- Email: [email protected]
A global science–policy partnership for progress toward sustainability of oceanic ecosystems and fisheries
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
A global science–policy partnership for progress toward sustainability of oceanic ecosystems and fisheries O Maury1,2, K Miller3, L Campling4, H Arrizabalaga5, O Aumont6, O¨ Bodin7, P Guillotreau8, AJ Hobday9, F Marsac1,2, Z Suzuki10 and R Murtugudde11 Oceanic ecosystems support livelihoods and supply food for hundreds of millions of people. But these ecosystems are deteriorating rapidly and many of the world’s oceanic fisheries are in a precarious condition. In addition to well-known and pressing fishery management issues, economic globalization is connecting fisheries beyond the frontiers of the organizations responsible for their management and climate-associated changes are deeply modifying ecosystems, pushing them toward new states and no return situations. The status quo is not a sustainable option, and improved international governance is urgently needed to address this situation. Our proposition consists of an inclusive global science–policy process combining major improvements to the present governance systems, including new incentives for international cooperation and coordination, with an ambitious scientific program to help anticipate threats and opportunities and integrate complex information regarding long-term issues. It would constitute a major step toward sustainability. Addresses 1 IRD (Institut de Recherche pour le De´veloppement), UMR 212 EME, Se`te, France 2 ICEMASA, Department of Oceanography, University of Cape Town, South Africa 3 National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, USA 4 School of Business and Management, Queen Mary University of London, UK 5 AZTI Tecnalia, Pasaia, Spain 6 IRD (Institut de Recherche pour le De´veloppement), UMR 197 LPO, Brest, France 7 Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Sweden 8 University of Nantes, LEMNA, Nantes, France 9 CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Hobart, Australia 10 National Research Institute of Far Seas Fisheries, Shimizu, Shizuoka, Japan 11 ESSIC, University of Maryland, USA Corresponding author: Maury, O ([email protected])
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:314–319 This review comes from a themed issue on Open issue Edited by Rik Leemans and William Solecki For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial Available online 25th June 2013 1877-3435/$ – see front matter, # 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.05.008
Introduction Oceanic ecosystems provide major services, support livelihoods and supply animal protein for hundreds of Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:314–319
millions of people. But these ecosystems are deteriorating rapidly, as evidenced by the precarious condition of many of the world’s open ocean fisheries. Overcapacity, overexploited fish stocks, bycatch of endangered species, illegal unregulated and unreported fishing, inequitable sharing of economic rent between rich and poor countries and unknown consequences for ecosystem functioning are pervasive [1–6]. In addition to these well-known and pressing issues, several profound and emerging challenges are not currently addressed: economic globalization that is connecting fisheries beyond the frontiers of the organizations responsible for their management and climate-associated changes that are modifying ecosystems and pushing them toward no-analogue states with a risk of dramatic and point of no return situations [7–10]. Our vitally important oceans are threatened. Current international governance efforts are wanting and major improvements are urgently needed. To this end, the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon recently announced ‘The Oceans Compact’ (http://www.un.org/Depts/los/ ocean_compact/oceans_compact.htm), a new strategy for the UN system to address ocean sustainability and support the implementation of the UN Convention on the Law Of the Sea (UNCLOS). The initiative is to be applauded for the ambitious objectives promising ‘healthy oceans for prosperity’, however, it is unclear how they will be achieved. Without rapid progress and clear guidance on how to support such strategy, the political will needed to reach solutions may dissipate. Substantial improvements in ocean governance are within reach, however, and practical strategies and pathways can be devised. Our proposition consists of an inclusive global science–policy process combining major improvements to the present governance systems, including new incentives for international cooperation and coordination, with an ambitious scientific program to help anticipate threats and opportunities and integrate complex information regarding long-term issues. This approach would constitute a major step toward ensuring sustainability for harvested and non-harvested open ocean species in a rapidly changing world.
Current governance issues The governance of oceanic ecosystems presently rests on myriad organizations, treaties and policy process operating at many scales, with various objectives and levels of perceived legitimacy. At the core of this complex governance system are intergovernmental advisory Regional Fishery Bodies (RFBs) providing advice to member governments, www.sciencedirect.com
Global science and policy for sustainable fisheries Maury et al. 315
and Regional Fishery Management Organizations (RFMOs) tasked with management of international fisheries spanning national and international jurisdictions from regional to ocean basin scales. Collectively, their purview covers the entire ocean surface. These organizations have contributed to reaching the goal of responsible fisheries by compiling international fisheries data and bringing fishing nations to the negotiating table. They have generally been far less effective in assessing all exploited resources, avoiding fleet overcapacity, minimising bycatch and preventing illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing (e.g. [11,12], however, see [13,14]). Progress toward implementing ecosystem-based management has been uneven [15,16], and the larger-scale and longer term impacts of human activities on oceanic ecosystems, such as pollution, de-oxygenation, ocean acidification and global warming are insufficiently appreciated. In addition, there are few avenues for RFMOs to engage in collaborative policy development with national and international bodies in the domains of biodiversity conservation, trade regulation, climate change or marine pollution. Many RFBs and RFMOs were created long before the modern law of the sea was established. Despite notable progress in this respect, their mandates have not always been updated to incorporate recent multilateral agreements regarding straddling stocks, biodiversity conservation, the precautionary approach or ecosystem-based fisheries management. In spite of on-going efforts to strengthen their performance, RFMOs have been hampered by these historical and other structural limitations. The problem extends to the very nature of their mandates which mostly focus on establishing regional maximum sustainable yield (MSY) targets by species, despite the known dangers of this strategy and the global nature of economic drivers. This is accompanied by institutional challenges regarding membership, cumbersome decisionmaking processes (e.g., consensus-based, veto powers), lack of compliance [17], and the limited capacity of many member states to implement management measures. Furthermore, the attempt to accommodate short term competing national fishing interests has often led to political gridlock and neglect of available scientific recommendations [18]. Consistent with their objectives, RFMOs rely on scientific analyses mostly based on single-species stock assessments that largely disregard the many interacting social and ecological factors driving oceanic systems from local to global scales and lack resources to consider other scientifically relevant information. Some RFMOs are further hampered by insufficient resources to support scientific work, data collection, and fishery monitoring, while others restrict access to data by outside experts, seriously limiting the possibility for independent, transparent and peer-reviewed scientific analyses. Some change is occurring. For example, the initiation in 2007 of the ‘Kobe Process’ has seen the five tuna RFMOs www.sciencedirect.com
begin collaboration to improve coordination on monitoring, enforcement, research, and development of policy to support ecosystem-based fisheries management. One positive outcome has been a more active involvement of some environmental NGOs, industry groups and scientists. Unfortunately, the rapidly declining state of oceanic ecosystems and prospects for dramatic change [7–10,19] require greater action. To rapidly and efficiently move forward, we would endorse Elinor Ostrom’s advice to be wary of policy panaceas (e.g. [20]), which are likely to have unintended consequences [21,22], and to rapidly implement a series of pragmatic steps building on existing efforts and producing demonstrable advances. Here we outline such a series of important steps that would result in further improvements.
Improved governance We propose a science–policy partnership that could constitute an essential element of the UN’s Oceans Compact regarding oceanic ecosystems and fisheries. While detailed implementation may require further strategizing, major progress could be made within a few years. Its governance component relies on the existing governance structure, and strengthens and extends it with additional legal, institutional and functional elements: 1. Improvement, harmonization and strengthening of the conventions governing the various RFMOs under UNCLOS and other relevant hard and soft law instruments such as the UN Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). This would allow RFMOs to adopt a broader, precautionary and more binding system-level approach beyond their present objectives and enforce cooperation more effectively in order to meet the new conservation targets of the CBD for both exploited and non-targeted species [23]. These improvements are also fundamental to promote the sustainability of fundamental marine services and biodiversity, recognize socio-economic objectives such as food security, support of local communities, maximization of fisheries rents and equitable distribution of benefits among developed and developing countries [24]. 2. The implementation of a new international partnership, hereafter Partnership for the Sustainability of Ocean Ecosystem Services (PSOES). This new partnership, perhaps under the auspices of the Oceans Compact, would gather the existing RFMOs, relevant RFBs and other institutions and agencies responsible for high seas management, including for example, pollution, aquaculture and the assessment of related ecosystem services. It would be important to connect to the relevant UN agencies such as FAO, UNEP and UNDP (Figure 1). The PSOES would lead participatory forums for science-based policy developments and management coordination at a global scale. It Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:314–319
316 Open issue
Figure 1
UN Oceans Compact
Sc
lic y
ien
Po
ce
CITES Industry
na tio
ns
IOC
IPCC
RFMOs
WTO
PSOES
ICSU Future Earth
ISPSOE
RFBs
SCOR
NGOs
IPBES
CBD
UNDP
UNEP FAO
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Schematic organization of the proposed science–policy partnership including the creation of the Partnership for the Sustainability of Ocean Ecosystem Services (PSOES) and the International Scientific Program for the Sustainability of Oceanic Ecosystems (ISPSOE), both connecting and coordinating a constellation of institutions in the governance and scientific realms. See [43] for acronyms.
would ensure consistency and synergy between regional policies to efficiently address global issues. This partnership would enhance the flow of information across the multiple elements of the polycentric ocean governance system at various scales, thus improving the capacity to address the broader issues and consequences of regional policy recommendations. NGOs and stakeholders would be important partners in the PSOES framework as the inclusion of non-state actors is important to push policy processes forward [13,14]. 3. The final element is the systematic establishment and implementation of binding management strategies consistent with updated legal mandates for all RFMOs. These would include firstly, systems of limited access to fish stocks to avoid the ‘race-to-fish’ [25] which could involve adaptive dynamic zoning of the oceans supported by secondly, effective satellitebased fleet monitoring systems and observers on-board all participating vessels. Ensuring compliance would necessitate tools such as thirdly, adaptive multi-scale Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:314–319
systems of economic incentives and penalties that reward complying or penalize non-complying actors, and fourthly, efficient port controls in line with existing agreements to identify the origin of landings, combined with internationally agreed trade control measures to ban access of non-compliant entities to markets. Using adaptive trade control as a management tool would require new synergies to be developed at the PSOES level with institutions such as CITES and WTO. Finally, fifthly, improved coordination capacities and information exchange among multiple actors would create incentives for collaboration and facilitate avoidance of the tragedy of the commons [13,21].
Improved science This proposed governance system should be complemented by focused multidisciplinary analyses to develop efficient strategies for sustainability and adaptation [26–28]. It is clear, however, that the scientific community www.sciencedirect.com
Global science and policy for sustainable fisheries Maury et al. 317
does not yet possess all the basic knowledge and operational tools required. We thus recommend creating a science-for-governance program integrating across multiple issues and scales. For convenience we nominally term this the International Scientific Program for the Sustainability of Oceanic Ecosystems (ISPSOE), and suggest that it be directly connected to the global change and sustainability international scientific programmes and relevant UN agencies (Figure 1). Although contributing to the proposed PSOES goals and designed to inform policy development, it should remain an independent entity supported by international and national funding sources [29]. It would furthermore provide a relevant contribution in the oceanic domain to the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Existing pioneering attempts to provide holistic views of oceanic socio-eco-systems and better predict their evolution (e.g. http://www.imber.info/index.php/Science/ Regional-Programmes/CLIOTOP) must serve as a starting point and be strongly supported to unite broader multidisciplinary scientific communities. Seven multidisciplinary avenues are identified here that should be addressed as priorities by the ISPSOE: 1. In the context of rapid changes and no-analogue futures, shifting from locally valid descriptive studies to robust process-based knowledge is a priority. To this end, the development of new observational tools focusing on basic process (e.g. [30–32]), their use in worldwide comparative analysis aimed at identifying universal principles and their articulation to the development of process-based models is critical. 2. Scientific analyses of social, economic, legal and political aspects of oceanic ecosystems and their interactions are rarely used for management. Research in this area would contribute to a better understanding of the role and motivations of the stakeholders whose decisions drive human impacts on marine ecosystems. For instance, analyses of the effects of trade regulation, investment and markets, the tendency to concentration in the industrial sector, and the dynamics of competitive and cooperative behaviour could promote the development of more effective policies. 3. The deployment of novel global-scale observing systems (e.g. [28,33]) to monitor currently under-sampled biological components of the oceanic system such as mid-trophic level forage organisms which support top predator populations [34], or human components such as price systems that underpin socio-economic dynamics for fishing company decisions. 4. The development of data sharing tools to facilitate access to global data. These tools would synthesize and standardize worldwide heterogeneous historic data and gather new critical observations and outputs from www.sciencedirect.com
simulation models. They would facilitate global comparative analysis and stimulate international collaborations. It is fundamental that all RFMOs engage actively in this process so that all available information can be easily accessible for scientific purposes. 5. The development of short to long-term scientific scenarios of the evolution of oceanic systems. These are fundamental for predicting future trajectories according to different possible trends of driving factors and assessing a priori the effectiveness of alternative governance strategies and management options. Progress made in defining broad-scope world-scale scenarios (e.g. [35–37]) should serve as a framework for developing refined multidisciplinary analysis focusing on oceanic systems. 6. The development of Earth System models for natural-human interactions incorporating climate, biogeochemistry, ecosystems, fisheries and the world market. These are needed to account simultaneously for the interactive dynamics of the multiple, intricate, and multi-scale components of social-ecological oceanic systems. Recent progress is encouraging in this respect [38,39] but much more needs to be done before this approach could support operational management of the oceans [40]. In particular, a better consideration of feedbacks that can lead to whole-system bifurcations is required. In this perspective, unifying mechanistic biological theories (e.g. [41]) can facilitate formal linkages among related disciplines. 7. The development of integrated sustainability indicators. These are necessary to synthesize and translate the numerous projections and scientific advances into actionable metrics for judging effective policies. They are also critical for factoring long-term dynamics into decision-making. They should be made easily available to a broad range of users including policy makers, RFMOs, national fishery authorities, scientists, NGOs, private companies, and media. The focus on the oceans during the recent Rio + 20 Earth Summit and the subsequent launch of the UN ‘Oceans Compact’ promising healthy marine ecosystems and productive fisheries for the future have generated high hopes and expectations. An international political willingness to address ocean problems has emerged but lacks a concrete strategy. We now have a window of opportunity to identify effective pathways to a sustainable future for the open sea and for maximizing our ability to avoid the unmanageable and manage the unavoidable. Our proposed two-element strategy would greatly expand current efforts to improve oceanic fisheries governance and offers potential for down-scaling to address coastal issues. By creating the capacity for achieving effective scienceinformed stewardship, a broader and longer term perspective may emerge which would allow substantial improvements in sustainable and equitable management of oceanic ecosystem services. The expected costs of Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:314–319
318 Open issue
pursuing a business as usual approach [42] emphasizes the importance of new perspectives in delivering an improved future for the open ocean.
16. Mooney-Seus ML, Rosenberg AA: Recommended best practices for regional fisheries management organizations. Technical Study No. 1, Progress in Adopting Precautionary Approach and Ecosystem-Based Management; Chatham House: 2007.
Acknowledgments
17. Pulvenis de Seligny JF: The marine living resources and the evolving law of the sea. Aegean Rev Law Sea Maritime Law 2010, 1:61-94.
This paper originated during two CLIOTOP workshops held in 2010 at UNESCO in Paris and in 2012 at the PUP Conference in London. The authors wish to thank all the participants at these workshops as well as the UNESCO-IOC, IMBER, GLOBEC and Eur-Oceans programmes for supporting them. The authors also wish to warmly thank A Larigauderie, L Valdes, R Lent, J Field, K Cochrane, W Broadgate, I Perry, Y-J Shin, P Cury, G Munro, A Fonteneau, JF Pulvenis de Seligny and N Bondre for their comments on the manuscript which led to substantial improvements. OM, OA and PG acknowledge the support of the French ANR, under the ¨ B acknowledges support grant CEP MACROES (ANR-09-CEP-003), O from Mistra.
References
18. Longo SB, Clark B: The commodification of Bluefin Tuna: the historical transformation of the Mediterranean Fishery. J Agrar Change 2012, 12:2-3. 19. Cheung WL, Lam V, Sarmiento J, Kearney K, Watson R, Zeller D, Pauly D: Large-scale redistribution of maximum fisheries catch potential in the global ocean under climate change. Global Change Biol 2010, 16:24-35. 20. Rogers AD, Laffoley Dd’A: International earth system expert workshop on ocean stresses and impacts. Summary report. Oxford: IPSO; 2011, . 21. Ostrom E: Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press; 1990. 22. Ostrom E: A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. PNAS 2007, 104:15181-15187.
1.
Juan-Jorda´ MJ, Mosqueira I, Cooperf AB, Freirea J, Dulvy NK: Global population trajectories of tunas and their relatives. PNAS 2011, 108:20650-20655.
2.
FAO: Review of the State of World Marine Fisheries Resources. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 569; Rome: 2011.
3.
Kaczynki VM, Fluharty DL: European policies in West Africa: who benefits from fisheries agreements? Mar Policy 2002, 26:75-93.
4.
Clark CW, Munro GR: The problem of overcapacity. Bull Mar Sci 2002, 70:473-483.
5.
Munro GR: From drain to gain in capture fisheries rents: a synthesis study. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 538; Rome: 2010.
6.
World Bank FAO: The Sunken Billions. The economic justification for fisheries reform. Washington/Rome: World Bank/FAO; 2009, .
26. Mitchell RB, Romero Lankao PR: Institutions, science and technology in the transition to sustainability. In Earth System Analysis for Sustainability. Edited by Schellnhuber HJ, Crutzen PJ, Clark WC, Claussen M. Held MIT Press/Dahlem University Press; 2003:387-407.
7.
IPCC: In Climate Change: The Physical Science Basis. Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (AR4). Edited by Solomon S et al.: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
27. ICSU: Grand Challenges in Global Sustainability Research: A Systems Approach to Research Priorities for the Decade. Paris: ICSU; 2010, .
8.
Hoegh-Guldberg O, Bruno JF: The Impact of Climate Change on the World’s Marine Ecosystems. Science 2010, 328:1523-1528.
9.
Babcock Hollowed A, Barange M, Ito SI, Kim S, Loeng H, Peck MA: Effects of climate change on fish and fisheries: forecasting impacts, assessing ecosystem responses, and evaluating management strategies. ICES J Mar Sci 2011, 68:984-985.
28. Reid WV, Chen D, Goldfarb L, Hackmann H, Lee YT, Mokhele K, Ostrom E, Raivio K, Rockstro¨m J, Schellnhuber HJ, Whyte A: Earth system science for global sustainability: grand challenges. Science 2010, 330:916-917.
23. Perrings C, Naeem S, Ahrestani F, Bunker DE, Burkill P, Canziani G, Elmqvist T, Ferrati R, Fuhrman J, Jaksic F et al.: Ecosystem services for 2020. Science 2010, 330:323-324. 24. Biermann F, Abbott K, Andresen S, Backstrand K, Bernstein S, Betsill MM, Bulkeley H, Cashore B, Clapp J, Folke C et al.: Transforming governance and institutions for global sustainability: key insights from the Earth System Governance Project. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2012, 4:51-60. 25. Hilborn R: Moving to sustainability by learning from successful fisheries. Ambio 2007, 36:296-303.
29. Polacheck T: Politics and independent scientific advice in RFMO processes: a case study of crossing boundaries. Mar Policy 2010, 36:132-141.
10. Stramma L, Prince ED, Schmidtko S, Luo J, Hoolihan JP, Visbeck M, Wallace DWR, Brandt P, Ko¨rtzinger A: Expansion of oxygen minimum zones may reduce available habitat for tropical pelagic fishes. Nat Clim Change 2012, 2:33-37.
30. Cowen RK, Guigand CM: Ichthyoplankton Imaging System (ISIIS): system design and preliminary results. Limnol Oceanogr Methods 2008, 6:126-132.
11. Cullis-Suzuki S, Pauly D: Failing the high seas: a global evaluation of regional fisheries management organizations. Mar Policy 2010, 34:1036-1042.
31. Wilson RP, Shepard ELC, Liebsch N: Prying into the intimate details of animal lives: use of a daily diary on animals. Endang Species Res 2008, 4:123-137.
12. Flothmann S, von Kistowski K, Dolan EL, Meere F, Album G: Closing loopholes: getting illegal fishing under control. Science 2010, 328:1235-1236.
32. Bograd SJ, Block BA, Costa DP, Godley BJ: Biologging technologies: new tools for conservation. Introduction. Endang Species Res 2010, 10:1-7.
13. O¨sterblom H, Bodin O¨: Global cooperation among diverse organizations to reduce illegal fishing in the southern ocean. Conserv Biol 2012, 26:638-648.
33. Duffy JE, Amaral-Zettller LA, Fautin DG, Paulay G, Rynearson TA, Sosik HM, Stachowiz JJ: Envisioning a marine biodiversity observation network. Bioscience 2013, 63:350-361.
14. O¨sterblom H, Sumaila UR: Toothfish crises, actor diversity and the emergence of compliance mechanisms in the Southern Ocean. Global Environ Change 2011, 21:972-982.
34. Handegard NO, du Buisson L, Brehmer P, Chalmers SJ, De Robertis A, Huse G, Kloser R, Macaulay G, Maury O, Ressler PH et al.: Towards an acoustic-based coupled observation and modelling system for monitoring and predicting ecosystem dynamics of the open ocean. Fish Fish 2012 http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2012.00480.x.
15. Lodge MW, Anderson D, Løbach T, Munro G, Sainsbury K, Willock A: Recommended best practices for regional fisheries management organizations. Report of an independent panel to develop a model for improved governance by Regional Fisheries Management Organizations; Chatham House: 2007.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:314–319
35. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity Global Biodiversity outlook 3. Montreal: SCBD; 2010, .
www.sciencedirect.com
Global science and policy for sustainable fisheries Maury et al. 319
36. Carpenter SR, Pingali PL, Bennett EM, Zurek MB (Eds): Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Scenarios. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, vol. 2. Island Press; 2005. 37. UNEP: Global Environment Outlook, GEO4. Environment for Development. UNEP; 2007. 38. Maury O: An overview of APECOSM, a spatialized mass balanced ‘‘Apex Predators ECOSystem Model’’ to study physiologically structured tuna population dynamics in their ecosystem. Prog Oceanogr 2010, 84:113-117. 39. Dueri S, Faugeras B, Maury O: Modelling the skipjack tuna dynamics in the Indian Ocean with APECOSM-E: Part 1. Model formulation. Ecol Model 2012, 245:41-54. 40. Murtugudde R: Regional Earth System prediction: a decisionmaking tool for sustainability? Curr Opin Environ Sust 2009, 1:37-45.
www.sciencedirect.com
41. Kooijman SALM: Dynamic Energy and Mass Budgets in Biological Systems. edn 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010, . 42. Noone K, Sumaı¨la R, Diaz RJ (Eds): Valuing the Ocean Extended Executive Summary. SEI; 2012:17. 43. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), International Council for Science (ICSU), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), United Nations Development Program (UNDP), United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR), World Trade Organization (WTO), Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), International Scientific Programme for the Sustainability of Oceanic Ecosystems (ISPSOE), Partnership for the Sustainability of Ocean Ecosystem Services (PSOES).
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:314–319
A global science–policy partnership for progress toward sustainability of oceanic ecosystems and fisheries O Maury1,2, K Miller3, L Campling4, H Arrizabalaga5, O Aumont6, O¨ Bodin7, P Guillotreau8, AJ Hobday9, F Marsac1,2, Z Suzuki10 and R Murtugudde11 Oceanic ecosystems support livelihoods and supply food for hundreds of millions of people. But these ecosystems are deteriorating rapidly and many of the world’s oceanic fisheries are in a precarious condition. In addition to well-known and pressing fishery management issues, economic globalization is connecting fisheries beyond the frontiers of the organizations responsible for their management and climate-associated changes are deeply modifying ecosystems, pushing them toward new states and no return situations. The status quo is not a sustainable option, and improved international governance is urgently needed to address this situation. Our proposition consists of an inclusive global science–policy process combining major improvements to the present governance systems, including new incentives for international cooperation and coordination, with an ambitious scientific program to help anticipate threats and opportunities and integrate complex information regarding long-term issues. It would constitute a major step toward sustainability. Addresses 1 IRD (Institut de Recherche pour le De´veloppement), UMR 212 EME, Se`te, France 2 ICEMASA, Department of Oceanography, University of Cape Town, South Africa 3 National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, USA 4 School of Business and Management, Queen Mary University of London, UK 5 AZTI Tecnalia, Pasaia, Spain 6 IRD (Institut de Recherche pour le De´veloppement), UMR 197 LPO, Brest, France 7 Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Sweden 8 University of Nantes, LEMNA, Nantes, France 9 CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Hobart, Australia 10 National Research Institute of Far Seas Fisheries, Shimizu, Shizuoka, Japan 11 ESSIC, University of Maryland, USA Corresponding author: Maury, O ([email protected])
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:314–319 This review comes from a themed issue on Open issue Edited by Rik Leemans and William Solecki For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial Available online 25th June 2013 1877-3435/$ – see front matter, # 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.05.008
Introduction Oceanic ecosystems provide major services, support livelihoods and supply animal protein for hundreds of Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:314–319
millions of people. But these ecosystems are deteriorating rapidly, as evidenced by the precarious condition of many of the world’s open ocean fisheries. Overcapacity, overexploited fish stocks, bycatch of endangered species, illegal unregulated and unreported fishing, inequitable sharing of economic rent between rich and poor countries and unknown consequences for ecosystem functioning are pervasive [1–6]. In addition to these well-known and pressing issues, several profound and emerging challenges are not currently addressed: economic globalization that is connecting fisheries beyond the frontiers of the organizations responsible for their management and climate-associated changes that are modifying ecosystems and pushing them toward no-analogue states with a risk of dramatic and point of no return situations [7–10]. Our vitally important oceans are threatened. Current international governance efforts are wanting and major improvements are urgently needed. To this end, the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon recently announced ‘The Oceans Compact’ (http://www.un.org/Depts/los/ ocean_compact/oceans_compact.htm), a new strategy for the UN system to address ocean sustainability and support the implementation of the UN Convention on the Law Of the Sea (UNCLOS). The initiative is to be applauded for the ambitious objectives promising ‘healthy oceans for prosperity’, however, it is unclear how they will be achieved. Without rapid progress and clear guidance on how to support such strategy, the political will needed to reach solutions may dissipate. Substantial improvements in ocean governance are within reach, however, and practical strategies and pathways can be devised. Our proposition consists of an inclusive global science–policy process combining major improvements to the present governance systems, including new incentives for international cooperation and coordination, with an ambitious scientific program to help anticipate threats and opportunities and integrate complex information regarding long-term issues. This approach would constitute a major step toward ensuring sustainability for harvested and non-harvested open ocean species in a rapidly changing world.
Current governance issues The governance of oceanic ecosystems presently rests on myriad organizations, treaties and policy process operating at many scales, with various objectives and levels of perceived legitimacy. At the core of this complex governance system are intergovernmental advisory Regional Fishery Bodies (RFBs) providing advice to member governments, www.sciencedirect.com
Global science and policy for sustainable fisheries Maury et al. 315
and Regional Fishery Management Organizations (RFMOs) tasked with management of international fisheries spanning national and international jurisdictions from regional to ocean basin scales. Collectively, their purview covers the entire ocean surface. These organizations have contributed to reaching the goal of responsible fisheries by compiling international fisheries data and bringing fishing nations to the negotiating table. They have generally been far less effective in assessing all exploited resources, avoiding fleet overcapacity, minimising bycatch and preventing illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing (e.g. [11,12], however, see [13,14]). Progress toward implementing ecosystem-based management has been uneven [15,16], and the larger-scale and longer term impacts of human activities on oceanic ecosystems, such as pollution, de-oxygenation, ocean acidification and global warming are insufficiently appreciated. In addition, there are few avenues for RFMOs to engage in collaborative policy development with national and international bodies in the domains of biodiversity conservation, trade regulation, climate change or marine pollution. Many RFBs and RFMOs were created long before the modern law of the sea was established. Despite notable progress in this respect, their mandates have not always been updated to incorporate recent multilateral agreements regarding straddling stocks, biodiversity conservation, the precautionary approach or ecosystem-based fisheries management. In spite of on-going efforts to strengthen their performance, RFMOs have been hampered by these historical and other structural limitations. The problem extends to the very nature of their mandates which mostly focus on establishing regional maximum sustainable yield (MSY) targets by species, despite the known dangers of this strategy and the global nature of economic drivers. This is accompanied by institutional challenges regarding membership, cumbersome decisionmaking processes (e.g., consensus-based, veto powers), lack of compliance [17], and the limited capacity of many member states to implement management measures. Furthermore, the attempt to accommodate short term competing national fishing interests has often led to political gridlock and neglect of available scientific recommendations [18]. Consistent with their objectives, RFMOs rely on scientific analyses mostly based on single-species stock assessments that largely disregard the many interacting social and ecological factors driving oceanic systems from local to global scales and lack resources to consider other scientifically relevant information. Some RFMOs are further hampered by insufficient resources to support scientific work, data collection, and fishery monitoring, while others restrict access to data by outside experts, seriously limiting the possibility for independent, transparent and peer-reviewed scientific analyses. Some change is occurring. For example, the initiation in 2007 of the ‘Kobe Process’ has seen the five tuna RFMOs www.sciencedirect.com
begin collaboration to improve coordination on monitoring, enforcement, research, and development of policy to support ecosystem-based fisheries management. One positive outcome has been a more active involvement of some environmental NGOs, industry groups and scientists. Unfortunately, the rapidly declining state of oceanic ecosystems and prospects for dramatic change [7–10,19] require greater action. To rapidly and efficiently move forward, we would endorse Elinor Ostrom’s advice to be wary of policy panaceas (e.g. [20]), which are likely to have unintended consequences [21,22], and to rapidly implement a series of pragmatic steps building on existing efforts and producing demonstrable advances. Here we outline such a series of important steps that would result in further improvements.
