An official website of the United States government
Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
International Section
- Office of General Counsel home
- About the NOAA General Counsel
- Organization
- GC Career Opportunities with NOAA
- International Section home
- About the General Counsel International Section
- Antarctic Issues
- Arctic issues
- Biological Diversity and Related Issues
- Carbon Capture and Storage in Sub-Seabed Geological Formations
- Vandalism/Negligent Destruction of Ocean and Coastal Observing Systems
- Geoengineering as a Response to Climate Change The London Convention and London Protocol
- Heritage: Natural and Cultural Resources
- International Maritime Organization (IMO) Area Based Management Tools (ABMTs)
- Jurisdiction Over Vessels
- Marine Debris
- Marine Mammals
- Marine Pollution
- Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)
Marine Scientific Research
- NOAA Legal History
- Ocean Acidification
- Seabed Activities
- Seaward Limit of Laws
- Submarine Cables
- Survey and Charting
- Treaty Interpretation
- Marine Mammals: Underwater Noise
- Maritime Zones and Boundaries
- Law of the Sea Convention
- Precautionary Approach
- R.M.S Titanic
- Authorities and Mandates
- Law Student Internships/Externships & Law Graduate Internships
Under international law, all States have the right to conduct marine scientific research subject to the rights and duties of other States (see Law of the Sea Convention, in particular, Part XIII (Arts. 238-264) offsite link ). All States are also required to promote and facilitate the development and conduct of marine scientific research. Under international law, coastal States also have the right to regulate and authorize marine scientific research in their territorial sea , their exclusive economic zone , and on their continental shelf .
“Marine scientific research” is the general term most often used to describe those activities undertaken in ocean and coastal waters to expand scientific knowledge of the marine environment and its processes. Marine scientific research may include physical oceanography, marine chemistry, marine biology, fisheries research, scientific ocean drilling and coring, geological and geophysical research, and other activities with a scientific purpose. Marine scientific research underpins the science-based mission of NOAA. See NOAA Research and Development Vision Areas: 2020-2026 . It is the policy of the United States to develop, encourage, and maintain a coordinated, comprehensive, and long-range national program in marine science for the benefit of humanity to assist in the protection of health and property, enhancement of commerce, transportation, and national security, rehabilitation of our commercial fisheries, and increased utilization of these and other resources. 33 U.S.C. § 1101 offsite link .
NOAA works with the U.S. Department of State to develop and implement U.S. marine scientific research policy consistent with domestic and international law. NOAA also conducts marine scientific research within maritime zones subject to U.S. jurisdiction and beyond. Before conducting marine scientific research within foreign EEZs or territorial seas or on foreign continental shelves, NOAA seeks the advance consent of the relevant foreign coastal State, if required by that State and consistent with international law.
The United States requires advance consent for all marine scientific research conducted by foreign researchers in the U.S. territorial sea, U.S. EEZ, and on the U.S. continental shelf, consistent with international law. Revision to United States Marine Scientific Research Policy, Proclamation No. 10071 , 85 Fed. Reg. 59165 (September 18, 2020) . Advance consent is required regardless of the platform used to support or conduct the marine scientific research, e.g., vessel, remotely operated vehicle, autonomous craft, or other installation or equipment. NOAA works with the U.S. Department of State to review proposals by foreign researchers to conduct marine scientific research in maritime zones subject to U.S. jurisdiction to ensure compliance with the requirements of the laws NOAA administers. These laws include the Marine Mammal Protection Act , the Endangered Species Act , the National Marine Sanctuaries Act , the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act , and the Antiquities Act of 1906 (Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument) and MSR) .
NOAA seeks to leverage and benefit from foreign scientists’ marine scientific research conducted in the maritime zones subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Thus every State Department letter consenting to such research requires submission to NOAA’s National Center for Environmental Information of a copy of all data collected during the research project and the research project’s final report. NOAA scientists are also obligated to provide, when requested by a foreign coastal State, reports and access to data and samples derived from NOAA MSR activities undertaken in a foreign coastal State’s territorial sea or EEZ or on its continental shelf.
Additional reference information:
Law of the Sea Convention, Part XIII (Articles 238-264) offsite link
U.N. Division of Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea, “Marine Scientific Research: A Revised Guide to the Implementation of the Relevant Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea” offsite link (2010)
Presidential Proclamation on Revision to United States Marine Scientific Research Policy (September 15, 2020)
U.S. State Department, Marine Scientific Research
NOAA Legal Authorities to Engage in Scientific Research
How Laws Administered by NOAA Apply to Marine Scientific Research :
Marine Mammal Protection Act and MSR
Endangered Species Act and MSR
National Marine Sanctuaries Act and MSR
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and MSR
Antiquities Act (Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument) and MSR
NOAA, Marine Scientific Research Data (oceanographic, meteorological, and marine geophysical data submitted to NOAA by foreign scientists authorized to conduct MSR in waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction)
Updated March 3, 2022
WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR?
Popular tags, regulation news, argentina to champion isa draft marine scientific research action plan in support of the un decade of ocean science.
The objectives of the UN Decade are at the core of ISA’s mandate to promote and encourage the conduct of marine scientific research in the international seabed area, disseminate the results, and facilitate participation of developing States in deep-sea exploration and research programs.
The Draft MSR Action Plan of ISA identifies six research priorities and a list of priority outputs that will, once achieved, materialize the contribution of ISA to the implementation of the UN Decade.
Secretary-General of ISA Mr. Michael W. Lodge welcomed Argentina’s contribution to act as Champion of marine scientific research in the Area with a view to mobilizing efforts for the achievement of the UN Decade.
“As Champion of the ISA MSR Action Plan, Argentina will work together with ISA in the spirit of cooperation to promote the shared goals of the UN Decade, to universally foster actions to advance ocean science for the benefit of humankind,” he said.
Argentina is currently also chairing the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO of UNESCO (IOC), under the leadership of Mr. Ariel Troisi, who was elected in July 2019.
The Draft MSR Action Plan will be presented to the ISA Assembly for consideration at its 26th Session in December 2020.
To download the Draft MSR Action Plan visit: https://bit.ly/2HSRjr1
For more information on the UN Decade see the official website: https://www.oceandecade.org/
All views and opinions expressed on this website are those of the credited authors and contributors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy, position or opinion of any other agency, entity, organization or employee, affiliated or not. OceanMiningIntel.com is not responsible for the misuse or reuse of any of the content presented.
- Privacy Policy
Science News by AGU
Strategies for Conducting 21st Century Oceanographic Research
Share this:.
- Click to print (Opens in new window)
- Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
Over the past few years, challenging logistics and the intricacies of obtaining marine science research authorizations have complicated executing oceanographic cruises. Coordinating scientific research teams from many disciplines and nations with available research vessel facilities and crews involves significant investments of time and resources. These factors, along with the increasing complexity of interacting with various government entities around the world, have revealed the need for a renewed effort by scientists and operators within the U.S. Academic Research Fleet (ARF) to work together to ensure that federally funded field research is well coordinated and successful.
The current global geopolitical environment has created both opportunities and challenges to conducting oceanographic research in foreign waters.
Marine science research builds core knowledge about coastal and deep-ocean processes. But more than that, this work has far-reaching implications for societal impacts associated with ocean and climate phenomena, and it provides science-based assessments of complex Earth-ocean processes and hazards that can inform national and international policy development.
To be successful and productive, oceanographic field studies require excellent coordination between scientists, ship and facility operators, and funding agency representatives. Oceanographic data collection is expensive: In most cases, public funds support science and operations. Safe, efficient, and cost-effective field data acquisition is essential. It is also a reality that the current global geopolitical environment has created both opportunities and challenges to conducting oceanographic research in foreign waters.
A diverse group of oceanographic scientists, University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System ( UNOLS ) ship operators, and federal agency program managers convened a UNOLS working group to review a range of topics concerning planning and execution of U.S. oceanographic field research. The primary focus of the deliberations involved work in international waters , where ships enter and return to foreign ports, as well as work involving field studies within the exclusive economic zones of foreign nations and the requisite planning, logistics, and permitting involved with those efforts (Figure 1).
The committee polled many ARF operators involved with supporting field work in foreign and international waters throughout the world’s oceans to better understand their protocols, and they discussed best practices and communications methods that each operating institution employed in their work to support scientists using their ships and facilities.
Below are some recommendations that were developed to help guide scientists, agency program managers, and academic vessel operators in their varied collaborative functions as they carry out productive oceanographic research in the 21st century. The subcommittee produced a final white paper and appendix that can be accessed online, and these provide more detailed, specific information on some of the key topics the committee discussed.
An Extensive Enterprise
Each year, U.S. federal agencies spend hundreds of millions of dollars funding basic research in Earth and ocean sciences. The National Science Foundation (NSF) alone supports approximately 24% of all federally funded research conducted at U.S. academic institutions. In the United States, the NSF funded an average of more than 140 research cruises a year between 2016 and 2018, with principal investigators and science participants from nearly every state and territory.
UNOLS serves to coordinate academic oceanographic research in the United States through participation by 59 member institutions that provide access to the oceans through various means, along with the 18 ships in the ARF. Oceanographic research often requires coordinated ship and vehicle facilities; recent additions include moored and cabled arrays that provide 24/7 monitoring at seafloor laboratory sites. At these sites, sophisticated technologies enable field data acquisition and analysis of large volumes of spatially and temporally correlated data.
Planning Strategically
We identified a need for all academic research vessel operators to compare their approaches to cruise planning and to aim at a more consistent ARF-wide consensus regarding the timing and communication protocols for that planning effort. Revised protocols should allow ship operators to better coordinate with the diverse community of scientists that use ships and the myriad details involved in conducting oceanographic field work in foreign waters, as well as in U.S. coastal regions where smaller ARF vessels operate. For instance, academic vessel operators should strive to have a single point of contact within their organizations to ensure that communications and action items with scientists are clearly established and successfully resolved.
Vessel operators and scientists must develop new communication strategies to accomplish the many details required for oceanographic field research to be successful and cost-effective.
By the same measure, scientists need to be directly involved in the details of cruise planning and logistics with ship operators, especially when working within exclusive economic zones of foreign nations and when shipping scientific equipment into or out of foreign ports. On a case-by-case basis, judiciously applied proactive strategies may include expedition-style shipping that anticipates the needs of multiple consecutive cruises and safekeeping of critical equipment on board to avoid holdups in problematic ports. These strategies require careful advance coordination among multiple principal investigators and the operating institution.
Vessel operators and scientists must develop new communication strategies to accomplish the many details required for oceanographic field research to be successful and cost-effective. Normal facility costs involved in executing seagoing science programs (e.g., port costs, crane charges to load or unload equipment, and clearance fees related to embarking and disembarking science personnel) are now generally consistent throughout the ARF. This consistency is one very positive outcome that the committee recommendations presented in the UNOLS white paper. That said, it is important that the principal investigator and operator discuss all port call operations to clearly understand responsibilities, logistics, and projected costs.
Lining Up the Permits
Scientific principal investigators and chief scientists have the responsibility to familiarize themselves with the requirements of obtaining necessary visas and permits to conduct research and collect samples within foreign exclusive economic zones. Comprehensive information available from the U.S. State Department can facilitate finding current permit information for research in foreign countries (see URLs listed in the white paper and appendix ). Proactive visa and permit applications are critical, as many countries have tightened their requirements.
Ultimately, it is the scientists’ responsibility to identify all types of permitting required and the types of visas that shipboard scientists must have to accomplish the stated research goals. Scientists should investigate these requirements in the proposal writing phase. They should include this information in the proposal project description so that reviewers, panel members, and program officers can properly assess the likelihood of success in gaining the necessary authorizations to conduct the proposed field research.
Transporting Equipment
Shipping science equipment to and from foreign ports is critical for conducting successful research cruises throughout the global ocean. Engaging with reputable U.S. freight forwarders and foreign corresponding agents is essential to ensure proper handling of the equipment and to identify the required customs and freight forwarding documentation. For all cruise-related shipments, science principal investigators and chief scientists should ensure that they have followed well-established protocols and that different science groups using the vessel for a cruise have coordinated their shipments with the ship’s operator.
Operators and scientists should share information on complex shipping logistics that pertain to specific countries.
Scientists planning a research cruise can gain valuable information by talking to operators and principal investigators who have previously obtained permits and marine science research authorizations for a particular country and mobilized from specific foreign ports. For this reason, it is important for scientists to widely disseminate knowledge about handling cruise logistics and shipments. Operators and scientists should also share information on complex shipping logistics that pertain to specific countries.
UNOLS is in the process of revising its postcruise assessment report (PCAR) to include sharing of this type of information and the recent experiences of principal investigators shipping to or from foreign ports. For example, cargo storage costs are minor compared to the cost of a late ship departure due to unforeseen shipment delays. To avoid delays, it is crucial to plan equipment shipments to arrive in foreign ports well before the scheduled ship arrival. Commerce liaisons at many U.S. embassies commonly maintain lists of reputable freight forwarders and shipping agents with local experience and will share this information with science parties and ARF operators upon request.
Working Together to Ensure Success
Collaboration continues to be a hallmark of U.S. oceanographic research. Successful collaborations include a robust proposal submission and review process, coordinated funding of highly capable vessels and facilities required to conduct science at sea, and the UNOLS consortium of ARF vessel operators to coordinate schedules and improve oceanographic capabilities at all levels for future researchers.
Scientists and vessel operators are key stakeholders in conducting oceanographic research, but ultimately, global citizens benefit from new knowledge of ocean and Earth processes. Thus, developing and improving new approaches to coordinate and streamline planning and execution of 21st century oceanographic research will benefit everyone.
Author Information
Alice Doyle, University-National Oceanographic Laboratories System, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett; Daniel J. Fornari ( [email protected] ), Department of Geology and Geophysics, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Mass.; Elizabeth Brenner, Ship Operations and Marine Technical Support, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, Calif.; and Andreas P. Teske, Department of Marine Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Doyle, A., D. J. Fornari, E. Brenner, and A. P. Teske (2019), Strategies for conducting 21st century oceanographic research, Eos, 100 , https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EO115729 . Published on 26 February 2019.
Text © 2019. The authors. CC BY 3.0 Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.
Features from AGU Publications
Tiny satellites can provide significant information about space, a powerful new model for u.s. climate–air quality interactions, reflecting on 5 years at the helm of jgr: planets.
404 Not found
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
27k Accesses
31 Citations
662 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
Well-being outcomes of marine protected areas
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
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
This article is cited by
Meta-analysis indicates better climate adaptation and mitigation performance of hybrid engineering-natural coastal defence measures.
- Lam Thi Mai Huynh
- Alexandros Gasparatos
Nature Communications (2024)
- J. B. Haugen
- A. L. Agnalt
npj Ocean Sustainability (2024)
Multiple ocean threats
Nature Ecology & Evolution (2023)
Late Cenozoic cooling restructured global marine plankton communities
- Adam Woodhouse
- Anshuman Swain
- Christopher M. Lowery
Nature (2023)
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.
- Reference Manager
- Simple TEXT file
People also looked at
Opinion article, the global pandemic has shown we need an action plan for the ocean.
- 1 British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), Cambridge, United Kingdom
- 2 Centre for Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom
- 3 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Oceans and Atmosphere, Hobart, TAS, Australia
- 4 Centre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia
- 5 Centre for Marine and Environmental Research (CIMA), Gambelas Campus, University of Faro, Faro, Portugal
- 6 Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research (ZMT), Bremen, Germany
- 7 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), Copenhagen, Denmark
- 8 National Institute for Aquatic Resources, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark
- 9 Institute of Marine Science, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, United States
- 10 Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic is the first serious test of how science can inform decision-making in the face of an immediate global threat, yielding important lessons on how science, society and policy interact. The global societal and economic impact of COVID-19 has shown that we need to assess, plan and prepare for potential future changes. These insights are particularly important for the ocean science community because of the global connectivity of the ocean and its crucial role in the Earth's climate system and in supporting all life on Earth. With climate change already impacting society and ecosystems, implementing mitigation measures to avoid and reduce emissions of greenhouses gases is an immediate priority ( IPCC, 2021 ). Irreversible changes are already underway in the oceans and their impacts over the coming decades will continue to affect human communities, requiring societal responses and adaptation across multiple scales ( IPCC, 2019 , 2021 ).
The importance of the ocean in the Earth's climate system, influencing weather patterns and affecting sea level, is now recognized by governments and increasingly so by the public. Less well-appreciated is the central role of the ocean in maintaining ecosystems and biodiversity and in supporting human systems. Approximately 680 million people live in low-lying coastal zones, and ocean and coastal economies support millions of people globally ( Ebarvia, 2016 ; IPCC, 2019 ). The global economy associated with our coasts and ocean (the “Blue Economy”) is estimated to have an asset base of over US$24 trillion (24 ×10 12 ) and generates at least US$2.5 trillion each year from the combination of fishing and aquaculture, shipping, tourism, and other activities ( OECD, 2016 ). Nevertheless, marine systems across the planet are being altered because of climate change and human activity with impacts at local to global scales (e.g., Allison and Bassett, 2015 ; He and Silliman, 2019 ; IPCC, 2019 ; UN, 2021 ). These changes are unprecedented, threatening the capacity of the ocean to maintain crucial services to the planet and human communities (ecosystem services), including those that provide (e.g., food, water, and economic security), regulate (e.g., climate), support (e.g., nutrient cycling) and are cultural in their nature (e.g., traditional or recreational use) ( IPCC, 2019 ; Sala et al., 2021 ) and so are increasing the potential for societal conflict.
The challenge is urgent. There is an immediate requirement to go beyond calls for action to deal with aspects of the impacts of climate change and human activities on the ocean ( IPCC, 2019 ; UNESCO-IOC, 2021 ). An Action Plan for the Ocean is needed that develops a comprehensive global understanding of and plan for dealing with multiple ocean risks, that is flexible and adaptive as knowledge expands and new threats arise. The urgency of the challenge requires an internationally coordinated effort that draws on existing global research capacity and networks; a key opportunity presented by the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development 2021-2030 ( UNESCO-IOC, 2021 ) that must not be missed if we are to minimize change in ocean systems and impacts on the services they provide to society.
The Importance of Assessing Risk to Manage Responses to Ocean Change
An awareness of risk is necessary to prepare responses to an uncertain future. The COVID-19 pandemic provides a timely insight into what can happen if there is not full awareness of risk, or if available information on risk is not acted upon and appropriate planning put in place. Over almost two decades, national and international risk assessment activities have made it clear that the likelihood of a global pandemic occurring and causing massive international, social and economic disruption was very high (e.g., Ross et al., 2015 ; WHO, 2017 ). Yet, when the COVID-19 pandemic surged across the world, the response was (and continues to be) variable ( Dewi et al., 2020 ), being slow, poorly coordinated or even conflicting at both national and international levels in many regions. As the pandemic continues, insights into what went wrong, what went right and what should happen next are beginning to emerge ( Dewi et al., 2020 ; Weible et al., 2020 ). These insights are relevant to the ocean science community because the impacts of major changes in the state of the ocean will likely far exceed the global social and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The financial cost of the COVID-19 pandemic is uncertain, with early projections suggesting trillions to 10 s of trillions of US dollars over 5 years ( WEF, 2020 ). Losses associated with climate change impacts on the ocean are likely to be at least of similar magnitude and will continue to develop for decades. Without mitigation and adaptation measures, sea level rise scenarios project annual losses of 0.3–9.3% of global GDP by 2100 ( IPCC, 2019 ; equivalent to ~US$0.25 to US$7.88 trillion per year based on 2020 GDP, World Bank, 2021 ), while losses from declines in ocean health and services by 2050 are projected to be US$428 billion per year, and by 2100 US$1.979 trillion per year. Under high emission scenarios, global fisheries revenue is projected to decline by over 10% over the next three decades, resulting in an annual reduction of between US$6 and US$15 billion ( Lam et al., 2016 ). However, the recent IPCC (2019 ) report on the state of the ocean demonstrates the general lack of knowledge of the cost of many of the potential impacts at different scales.
