Climate change considerations are fundamental to management of deep‐sea resource extraction

Climate change manifestation in the ocean, through warming, oxygen loss, increasing acidification, and changing particulate organic carbon flux (one metric of altered food supply), is projected to affect most deep‐ocean ecosystems concomitantly with increasing direct human disturbance. Climate drivers will alter deep‐sea biodiversity and associated ecosystem services, and may interact with disturbance from resource extraction activities or even climate geoengineering. We suggest that to ensure the effective management of increasing use of the deep ocean (e.g., for bottom fishing, oil and gas extraction, and deep‐seabed mining), environmental management and developing regulations must consider climate change. Strategic planning, impact assessment and monitoring, spatial management, application of the precautionary approach, and full‐cost accounting of extraction activities should embrace climate consciousness. Coupled climate and biological modeling approaches applied in the water and on the seafloor can help accomplish this goal. For example, Earth‐System Model projections of climate‐change parameters at the seafloor reveal heterogeneity in projected climate hazard and time of emergence (beyond natural variability) in regions targeted for deep‐seabed mining. Models that combine climate‐induced changes in ocean circulation with particle tracking predict altered transport of early life stages (larvae) under climate change. Habitat suitability models can help assess the consequences of altered larval dispersal, predict climate refugia, and identify vulnerable regions for multiple species under climate change. Engaging the deep observing community can support the necessary data provisioning to mainstream climate into the development of environmental management plans. To illustrate this approach, we focus on deep‐seabed mining and the International Seabed Authority, whose mandates include regulation of all mineral‐related activities in international waters and protecting the marine environment from the harmful effects of mining. However, achieving deep‐ocean sustainability under the UN Sustainable Development Goals will require integration of climate consideration across all policy sectors.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2020 The Authors. Global Change Biology published by John Wiley & Sons Lt

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Science Collaboration for Capacity Building: Advancing Technology Transfer Through a Treaty for Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction

Copyright 2020 Harden-Davies and Snelgrove. Marine technology transfer and capacity building are key elements in the development of a historic new agreement for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ agreement) under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This vast, deep ocean area remains largely unexplored and poorly understood. Scientific knowledge gaps impede informed decision-making, and most countries lack the capacity to participate in ocean science activities in ABNJ or to benefit from discoveries of new ocean life, habitats, and processes. Consequently, science must play a central role in capacity building aspirations, however, the link between technology transfer and marine scientific research has yet to be examined in depth. Here, we examine the UNCLOS framework for marine technology transfer and highlight linkages with marine scientific research, identifying four capacity building themes: access to data, information and knowledge; equipment; training; and collaboration. We provide examples to illustrate current practices and identify gaps in implementation. We show that marine technology transfer and marine scientific research link in principle and in practice. We propose ways that the BBNJ agreement could strengthen the international framework for the transfer of marine technology in order to boost marine scientific research collaboration, fill knowledge gaps, and strengthen capacity through inclusive international participation

Practical policy solutions for the final stage of BBNJ treaty negotiations

2020 The Authors The oceans are facing a catastrophic decline in biodiversity. States are now in the final stage of negotiations for an implementing agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to fill governance gaps for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. This paper outlines the apparent areas of convergence and divergence between States on the 2019 draft treaty text. It outlines the contributions of the articles in this Special Issue Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Treaty: the Final Stage of Negotiations , which offer suggestions for breaking negotiation deadlocks and practical ideas for transformative governance change. As States prepare for the postponed fourth and final (planned) negotiating session, we hope that this Special Issue will offer a useful tool for decision-makers and other stakeholders by offering creative ideas for BBNJ governance and for reaching timely agreement on the BBNJ treaty text

Capacity building and technology transfer for improving governance of marine areas both beyond and within national jurisdiction

2020 Elsevier Ltd Capacity building and technology transfer (CBTT) are vital for the success of a new international legally-binding agreement for marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. Without effective CBTT, many developing countries are unlikely to be able to fulfill their obligations in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), including by undertaking area-based management, evaluating environmental impact assessments, and benefiting from the utilization of marine genetic resources - or to realize their rights. Meanwhile, several other international commitments require varying forms of CBTT at global, regional and national levels. This article analyses areas where synergies are possible for implementing CBTT, and those where additional, ABNJ-related capacities will need to be mainstreamed for holistic ocean management. We argue that CBTT is more meaningful, effective and resource-efficient if it corresponds to the ecological realities of an interconnected ocean by linking initiatives relating to ABNJ with those within national jurisdiction. We discuss why and how CBTT is also more useful on the national level if it maximizes synergies between international policies and agreements, and allows countries to concurrently participate in a BBNJ agreement and fulfill national priorities related to sustainable development, for example by enhancing livelihoods, eradicating hunger and poverty, and building capacity for science and innovation as part of national blue economies based on healthy ocean ecosystems. The Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development offers a timely opportunity to operationalize robust CBTT measures under the BBNJ agreement and maximize synergies with other international commitments - as part of broader efforts to achieve Agenda 2030

Rights of Nature: Perspectives for Global Ocean Stewardship

© 2020 The development of a new international legally binding instrument for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ agreement) is in the final negotiation phase. Legal recognition of rights of nature is emerging worldwide as a fresh imperative to preserve ecological integrity, safeguard human wellbeing, broaden participation in decision-making, and give a voice to nature – but so far exclusively within national jurisdiction. In this paper, we consider how a Rights of Nature perspective might inform the BBNJ agreement. We examine Rights of Nature laws and identify four characteristics relating to: i) rights; ii) connectivity; iii) reciprocity; and iv) representation and implementation. We argue that a Rights of Nature perspective can reinforce existing ocean governance norms, inspire new measures to enhance the effectiveness and equitability of the BBNJ agreement and enable global ocean stewardship in ABNJ

Eight urgent, fundamental and simultaneous steps needed to restore ocean health, and the consequences for humanity and the planet of inaction or delay

The ocean crisis is urgent and central to human wellbeing and life on Earth; past and current activities are damaging the planet\u27s main life support system for future generations. We are witnessing an increase in ocean heat, disturbance, acidification, bio-invasions and nutrients, and reducing oxygen levels. Several of these act like ratchets: once detrimental or negative changes have occurred, they may lock in place and may not be reversible, especially at gross ecological and ocean process scales. Each change may represent a loss to humanity of resources, ecosystem function, oxygen production and species. The longer we pursue unsuitable actions, the more we close the path to recovery and better ocean health and greater benefits for humanity in the future. We stand at a critical juncture and have identified eight priority issues that need to be addressed in unison to help avert a potential ecological disaster in the global ocean. They form a purposely ambitious agenda for global governance and are aimed at informing decision-makers at a high level. They should also be of interest to the general public. Of all the themes, the highest priority is to rigorously address global warming and limit surface temperature rise to 1.5°C by 2100, as warming is the pre-eminent factor driving change in the ocean. The other themes are establishing a robust and comprehensive High Seas Treaty, enforcing existing standards for Marine Protected Areas and expanding their coverage, especially in terms of high levels of protection, adopting a precautionary pause on deep-sea mining, ending overfishing and destructive fishing practices, radically reducing marine pollution, putting in place a financing mechanism for ocean management and protection, and lastly, scaling up science/data gathering and facilitating data sharing. By implementing all eight measures in unison, as a coordinated strategy, we can build resilience to climate change, help sustain fisheries productivity, particularly for low-income countries dependent on fisheries, protect coasts (e.g. via soft-engineering/habitat-based approaches), promote mitigation (e.g. carbon storage) and enable improved adaptation to rapid global change