Abstract Background Numerous man-made structures (MMS) have been installed in various parts of the ocean (e.g. oil and gas structures, offshore wind installations). Many are now at, or nearing, the end of their intended life. Currently, we only have a limited understanding of decommissioning effects. In many locations, such as the North Sea, regulations restrict decommissioning options to complete removal, with little consideration of alternative management options might offer. To generate a reliable evidence-base to inform the decision-making processes pertaining to marine MMS management, we propose a wide-encompassing systematic map of published research on the ecosystem effects (including ecosystem services) of marine MMS while in place and following cessation of operations (i.e. including effects of alternative decommissioning options). This map is undertaken as part of the UKRI DREAMS project which aims to develop a system to show the relative effects of implementing different decommissioning strategies in the North Sea. Method For the purpose of this map, we will keep our focus global, in order to subsequently draw comparisons between marine regions. The proposed map will aim to answer the following two primary questions: 1. What published evidence exists for the effects of marine man-made structures while in place on the marine ecosystem? 2. What published evidence exists for the effects of the decommissioning of marine man-made structures on the marine ecosystem? The map will follow the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management. Searches will be run primarily in English in at least 13 databases and 4 websites. Returns will be screened at title/abstract level and at full-text against pre-defined criteria. Relevant meta-data will be extracted for each study included. Results will be used to build a database of evidence, which will be made freely available. This map, expected to be large, will improve our knowledge of the available evidence for the ecosystem effects of MMS in the global marine environment. It will subsequently inform the production of multiple systematic-reviews and meta-analyses.
This chapter outlines a framework for characterizing complex marine and coastal ecological functions and associated Ecosystem Services (ES). It describes possible steps for undertaking Marine and Coastal Ecosystem Services Assessment (MCESA) to improve the usefulness of such information in marine management. Marine and coastal ecosystems are among the world's most productive, but they suffer from increasing human pressures and adaptive challenges. Ecosystem services assessments (ESA) have become part of the suite of assessment techniques used in marine policy and marine planning. ESA bring together a range of concepts from the natural and social sciences. MCESA can promote understanding of the services and provide estimates of values for the benefits arising from them, given changing levels of pressure and alternative management strategies. If an ecosystem service is not likely to change in quantity or value, there may be little benefit in formally assessing it.
We show that globally declining fisheries catch trends cannot be explained by random processes and are consistent with declining stock abundance trends. Future projections are inherently uncertain but may provide a benchmark against which to assess the effectiveness of conservation measures. Marine reserves and fisheries closures are among those measures and can be equally effective in tropical and temperate areas—but must be combined with catch-, effort-, and gear restrictions to meet global conservation objectives.
Plastic pollution has emerged as a global challenge necessitating collective efforts to mitigate its adverse environmental consequences.International negotiations are currently underway to establish a global plastic treaty.Emphasizing the need for solution-orientated research, rather than focusing on further defining the problems of widespread environmental occurrence and ecological impacts, this paper extracts insights and draws key patterns that are relevant for these international negotiations.The analysis reveals that (i) environmental rather than human health concerns have been the predominant driving force behind previous regulations targeting pollutants, and (ii) the decision to ban or discontinue the use of harmful pollutants is primarily affected by the availability of viable substitutes.These two key findings are relevant to the discussions of the ongoing Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) on the global plastic treaty and underscore the recognition of environmental consequences associated with plastic pollution while emphasizing the need to enhance the knowledge base of potential human health risks.Leveraging the availability of substitutes can significantly contribute to the development and implementation of effective strategies aimed at reducing plastic usage and corresponding pollution.
<p>The UK government has made formal commitments to reduce GHG emissions (e.g. under the Climate Change Act 2008 and subsequent amendments) and to protect/improve natural capital and the environment (e.g. as part of the 25 Year Environment Plan published in 2018). Meeting these objectives requires an integrated approach to two parallel challenges i) decarbonising the energy system and ii) better understanding and valuation of natural capital and ecosystem services. From an academic perspective this involves bringing together two substantial, but rather weakly connected bodies of research, while also acknowledging that this integration in a UK setting needs to recognise the international context (i.e. a whole systems perspective).</p><p>The ADVENT project (ADdressing Valuation of Energy and Nature Together) has been funded by the UK National Environment Research Council to develop conceptual frameworks and modelling tools which &#8216;integrate the analysis of prospective UK energy pathways with considerations relating to the value of natural capital&#8217;. A methodology has been implemented to downscale the outputs of pathways from national energy system models and incorporate environmental impacts into the assessment of different options. This has required defining spatially-optimised distributions of investments in new energy infrastructure using a range of financial and welfare criteria. These distributions are then compared in terms of their construction, transport and land opportunity costs, as well as the implications for biodiversity, greenhouse gas emissions, recreation, visual amenity and water resources.</p><p>This paper will present results from comparing different UK energy pathways through to 2050 in terms of the implications of electricity generation from three types of renewables (bioenergy, solar and onshore wind). The results illustrate that i) individual pathways can vary appreciably in their environmental impacts, ii) overall societal welfare can be enhanced by using spatial modelling to incorporate valuations of such impacts into implementation of pathways and iii) assessment outcomes can be sensitive to modelling assumptions (e.g. regarding the proportion of biomass feedstock from domestic or international sources). More broadly, the results demonstrate how important improvements can be achieved in the integration of environmental considerations into the assessment of future energy pathways at regional and national scales. The approach is now being further refined through the UK Energy Research Centre Phase 4 programme and ADVANCES Landscape Decisions project in the UK, as well as the five-country IRENES project funded by Interreg Europe.&#160;</p>
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='translate(288.889 -214.211)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='translate(108 342.749)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='translate(469.189 342.749)'/%3e%3c/svg%3e)