Enhancing public awareness and promoting co-responsibility for marine litter in Europe: The challenge of MARLISCO

Marine litter is a pervasive and complex societal problem but has no simple solution. Inadequate practices at all levels of production–use–disposal contribute to accumulation of waste on land and at sea. Enhanced societal awareness but also co-responsibility across different sectors and improved interactions between stakeholders are necessary. MARLISCO was a European initiative, which developed and implemented activities across 15 countries. It worked towards raising societal awareness and engagement on marine litter, through a combination of approaches: public exhibitions in over 80 locations; a video competition involving 2100 students; and a legacy of educational and decision-supporting tools. 12 national participatory events designed to facilitate dialogue on solutions brought together 1500 stakeholders and revealed support for cross-cutting, preventive measures. Evaluation during implementation shows that these activities are effective in improving individuals' perceptions about the problem but also commitment in being part of the solution. This paper summarises MARLISCO's approach and highlights a selection of outcomes

Is an ecosystem services-based approach developed for setting specific protection goals for plant protection products applicable to other chemicals?

Clearly defined protection goals specifying what to protect, where and when, are required for designing scientifically sound risk assessments and effective risk management of chemicals. Environmental protection goals specified in EU legislation are defined in general terms, resulting in uncertainty in how to achieve them. In 2010, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published a framework to identify more specific protection goals based on ecosystem services potentially affected by plant protection products. But how applicable is this framework to chemicals with different emission scenarios and receptor ecosystems? Four case studies used to address this question were: (i) oil refinery waste water exposure in estuarine environments; (ii) oil dispersant exposure in aquatic environments; (iii) down the drain chemicals exposure in a wide range of ecosystems (terrestrial and aquatic); (iv) persistent organic pollutant exposure in remote (pristine) Arctic environments. A four-step process was followed to identify ecosystems and services potentially impacted by chemical emissions and to define specific protection goals. Case studies demonstrated that, in principle, the ecosystem services concept and the EFSA framework can be applied to derive specific protection goals for a broad range of chemical exposure scenarios. By identifying key habitats and ecosystem services of concern, the approach offers the potential for greater spatial and temporal resolution, together with increased environmental relevance, in chemical risk assessments. With modifications including improved clarity on terminology/definitions and further development/refinement of the key concepts, we believe the principles of the EFSA framework could provide a methodical approach to the identification and prioritization of ecosystems, ecosystem services and the service providing units that are most at risk from chemical exposure

Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability

Humanity is on a deeply unsustainable trajectory. We are exceeding planetary boundaries and unlikely to meet many international sustainable development goals and global environmental targets. Until recently, there was no broadly accepted framework of interventions that could ignite the transformations needed to achieve these desired targets and goals. As a component of the IPBES Global Assessment, we conducted an iterative expert deliberation process with an extensive review of scenarios and pathways to sustainability, including the broader literature on indirect drivers, social change and sustainability transformation. We asked, what are the most important elements of pathways to sustainability? Applying a social–ecological systems lens, we identified eight priority points for intervention (leverage points) and five overarching strategic actions and priority interventions (levers), which appear to be key to societal transformation. The eight leverage points are: (1) Visions of a good life, (2) Total consumption and waste, (3) Latent values of responsibility, (4) Inequalities, (5) Justice and inclusion in conservation, (6) Externalities from trade and other telecouplings, (7) Responsible technology, innovation and investment, and (8) Education and knowledge generation and sharing. The five intertwined levers can be applied across the eight leverage points and more broadly. These include: (A) Incentives and capacity building, (B) Coordination across sectors and jurisdictions, (C) Pre-emptive action, (D) Adaptive decision-making and (E) Environmental law and implementation. The levers and leverage points are all non-substitutable, and each enables others, likely leading to synergistic benefits. Transformative change towards sustainable pathways requires more than a simple scaling-up of sustainability initiatives—it entails addressing these levers and leverage points to change the fabric of legal, political, economic and other social systems. These levers and leverage points build upon those approved within the Global Assessment's Summary for Policymakers, with the aim of enabling leaders in government, business, civil society and academia to spark transformative changes towards a more just and sustainable world. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.Fil: Chan, Kai M. A.. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Boyd, David R.. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Gould, Rachelle. University of Vermont; Estados UnidosFil: Jetzkowitz, Jens. Staatliches Museum fur Naturkunde Stuttgart; AlemaniaFil: Liu, Jianguo. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Muraca, Bárbara. University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Naidoo, Robin. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Beck, Paige. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Satterfield, Terre. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Selomane, Odirilwe. Stellenbosch University; SudáfricaFil: Singh, Gerald G.. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Sumaila, Rashid. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Ngo, Hien T.. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; AlemaniaFil: Boedhihartono, Agni Klintuni. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Agard, John. The University Of The West Indies; Trinidad y TobagoFil: de Aguiar, Ana Paula D.. Stockholms Universitet; SueciaFil: Armenteras, Dolors. Universidad Nacional de Colombia; ColombiaFil: Balint, Lenke. BirdLife International; Reino UnidoFil: Barrington-Leigh, Christopher. Mcgill University; CanadáFil: Cheung, William W. L.. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Díaz, Sandra Myrna. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; ArgentinaFil: Driscoll, John. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Esler, Karen. Stellenbosch University; SudáfricaFil: Eyster, Harold. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Gregr, Edward J.. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Hashimoto, Shizuka. The University Of Tokyo; JapónFil: Hernández Pedraza, Gladys Cecilia. The World Economy Research Center; CubaFil: Hickler, Thomas. Goethe Universitat Frankfurt; AlemaniaFil: Kok, Marcel. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; Países BajosFil: Lazarova, Tanya. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; Países BajosFil: Mohamed, Assem A. A.. Central Laboratory for Agricultural Climate; EgiptoFil: Murray-Hudson, Mike. University Of Botswana; BotsuanaFil: O'Farrell, Patrick. University of Cape Town; SudáfricaFil: Palomo, Ignacio. Basque Centre for Climate Change; EspañaFil: Saysel, Ali Kerem. Boğaziçi University; TurquíaFil: Seppelt, Ralf. Martin-universität Halle-wittenberg; AlemaniaFil: Settele, Josef. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research-iDiv; AlemaniaFil: Strassburg, Bernardo. International Institute for Sustainability, Estrada Dona Castorina; BrasilFil: Xue, Dayuan. Minzu University Of China; ChinaFil: Brondízio, Eduardo S.. Indiana University; Estados Unido

