Embracing Nature-based Solutions to promote resilient marine and coastal ecosystems

The world is struggling to limit greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the human footprint on nature. We therefore urgently need to think about how to achieve more with actions to address mounting challenges for human health and wellbeing from biodiversity loss, climate change effects, and unsustainable economic and social development. Nature-based Solutions (NBS) have emerged as a systemic approach and an important component of the response to these challenges. In marine and coastal spaces, NBS can contribute to improved environmental health, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and a more sustainable blue economy, if implemented to a high standard. However, NBS have been largely studied for terrestrial – particularly urban – systems, with limited uptake thus far in marine and coastal areas, despite an abundance of opportunities. Here, we provide explanations for this lag and propose the following three research priorities to advance marine and coastal NBS: (1) Improve understanding of marine and coastal biodiversity-ecosystem services relationships to support NBS better designed for rebuilding system resilience and achieving desired ecological outcomes under climate change; (2) Provide scientific guidance on how and where to implement marine and coastal NBS and better coordinate strategies and projects to facilitate their design, effectiveness, and value through innovative synergistic actions; (3) Develop ways to enhance marine and coastal NBS communication, collaboration, ocean literacy and stewardship to raise awareness, co-create solutions with stakeholders, boost public and policy buy-in, and potentially drive a more sustained investment. Research effort in these three areas will help practitioners, policy-makers and society embrace NBS for managing marine and coastal ecosystems for tangible benefits to people and marine life.The authors would like to acknowledge the support for funding provided by the European Union. We would also like to thank the editor and reviewers for their valuable insight and comments.Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version

Standards of conduct and reporting in evidence syntheses that could inform environmental policy and management decisions

Accurate, unbiased and concise synthesis of available evidence following clear methodology and transparent report‑ ing is necessary to support effective environmental policy and management decisions. Without this, less reliable and/ or less objective reviews of evidence could inform decision making, leading to ineffective, resource wasteful inter‑ ventions with potential for unintended consequences. We evaluated the reliability of over 1000 evidence syntheses (reviews and overviews) published between 2018 and 2020 that provide evidence on the impacts of human activities or effectiveness of interventions relevant to environmental management. The syntheses are drawn from the Col‑ laboration for Environmental Evidence Database of Evidence Reviews (CEEDER), an online, freely available evidence service for evidence users that assesses the reliability of evidence syntheses using a series of published criteria. We found that the majority of syntheses have problems with transparency, replicability and potential for bias. Overall, our results suggest that most recently published evidence syntheses are of low reliability to inform decision making. Reviews that followed guidance and reporting standards for evidence synthesis had improved assessment ratings, but there remains substantial variation in the standard of reviews amongst even these. Furthermore, the term ‘system‑ atic review’, which implies conformity with a methodological standard, was frequently misused. A major objective of the CEEDER project is to improve the reliability of the global body of environmental evidence reviews. To this end we outline freely available online resources to help improve review conduct and reporting. We call on authors, editors and peer reviewers to use these resources to ensure more reliable syntheses in the future

Marine reserves can mitigate and promote adaptation to climate change

Strong decreases in greenhouse gas emissions are required to meet the reduction trajectory resolved within the 2015 Paris Agreement. However, even these decreases will not avert serious stress and damage to life on Earth, and additional steps are needed to boost the resilience of ecosystems, safeguard their wildlife, and protect their capacity to supply vital goods and services. We discuss how well-managed marine reserves may help marine ecosystems and people adapt to five prominent impacts of climate change: acidification, sea-level rise, intensification of storms, shifts in species distribution, and decreased productivity and oxygen availability, as well as their cumulative effects. We explore the role of managed ecosystems in mitigating climate change by promoting carbon sequestration and storage and by buffering against uncertainty in management, environmental fluctuations, directional change, and extreme events. We highlight both strengths and limitations and conclude that marine reserves are a viable low-tech, cost-effective adaptation strategy that would yield multiple cobenefits from local to global scales, improving the outlook for the environment and people into the future

The reliability of evidence review methodology in environmental science and conservation

Given the proliferation of primary research articles, the importance of reliable environmental evidence reviews for informing policy and management decisions is increasing. Although conducting reviews is an efficient method of synthesising the fragmented primary evidence base, reviews that are of poor methodological reliability have the potential to misinform by not accurately reflecting the available evidence base. To assess the current value of evidence reviews for decision-making we appraised a systematic sample of articles published in early 2015 (N = 92) using the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Synthesis Assessment Tool (CEESAT). CEESAT assesses the methodology of policy-relevant evidence reviews according to elements important for objectivity, transparency and comprehensiveness. Overall, reviews performed poorly with a median score of 2.5/39 and a modal score of zero (range 0–30, mean 5.8), and low scores were ubiquitous across subject areas. In general, reviews that applied meta-analytical techniques achieved higher scores than narrative syntheses (median 18.3 and 2.0 respectively), as a result of the latter consistently failing to adequately report methodology or how conclusions were drawn. However, some narrative syntheses achieved high scores, illustrating that the reliability of reviews should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Given the potential importance of reviews for informing management and policy, as well as research, it is vital that overall methodological reliability is improved. Although the increasing number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses highlight that some progress is being made, our findings suggest little or no improvement in the last decade. To motivate progress, we recommend that an annual assessment of the methodological reliability of evidence reviews be conducted. To better serve the environmental policy and management communities we identify a requirement for independent critical appraisal of review methodology thus enabling decision-makers to select reviews that are most likely to accurately reflect the evidence base

Addressing Criticisms of Large-Scale Marine Protected Areas

Designated large-scale marine protected areas (LSMPAs, 100,000 or more square kilometers) constitute over two-thirds of the approximately 6.6% of the ocean and approximately 14.5% of the exclusive economic zones within marine protected areas. Although LSMPAs have received support among scientists and conservation bodies for wilderness protection, regional ecological connectivity, and improving resilience to climate change, there are also concerns. We identified 10 common criticisms of LSMPAs along three themes: (1) placement, governance, and management; (2) political expediency; and (3) social–ecological value and cost. Through critical evaluation of scientific evidence, we discuss the value, achievements, challenges, and potential of LSMPAs in these arenas. We conclude that although some criticisms are valid and need addressing, none pertain exclusively to LSMPAs, and many involve challenges ubiquitous in management. We argue that LSMPAs are an important component of a diversified management portfolio that tempers potential losses, hedges against uncertainty, and enhances the probability of achieving sustainably managed oceans

Evidence gaps and biodiversity threats facing the marine environment of the United Kingdom’s Overseas Territories

Understanding the evidence base and identifying threats to the marine environment is critical to ensure cost-effective management and to identify priorities for future research. The United Kingdom (UK) government is responsible for approximately 2% of the world’s oceans, most of which belongs to its 14 Overseas Territories (UKOTs). Containing biodiversity of global significance, and far in excess of the UK mainland’s domestic species, there has recently been a strong desire from many of the UKOTs, the UK Government, and NGOs to improve marine management in these places. Implementing evidence-based marine policy is, however, challenged by the disparate nature of scientific research in the UKOTs and knowledge gaps about the threats they face. Here, we address these issues by systematically searching for scientific literature which has examined UKOT marine biodiversity and by exploring publicly available spatial threat data. We find that UKOT marine biodiversity has received consistent, but largely low, levels of scientific interest, and there is considerable geographical and subject bias in research effort. Of particular concern is the lack of research focus on management or threats to biodiversity. The extent and intensity of threats vary amongst and within the UKOTs but unsurprisingly, climate change associated threats affect them all and direct human stressors are more prevalent in those with higher human populations. To meet global goals for effective conservation and management, there is an urgent need for additional and continued investment in research and management in the Overseas Territories, particularly those that have been of lesser focus

Marine and coastal ecosystems and climate change : dataset from a public awareness survey

The dataset is the result of an self-administered online survey on public perceptions about climate change, the value of marine and coastal ecosystems, human impacts on them and their management. The survey was released in four languages, English, French, Spanish and Italian ('survey' folder). Potential respondents were provided with a participant information form, also available in four languages ('participant information form' folder). The final dataset comprises a total of 709 respondents. The dataset contains mostly numerical coding, except text entries in 9 columns. Version 2 of this dataset presents all responses in English. The corresponding codebook provides the questions and coding information.In the scope of the MaCoBioS research project (funded under EU Horizon 2020 grant agreement No 869710), this survey aims to better understand public perceptions about how climate change may affect the sustainable management of marine and coastal resources. The results of this survey will inform our work on developing clear policy advice on how to manage resilient marine and coastal ecosystems.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio