The opportunity for climate action through climate-smart Marine Spatial Planning

0
The opportunity for climate action through climate-smart Marine Spatial Planning
  • IPCC. IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. (IPCC, 2019).

  • Pörtner, H. O. et al. Scientific outcome of the IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored workshop on biodiversity and climate change; IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany, (2021).

  • Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. Reviving the ocean economy: The Case for action. World Wide Fund for Nature, Geneva. (2015).

  • Singh, G. G. et al. Climate impacts on the ocean are making the sustainable development goals a moving target travelling away from us. People Nat.1, 317–330 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, C. et al. 100% Sustainable Ocean Management: An Introduction to Sustainable Ocean Plans. 27 (High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy, Washington, DC, USA, 2021).

  • UNEP. Kunming-Montreal Global biodiversity framework (CBD/COP/15/L.25) (2022).

  • United Nations. Agreement 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 (C.N.203.2023.TREATIES-XXI.10) (2023).

  • Ehler, C. & Douvere, F. Marine Spatial Planning: a step-by-step approach toward ecosystem-based management. Vol. 53 (UNESCO, 2009).

  • UNESCO-IOC/European Commission. International Guide on Marine/Maritime Spatial Planning. Maritime Spatial Planning (2021).

  • WWF-European Policy Office. Ecosystem-based Maritime Spatial Planning in Europe and how to assess it. 51 (2021).

  • Irish. Government. National Marine Planning Framework. Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage (2022).

  • HM Government, Northern Ireland Executive, Scottish Government, Welsh Assembly Government. UK Marine Policy Statement (2011).

  • European Union. Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (Marine Spatial Planning Directive). Offical Journal of the European Union. (2014).

  • Queirós, A. M. et al. Bright spots as climate-smart marine spatial planning tools for conservation and blue growth. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 5514–5531 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Stelzenmüller, V. et al. From plate to plug: the impact of offshore renewables on European fisheries and the role of marine spatial planning. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 158, 112108 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazão-Santos, C. et al. Integrating climate change in ocean planning. Nat. Sustain. 3, 505–516 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Gissi, E., Fraschetti, S. & Micheli, F. Incorporating change in marine spatial planning: a review. Environ. Sci. Policy 92, 191–200 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazão Santos, C. et al. Key components of sustainable climate-smart ocean planning. npj Ocean Sustain3, 10 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Retzlaff, R. & LeBleu, C. Marine spatial planning: exploring the role of planning practice and research. J. Plann. Lit. 33, 466–491 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • ICES. Workshop on Climate Change Considerations in Marine Spatial Planning (WKCCCMSP; outputs from 2023 meeting). ICES Coop. Res. Rep. 6:57. 110. (2024).

  • De Moura Queiros, A. et al. Early-warning system: Climate-smart spatial management of UK fisheries, aquaculture and conservation. A report of the NERC/ESRC Marine Spatial Planning Addressing Climate Effects project. 58. (2023).

  • Reinhardt, G., Danahey, P., Marcone, O., Florido, A. R. & Rodríguez-Vargas, L. MSPACE Stakeholder Workshop Report-Northern Ireland. (2023).

  • Frost, M., Baxter, J., Buckley, P., Dye, S. & Stoker, B. Reporting marine climate change impacts: lessons from the science-policy interface. Environ. Sci. Policy 78, 114–120 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Moser, S. C. Communicating adaptation to climate change: the art and science of public engagement when climate change comes home. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 5, 337–358 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Tranter, B., Lester, L., Foxwell-Norton, K. & Palmer, M. A. In science we trust? Public trust in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projections and accepting anthropogenic climate change. Public Understand. Sci. 09636625231165405 (2023).

