Integrating climate adaptation and biodiversity conservation in the global ocean

The impacts of climate change and the socioecological challenges they present are ubiquitous and increasingly severe. Practical efforts to operationalize climate-responsive design and management in the global network of marine protected areas (MPAs) are required to ensure long-term effectiveness for safeguarding marine biodiversity and ecosystem services. Here, we review progress in integrating climate change adaptation into MPA design and management and provide eight recommendations to expedite this process. Climate-smart management objectives should become the default for all protected areas, and made into an explicit international policy target. Furthermore, incentives to use more dynamic management tools would increase the climate change responsiveness of the MPA network as a whole. Given ongoing negotiations on international conservation targets, now is the ideal time to proactively reform management of the global seascape for the dynamic climate-biodiversity reality

‘Destructive fishing’—A ubiquitously used but vague term? Usage and impacts across academic research, media and policy

Funder: Henslow Fellowship, Murray Edwards CollegeFunder: Woolf Fisher ScholarshipFunder: Arcadia Fund; Id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100012088Funder: Cambridge Conservation Initiative; Id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100014746Funder: Department of Zoology, University of CambridgeThe term ‘destructive fishing’ appears in multiple international policy instruments intended to improve outcomes for marine biodiversity, coastal communities and sustainable fisheries. However, the meaning of ‘destructive fishing’ is often vague, limiting effectiveness in policy. Therefore, in this study, we systematically reviewed the use of ‘destructive fishing’ in three record types: academic literature, media articles and policy documents between 1976 and 2020. A more detailed analysis was performed on subsets of these records, considering the extent to which the term is characterised, geographic distribution of use, and specific impacts and practices associated with the term. We found that use of ‘destructive fishing’ relative to the generic term ‘fisheries’ has increased since the 1990s. Records focussed predominantly on fishing practices in South-eastern Asia, followed by Southern Asia and Europe. The term was characterised in detail in only 15% of records. Habitat damage and blast/poison fishing were the most associated ecological impacts and gear/practices, respectively. Bottom trawling and unspecified net fishing were regularly linked to destructive fishing. Importantly, the three record types use the term differently. Academic literature tends to specifically articulate the negative impacts, while media articles focus generally on associated gears/practices. Significant regional variation also exists in how the term is used and what phenomena it is applied to. This study provides evidence and recommendations to inform stakeholders in any future pursuit of a unified definition of ‘destructive fishing’ to support more meaningful implementation of global sustainability goals.This project was funded by a grant from the Cambridge Conservation Initiative Collaborative Fund. D.F.W. was funded by the Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge and a Henslow Fellowship at Murray Edwards College. J.I.B. was supported by a Woolf Fisher Scholarship. D.S., J.W. and S.B. were funded by Arcadia - a charitable fund of Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin

One hundred priority questions for landscape restoration in Europe

We present the results of a process to attempt to identify 100 questions that, if answered, would make a substantial difference to terrestrial and marine landscape restoration in Europe. Representatives from a wide range of European governmental and non-governmental conservation organisations, universities, independent ecologists and land managers compiled 677 questions relating to all aspects of European landscape restoration for nature and people. The questions were shortlisted by an email vote, followed by a two-day workshop, to produce the final list of 100 questions. Many of the final questions evolved through a process of modification and combination as the workshop progressed. The questions are divided into eight sections: conservation of biodiversity; connectivity, migration and translocations; delivering and evaluating restoration; natural processes; ecosystem services; social and cultural aspects of restoration; policy and governance; and economics. We anticipate that these questions will help identify new directions for researchers and policy-makers and assist funders and programme managers in allocating funds and planning projects, resulting in improved understanding and implementation of landscape-scale ecological restoration in Europe