected areas. The volume argues that implementation of MPAs should be incremental and adaptive, through the design of areas not only to conserve resources, but also to help us learn how to manage marine species more effectively.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Marine Conservation Essays

Analysis and appraisal of educational resources on sustainable fishing, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail

• Solar Power
• Geothermal Energy
• Nuclear Power
• Why are fossil fuels bad?
• Businesses Selling Shark Fins
• Beach Cleanups
• Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs)
• Marine Plastic Pollution

Ocean Resources

• Sounds in the Sea
• Aquaculture
• Artificial Reefs
• Coral Restoration
• Ocean Mining
• Invasive Species
• Threatened & Endangered Species

A Sea Ethic

Marine biodiversity, marine conservation organizations.

• Marine Life in Captivity: Pros & Cons
• Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)

Sustainable Ecotourism

• Act / Petitions
• Chapter 1: Roots of the modern environmental dilemma: A brief history of the relationship between humans and wildlife
• Chapter 2: A history of wildlife in North America
• Chapter 3: Climatic determinants of global patterns of biodiversity
• Chapter 4: Biodiversity
• Chapter 5: Natural selection
• Chapter 6: Principles of ecology
• Chapter 7: Niche and habitat
• Chapter 8: Conservation biology
• Chapter 9: Conservation in the USA: legislative milestones
• Chapter 10: Alien invaders
• Chapter 11: Wildlife and pollution
• Chapter 12: What you can do to save wildlife
• Sharks & Rays
• Squid & Octopuses, etc.
• Whales & Dolphins
• Search Google
• Ocean Channel
• Photo Galleries
• A History of the Study of Marine Biology
• The Naming of Life: Marine Taxonomy
• Marine Ecology
• Forests of the Sea
• Zooplankton
• Marine Mites
• – Coral Reefs
• Echinoderms
• Hemichordates
• Lophophorates
• Worms (Marine)
• Marine Birds
• Marine Fishes
• – Sharks, Rays and Skates
• Marine Mammals
• – Dolphins (toothed whales)
• Marine Reptiles
• Submarines & Deep Technology
• Marine Science/Ocean Life Related Journals
• Marine Biology Laboratories, Institutes & Graduate Programs
• Scuba Diving
• Ocean Mysteries: Did Life begin in the Ocean?
• Ocean Mysteries: Mermaids
• Ocean Mysteries: Sea Monsters
• Ocean Mysteries: The Bermuda Triangle
• Ocean Quizzes
• Recommended Books
• History of the Ocean
• Ocean Chemistry
• Light & Color in the Ocean
• The Ocean & Temperature
• Currents & Tides
• Ocean Geography
• Geological Makeup of Marine Environments
• Geologic Time & Life on Earth
• Marine Zones
• Estuaries, Salt Marshes & Mangroves
• Continental Shelves
• The Open Ocean
• The Arctic & Antarctic
• The Deep Sea
• Other Ocean Worlds
• For Students (+ Interview!)
• Marine Biology Degree Programs in the U.S.
• Marine Biology Degree Programs Worldwide
• For Teachers
• MarineBio Kids
• Academic Earth
• FutureLearn
• Khan Academy
• MIT OpenCourseWare
• Open Learning Initiative
• Stanford Online
• The Open University
• Daily Newsfeeds
• Conservation
• The Clownfish Herald
• What’s New @ MarineBio?
• Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
• Facebook Group
• Facebook Page
• Our Sponsors
• Contributors
• For Scientists
• Marine Conservation/Science Support

Marine Conservation

Find out more..., marinebio is deeply committed to the conservation of the ocean and its marine life., 2023 confirmed as world's hottest year on record.

MarineBio is deeply committed to the conservation of the ocean and its marine life. The health of the ocean and marine life are so often taken for granted and due to our increasing numbers and wasteful practices, the ocean appears to be as vulnerable to harm by human activities as any other environmental realm—and maybe even more so based on the severity and scale of the threats discussed below.

101+ Ways to Make a Difference

Also see What you can do to save wildlife by Dr. Peter Moyle.

MarineBio also highly recommends Dr. Safina’s books, which describe many of our ocean’s problems in ways that urges all of us to find equitable solutions. These books read like entertaining travel narratives, yet they powerfully convey important messages in an objective, eloquent, and compelling manner. » more…

Marine Conservation Biology

by Michael E. Soule, Elliott A. Norse, Larry B. Crowder, Marine Conservation Institute , Island Press, 2005

Marine Conservation Biology brings together for the first time in a single volume leading experts from around the world to apply the lessons and thinking of conservation biology to marine issues. Contributors including James M. Acheson, Louis W. Botsford, James T. Carlton, Kristina Gjerde, Selina S. Heppell, Ransom A. Myers, Julia K. Parrish, Stephen R. Palumbi, and Daniel Pauly offer penetrating insights on the nature of marine biodiversity, what threatens it, and what humans can and must do to recover the biological integrity of the world’s estuaries, coastal seas, and the ocean. » Find out more…

Sustainable Fisheries

~70% of the earth’s commercially targeted fish species have been overfished to the point where their stocks are in grave danger of being depleted. Fish harvests have quadrupled since the 1950s and the competition for marketable catches has increased to the point where competition is driving governments to subsidize fishing vessels. Even when data is convincing, experts say, action falls short. Despite the clear risk from such long-lived large fish as swordfish, shark and types of tuna, public warnings are often not spelled out. Smaller fish rich in fat can also be hazardous, although they are seldom flagged. Norwegian researchers say Baltic Sea herring carry up to 10 times as much contamination as salmon. A growing trend toward fish-farming adds new dangers, according to the specialists. » more…

Global Warming/Climate Change

Threatened & Endangered Species

Habitat Conservation

Alien Species

Ocean Pollution

From our beaches and coastlines to the remotest reaches of the open oceans, human actions are despoiling the sea no less than the land. Scientists have documented the disappearance of species from whale-sized Steller’s sea cows ( Hydrodamalis gigas ) to fingernail-sized eelgrass limpets ( Lottia alveus ), but this is just the tip of the iceberg. » more…

Essays on Wildlife Conservation

MarineBio is proud to present Essays on Wildlife Conservation written and edited by Dr. Peter Moyle, et al. for an introductory course on wildlife conservation taught at the University of California, Davis. The essays were written for students who are not only biology majors and are broad in scope. These chapters provide an introduction to the history of wildlife in North America, biodiversity, natural selection, conservation biology, ecology, conservation legislation, alien species, wildlife and pollution, and things we can all do to save wildlife. We think you will find that they are not only fascinating to read but also very useful toward understanding the myriad of issues concerning conservation efforts today. » more…

Shorebirds ~ Flyways | Full Episode | NATURE | PBS

Follow scientists racing against the clock to save the world’s migratory shorebirds.

The Facts Nearly Everyone Gets Wrong About the Climate Debate

Enjoy this Supercut of Earth Cycle Videos. Milankovitch cycles, El Nino, Polar Vortexes, Solar cycles and more.

Wonders of Life with Brian Cox

What is life? Where did it come from? Why does it end? 3.7 billion years ago in an obscure part of an unexceptional corner of the universe, something incredible happened. Through an incalculably unlikely set of circumstances, life was created.

Discovering the Hidden Secrets of the Ocean

What lies hidden beneath the sea is one of the Earth's biggest mysteries, with only 5% of the area explored - but the Schmidt Ocean Institute is changing this.

What’s NASA Trying to Find at the Bottom of the Ocean?

We look at the discoveries NASA has made by exploring our oceans.

Photographing Sperm Whales with Paul Nicklen | Behind the Shot

Go behind the shot with photographer and conservationist Paul Nicklen as he shares his incredible experience photographing a pod of sperm whales. Check out the spectacular photos from this encounter.

LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply

Have a comment, question or suggestion? Feel free to submit comments to start or join discussions. Please keep in mind that all comments are moderated and your email address will NOT be published. Get your free Gravatar (Globally Recognized Avatar) before commenting to show your personal image instead of the default.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Home — Essay Samples — Environment — Ocean Pollution — The Causes of Ocean Pollution and the Need for Humans to Save Marine Life

The Causes of Ocean Pollution and The Need for Humans to Save Marine Life

• Categories: Ocean Ocean Pollution Water Pollution

About this sample

Words: 1259 |

Published: Sep 14, 2018

Words: 1259 | Pages: 2 | 7 min read

Table of contents

Understanding the importance of ocean protection, addressing pollution and plastic waste, sustainable fishing and marine conservation, combating climate change and acidification.