Improved governance We propose a science–policy partnership that could constitute an essential element of the UN’s Oceans Compact regarding oceanic ecosystems and fisheries. While detailed implementation may require further strategizing, major progress could be made within a few years. Its governance component relies on the existing governance structure, and strengthens and extends it with additional legal, institutional and functional elements: 1. Improvement, harmonization and strengthening of the conventions governing the various RFMOs under UNCLOS and other relevant hard and soft law instruments such as the UN Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). This would allow RFMOs to adopt a broader, precautionary and more binding system-level approach beyond their present objectives and enforce cooperation more effectively in order to meet the new conservation targets of the CBD for both exploited and non-targeted species [23]. These improvements are also fundamental to promote the sustainability of fundamental marine services and biodiversity, recognize socio-economic objectives such as food security, support of local communities, maximization of fisheries rents and equitable distribution of benefits among developed and developing countries [24]. 2. The implementation of a new international partnership, hereafter Partnership for the Sustainability of Ocean Ecosystem Services (PSOES). This new partnership, perhaps under the auspices of the Oceans Compact, would gather the existing RFMOs, relevant RFBs and other institutions and agencies responsible for high seas management, including for example, pollution, aquaculture and the assessment of related ecosystem services. It would be important to connect to the relevant UN agencies such as FAO, UNEP and UNDP (Figure 1). The PSOES would lead participatory forums for science-based policy developments and management coordination at a global scale. It Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:314–319
316 Open issue
Figure 1
UN Oceans Compact
Sc
lic y
ien
Po
ce
CITES Industry
na tio
ns
IOC
IPCC
RFMOs
WTO
PSOES
ICSU Future Earth
ISPSOE
RFBs
SCOR
NGOs
IPBES
CBD
UNDP
UNEP FAO
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Schematic organization of the proposed science–policy partnership including the creation of the Partnership for the Sustainability of Ocean Ecosystem Services (PSOES) and the International Scientific Program for the Sustainability of Oceanic Ecosystems (ISPSOE), both connecting and coordinating a constellation of institutions in the governance and scientific realms. See [43] for acronyms.
would ensure consistency and synergy between regional policies to efficiently address global issues. This partnership would enhance the flow of information across the multiple elements of the polycentric ocean governance system at various scales, thus improving the capacity to address the broader issues and consequences of regional policy recommendations. NGOs and stakeholders would be important partners in the PSOES framework as the inclusion of non-state actors is important to push policy processes forward [13,14]. 3. The final element is the systematic establishment and implementation of binding management strategies consistent with updated legal mandates for all RFMOs. These would include firstly, systems of limited access to fish stocks to avoid the ‘race-to-fish’ [25] which could involve adaptive dynamic zoning of the oceans supported by secondly, effective satellitebased fleet monitoring systems and observers on-board all participating vessels. Ensuring compliance would necessitate tools such as thirdly, adaptive multi-scale Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:314–319
systems of economic incentives and penalties that reward complying or penalize non-complying actors, and fourthly, efficient port controls in line with existing agreements to identify the origin of landings, combined with internationally agreed trade control measures to ban access of non-compliant entities to markets. Using adaptive trade control as a management tool would require new synergies to be developed at the PSOES level with institutions such as CITES and WTO. Finally, fifthly, improved coordination capacities and information exchange among multiple actors would create incentives for collaboration and facilitate avoidance of the tragedy of the commons [13,21].
Improved science This proposed governance system should be complemented by focused multidisciplinary analyses to develop efficient strategies for sustainability and adaptation [26–28]. It is clear, however, that the scientific community www.sciencedirect.com
Global science and policy for sustainable fisheries Maury et al. 317
does not yet possess all the basic knowledge and operational tools required. We thus recommend creating a science-for-governance program integrating across multiple issues and scales. For convenience we nominally term this the International Scientific Program for the Sustainability of Oceanic Ecosystems (ISPSOE), and suggest that it be directly connected to the global change and sustainability international scientific programmes and relevant UN agencies (Figure 1). Although contributing to the proposed PSOES goals and designed to inform policy development, it should remain an independent entity supported by international and national funding sources [29]. It would furthermore provide a relevant contribution in the oceanic domain to the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Existing pioneering attempts to provide holistic views of oceanic socio-eco-systems and better predict their evolution (e.g. http://www.imber.info/index.php/Science/ Regional-Programmes/CLIOTOP) must serve as a starting point and be strongly supported to unite broader multidisciplinary scientific communities. Seven multidisciplinary avenues are identified here that should be addressed as priorities by the ISPSOE: 1. In the context of rapid changes and no-analogue futures, shifting from locally valid descriptive studies to robust process-based knowledge is a priority. To this end, the development of new observational tools focusing on basic process (e.g. [30–32]), their use in worldwide comparative analysis aimed at identifying universal principles and their articulation to the development of process-based models is critical. 2. Scientific analyses of social, economic, legal and political aspects of oceanic ecosystems and their interactions are rarely used for management. Research in this area would contribute to a better understanding of the role and motivations of the stakeholders whose decisions drive human impacts on marine ecosystems. For instance, analyses of the effects of trade regulation, investment and markets, the tendency to concentration in the industrial sector, and the dynamics of competitive and cooperative behaviour could promote the development of more effective policies. 3. The deployment of novel global-scale observing systems (e.g. [28,33]) to monitor currently under-sampled biological components of the oceanic system such as mid-trophic level forage organisms which support top predator populations [34], or human components such as price systems that underpin socio-economic dynamics for fishing company decisions. 4. The development of data sharing tools to facilitate access to global data. These tools would synthesize and standardize worldwide heterogeneous historic data and gather new critical observations and outputs from www.sciencedirect.com
simulation models. They would facilitate global comparative analysis and stimulate international collaborations. It is fundamental that all RFMOs engage actively in this process so that all available information can be easily accessible for scientific purposes. 5. The development of short to long-term scientific scenarios of the evolution of oceanic systems. These are fundamental for predicting future trajectories according to different possible trends of driving factors and assessing a priori the effectiveness of alternative governance strategies and management options. Progress made in defining broad-scope world-scale scenarios (e.g. [35–37]) should serve as a framework for developing refined multidisciplinary analysis focusing on oceanic systems. 6. The development of Earth System models for natural-human interactions incorporating climate, biogeochemistry, ecosystems, fisheries and the world market. These are needed to account simultaneously for the interactive dynamics of the multiple, intricate, and multi-scale components of social-ecological oceanic systems. Recent progress is encouraging in this respect [38,39] but much more needs to be done before this approach could support operational management of the oceans [40]. In particular, a better consideration of feedbacks that can lead to whole-system bifurcations is required. In this perspective, unifying mechanistic biological theories (e.g. [41]) can facilitate formal linkages among related disciplines. 7. The development of integrated sustainability indicators. These are necessary to synthesize and translate the numerous projections and scientific advances into actionable metrics for judging effective policies. They are also critical for factoring long-term dynamics into decision-making. They should be made easily available to a broad range of users including policy makers, RFMOs, national fishery authorities, scientists, NGOs, private companies, and media. The focus on the oceans during the recent Rio + 20 Earth Summit and the subsequent launch of the UN ‘Oceans Compact’ promising healthy marine ecosystems and productive fisheries for the future have generated high hopes and expectations. An international political willingness to address ocean problems has emerged but lacks a concrete strategy. We now have a window of opportunity to identify effective pathways to a sustainable future for the open sea and for maximizing our ability to avoid the unmanageable and manage the unavoidable. Our proposed two-element strategy would greatly expand current efforts to improve oceanic fisheries governance and offers potential for down-scaling to address coastal issues. By creating the capacity for achieving effective scienceinformed stewardship, a broader and longer term perspective may emerge which would allow substantial improvements in sustainable and equitable management of oceanic ecosystem services. The expected costs of Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:314–319
318 Open issue
pursuing a business as usual approach [42] emphasizes the importance of new perspectives in delivering an improved future for the open ocean.
16. Mooney-Seus ML, Rosenberg AA: Recommended best practices for regional fisheries management organizations. Technical Study No. 1, Progress in Adopting Precautionary Approach and Ecosystem-Based Management; Chatham House: 2007.
Acknowledgments
17. Pulvenis de Seligny JF: The marine living resources and the evolving law of the sea. Aegean Rev Law Sea Maritime Law 2010, 1:61-94.
This paper originated during two CLIOTOP workshops held in 2010 at UNESCO in Paris and in 2012 at the PUP Conference in London. The authors wish to thank all the participants at these workshops as well as the UNESCO-IOC, IMBER, GLOBEC and Eur-Oceans programmes for supporting them. The authors also wish to warmly thank A Larigauderie, L Valdes, R Lent, J Field, K Cochrane, W Broadgate, I Perry, Y-J Shin, P Cury, G Munro, A Fonteneau, JF Pulvenis de Seligny and N Bondre for their comments on the manuscript which led to substantial improvements. OM, OA and PG acknowledge the support of the French ANR, under the ¨ B acknowledges support grant CEP MACROES (ANR-09-CEP-003), O from Mistra.
References
18. Longo SB, Clark B: The commodification of Bluefin Tuna: the historical transformation of the Mediterranean Fishery. J Agrar Change 2012, 12:2-3. 19. Cheung WL, Lam V, Sarmiento J, Kearney K, Watson R, Zeller D, Pauly D: Large-scale redistribution of maximum fisheries catch potential in the global ocean under climate change. Global Change Biol 2010, 16:24-35. 20. Rogers AD, Laffoley Dd’A: International earth system expert workshop on ocean stresses and impacts. Summary report. Oxford: IPSO; 2011, . 21. Ostrom E: Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press; 1990. 22. Ostrom E: A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. PNAS 2007, 104:15181-15187.
1.
Juan-Jorda´ MJ, Mosqueira I, Cooperf AB, Freirea J, Dulvy NK: Global population trajectories of tunas and their relatives. PNAS 2011, 108:20650-20655.
2.
FAO: Review of the State of World Marine Fisheries Resources. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 569; Rome: 2011.
3.
Kaczynki VM, Fluharty DL: European policies in West Africa: who benefits from fisheries agreements? Mar Policy 2002, 26:75-93.
4.
Clark CW, Munro GR: The problem of overcapacity. Bull Mar Sci 2002, 70:473-483.
5.
Munro GR: From drain to gain in capture fisheries rents: a synthesis study. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 538; Rome: 2010.
6.
World Bank FAO: The Sunken Billions. The economic justification for fisheries reform. Washington/Rome: World Bank/FAO; 2009, .
26. Mitchell RB, Romero Lankao PR: Institutions, science and technology in the transition to sustainability. In Earth System Analysis for Sustainability. Edited by Schellnhuber HJ, Crutzen PJ, Clark WC, Claussen M. Held MIT Press/Dahlem University Press; 2003:387-407.
7.
IPCC: In Climate Change: The Physical Science Basis. Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (AR4). Edited by Solomon S et al.: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
27. ICSU: Grand Challenges in Global Sustainability Research: A Systems Approach to Research Priorities for the Decade. Paris: ICSU; 2010, .
8.
Hoegh-Guldberg O, Bruno JF: The Impact of Climate Change on the World’s Marine Ecosystems. Science 2010, 328:1523-1528.
9.
Babcock Hollowed A, Barange M, Ito SI, Kim S, Loeng H, Peck MA: Effects of climate change on fish and fisheries: forecasting impacts, assessing ecosystem responses, and evaluating management strategies. ICES J Mar Sci 2011, 68:984-985.
28. Reid WV, Chen D, Goldfarb L, Hackmann H, Lee YT, Mokhele K, Ostrom E, Raivio K, Rockstro¨m J, Schellnhuber HJ, Whyte A: Earth system science for global sustainability: grand challenges. Science 2010, 330:916-917.
23. Perrings C, Naeem S, Ahrestani F, Bunker DE, Burkill P, Canziani G, Elmqvist T, Ferrati R, Fuhrman J, Jaksic F et al.: Ecosystem services for 2020. Science 2010, 330:323-324. 24. Biermann F, Abbott K, Andresen S, Backstrand K, Bernstein S, Betsill MM, Bulkeley H, Cashore B, Clapp J, Folke C et al.: Transforming governance and institutions for global sustainability: key insights from the Earth System Governance Project. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2012, 4:51-60. 25. Hilborn R: Moving to sustainability by learning from successful fisheries. Ambio 2007, 36:296-303.
29. Polacheck T: Politics and independent scientific advice in RFMO processes: a case study of crossing boundaries. Mar Policy 2010, 36:132-141.
10. Stramma L, Prince ED, Schmidtko S, Luo J, Hoolihan JP, Visbeck M, Wallace DWR, Brandt P, Ko¨rtzinger A: Expansion of oxygen minimum zones may reduce available habitat for tropical pelagic fishes. Nat Clim Change 2012, 2:33-37.
30. Cowen RK, Guigand CM: Ichthyoplankton Imaging System (ISIIS): system design and preliminary results. Limnol Oceanogr Methods 2008, 6:126-132.
11. Cullis-Suzuki S, Pauly D: Failing the high seas: a global evaluation of regional fisheries management organizations. Mar Policy 2010, 34:1036-1042.
31. Wilson RP, Shepard ELC, Liebsch N: Prying into the intimate details of animal lives: use of a daily diary on animals. Endang Species Res 2008, 4:123-137.
12. Flothmann S, von Kistowski K, Dolan EL, Meere F, Album G: Closing loopholes: getting illegal fishing under control. Science 2010, 328:1235-1236.
32. Bograd SJ, Block BA, Costa DP, Godley BJ: Biologging technologies: new tools for conservation. Introduction. Endang Species Res 2010, 10:1-7.
13. O¨sterblom H, Bodin O¨: Global cooperation among diverse organizations to reduce illegal fishing in the southern ocean. Conserv Biol 2012, 26:638-648.
33. Duffy JE, Amaral-Zettller LA, Fautin DG, Paulay G, Rynearson TA, Sosik HM, Stachowiz JJ: Envisioning a marine biodiversity observation network. Bioscience 2013, 63:350-361.
14. O¨sterblom H, Sumaila UR: Toothfish crises, actor diversity and the emergence of compliance mechanisms in the Southern Ocean. Global Environ Change 2011, 21:972-982.
34. Handegard NO, du Buisson L, Brehmer P, Chalmers SJ, De Robertis A, Huse G, Kloser R, Macaulay G, Maury O, Ressler PH et al.: Towards an acoustic-based coupled observation and modelling system for monitoring and predicting ecosystem dynamics of the open ocean. Fish Fish 2012 http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2012.00480.x.
15. Lodge MW, Anderson D, Løbach T, Munro G, Sainsbury K, Willock A: Recommended best practices for regional fisheries management organizations. Report of an independent panel to develop a model for improved governance by Regional Fisheries Management Organizations; Chatham House: 2007.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:314–319
35. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity Global Biodiversity outlook 3. Montreal: SCBD; 2010, .
www.sciencedirect.com
Global science and policy for sustainable fisheries Maury et al. 319
36. Carpenter SR, Pingali PL, Bennett EM, Zurek MB (Eds): Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Scenarios. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, vol. 2. Island Press; 2005. 37. UNEP: Global Environment Outlook, GEO4. Environment for Development. UNEP; 2007. 38. Maury O: An overview of APECOSM, a spatialized mass balanced ‘‘Apex Predators ECOSystem Model’’ to study physiologically structured tuna population dynamics in their ecosystem. Prog Oceanogr 2010, 84:113-117. 39. Dueri S, Faugeras B, Maury O: Modelling the skipjack tuna dynamics in the Indian Ocean with APECOSM-E: Part 1. Model formulation. Ecol Model 2012, 245:41-54. 40. Murtugudde R: Regional Earth System prediction: a decisionmaking tool for sustainability? Curr Opin Environ Sust 2009, 1:37-45.
www.sciencedirect.com
41. Kooijman SALM: Dynamic Energy and Mass Budgets in Biological Systems. edn 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010, . 42. Noone K, Sumaı¨la R, Diaz RJ (Eds): Valuing the Ocean Extended Executive Summary. SEI; 2012:17. 43. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), International Council for Science (ICSU), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), United Nations Development Program (UNDP), United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR), World Trade Organization (WTO), Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), International Scientific Programme for the Sustainability of Oceanic Ecosystems (ISPSOE), Partnership for the Sustainability of Ocean Ecosystem Services (PSOES).
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:314–319