The risks to societies and economies arising from natural or human-driven changes in the ocean have similarly been recognized by the scientific community and highlighted to governments and the public numerous times (e.g., IPCC, 2019 , 2021 ; UN, 2021 ). Although general societal awareness of these risks is increasing (e.g., ORRAA, 2021 ), there is a need to ensure that the risks to the ocean, and associated human well-being, are fully understood and lead to appropriate planning and action to reduce or manage those risks. To support this, decision-makers need the relevant information and tools to make the necessary decisions at the appropriate time ( Evans et al., 2019 ).
Building the information systems and tools for facilitating understanding and timely and appropriate decision making requires a coordinated transdisciplinary global effort linking natural, social and economic sciences ( Rosa et al., 2017 ; Laffoley et al., 2020 ; Norstrom et al., 2020 ; Pendleton et al., 2020 ; UNESCO-IOC, 2021 ). Over the last decade, a number of programmes and projects have driven international efforts to develop the integration of human systems in global ocean ecosystem science, including the Integrated Marine Biosphere Research (IMBeR) project ( Hofmann et al., 2015 ) to which the authors contribute.
We call on the ocean science community to unite to develop an Action Plan for the Ocean that underpins sustainable development and ensures that adaptive responses to global, regional and local risks are agile, well-coordinated, effective and equitable. We suggest that this is the grand challenge for ocean science for the 21st century. To help meet this challenge, the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development 2021-2030 ( UNESCO-IOC, 2021 ) provides an opportunity to build global support systems for informing decision making on the critical time scales of the coming years and decades.
AN Action Plan for the Ocean
We propose a three-component process to develop an Action Plan for the Ocean ( Figure 1 ): (1) assess and rank risks, (2) identify options for action, and (3) develop action plans for adaptation at local, regional and global scales to respond to future change. This process needs to be continuously updated as new information becomes available and understanding improves.
Figure 1 . Schematic illustrating the main elements of an Action Plan for the Ocean .
1. Assess and Rank Risks
The second World Ocean Assessment ( UN, 2021 ) provides the most up-to-date and comprehensive view of the state of the ocean, including human uses and benefits, and identifies declines in the services the ocean provides to society. In addition, there are numerous specialized and focused assessments of aspects of the ocean system and risks associated with change (e.g., Laffoley and Baxter, 2018 ; IPBES, 2019 ; IPCC, 2019 , 2021 ; Singh et al., 2021 ). The challenge now is to develop an understanding of the relative importance of different potential risks to the ocean. This requires consideration of which risks are most likely, which could have the greatest impacts, across what time scales these might occur and which components of the ocean and society would be most severely affected (e.g., Mace et al., 2015 ; Holsman et al., 2017 ; Weaver et al., 2017 ; Laffoley et al., 2020 ; Singh et al., 2020 ). To develop this component of the action plan, a coherent framework for quantifying risk across scales is required. This can draw on knowledge and experience in the development and implementation of risk-based approaches within the context of conservation and sustainable development (e.g., Smith et al., 2007 ; Hallegatte and Rentschler, 2015 ; Holsman et al., 2017 ). Developing a risk-assessment framework as part of the action plan also requires that the language used, and the approaches and methods applied, are both widely understood and appropriate. Improving literacy in society of definitions of risk and the likelihood and scale of resulting impacts is crucial. Developing the framework will also necessitate improved understanding of what particular risks to the ocean mean for society and its diverse members, who have different perspectives and value systems, in order to prioritize risks in a range of contexts ( Laffoley and Baxter, 2018 ; Pendleton et al., 2020 ; Singh et al., 2021 ).
2. Identify Options for Action
Based on a comprehensive assessment and ranking of risks (Step 1), options for action should be developed in an inclusive approach, to generate science-based, viable and deployable strategies for responding to current and potential future risks. These options for action should consider what happens if/when a particular event or set of events occurs using different approaches, and what might be appropriate pre-emptive actions and responses ( IPCC, 2019 ; Laffoley et al., 2020 ). This requires an understanding of both the multiple direct effects of change, as well as a wider exploration of potential knock-on effects, interactions and consequences. It will also require analyses of alternative strategies and solutions, including for example, ecosystem-based/nature-based solutions that consider biodiversity and ecosystem-based management activities ( IPBES, 2019 ; IPCC, 2019 ). Some risks may develop gradually, providing time to adapt and therefore allow for the implementation of actions in a stepwise manner. Other risks may occur rapidly, through shock events, an increasing frequency of extreme events or change occurring at thresholds or at tipping points ( IPCC, 2019 ; Heinze et al., 2021 ), requiring immediate mitigation and adaptation actions. Developing such options for action extends the concept of scenario development beyond that used for exploring changes to climate and the ocean or biodiversity (e.g., IPBES, 2019 ; IPCC, 2019 , 2021 ). It is crucial that in developing options for action, all interests and perspectives are represented. This must include indigenous and local communities, who are often most directly exposed to multiple risks associated with ocean change, and who also have valuable long-term knowledge and perspectives that can inform the development of options ( Allison and Bassett, 2015 ; Singh et al., 2021 ). Development of options for action will also require enhanced routes for collaboration and communication between decision-makers and science advisory bodies and the development of new approaches to the leadership of societal responses to change and rapidly occurring events or hazards based on an understanding of risk ( Few et al., 2020 ).
3. Define Action Plans
Based on the ranked assessment of risk (Step 1) and identification of potential actions (Step 2), action implementation plans will need to be developed. These would outline that for a given scenario X, action plan Y including actions A, B, and C will need to be implemented and supported via enhanced knowledge of specific processes D, E and F. To be effective, agreement on reducing risks, and mitigating and enacting pre-emptive actions will be a priority. The ocean-science community in its widest and inclusive sense is well-placed to provide tools for exploring the implementation of actions to support such a planning process. The marine science community has already developed such decision-based and adaptive approaches in some aspects of conservation and management. For example, harvest control rules used in fisheries provide a series of agreed guidelines that determine appropriate catch levels or management actions within a fishery based on agreed indicators. Nested action plans should be developed inclusively at local, regional and global scales ( Rosa et al., 2017 ; Singh et al., 2021 ). They should also be coordinated so that best practices and resources required for effecting and implementing plans are shared and consistent across scales and agreed responses are developed and evaluated before they are needed. The step-based and cyclical structure for the development of the Action Plan for the Ocean will allow for continuous updating as new insights are gained and risks reassessed, similar to that already in place within other processes that regularly assess ocean environments (e.g., IPCC, the World Ocean Assessment and IPBES).
Coordination for Action
The World Health Organization (WHO) was able to monitor and communicate the development of COVID-19 so that universal information and warnings were provided for developing responses in a rapidly changing environment. Currently there are multiple international and national bodies and independent organizations generating assessments of the state of the ocean and the likely impacts of future change. Governance and management in the world's ocean ecosystems are based on national activities and international agreements that vary in scope and scale and in which there are many gaps and conflicting aims (see examples, IPBES, 2019 ; IPCC, 2019 ; UN, 2021 ). This collectively results in varying effectiveness and resourcing of activities across the globe and often results in competition for resources between initiatives.
A key lesson from the COVID-19 pandemic is that a patchwork of ad-hoc activities will not provide the scientific or advisory basis required for developing and implementing appropriate response to the changes expected and their impacts on natural and human systems. Without a coherent approach to the development of plans for action, marine crises will mirror the worst aspects of the response to the pandemic: uncertain, ineffective and delayed. The COVID-19 pandemic is a wake-up call for the ocean science community.
The urgency of the challenge is clear. Already sea level, ocean temperature and acidification of the ocean are increasing, and changes to ocean ecosystems are occurring ( IPCC, 2019 ; UN, 2021 ). Over the near future ocean stratification will strengthen, sea ice will reduce, oxygen will decline, and the frequency of extreme events will increase, with projected declines in net primary productivity, global biomass of marine animal communities and fisheries catch potential, with the poorest nations experiencing the greatest projected losses (e.g., Lam et al., 2016 ; Lotze et al., 2017 ; IPCC, 2019 ; Boyce et al., 2020 ). Many of these changes are irreversible even with the most ambitious implementation of mitigation measures—adaptation will therefore be crucial. Systematically improving understanding of the risks, including estimates of the potential costs of future change in the ocean through multiple processes ( Narita et al., 2020 ), will be essential in communicating the importance of developing and implementing an action plan.
For more than two decades there have been strongly justified claims that action is required, but without a coherent global plan such calls will continue to waste resources and time in a fragmented effort. COVID-19 has highlighted to the public and governments the importance of understanding risks and the need to prepare at national and international levels and has demonstrated the crucial role science can play as part of that process. The Action Plan for the Ocean we propose requires coordinated international development and generation of new approaches to assessing risk and the pre-emptive provision of adaptation options for decision makers to respond to future change. New organizational structures are not required, instead effort is needed to bring together existing initiatives and bodies with free and open sharing of datasets, information, and assessment, in a trusted format. This will require engagement with a wide range of ocean science and societal stakeholders in the development, planning, support and implementation of the action plan and to ensure it becomes an embedded long-term process in ocean science and management. IMBeR aims to develop the approach and will scope opportunities to elaborate the concept and present plans at a range of forthcoming international scientific and ocean-policy meetings. The UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development can provide a platform for the coordination required, acknowledging and drawing on the strengths and resources of existing research networks and communities that in some cases have taken decades to develop and evolve. Such a coordinated effort can be nimble to new challenges and operate with the willing parties as soon as possible. Without such a response, the multiple effects of ocean change will make the disparate response to the COVID-19 pandemic look relatively successful.
Author Contributions
EM led the development of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the ideas and the text and approved the submitted version.
This work was supported through the Integrated Marine Biosphere Research Project (IMBeR) which was supported by the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR) and Future Earth. This publication resulted in part from support from the U.S. National Science Foundation (Grant OCE-1840868) to the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR). EM and publication were also supported through the Ecosystems Programme of the British Antarctic Survey, NERC.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Acknowledgments
The manuscript developed through the IMBeR – Integrated Marine Biosphere Research Project. The authors acknowledge all the current and past members of the IMBeR Scientific Steering Committee and the wider IMBeR community, the activities of which inspired this article. We also acknowledge the United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development 2021-2030 for its leadership and call to action which has galvanized our thinking and that of the community. We thank the reviewers and editor for their comments on the paper.
Allison, E. H., and Bassett, H. R. (2015). Climate change in the oceans: human impacts and responses. Science 350, 778–782. doi: 10.1126/science.aac8721
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Boyce, D. G., Lotze, H. K., Tittensor, D. P., Carozza, D. A., and Worm, B. (2020). Future ocean biomass losses may widen socioeconomic equity gaps. Nat. Commun . 11:2235. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-15708-9
Dewi, A., Nurmandi, A., Rochmawati, E., Purnomo, E. P., Dimas Rizqi, M., Azzahra, A., et al. (2020). Global policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic: proportionate adaptation and policy experimentation: a study of country policy response variation to the COVID-19 pandemic. Health Prom. Perspect . 10, 359–365. doi: 10.34172/hpp.2020.54
Ebarvia, M. (2016). Economic assessment of oceans for sustainable blue economy development. J. Ocean. Coasta Econ . 2, 1–29. doi: 10.15351/2373-8456.1051
Evans, K., Chiba, S., Bebianno, M. J., Garcia-Soto, C., Ojaveer, H., Park, C., et al. (2019). The global integrated world ocean assessment: linking observations to science and policy across multiple scales. Front. Mar. Sci. 6:298. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2019.00298
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Few, R., Chhotray, V., Tebboth, M., Forster, J., White, C., Armijos, T., et al. (2020). “COVID-19 Crisis: Lessons for Recovery. What Can We Learn From Existing Research on the Long-Term Aspects of Disaster Risk and Recovery?” London: The British Academy. doi: 10.5871/bac19stf/9780856726491.001
Hallegatte, S., and Rentschler, J. (2015). Risk management for development-assessing obstacles and prioritizing Action. Risk Anal . 35, 193–210. doi: 10.1111/risa.12269
He, Q., and Silliman, B. R. (2019). Climate change, human impacts and coastal ecosystems in the Anthropocene. Curr. Biol . 29, R1021–R1035. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2019.08.042
Heinze, C., Blenckner, T., Martins, H., Rusiecka, D., Doscher, R., Gehlen, M., et al. (2021). The quiet crossing of ocean tipping points. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci . U. S. A. 118:e2008478118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2008478118
Hofmann, E., Bundy, A., Drinkwater, K., Piola, A. R., Avril, B., Robinson, C., et al. (2015). IMBER – Research for marine sustainability: synthesis and the way forward. Anthropocene 12, 42–53. doi: 10.1016/j.ancene.2015.12.002
Holsman, K., Samhouri, J., Cook, G., Hazen, E., Olsen, E., Dillard, M., et al. (2017). An ecosystem-based approach to marine risk assessment. Ecos. Health Sustain . 3:e01256. doi: 10.1002/ehs2.1256
IPBES. (2019). “Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services,” in The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) , eds E. S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, and H. T. Ngo (Bonn: IPBES secretariat), 56pp. Available online at: https://ipbes.net/global-assessment (accessed November 23, 2021).
Google Scholar
IPCC. (2019). “Special report on the ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate,” eds H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, et al. (Geneva: IPCC). Available online at: https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/ (accessed November 23, 2021).
IPCC. (2021). “Summary for policymakers,” in: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , eds V., P. Masson-Delmotte, A. Zhai, S. L. Pirani, C. Connors, S. Péan, and N. Berger, et al. (Geneva: IPCC). In Press. 31pp. Available online at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/#SPM (accessed November 23, 2021).
Laffoley, D., and Baxter, J. M. (2018). Ocean Connections. An Introduction to Rising Risks From a Warming, Changing Ocean . Gland: IUCN, 48 pp. doi: 10.2305/IUCN.CH.2018.09.en
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text
Laffoley, D., Baxter, J. M., Amon, D. J., Currie, D. E. J., Downs, C. A., Hall-Spencer, J. M., et al. (2020). Eight urgent, fundamental and simultaneous steps needed to restore ocean health, and the consequences for humanity and the planet of inaction or delay. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst . 30, 194–208. doi: 10.1002/aqc.3182
Lam, V. W. Y., Cheung, W. W. L., Reygondeau, G., and Sumaila, U. R. (2016). Projected change in global fisheries revenues under climate change. Sci. Rep. 6:32607. doi: 10.1038/srep32607
Lotze, H. K., Tittensor, D. P., Bryndum-Buchholz, A., Eddy, T. D., Cheung, W. W. L., Galbraith, E. D., et al. (2017). Global ensemble projections reveal trophic amplification of ocean biomass declines with climate change. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 116, 12907–12912. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1900194116
Mace, G. M., Hails, R. S., Cryle, P., Harlow, J., and Clarke, S. J. (2015). Towards a risk register for natural capital. J. Appl. Ecol . 52, 641–653. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12431
Narita, D., Poertner, H. O., and Rehdanz, K. (2020). Accounting for risk transitions of ocean ecosystems under climate change: an economic justification for more ambitious policy responses. Clim. Change 162, 1–11. doi: 10.1007/s10584-020-02763-w
Norstrom, A. V., Cvitanovic, C., Lof, M. F., West, S., Wyborn, C., Balvanera, P., et al. (2020). Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat. Sustain . 3, 182–190. doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2
OECD. (2016). The Ocean Economy in 2030. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). doi: 10.1787/9789264251724-en
ORRAA. (2021). Ocean Risk and Resilience Action Alliance (ORRAA) . Available online at: https://www.oceanriskalliance.org/about/about-orraa/ (accessed Oct 21, 2021).
Pendleton, L., Evans, K., and Visbeck, M. (2020). We need a global movement to transform ocean science for a better world. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci . U. S. A. 117, 9652–9655. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2005485117
Rosa, I. M. D., Pereira, H. M., Ferrier, S., Alkemade, R., Acosta, L. A., Akcakaya, H. R., et al. (2017). Multiscale scenarios for nature futures. Nat. Ecol. Evol . 1, 1416–1419. doi: 10.1038/s41559-017-0273-9
Ross, A. G. P., Crowe, S. M., and Tyndall, M. W. (2015). Planning for the next global pandemic. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 38, 89–94. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2015.07.016
Sala, E., Mayorga, J., Bradley, D., Cabral, R. B., Atwood, T. B., Auber, A., et al. (2021). Protecting the global ocean for biodiversity, food and climate. Nature 592, 397–402. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03371-z
Singh, G. G., Eddy, I. M. S., Halpern, B. S., Neslo, R., Satterfield, T., and Chan, K. M. A. (2020). Mapping cumulative impacts to coastal ecosystem services in British Columbia. PLoS ONE 15:e0220092. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220092
Singh, G. G., Harden-Davies, H., Allison, E. H., Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Swartz, W., Crosman, K. M., et al. (2021). Will understanding the ocean lead to “the ocean we want”? Proc. Nat.l Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 118:e2100205118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2100205118
Smith, A. D. M., Fulton, E. J., Hobday, A. J., Smith, D. C., and Shoulder, P. (2007). Scientific tools to support the practical implementation of ecosystem-based fisheries management. ICES J. Mar.Sci . 64:633–639. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsm041
UN. (2021). The Second World Ocean Assessment. World Ocean Assessment II. United Nations, New York . Available online at: https://www.un.org/regularprocess/woa2launch (accessed November 23, 2021).
UNESCO-IOC. (2021). The United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021-2030) Implementation Plan. UNESCO, Paris (IOC Ocean Decade Series, 20.). Available online at https://oceanexpert.org/document/27347 (accessed November 23, 2021).
Weaver, C. P., Moss, R. H., Ebi, K. L., Gleick, P. H., Stern, P. C., Tebaldi, C., et al. (2017). Reframing climate change assessments around risk: recommendations for the US National Climate Assessment. Environ. Res. Lett . 12:080201. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa7494
WEF. (2020). $82 Trillion Over 5 Years? Cambridge Study Counts the Cost of Coronavirus . Available online at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/05/coronavirus-covid19-pandemic-econamy-money-depression-recession/ (accessed Oct 12, 21).
Weible, C. M., Nohrstedt, D., Cairney, P., Carter, D. P., Crow, D. A., Durnova, A. P., et al. (2020). COVID-19 and the policy sciences: initial reactions and perspectives. Policy Sci . 53, 225–241. doi: 10.1007/s11077-020-09381-4
WHO. (2017). Pandemic Influenza Risk Management: A WHO Guide to Inform and Harmonize National and International Pandemic Preparedness and Response. World Health Organization (WHO), WHO/WHE/IHM/GIP/2017.1, 62 pp . Available online at: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/259893 (accessed November 23, 2021).
World Bank. (2021). World Bank National Accounts Data, and OECD National Accounts Data Files . Available online at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ny.gdp.mktp.cd (accessed Nov 01, 2021).
Keywords: ocean ecosystems, global threats, climate change, action plan, policy options, risk-management
Citation: Murphy EJ, Robinson C, Hobday AJ, Newton A, Glaser M, Evans K, Dickey-Collas M, Brodie S and Gehlen M (2021) The Global Pandemic Has Shown We Need an Action Plan for the Ocean. Front. Mar. Sci. 8:760731. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.760731
Received: 18 August 2021; Accepted: 16 November 2021; Published: 08 December 2021.
Reviewed by:
Copyright © 2021 Murphy, Robinson, Hobday, Newton, Glaser, Evans, Dickey-Collas, Brodie and Gehlen. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Eugene J. Murphy, e.murphy@bas.ac.uk
This article is part of the Research Topic
Integrated Marine Biosphere Research: Ocean Sustainability, Under Global Change, for the Benefit of Society
Scientific Research
Link to other faqs.
Scientific research in European seas often requires (but also contributes to) cross-border cooperation . MSP Strategies are fundamental in order to define the principles and scope of maritime spatial plans and the relevance of scientific research can be identified there. MSP for Blue Growth should consider the spatial need for scientific research related to sector developments, including areas for testing new tchnologies.
Documented knowledge
Although some practices are available regarding the topic of scientific research, mainstreaming spatial needs for scientific research (including testing of new technologies) into MSP is still limited. Provisions from UNCLOS are available for marine research.
Main issues
Along with the increasing need of sea space for maritime activities, determined by growing Blue Economy, scientific research and monitoring of the marine environment and ecosystems has grown rapidly in the last years. This is to increase knowledge on ocean state, trends and functioning, and also to support knowledge on marine resources availability, both biotic and abiotic and increase understanding of the impacts of human activities. Space at sea is also needed for field testing of new technologies in fields like e.g. renewable energies, aquaculture. Such research can be very space consuming.
MSP needs to accommodate the spatial needs for scientific research and monitoring, minimizing interferences with other maritime activities.
Key issue is distinction between research requiring permanent or long-term occupation of sea space, such as installation of research platforms or areas for testing new technologies and the research that can be done without reserving space, such as monitoring campaigns, surveys, scientific trawling. Research requiring permanent sea occupation needs deep concern from MSP but also the second type has to be considered when planning marine space, since access to monitoring areas should be allowed without conflicting with other activities taking place in the same area.
Provisions from UNCLOS are available for marine research [1] . Research is a freedom in the high seas (Art. 87), and all states may conduct scientific activities there (included land-locked states), but exclusively for peaceful purposes and for the benefit of mankind as a whole. Instead, within its territorial sea, a coastal state has the exclusive right to authorise, impose terms on, or refuse research activities (Art. 245). Coastal states have also the right to regulate, authorise and conduct marine scientific research in their EEZ and on their continental shelf (Art. 246). They will normally be expected to grant consent to other states and competent international organisations to conduct MSR, unless a limited range of exceptions apply, such as where research would be of direct significance to exploration for or exploitation of natural resources.
[1] Daniel T. 2006. Marine Scientific Research under UNCLOS: a Vital Global Resource? Internation Hydrographical Review 7 (2): 6-17.
Please note that this section of the EU MSP Platform website is not currently being updated with new information. However, the resources throughout our website remain relevant to our mission of sharing knowledge and experiences on MSP in the EU.
Frequently Asked Questions
What type of sea areas are reserved to research.
Research and monitoring activities (in situ observing systems) can consist of surface moorings measuring a wide variety of sub-surface variables including temperature, salinity, and currents over long periods of time (e.g. Mongoos network in the Mediterranean, NOOS in the North Sea). Offshore installations equipped for oceanographic multidisciplinary research should also be considered (e.g. FINO1 in Germany, Piattaforma Acqua Alta in Italy). Long-Term Ecosystem Research ( LTER ) areas are another example of scientific research demanding space at sea. Through research and monitoring, LTER seeks to improve knowledge of the structure and functions of ecosystems and their long-term response to environmental, societal and economic drivers."Traditional" LTER-Sites are relatively small (about 1-10 km²), comprising mainly one habitat type and one form of use. At present about 30 marine LTER sites are established across European seas, including habitats such as Polar Seas, Coastal lagoons & River deltas, Coastal wetlands, Estuaries, Temperate shelf and sea. Examples of sites are: Scheldt estuary (BE), Black Sea (BU), Western Gulf of Finland (FI), German Bight (DE), Northern Adriatic Sea, Gulf of Naples, Marine ecosystems of Sardinia (IT), Ria de Aveiro (ES), Dutch Wadden Sea (NL).
Ensuring long term durability is the key concept underpinning all these type of research activities. Spatial needs of scientific research and monitoring at sea should therefore be taken into account in maritime spatial plans, considering the areas where they are carried out and avoiding conflicts with other maritime activities.
Areas at sea are also needed, permanently or on the long term, to test new technologies, including floating wind turbines (e.g. in France-Britain), wave energy generators (e.g. Atlantic Marine Energy Test Site, Ireland-County Mayo), aquaculture plants testing new technologies (e.g. SINTEF Aquaculture Engineering, Norway-Trondheim; AZTI Offshore marine aquaculture experimentation area, Spain-Basque coast).
What examples of synergies are available between research and other sea uses?
The European Marine Energy Centre EMEC established since 2003 in Orkney (Scotland, UK) provides developers of wave and tidal energy converters with a base for testing, benefiting from an oceanic wave regime, strong tidal currents, grid connection and sheltered harbour facilities. The site represents a combination of research activities and environmental monitoring. EMEC and individual developers testing at the sites collect data for the purpose of environmental monitoring/baseline characterisation, or as a requirement of Marine Licence conditions. EMEC runs also a Wildlife Observation Programme Data to provide information about marine species presence and behaviour at each testing site..
Scientific research and monitoring have been considered as possible co-uses with offshore platforms dedicated to O&G extraction or wind energy production. For example, collaborating closely with key players in the oil and gas industry, the SERPENT project has arranged regular visits for scientists to offshore oil and gas installations for oceanographic data collection and scientific production. Scientific research and monitoring are also recommended by the Ocean Multi-Use Action Plan developed by the MUSES project as one of the possible uses of the platforms being decommissioned especially in the North Sea and Adriatic Sea).
How can be space for research accounted for in MSP?
Strategic maritime sectors and their spatial requirements at national level are normally included in maritime spatial plans. This can include scientific research activities. Marine research, survey and educational activities are indicated among the sectors considered by the Portuguese National Ocean Strategy 2013-2020 . Research actions are identified, aimed to study the ocean and the processes that occur therein. Technologically based initiatives for monitoring of the marine environment or that lead to an improvement of the conditions of the different productivity sectors within a framework of sustainable economic exploitation are also encompassed. The Maritime Spatial Plan for the Territorial Sea of Mecklenburg - Vorpommern also considers the identification of locations for education, culture and research. In the Polish Maritime Spatial plan, only maritime research requiring permanent occupation (closure to other sea uses) of the sea space is regulated. In principle, research is possible almost everywhere with exception of sea areas with a priority navigation function. In coastal zones, research is restricted to forms that do not negatively influence coastal dynamics.
How can spatial needs for monitoring according to MSFD be taken into account within MSP?
Monitoring the marine environment according to the requirements of MSFD is a key task for MSs and dedicated monitoring programs have been established in the EU countries. These programs rely on networks of fixed and periodically sampled monitoring stations and surveys. These monitoring activities require their own space, and conflicts with other maritime activities should be prevented by considering their needs in the MSP process. Coordination of MSFD monitoring activities at regional sea level and development of a common monitoring strategy can substantially contribute to this aim and also provide support to MSP.
In this regard, HELCOM has developed a joint Monitoring and Assessment Strategy, based on agreed visions, goals and ecological objectives, and jointly developed quantitative targets and associated indicators through the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan. The key principles behind the strategy are: i) National monitoring programmes use the principles of the Joint Monitoring System to achieve a high degree of coordination, cooperation, sharing and harmonization; ii) the Joint Monitoring System feeds a Data Pool that is the basis for the Assessment System; iii) this system produces assessments of the health of the Baltic Sea that can be used by HELCOM countries as well as EU, observers, stakeholders, etc.
Decision-making tools for integrated environmental monitoring for the MSFD, to support management of human activities and their effects in EU marine waters are available from the results of the IRIS-SES project. DeCyDe-4-IRIS tools; these consist of a GIS planning tool and a decision-making tool. The latter was developed to support the decision on the parameters to be monitored, the methods and the infrastructure needed for each MFSD descriptor.
- Plans and studies
- Guidance and tools
- Methodologies
Maritime Spatial Plan for the Territorial Sea of Mecklenburg - Vorpommern
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Ministerium für Energie, Infrastruktur und Digitalisierung
DeCyDe-4-IRIS
IRIS-SES - Integrated Regional monitoring Implementation Strategy in the South European Seas
The aim is to develop decision-making tools for integrated environmental monitoring for the MSFD to support management of human activities and their effects in EU marine waters and scope the...
National Ocean Strategy 2013-2020
DGPM, Directorate General for Maritime Policy / Direção Geral de Política do Mar
An action plan aimed at the economic, social and environmental valorisation of the national maritime space through the implementation of sectoral and cross-sectoral projects. MSP is a key operation to...
Monitoring and Assessment Strategy
The Strategy is a common plan to monitor and assess the health of the Baltic Sea in a coordinated and cost-efficient way between all HELCOM Contracting Parties.
Share this page
Marine Scientific Research
- First Online: 17 August 2017
Cite this chapter
- Anna-Maria Hubert 3 , 4 , 5
4393 Accesses
Though not necessarily the case, there is increasing recognition that some marine scientific research activities may have adverse effects on the environment. This chapter examines recent developments in regulatory and management measures aimed at the environmentally sustainable conduct of marine scientific research. It begins by laying out the central management challenge of this emerging issue, which entails striking an appropriate balance between the promotion of marine scientific research to advance understanding of the marine environment and minimising environmental impacts of research in light of uncertainties. The next section provides an overview of the legal framework laid down in Parts XIII and XII of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which govern marine scientific research and protection and preservation of the marine environment respectively. It then describes progressive developments in law and policy, outlining sources of emerging norms and standards and analysing the content and scope of principles and best practices that are taking hold in this area. Finally, it analyses the effectiveness of current measures and points out some next steps for developments in this field.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Institutional subscriptions
The latter distinguishes them from international treaties, including UNCLOS, which generally regulate the conduct of States Parties who then are responsible for the actions of private actors under their jurisdiction and control.
For example, InterRidge has established a voluntary research cruise database which provides a resource for coordinating ocean-ridge research, see https://www.interridge.org/IRcruise
Benn, A.R., Weaver, P. P., Billet, D. S. M., van den Hove, S., Murdock, A. P., Doneghan, G. B., Le Bas, T. (2010). Human Activities on the Deep Seafloor in the North East Atlantic: An Assessment of Spatial Extent. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0012730#s1 .
Bodansky, D. (2012). The durban platform: issues and options for a 2015 Agreement. Center for climate and energy solutions. http://www.c2es.org/publications/durban-platform-issues-options-2015-agreement
Boyle A (2005) Further development of the law of the sea convention: mechanisms for change. Int Comp Law Q 54:563–584
Article Google Scholar
Breslin, J., Nixon, D., and West, G. (2007). International Ship Operators Meeting (ISOM) Code of Conduct for Marine Scientific Research Vessels. http://www.irso.info/wp-content/uploads/International_RV_Code_final.pdf . Accessed 8 July 2016
Buesseler KO, Boyd PW (2003) Will ocean fertilization work? Science 300:67
Article CAS Google Scholar
Buesseler KO, Doney SC, Karl DM, Boyd PW, Caldeira K, Chai F, Coale KH, de Baar HJW, Falkowski PG, Johnson KS, Lampitt RS, Michaels AF, Naqvi SWA, Smetacek V, Takeda S, Watson AJ (2008) Ocean iron fertilization–moving forward in a sea of uncertainty. Science 319:162
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 11 ILM 1358. n.d.
Google Scholar
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents: Marine Protected Area Management Plan 2010–2015 (2009). Retrieved July 8, 2016. http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/protection/mpa-zpm/endeavour/docs/EHV-CHE-mgmtplan-gestion-eng.pdf
Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea Office of Legal Affairs (2010). Law of the Sea: MSR: a revised guide to the implementation of the relevant provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. New York, United Nations, 2010
Dotinga HM, Oude Elferink AG (2000) Acoustic pollution in the oceans: the search for legal standards. Ocean Dev Int Law 31:151–182
Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents Marine Protected Area Regulations, SOR/2003–87, March 4, 2003
European Union (1992). Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31992L0043 . Accessed 8 July 2016
Freestone D (2014) Satya Nandan’s contribution to the development of the precautionary approach in international law. In: Lodge MW, Nordquist MH (eds) Peaceful order in the World’s Oceans: essays in honour of Satya N Nandan. Brill, Leiden
Friedrich, J. (2010). Codes of Conduct [Electronic Version]. Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law
Gjerde, K.M. (2008). Options for addressing regulatory and governance gaps in the international regime for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Gland: IUCN. https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_marine_paper_2.pdf . Accessed 15 July 2016
Godet L, Zelnio KA, van Dover CL (2011) Scientists as Stakeholders in Conservation of Hydrothermal Vents. Conserv Biol 25:214–222
International Law Commission (ILC) (2001). Report of the Commission to the General Assembly on the work of its fifty-third session, Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities, with commentaries, UN Doc A/56/10
InterRidge (2006). InterRidge Statement of Commitment to Responsible Research Practices at Deep-Sea Hydrothermal Vents. https://www.interridge.org/IRStatement . Accessed 15 July 2016
Irish Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (2006). Code of Practice of Marine Scientific Research at Irish Coral Reef Special Areas of Conservation. https://www.marine.ie/Home/sites/default/files/MIFiles/Docs/ResearchVessels/Code%20of%20Practice%20for%20Marine%20Scientific%20Research%20at%20SACs.pdf . Accessed 15 July 2016
ITLOS Reports (2011). Responsibilities and obligations of States with respect to activities in the Area (Request for Advisory Opinion submitted to the Seabed Disputes Chamber) (No. 17) (Advisory Opinion, 1 February 2011)
Leary DK (2006) International Law and the Genetic Resources of the Deep Sea. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden
Book Google Scholar
Nordquist MH, Nandan SN (1991) United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, Volume VII: A Commentary. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden
Organisation of the Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) (n.d.) ‘OCES Code of Conduct for Responsible Marine Research’. http://intfish.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Code-of-Conduct-for-Marine-Research.pdf . Accessed 8 July 2016
OSPAR Commission (2008). OSPAR Code of Conduct for Responsible Marine Research in the Deep Seas and High Seas of the OSPAR Maritime Area. OSPAR 08.24/1, Annex 6
Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 36 ILM 1 (1996)
Request for an advisory opinion submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC) (No. 21) (Advisory Opinion, 2 April 2015)
Resolution LC-LP.2 (2010). ‘Assessment Framework for Scientific Research Involving Ocean Fertilization’ (11–15 October 2010)
Resolution LP 4(8) on the amendment to the London Protocol to Regulate the Placement of Matter for Ocean Fertilisation and Other Marine Geoengineering Activities (18 October 2013) in ‘Report of the Thirty-Fifth Consultative Meeting and the Eighth Meeting of the Contracting Parties’ UN Doc LC 35/15 (21 2013)
Ribeiro MC (2010) The ‘Rainbow’: the first national marine protected area proposed under the high seas. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 25:183–207
Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development (Rio Declaration). UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (vol. I)/31 ILM 87 (1992)
Smetacek V, Naqvi SWA (2008) The Next Generation of Iron Fertilization Experiments in the Southern Ocean. Phil Trans R Soc A 366:3947
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1833 UNTS 3 (1982)
United Nations General Assembly (2005). Report of the Secretary General, Oceans and the Law of the Sea, Addendum. UN Doc. A/60/63/Add.1
United Nations General Assembly (2015). Development of an international legally-binding instrument under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction. A/RES/69/292
Verlaan PA (2007) Experimental activities that intentionally perturb the marine environment: implications for the marine environmental protection and marine scientific research provisions of the 1982 united nations convention on the law of the sea. Mar Policy 31:210
Eurofleets. Ship-time Application Call 2010. http://www.eurofleets.eu/np4/%7B$clientServletPath%7D/?newsId=90&fileName=EUROFLEETS_Call_Ship_time_Application.pdf Accessed 8 July 2016
Download references
Author information
Authors and affiliations.
Faculty of Law, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
Anna-Maria Hubert
Faculty of Law, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
Institute for Science, Innovation and Society (InSIS), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Corresponding author
Correspondence to Anna-Maria Hubert .
Editor information
Editors and affiliations.
German Advisory Council on the Environment, Berlin, Germany
Markus Salomon
University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
Till Markus
Rights and permissions
Reprints and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Hubert, AM. (2018). Marine Scientific Research. In: Salomon, M., Markus, T. (eds) Handbook on Marine Environment Protection . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60156-4_50
Download citation
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60156-4_50
Published : 17 August 2017
Publisher Name : Springer, Cham
Print ISBN : 978-3-319-60154-0
Online ISBN : 978-3-319-60156-4
eBook Packages : Earth and Environmental Science Earth and Environmental Science (R0)
Share this chapter
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
- Publish with us
Policies and ethics
- Find a journal
- Track your research
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.
Targeted Climate Research Can Benefit Marine Resource Management in the Northeast United States
January 25, 2024
Enhanced warming of the United States northeast continental shelf leads to the development of targeted research methods. This research will help fisheries and protected species management make climate-informed decisions.
Over the last decade, the United States northeast continental shelf has warmed faster than any other marine ecosystem in the country. Marine life in the region—ranging from recreational and commercial fish stocks to protected species—have shifted distribution in response to ocean warming.
A new review published in PLOS Climate looks at the proposed process of climate-informed marine resource management of NOAA Fisheries in the northeast United States. It found that targeted research on the relationships between ocean change and marine resources is critical to advance climate-ready marine resource management.
“This review is crucial because it may help other regions and nations understand and overcome their own challenges in the face of climate change,” said Vincent Saba, a research fishery biologist at NOAA’s Northeast Fisheries Science Center, lead author of this research.
NOAA Fisheries Climate Research in the Northeast
The first phase of informing management with climate information begins with targeted research:
- Ocean observations
- Ocean models
- Focused research on causal relationships between ocean change and the response of marine resources
Targeted research provides management insight into different impacts of historical, forecasted, and projected ocean conditions on marine resources that have existing and upcoming Research Track Assessments .
The second phase, Research Track Assessments may examine one or multiple stocks, or evaluate an issue or new model that could apply to many stocks. They are carried out over several years and can consider extensive changes in data, models, or stock structures. These assessments may provide the basis for future management assessments that include climate and ecosystem information.
The final phase is to inform management and stakeholders with the best available science regarding climate impacts on marine resources. This can include:
- Management strategy evaluations of climate-informed stock assessment models
- Ecosystem and socio-economic profiles
- Ecosystem status reports
- Scenario planning
- Vulnerability assessments
These three phases feedback on each other such that management and stakeholders can request additional data, research, and analyses in phases 1 and 2.
Process Overview
Phase 1: Climate, ocean observations, models, and targeted research on the relationships between ocean change and living marine resources, especially those that have upcoming Research Track Assessments .
Phase 2: Research Track that includes new analyses and review of climate influences on key variables used in climate-informed stock assessment models.
Phase 3: Inform management and stakeholders with the best available science regarding climate impacts on living marine resources.
Critical Elements of Climate-Informed Research
- Scientific Surveys
- Process-based Research
- Tracking Contemporary Change
- Projecting and Forecasting Change
NOAA Fisheries is committed to addressing climate change, which impacts every part of our mission. By conducting climate-informed research, we are able to understand how to sustain valuable marine resources, fisheries, and coastal communities.
Climate, Ecosystems, and Fisheries Initiative
NOAA’s Climate and Ecosystem Fisheries Initiative is a NOAA-wide effort to help marine resources and resource users adapt to changing ocean conditions. It uses an operational modeling and decision support system, which will allow us to generate and share information about the impacts of climate change on our oceans. This system will improve our ability to provide marine resource management and stakeholders with the information needed to make climate-informed decisions.
The initiative is responsible for the development of a Decision Support System.
Achieving climate-ready marine resource management is a challenging task for all nations that rely on marine resources. Many of the marine ecosystem changes observed today are unprecedented. There is no long-term historical context of management challenges and solutions under a rapidly changing climate.
Climate Research Example
Recent research for the southern New England/Mid-Atlantic yellowtail flounder stock and the northern stock of black sea bass used ocean models to show the impacts of environmental conditions to stock assessments . If approved by the research track working groups, they can enable climate-informed management decisions.
Recent News
Gray seal found shot in delaware.
Studying Sound in the Ocean to Prepare for Offshore Wind Development
NOAA Partners with U.K. Anglers and Scientists to Learn More About Blue Sharks
Last updated by Office of Communications on January 26, 2024
Ocean biodiversity work needs improvement
An international collaboration that includes two Oregon State University scientists says the world's largest marine protected areas aren't collectively delivering the biodiversity benefits they could be because of slow implementation of management strategies and a failure to restrict the most impactful human activities.
Their analysis of the 100 biggest marine protected areas or MPAs, which account for nearly 90% of the Earth's protected ocean areas, was published today in Conservation Letters .
Ocean biodiversity supports human life by regulating climate, producing oxygen and food, and providing many other benefits. Having many different species in an area helps ward off negative impacts on the ocean ecosystem, impacts that can include damage to human food supplies as well as a loss of genes and molecules with potential importance in medicine and industry.
The research evaluated key indicators for biodiversity success based on criteria established by "The MPA Guide: A framework to achieve global goals for the ocean," published in Science in 2021. Kirsten Grorud-Colvert, a marine ecologist in the OSU College of Science, was the lead author of the guide and one of 11 co-authors on the just-published analysis.
"Now more than ever we need healthy and biodiverse areas in the ocean to benefit people and help buffer threats to ocean ecosystems. Marine protected areas can only achieve this if they are set up to be effective, just and durable," Grorud-Colvert said. "Our assessment shows how some of the largest protected areas in the world can be strengthened for lasting benefits."
Marine protected areas are parts of the ocean managed to achieve the long-term conservation of nature. They are established to protect and recover marine biodiversity, promote healthy and resilient ecosystems, and provide lasting benefits to both people and the planet.
As the world aims to protect at least 30% of the ocean by 2030 -- a target set by a United Nations international agreement -- the assessment provides a reminder that achieving that goal requires both increased quantity and improved quality of marine protected areas, Grorud-Colvert said.
The report's findings also raise questions about the effectiveness of current conservation efforts in achieving the declared goals of marine protection, she added.
Beth Pike of the nonprofit Marine Conservation Institute led the assessment and said the intended outcomes of marine protected areas are closely linked to the MPAs' design and management.
"MPAs can deliver significant benefits to people, nature and the planet, but unfortunately, we see vast gaps between the amount of ocean covered by MPAs and the strength of those protections in many cases," she said. "Quality, not just quantity, should indicate progress toward reaching the goal of protecting at least 30% of the ocean by 2030."
The World Database on Protected Areas from the UN's Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre lists more than 18,000 marine protected areas covering 30 million square kilometers -- roughly 8% of the global ocean. The 100 largest MPAs together cover about 26.3 million square kilometers.
The MPA Guide connects conservation outcomes to scientific evidence, providing a framework to categorize MPAs and whether they are set up to successfully contribute to those outcomes. MPAs have proven they can be effective tools for ocean conservation when set up and run properly, but today's report highlights wide variations in design, goals, regulations and management.
For example, Grorud-Colvert said, some MPAs allow oil and gas exploration, industrial fishing and aquaculture, while others are highly protected. One-quarter of the areas lack management plan implementation.
Without regulations or management, these areas are no different from surrounding unprotected waters and cannot deliver conservation benefits, said another Oregon State marine ecologist, Jenna Sullivan-Stack, also a co-author of the assessment.
"When people hear that an area of ocean is a marine protected area, we expect a healthy ocean area with abundant marine life that sustains local communities in the long term. That's not always the case," Sullivan-Stack said. "Here we've used a standardized assessment method to provide an evidence-based understanding of where we actually stand on ocean protection in MPAs, and we show that a large portion of the global marine protected area is not actually set up or functioning to achieve these goals."
Sullivan-Stack, Grorud-Colvert and their collaborators also note that large MPAs are disproportionately found in remote areas, leaving important habitats and species in less remote areas unprotected.
- Marine Biology
- Oceanography
- Environmental Awareness
- Ocean Policy
- Land Management
- Disaster Plan
- Sustainable land management
- Biodiversity hotspot
- Deforestation
- Howler monkey
- Southeast Asia coral reefs
- Organic farming
- Marine conservation
- Conservation biology
Story Source:
Materials provided by Oregon State University . Original written by Steve Lundeberg. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.
Journal Reference :
- Elizabeth P. Pike, Jessica M. C. MacCarthy, Sarah O. Hameed, Nikki Harasta, Kirsten Grorud‐Colvert, Jenna Sullivan‐Stack, Joachim Claudet, Barbara Horta e Costa, Emanuel J. Gonçalves, Angelo Villagomez, Lance Morgan. Ocean protection quality is lagging behind quantity: Applying a scientific framework to assess real marine protected area progress against the 30 by 30 target . Conservation Letters , 2024; DOI: 10.1111/conl.13020
Cite This Page :
Explore More
- Controlling Shape-Shifting Soft Robots
- Brain Flexibility for a Complex World
- ONe Nova to Rule Them All
- AI Systems Are Skilled at Manipulating Humans
- Planet Glows With Molten Lava
- A Fragment of Human Brain, Mapped
- Symbiosis Solves Long-Standing Marine Mystery
- Surprising Common Ideas in Environmental ...
- 2D All-Organic Perovskites: 2D Electronics
- Generative AI That Imitates Human Motion
Trending Topics
Strange & offbeat.
NOAA, Verizon team up to advance disaster response research
- May 11, 2024
- Download Cover Image
NOAA and Verizon Frontline signed a three-year Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) to explore new strategies to rapidly deploy uncrewed aircraft systems that will collect and distribute imagery of damage resulting from severe storms such as tornadoes and hurricanes.
As part of this partnership, the Verizon Frontline Crisis Response Team will provide the uncrewed aircraft system platform, sensor, and personnel resources needed to rapidly respond and collect aerial imagery of storm-damaged areas of interest identified by NOAA.
The goal is to enhance the ability of NOAA’s National Weather Service offices to quickly conduct post-storm damage assessments, while also providing data for research conducted by the NOAA National Severe Storms Laboratory . This data will be used to help researchers better understand tornado behavior and impacts with a goal of improving warnings.
“This collaboration has the potential to demonstrate how partnerships with Verizon and other organizations to gather drone imagery can significantly improve the services provided by the NWS to the public and partners when disaster strikes,” said Tim Oram, NWS Southern Region Headquarters Meteorological Services Branch Chief. The CRADA specifically applies to the NWS Southern Region and NOAA’s National Severe Storms Laboratory.
“This collaboration will pioneer new strategies aimed at gathering and disseminating crucial imagery, leveraging our collective expertise to enhance response efforts to severe storms and mitigate their impact on communities across the U.S.,” said Michael Adams, associate vice president for federal civilian services at Verizon.
Typically after a storm, National Weather Service personnel perform damage surveys and gather data to assign tornado ratings, document a storm’s path, and improve the accuracy of future tornado forecasts. Uncrewed aircraft systems provide an advantage because they can more efficiently gather critical information in remote, hard-to-reach areas where it is difficult for people to travel. In the past, NOAA has used uncrewed systems for some storm damage assessment. This new partnership is designed to supplement existing resources and gather more information more quickly.
“After a crisis, the first imagery that any emergency management agency or similar public safety agency gets is typically satellite data and the resolution isn’t ideal,” said Chris Sanders of the Verizon Frontline Crisis Response Team. “What we’re aiming to do through our partnership with NOAA is develop ways to get these agencies high-resolution imagery much faster than they can get it today by using our robust network and rapid-mapping capabilities.”
Verizon Frontline is the advanced network and technology built for first responders –developed over three decades of partnership with public safety officials and agencies on the front lines – to meet their unique and evolving needs.
NOAA regularly partners with private sector companies through CRADAs to conduct research and development work that is mutually beneficial and helps to accomplish NOAA’s mission.
Climate, weather, and water affect all life on our ocean planet. NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict our changing environment, from the deep sea to outer space, and to manage and conserve America’s coastal and marine resources. See how NOAA science, services and stewardship benefit your community: Visit noaa.gov for our latest news and features , and join us on social media .
Media contact: Keli Pirtle, [email protected] , 405-203-4839
New research challenges assumptions of what triggered Hunga eruption
First-of-its-kind experiment illuminates wildfires in unprecedented detail
5 science wins from the 2023 NOAA Science Report
Scientists detail research to assess viability and risks of marine cloud brightening
Popup call to action.
A prompt with more information on your call to action.
share this!
May 11, 2024
This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:
fact-checked
trusted source
Researchers share road map promoting sustainable fishing
by Courtney Price, Texas A&M University
Researchers at the Texas A&M School of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences (VMBS) have released a road map to help the global fishing industry become more sustainable. The five-step plan outlines how the fishing industry can use population genomics—large-scale comparisons of a species' DNA—to prevent overfishing.
The road map, recently published in the Annual Review of Animal Biosciences , can also be used to monitor the genetic diversity of any species—not just fish.
"Fishing is a very important component of our food security" said Dr. Leif Andersson, a professor in the VMBS' Department of Veterinary Integrative Biosciences. "The marine food chain is also very interconnected, so having low numbers of one type of fish can be detrimental for many other species.
"Unfortunately, over a third of the world's fish populations are in decline due to factors like overfishing and global warming," he said. "Our road map can help the fishing industry keep a closer eye on fish populations so we know when to stop fishing them and also when they may need conservation help to restore their numbers."
Using population genomics will allow the fishing industry to know the exact details of the fish they harvest, including where they spawn and where the population moves at different times of the year.
"Different populations of the same fish can have important distinctions—for example, even in an abundant species like the Atlantic herring we have many subpopulations," Andersson said. "One type of herring may be adapted to live in warmer waters and another in colder temperatures. If you deplete one population, that specific variety may not return, and that can have consequences for people, other animals, and the environment."
But the techniques in the road map aren't specific to fish—they can be used by any scientists looking to monitor genetic diversity.
"If you are managing an area with many wolf populations—or even local bees—and you want to know how many types there are, you can use the same road map," Andersson said. "It's useful to anyone."
Putting population genomics to work
According to the new plan, monitoring a fish stock begins with sequencing the genome for that species, a process that reveals to scientists exactly what each section of an organism's DNA does.
"The first step is to create a reference genome, which shows the function of each gene on each chromosome as completely as possible," Andersson said. "Genes are significant because they determine everything from physical features—like scale color—to complex systems—like the immune system.
"We're very fortunate to live in what I call the 'Golden Age' of genetics research, because technology is making the results more complete and the process less expensive," he said. "For a long time, complete reference genomes were difficult to achieve because there are very long, repetitive sections of DNA. However, we have the ability now to read these long sections using better sequencing technologies and bioinformatics."
Once population scientists have a reference genome of the species that they want to monitor, they need a way to tell the difference between regional populations.
"Step two is figuring out where the fish are spawning; you need to know where the population that you want to monitor is reproducing," Andersson said. "Once you know that, you have to take samples of fish at the spawning point and sequence their DNA. Then you can compare the population's DNA to the reference genome and see the differences."
Step three is measuring the frequency of genetic variation in the population.
"You need to know how different populations of the same fish are," Andersson said. "For example, if you take 100 DNA samples from eels in England and the same amount from the Nile River in Egypt, you will see that there is no significant genetic difference. That's because all eels are part of the same population—they have the same spawning area in the Sargasso Sea.
"But herring are different," he said. "If you take samples of herring from different regions of the Atlantic Ocean, you will find hundreds of places in the genome where there are differences. Each population of herring has adapted to its geographic location and will need a different management plan."
According to Andersson, the last two steps involve using information from the previous steps to determine exactly how many different populations of a species there are.
"You can even focus your analysis further and use specific genetic markers to map out where each stock is at each point in the year," he said. "It's like having a genetic fingerprint that allows you to create a management plan that is specific to each stock."
Entering the future of population management
Fishery authorities in Europe have already begun using the management road map laid out by Andersson and his research collaborators to monitor key populations of fish that are important to both the economy and local biodiversity.
While Andersson and his team won't be collecting population data into a single database, he hopes that more people in the global fishing industry, from fishing companies to government fishing authorities, will also begin using the road map so that they become best practices for the entire industry.
"This kind of analysis would be valuable all over the world," he said. "Fish are important to our planet's marine ecosystems, and they're also a healthy source of protein for humans. But many populations of fish depend on regional and seasonal factors that haven't been well-understood until recently. We hope that population genomics can become a powerful tool for assessing and maintaining biodiversity, not just for fish, but for many species."
Provided by Texas A&M University
Explore further
Feedback to editors
Solar storm puts on brilliant light show across the globe, but no serious problems reported
5 hours ago
Study discovers cellular activity that hints recycling is in our DNA
Weaker ocean currents lead to decline in nutrients for North Atlantic ocean life during prehistoric climate change
Research explores ways to mitigate the environmental toxicity of ubiquitous silver nanoparticles
AI may be to blame for our failure to make contact with alien civilizations
8 hours ago
Saturday Citations: Dietary habits of humans; dietary habits of supermassive black holes; saving endangered bilbies
12 hours ago
Scientists unlock key to breeding 'carbon gobbling' plants with a major appetite
May 10, 2024
Clues from deep magma reservoirs could improve volcanic eruption forecasts
Study shows AI conversational agents can help reduce interethnic prejudice during online interactions
NASA's Chandra notices the galactic center is venting
Relevant physicsforums posts, who chooses official designations for individual dolphins, such as fb15, f153, f286.
May 9, 2024
Is it usual for vaccine injection site to hurt again during infection?
May 8, 2024
The Cass Report (UK)
May 1, 2024
Is 5 milliamps at 240 volts dangerous?
Apr 29, 2024
Major Evolution in Action
Apr 22, 2024
If theres a 15% probability each month of getting a woman pregnant...
Apr 19, 2024
More from Biology and Medical
Related Stories
Genome sequencing paves the way for more sustainable herring fishery
Dec 15, 2020
Commercial fishing in reduced fish populations may cause genetic changes
Dec 14, 2021
European eels: One gene pool fits all
Jan 21, 2021
How the herring adapted to the light environment in the Baltic Sea
Aug 26, 2019
Ancient DNA pushes herring trade back to the Viking age
Oct 26, 2022
Unselective fishing could reduce fish diversity and homogenize assemblage structure in lakes
Jun 22, 2022
Recommended for you
Elephants use gestures and vocal cues when greeting each other, study reports
Rolling with the punches: How mantis shrimp defend against high-speed strikes
Bilbies could hop back into mild climate zones, study finds
New study finds bioluminescence more common than previously thought in deep‐sea shrimp
How climate change will affect malaria transmission
New rhizobia-diatom symbiosis solves long-standing marine mystery
Let us know if there is a problem with our content.
Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).
Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request
Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.
Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.
E-mail the story
Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.
Newsletter sign up
Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.
More information Privacy policy
Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience
We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.
E-mail newsletter
The Federal Register
The daily journal of the united states government, request access.
Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs.
If you are human user receiving this message, we can add your IP address to a set of IPs that can access FederalRegister.gov & eCFR.gov; complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". This process will be necessary for each IP address you wish to access the site from, requests are valid for approximately one quarter (three months) after which the process may need to be repeated.
An official website of the United States government.
If you want to request a wider IP range, first request access for your current IP, and then use the "Site Feedback" button found in the lower left-hand side to make the request.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Level Action Plan for 2019-2023, the Action Plan identifies six strategic research priorities and specific outputs that will help accelerate marine scientific research in the Area, the deep seabed beyond national jurisdiction, which effectively covers more than 50% of the world oceans' seabed. The Plan was endorsed by our 168
The United States requires advance consent for all marine scientific research conducted by foreign researchers in the U.S. territorial sea, U.S. EEZ, and on the U.S. continental shelf, consistent with international law. Revision to United States Marine Scientific Research Policy, Proclamation No. 10071, 85 Fed. Reg. 59165 (September 18, 2020 ...
The objectives of the UN Decade are at the core of ISA's mandate to promote and encourage the conduct of marine scientific research in the international seabed area, disseminate the results, and facilitate participation of developing States in deep-sea exploration and research programs. The Draft MSR Action Plan of ISA identifies six research ...
ISA has developed a marine scientific research with six priorities to support the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development 2021-2030.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) alone supports approximately 24% of all federally funded research conducted at U.S. academic institutions. In the United States, the NSF funded an average of ...
develop a marine scientific research action plan in support of the Decade is not only an important contribution to this momentous undertaking, but also critical to the implementation of ...
Strategic Plan 2024-2028; ISA's contributions to to 2030 Agenda; Stakeholder involvement; Career options. Junior Commercial Programme; Our opportunities: FAQs; Contact us; Our work Open menu. DeepData database; The Mining Code. Exploration. Study regulations; Awards and guidance; Predatory. Draft operation regulations; Draft standards and ...
4.2.7 Global Sea Level Observing System (GLOSS) The Global Sea Level Observing System (GLOSS) is an international programme conducted under the auspices of the JCOMM of the WMO and the IOC. It ...
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 ...
ISA Action Plan in support of the United Nations Decade of Ocean Science ISA has developed a Draft Action Plan on Marine Scientific Research in support of the United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development, together with a consolidated list of priority outputs that will materialize ISA's contribution to the implementation ...
OPA promotes science and diplomacy, improves maritime domain awareness, and safeguards the interests of the U.S. scientific community through the marine scientific research consent program. Annually, OPA facilitates diplomatic marine scientific research consent for U.S. scientists to conduct more than 300 research cruises in over 70 coastal States. OPA manages the review process which issues […]
The COVID-19 pandemic is the first serious test of how science can inform decision-making in the face of an immediate global threat, yielding important lessons on how science, society and policy interact. The global societal and economic impact of COVID-19 has shown that we need to assess, plan and prepare for potential future changes. These insights are particularly important for the ocean ...
Main issues Along with the increasing need of sea space for maritime activities, determined by growing Blue Economy, scientific research and monitoring of the marine environment and ecosystems has grown rapidly in the last years. This is to increase knowledge on ocean state, trends and functioning, and also to support knowledge on marine resources availability, both biotic and abiotic and ...
The Assembly are the International Lake Authorty (ISA) has certified now the Action Plan for Marin Scientific Research (MSR) for that Area that will formalize ISA's contribution go the UN Decennary of Ocean Learning for Sustainable Development, set to start January 2021. That objectives of the UN Century what at the core of ISA's mandate
The Northwest Pacific Action Plan highlighted the importance of converting results of scientific research into policy recommendations and, this way, to help the countries to achieve the targets set by the United Nations. ... Implementation of NOWPAP contributes to the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from ...
The basis of this regime is the right of coastal States, in the exercise of their jurisdiction, to regulate, authorise and conduct marine scientific research in these areas (Art. 246 (1) UNCLOS). Foreign researching States must have the consent of the coastal State to conduct marine research in the EEZ (Art. 246 (2) UNCLOS).
Phase 2: Research Track that includes new analyses and review of climate influences on key variables used in climate-informed stock assessment models. Phase 3: Inform management and stakeholders with the best available science regarding climate impacts on living marine resources. Critical Elements of Climate-Informed Research. Scientific Surveys
Ocean protection quality is lagging behind quantity: Applying a scientific framework to assess real marine protected area progress against the 30 by 30 target. Conservation Letters , 2024; DOI: 10 ...
NOAA and Verizon Frontline signed a three-year Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) to explore new strategies to rapidly deploy uncrewed aircraft systems that will collect and distribute imagery of damage resulting from severe storms such as tornadoes and hurricanes.. As part of this partnership, the Verizon Frontline Crisis Response Team will provide the uncrewed aircraft ...
Researchers at the Texas A&M School of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences (VMBS) have released a road map to help the global fishing industry become more sustainable. The five-step plan ...
Argentina, which is currently chairing the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission under the leadership of Mr. Ariel Troisi, will act as Champion of the ISA Marine Scientific Research Action Plan and will work with ISA to promote the shared goals of the United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development.
Start Preamble Start Printed Page 41480 AGENCY: Social Security Administration. ACTION: Request for information. SUMMARY: The Social Security Administration (SSA) requests public comment about how to implement our Plan for Increasing Public Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research (public access plan). Our public access plan provides general guidelines supporting public ...
a collaborative platform for marine scientific research in mid-ocean ridges, as guided by the "Draft Action plan of the International Seabed Authority in support of the United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development" (ISBA/26/A/4) , including:
Request for Comment on the NIH-Wide SGM Health Research Strategic Plan FY26—FY30: NIH is developing a strategic plan to advance SGM research in FY26-FY30. This RFI invites input from interested parties throughout the scientific research, advocacy, and clinical practice communities, federal partners, those employed by the Department of Health ...
Equity Action Plan Foreign Affairs Manual and Handbook Department of State by State Map DipNote Blog We Are the U.S. Department of State ... Home Application to Complete Marine Science Research. hide. Application to Complete Marine Science Research December 11, 2020. Tags. MSR Guidance. Back to Top. White House; USA.gov;