• Reduce Single-Use Plastics : Minimize the use of single-use plastic items like bags, bottles, and straws by opting for reusable alternatives.
• Recycling Education : Promote education and awareness programs about proper recycling practices, including the separation and disposal of recyclable materials.
• Eco-Friendly Packaging : Support businesses that use eco-friendly packaging materials, such as biodegradable or compostable options.
• Plastic Cleanup Initiatives : Participate in or organize local beach clean-up events and river clean-up campaigns to remove plastic waste from the environment.
• Plastic-Free Purchasing : Choose products with minimal or no plastic packaging and encourage businesses to reduce excessive packaging.
• Community Awareness : Raise awareness within your community about the consequences of plastic pollution through workshops, seminars, and educational campaigns.
• Lobby for Policy Changes : Advocate for stricter regulations on plastic production, use, and disposal at the local, national, and international levels.
• Support Recycling Facilities : Encourage the development and accessibility of recycling facilities in your area.
• Adopt a Zero-Waste Lifestyle : Strive to reduce waste by composting organic materials, recycling, and making mindful consumption choices.
• Promote Eco-Friendly Products : Choose and promote products made from sustainable materials and that are designed for longevity and reusability.
• Boycott Microbeads : Avoid personal care products containing microbeads, which are tiny plastic particles that often end up in the ocean.
• Responsible Disposal : Ensure that your waste is properly disposed of in designated waste disposal facilities to prevent it from ending up in the ocean.
• Support Clean Technologies : Advocate for and support research and development of technologies to clean up plastic waste from the ocean.
• Engage in Ocean Cleanup Organizations : Contribute your time, resources, or donations to organizations focused on removing plastic waste from the ocean.
• Educational Programs : Encourage schools and educational institutions to incorporate environmental education programs that teach students about the impacts of plastic pollution.
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2019). Special report on the ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate. IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (n.d.). Why is the ocean important? NOAA National Ocean Service. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/why-is-the-ocean-important.html
• Jambeck, J. R., et al. (2015). Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science, 347(6223), 768-771. doi:10.1126/science.1260352
• Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). (n.d.). About the MSC. https://www.msc.org/about-msc
• United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (n.d.). Marine protected areas. NOAA National Ocean Service. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/mpa.html
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (n.d.). Ocean acidification. NOAA Climate Program Office. https://cpo.noaa.gov/Meet-the-Divisions/Climate-and-Societal-Interactions/CPO-COCA/Ocean-Acidification

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Environment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

5 pages / 2087 words

1 pages / 441 words

3 pages / 1319 words

5 pages / 2287 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Ocean Pollution

The delicate balance of marine ecosystems is under siege as ocean acidification poses a grave threat to their health and vitality. This essay dives into the intricate web of challenges presented by ocean acidification and [...]

Logan, S. (2022). Ocean Acidification: The Other Carbon Dioxide Problem. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Zachos, J. C. (2001). Trend, Rhythm, and Randomness: Nonlinearity in Sediment Geochemistry and [...]

Water and ocean pollution are pressing environmental issues with far-reaching consequences. The contamination of water bodies, including rivers, lakes, and oceans, threatens biodiversity, ecosystems, and human well-being. [...]

Marine ecosystems are incredibly important for the health of our planet, providing essential services such as oxygen production, carbon sequestration, and food resources. However, these ecosystems are facing a grave threat in [...]

Overview of the issue of ocean pollution and its impact on marine ecosystems and the environment Mention of plastic pollution as a particularly destructive form of pollution Statistics on the environmental impact [...]

The oceans, the lifeblood of our planet, are facing an unprecedented crisis at the hands of human activity. Among the myriad threats to marine ecosystems, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (GPGP) stands out as a stark symbol of [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

More than 80% of EU marine protected areas are ineffective, study shows

Activities such as mining, dredging and bottom trawling in most MPAs mean conservation targets will be missed, say researchers

Most of Europe’s marine protected areas, set up to safeguard species and habitats, will not meet conservation targets as they provide only “marginal” protection against industrial activities such as dredging, mining and bottom trawling, a study has revealed.

Low levels of protection in 86% of marine protected areas (MPAs) have left the EU far from reaching its 2030 biodiversity targets, which are designed to reduce the risk of species’ extinction, researchers said in a paper published in the One Earth journal. The EU aims to protect 30% of its seas by 2030, with 10% “strictly” protected from damaging activities.

“It is the first assessment of where we are in terms of protection,” said Juliette Aminian-Biquet, the paper’s lead author, a researcher at the University of Algarve, Portugal’s centre for marine sciences. “This shows that we are at the very beginning of protecting our oceans.”

The paper concluded that reaching the EU’s 10% strict protection target will require “radical changes” to the regulation of activities in its marine sanctuaries.

The highest coverage of marine sanctuaries in the EU was in Germany (45% of national waters), with France and Belgium not far behind.

The highest levels of “strong protection”, also defined as highly or fully protected areas, for instance sanctuaries that allow no extractive activities or infrequent fishing, were found in the Mediterranean and Baltic Seas. The European country that performs best at keeping destructive activity at bay in its protected areas is Slovenia, although the overall number of MPAs it has in its waters is relatively low compared to other countries, said the report.

The low levels of protection in most MPAs are a result of the “flexible” nature of EU directives, researchers found. “For MPAs to provide the expected social and ecological benefits, their role in regulating human activities to limit their negative impacts should be questioned,” the authors said.

“Getting the EU to do anything on this topic is extremely difficult, as regulation would need to be legally binding,” said Aminian-Biquet. “It is going to be up to individual states or regional authorities to take action to meet these targets.”

A spokesperson for the European Commission said: “The commission takes note of the very recent publication and its key summary findings”, and said it had called on member states to manage all MPAs in line with relevant directives and EU commitments to protect 30% of marine and coastal areas by 2030. They added that the 2023 EU marine action plan recommended member states phase out bottom trawling in MPAs by 2030.

The phase-out was rejected by the European parliament in January and most EU states have not yet set out measures on bottom trawling, with the exception of Greece, which became the first country to ban bottom trawling in MPAs earlier this year, and Sweden.

• Endangered habitats
• Seascape: the state of our oceans
• Endangered species
• Marine life
• European Union
• Conservation

Most viewed

• Español (Spanish)
• Français (French)
• Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
• Brasil (Portuguese)
• India (English)
• हिंदी (Hindi)
• Feature Stories
• Explore All
• Subscribe page
• Submissions
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Advertising
• Wild Madagascar
• Selva tropicales
• Mongabay.org
• Tropical Forest Network

Marine ecosystems still overlooked in Indonesia’s new conservation law, critics say

Share this article

If you liked this story, share it with other people.

• Indonesia’s recently revised conservation law retains a heavy focus on terrestrial protection and largely ignores marine and fisheries issues, experts say.
• Despite improvements such as clearer authority for managing marine and coastal conservation areas, critics argue the law still falls short in addressing urgent marine conservation needs.
• The law strengthens penalties for illegal activities and outlines responsibilities for protecting fish species and marine life, but many fear the minimal inclusion of maritime conservation will worsen illegal fishing and environmental degradation.
• Indigenous groups have also slammed the new law, citing its failure to include Indigenous participation and protect their rights over customary lands and forests.

JAKARTA — Indonesia’s recently updated conservation law continues to prioritize terrestrial protection, raising concerns over much-needed improvements to the management of the country’s rich marine ecosystems and resources.

Parliament passed revisions to the 1990 conservation law this past July, seven years since it was submitted for legislation. The update introduces 24 provisions that modify or expand provisions in the 1990 version, while also repealing some provisions from the 2019 law on water resources.

And while the 2024 conservation law now adopts provisions on protection of coastal areas and small islands, it continues to focus for the most part on forestry and land-based conservation, said Arisetiarso Soemodinoto, an adviser at the NGO Fisheries Resource Center of Indonesia.

“Two-thirds of Indonesia’s territory is waters, the rest is land,” Arisetiarso told Mongabay. The few mentions in the law of marine, coastal areas, small islands and fisheries thus comes across as the bare minimum, he added.

Indonesia is home to some of the most diverse marine life on the planet, especially in its eastern region that falls within the Pacific Coral Triangle, an area renowned for its richness of corals and reef fish. The country’s maritime sector also holds untapped potential as a vast carbon sink.

“To be frank, I’m disappointed with the new law because, in my opinion, it’s still biased toward land,” Arisetiarso said.

Siti Nurbaya Bakar, Indonesia’s environment minister, hailed the revised legislation before its passage as “important in maintaining the relevance of conservation principles, of which the implementation is strengthened by current conditions.”

She said in a statement published in June that the new conservation law will regulate conservation activities in coastal areas and small islands to strengthen the management of natural resources in those regions.

She also said it introduces a new framework for managing important ecosystems outside protected areas and state forests, ensuring the application of conservation principles beyond nature reserves and wildlife conservation areas, and enhances regulations on prohibitions, sanctions and penalties related to wildlife crimes.

But observers say the new law lacks progress on efforts to support maritime conservation and sustainable fisheries. Environmental and Indigenous rights activists have also slammed the lack of adequate public consultation before it was passed.

Nirwan Dessibali, executive director of the Marine Conservation Foundation (YKL), which was invited to weigh in on the bill in 2023, said the new law does a poor job of laying the foundation for conservation of marine environments.

“The final version barely includes coastal areas and small islands,” he said. “Even then, it doesn’t properly address the current challenges faced by marine conservation areas, coastal zones and small islands.”

According to both Nirwan and Setiarso, a key implication of this shortcoming is that it will perpetuate the ongoing imbalance between conservation budgeting and donations for landscapes versus seascapes.

“Much of the available conservation funds go to land-based efforts, meanwhile the marine area that requires protection actually needs much more funds than the land area,” Arisetiarso said.

Indonesia’s 411 marine protected areas cover a combined surface area of 284,100 square kilometers (109,700 square miles), an area larger than the U.K. Yet this represents less than 9% of Indonesia’s total maritime area; the country is targeting to expand that coverage to 10% by 2030 and then 30% by 2045 as part of its contribution to the global “30 by 30” conservation goal, which aims to protect 30% of the world’s land and seas by 2030.

In all, Indonesia has created an expansive network of conservation areas covering 325,000 km2 (125,500 mi2) of land and water, but the government struggles to adequately fund most of these areas. That has left them largely without enough staff, transportation support or other infrastructure to facilitate daily operations, according to a 2023 study .

Nirwan said the dearth of provisions on marine conservation and sustainable fisheries in the new law could exacerbate the long-running problems of destructive and illegal fishing, coastal land reclamation, and at-sea sand mining.

“Our hope was for the new conservation law to be the legal foundation for integrating both land and marine conservation areas because they’re connected,” he said.

The Indigenous Peoples’ Alliance of the Archipelago (AMAN) also laid out in a statement the major flaws in the new conservation law, such as the lack of Indigenous participation, a disregard for Indigenous rights to forests for conservation, and the risk of Indigenous peoples being displaced for the expansion of protected areas. The group also said the law makes it more difficult for communities to regain control over their customary forests, creates a loophole for exploitation by corporations that could further marginalize Indigenous peoples, and potentially allow the commercialization of forests for carbon credits.

“AMAN expresses its strong opposition to the ratification and enactment of this law and urges the government and [parliament] to ratify the Indigenous Peoples Bill into law in accordance with the aspirations of the Indigenous Peoples,” the group said.

Other experts say the new law makes welcome progress in pushing for improved conservation management of marine ecosystems, coastal zones and small islands, including by clarifying authority and jurisdiction over these areas.

“This is important given the growing pressure on marine ecosystems from human activities, such as overfishing, pollution and climate change,” Zuzy Anna, a marine science professor at Padjajaran University in the city of Bandung, told Mongabay.

She said having a clearer distribution of authority between the forestry and fisheries ministries might reduce the risk of overlap and conflict between the various government agencies involved in the management of conservation areas, which was a recurring issue under the previous law.

The Indonesian Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries said the new law gives it full authority for managing and designating marine conservation areas. This, it added, strengthens its role in implementing the “Blue Economy Priority Program” and expanding and effectively managing conservation areas. The law further establishes the ministry’s responsibilities for the conservation of fish species and marine life.

And even though the new law doesn’t explicitly mention fish stock management or fishers, Zuzy said it indirectly addresses key aspects of sustainable fisheries and fishing communities’ welfare. She said the law gives stricter legal sanctions against illegal fishing and overfishing, while strengthening safeguards for fishers’ rights from external threats like foreign fishing vessels or habitat destruction.

It also introduces much stronger penalties for conservation crimes. Under the previous legislation, anyone who “trades, keeps, distributes or kills” a protected species has committed a crime, punishable with imprisonment of up to five years and a fine of up to 100 million rupiah ($6,500). The 2024 law prescribes a range of penalties, making distinctions between individuals and corporations, with a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and up to 50 billion rupiah ($3.2 million) in fines. In addition, the revised law prescribes sanctions for online trafficking of protected wildlife.

Zuzy noted, however, that law enforcement in Indonesia, particularly in environmental and conservation contexts, faces significant challenges despite these upgraded sanctions. Offenders are rarely prosecuted; on the few occasions they are, they typically receive token sentences far below the maximum, she said.

“Issues such as corruption … limited resources, and inadequate law enforcement capacity hinder the effectiveness of regulations,” Zuzy said. “Weak infrastructure for monitoring further complicates enforcement, potentially allowing conservation violations to persist and undermining the law’s positive impact on natural resource preservation.”

Basten Gokkon is a senior staff writer for Indonesia at Mongabay. Find him on 𝕏 @bgokkon .

See more from the reporter:

Indonesia announces plan to protect 10% of its seas by 2030, and 30% by 2045

FEEDBACK: Use this form to send a message to the author of this post. If you want to post a public comment, you can do that at the bottom of the page.

To wipe or to wash? That is the question

Toilet paper: Environmentally impactful, but alternatives are rolling out

Rolling towards circularity? Tracking the trace of tires

Getting the bread: What’s the environmental impact of wheat?

Consumed traces the life cycle of a variety of common consumer products from their origins, across supply chains, and waste streams. The circular economy is an attempt to lessen the pace and impact of consumption through efforts to reduce demand for raw materials by recycling wastes, improve the reusability/durability of products to limit pollution, and […]

Free and open access to credible information

Latest articles.

Wildcat miners: will cyanide displace mercury?

Honduras taps armed forces to eliminate deforestation by 2029. Will it work?

Malaysian court shuts down hydroelectric dam project on Indigenous land

Why I quit the film industry to work on ecological restoration (commentary)

Report links killings to environmental crimes in Peru’s Amazon

To save endangered trees, researchers in South America recruit an army of fungi

Clearest picture yet of Amazon carbon density could help guide conservation

you're currently offline

St Helena Government

Shelby bargo achieves first-class honours in ocean science and marine conservation.

13 September 2024

A recent graduate of the University of Plymouth, Shelby Bargo, has achieved a First-Class Honours Bachelor of Science degree in Ocean Science and Marine Conservation.

Shelby’s core studies involved marine biology, oceanography, ecology, and conservation. Through a combination of theoretical coursework and practical applications, she gained invaluable experience in data collection, analysis, and research. Her hands-on work with cutting-edge scientific instruments, both in the field and laboratory, honed her analytical and problem-solving skills.

Beyond the core curriculum, Shelby also explored the legal and policy aspects of marine conservation, equipping her with a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities in this field.

Reflecting on her university experience, Shelby commented:

“Plymouth was the perfect place to pursue my passion for ocean science. The hands-on learning opportunities, coupled with the university’s commitment to disability support, made my studies both rewarding and manageable. The welcoming atmosphere and friendly community created a supportive environment that helped me thrive.”

Interim Portfolio Director, Marie Horton also commented:

“Shelby has achieved at the highest level. The Education, Skills and Employment Portfolio and the many teachers who have taught Shelby are delighted and proud at her achievements. Shelby’s passion for marine conservation and her hard work, dedication and determination have supported her securing a first class honours degree. Congratulations, Shelby!”

#StHelena #Education #Graduates #FirstClassHonours

www.facebook.com /StHelenaGovt/

www.twitter.com/StHelenaGovt

St Helena Government Communications Hub

Telephone: 22470 Email: [email protected]