  • Reid, M. et al. Protecting our coast for everyone’s future: Indigenous and scientific knowledge support marine spatial protections proposed by Central Coast First Nations in Pacific Canada. People Nat.4, 1052–1070 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Stelzenmüller, V. et al. Evaluation of marine spatial planning requires fit for purpose monitoring strategies. J. Environ. Manag.278, 111545 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, M. R. et al. Uncertainties in projecting climate change impacts in marine ecosystems. ICES J. Mar. Sci.73, 1272–1282 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Bannister, H. J., Blackwell, P. G., Hyder, K. & Webb, T. J. Improving the visual communication of environmental model projections. Sci. Rep.11, 19157 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Ban, N. C. et al. Incorporate Indigenous perspectives for impactful research and effective management. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1680–1683 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Queirós, A. M. et al. A sustainable blue economy may not be possible in Tanzania without cutting emissions. Sci. Total Environ. (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Beg, N. et al. Linkages between climate change and sustainable development. Clim. Policy 2, 129–144 (2002).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Drake, A. et al. Bridging Indigenous and Western sciences: Decision points guiding aquatic research and monitoring in Inuit Nunangat. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 5, e12972 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Strand, M. et al. Co-producing Sustainable Ocean Plans with Indigenous and traditional knowledge holders (World Resources Institute, 2024).

  • Lähde, E., Pohja-Mykrä, M. & Schreck, J. Co-creation of socio-ecological systems knowledge to adopt an ecosystem-based approach and land-sea Interactions in maritime spatial planning. Mar. Policy 163, 106079 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Florido, A. R. & Mair, S. J. Tensions between the carbon, employment and value added generated by marine sectors: Triple bottom line analysis using a novel input–output table for the UK. Sustain. Dev. (2024).

  • Talbot, E. et al. Incorporating “climate-readiness” into tropical spatial fisheries management strategies. Sci. Total Environ. 908 (2024).

  • Hazen, E. L. et al. A dynamic ocean management tool to reduce bycatch and support sustainable fisheries. Sci. Adv. 4, eaar3001 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Coll, M. et al. Retrospective analysis of the pelagic ecosystem of the Western Mediterranean Sea: Drivers, changes and effects. Sci. Total Environ. 907, 167790 (2024).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Reimer, J. M. et al. The Marine Spatial Planning Index: a tool to guide and assess marine spatial planning. npj Ocean Sustain. 2, 15 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloret, J. et al. Unravelling the ecological impacts of large-scale offshore wind farms in the Mediterranean Sea. Sci. Total Environ. 824, 153803 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Varjopuro, R., Rekola, A., Morf, A. & Gee, K. Policy Brief on Climate-smart MSP. (2023).

  • Jones, P. J., Lieberknecht, L. M. & Qiu, W. Marine spatial planning in reality: Introduction to case studies and discussion of findings. Mar. Policy 71, 256–264 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Orkney Islands Council. Orkney Islands Regional Marine Plan Consultation Draft. (2023).

  • UN Global Compact. Roadmap to Integrate Offshore Renewable Energy into Climate-Smart Marine Spatial Planning. (2021).

  • Lloret, J. et al. Floating offshore wind farms in Mediterranean marine protected areas: a cautionary tale. ICES J. Mar. Sci. fsad131 (2023).

  • Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management. (2022).

  • Todt, O., González, M. & Estévez, B. Conflict in the Sea of Trafalgar: offshore wind energy and its context. Wind Energy 14, 699–706 (2011).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, K. et al. A new maritime spatial plan for the German EEZ: Navigating multiple aspirations and spatial developments. Mar. Policy 161, 106006 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Ten Brink, T. S. & Dalton, T. Perceptions of commercial and recreational fishers on the potential ecological impacts of the Block Island Wind Farm (US). Front. Mar. Sci. 5, 439 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Haggett, C. et al. Offshore wind projects and fisheries. Oceanography 33, 38–47 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Withouck, I., Tett, P., Doran, J., Mouat, B. & Shucksmith, R. Diving into a just transition: How are fisheries considered during the emergence of renewable energy production in Scottish waters?. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 101, 103135 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulselli, R. M. et al. Benchmarking marine energy technologies through LCA: Offshore floating wind farms in the mediterranean. Front. Energy Res. 10, 902021 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Macreadie, P. I. et al. The future of Blue Carbon science. Nat. Commun. 10, 3998 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Diesing, M., Thorsnes, T. & Bjarnadóttir, L. R. Organic carbon densities and accumulation rates in surface sediments of the North Sea and Skagerrak. Biogeosciences 18, 2139–2160 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Queirós, A. M. et al. Identifying and protecting macroalgae detritus sinks toward climate change mitigation. Ecol. Appl. 33, e2798 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Granado, I. et al. Towards a framework for fishing route optimization decision support systems: Review of the state-of-the-art and challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 320, 128661 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of the Netherlands. North Sea Programme 2022-2027. Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, Nature and Food Quality, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy, Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations). (2022).