Ecological Role of Submarine Canyons and Need for Canyon Conservation: A Review

Submarine canyons are major geomorphic features of continental margins around the world. Several recent multidisciplinary projects focused on the study of canyons have considerably increased our understanding of their ecological role, the goods, and services they provide to human populations, and the impacts that human activities have on their overall ecological condition. Pressures from human activities include fishing, dumping of land-based mine tailings, and oil and gas extraction. Moreover, hydrodynamic processes of canyons enhance the down-canyon transport of litter. The effects of climate change may modify the intensity of currents. This potential hydrographic change is predicted to impact the structure and functioning of canyon communities as well as affect nutrient supply to the deep-ocean ecosystem. This review not only identifies the ecological status of canyons, and current and future issues for canyon conservation, but also highlights the need for a better understanding of anthropogenic impacts on canyon ecosystems and proposes other research required to inform management measures to protect canyon ecosystemsVersión del edito

Challenges for Implementing an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management

The ecosystem approach is being promoted as the foundation of solutions to the unsustainability of fisheries. However, because the ecosystem approach is broadly inclusive, the science for its implementation is often considered to be overly complex and difficult. When the science needed for an ecosystem approach to fisheries is perceived this way, science products cannot keep pace with fisheries critics, thus encouraging partisan political interference in fisheries management and proliferation of “faith-based solutions. In this paper we argue that one way to effectively counter politicization of fisheries decision-making is to ensure that new ecosystem-based approaches in fisheries are viewed only as an emergent property of innovation in science and policy. We organize our essay using three major themes to focus the discussion: empirical, jurisdictional, and societal challenges. We undertake at least partial answers to the following questions: (1) has conventional fisheries management really failed?; (2) can short-comings in conventional fisheries management be augmented with new tools, such as allocation of rights?; (3) is the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF) equivalent to Ecosystem-Based Management?; and (4) is restoration of degraded ecosystems a necessary component of an EAF

Designing protected area networks that translate international conservation commitments into national action

Most countries have committed to protect 17% of their terrestrial area by 2020 through Aichi Target 11 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, with a focus on protecting areas of particular importance for biodiversity. This means national-scale spatial conservation prioritisations are needed to help meet this target and guide broader conservation and land-use policy development. However, to ensure these assessments are adopted by policy makers, they must also consider national priorities. This situation is exemplified by Guyana, a corner of Amazonia that couples high biodiversity with low economic development. In recent years activities that threaten biodiversity conservation have increased, and consequently, protected areas are evermore critical to achieving the Aichi targets. Here we undertake a cost-effective approach to protected area planning in Guyana that accounts for in-country conditions. To do this we conducted a stakeholder-led spatial conservation prioritisation based on meeting targets for 17 vegetation types and 329 vertebrate species, while minimising opportunity costs for forestry, mining, agriculture and urbanisation. Our analysis identifies 3 millio