  • Kidd, S., Jones, H. & Jay, S. in Maritime Spatial Planning, Past, Present and Future (eds Zaucha J. & Gee K.) 474 (2021).

  • Pınarbaşı, K. et al. Decision support tools in marine spatial planning: Present applications, gaps and future perspectives. Mar. Policy 83, 83–91 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Gissi, E., Fraschetti, S. & Micheli, F. Incorporating change in marine spatial planning: a review. Environ. Sci. policy 92, 191–200 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Järnberg, L., Vulturius, G. & Ek, F. Strategic agency and learning in sustainability initiatives driving transformation: the symphony tool for ecosystem-based marine spatial planning. Sustain. Sci. 18, 1149–1161 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Depellegrin, D. et al. Current status, advancements and development needs of geospatial decision support tools for marine spatial planning in European seas. Ocean Coast. Manag. 209, 105644 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuismanen, L. M. et al. Identifying ecologically valuable marine areas to support conservation and spatial planning at scales relevant for decision making. Mar. Policy 158, 105890 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, S. M. et al. Dynamic ocean management: defining and conceptualizing real-time management of the ocean. Mar. Policy 58, 42–50 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, R. K. Ocean governance for the 21st century: making marine zoning climate change adaptable. Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 36, 305 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehler, C. N. Two decades of progress in Marine Spatial Planning. Mar. Policy 132, 104134 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Governments of Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and United Kingdom. Antwerp Declaration on the Greater North Sea Basin Initiative as a cross-sectoral platform for the joint development of the Greater North Sea Basin. (2023).

  • Elliott, M., Borja, Á & Cormier, R. Managing marine resources sustainably–ecological, societal and governance connectivity, coherence and equivalence in complex marine transboundary regions. Ocean Coast. Manag. 245, 106875 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, F. et al. Co-production of knowledge and sustainability transformations: a strategic compass for global research networks. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 49, 127–142 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Coll, M. et al. Mechanistic projections for changing species and ecosystems: preliminary projections and report. FutureMARES Deliverable Report (Deliberable 27). (2024).

  • Peck, M. A. et al. Climate change and European fisheries and aquaculture:‘CERES’Project synthesis report. (2020).

  • Yuan, T. et al. Abrupt reduction in shipping emission as an inadvertent geoengineering termination shock produces substantial radiative warming. Commun. Earth Environ. 5, 281 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Eide, M. et al. Reducing CO2 from shipping–do non-CO2 effects matter?. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 13, 4183–4201 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Czermański, E. et al. Baltic shipping development trends in maritime spatial planning aspect. Studia i Materiały Instytutu Transportu i Handlu Morskiego. (2017).

  • Gissi, E. et al. Contributions of marine area-based management tools to the UN sustainable development goals. J. Clean. Prod. 330, 129910 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Faysse, N. Troubles on the way: An analysis of the challenges faced by multi‐stakeholder platforms. Nat. Resour. Forum. 219-229 (2024).

  • O’Leary, B. C. et al. Embracing nature-based solutions to promote resilient marine and coastal ecosystems. Nat. Based Solut. 3, 100044 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Ranius, T. et al. Protected area designation and management in a world of climate change: a review of recommendations. Ambio 52, 68–80 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • IOC-UNESCO/European Commission. Updated Joint Roadmap to accelerate Marine/Maritime Spatial Planning processes worldwide –MSP roadmap 2022–2027. (2022).

  • link

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *