Volunteer Restoration Events in Northern California Supporting Sustainable Development Goals

Overview

In March, Northern California residents have multiple opportunities to engage in environmental restoration activities aimed at preserving fragile coastal habitats. The Redwood Parks Conservancy, in partnership with California State Parks North Coast Redwoods District, is organizing a series of volunteer restoration days across the region. These initiatives align with several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 15 (Life on Land), SDG 13 (Climate Action), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

Objectives and Focus

• Removal of invasive non-native plants and encroaching vegetation threatening native ecosystems.
• Support habitat recovery in state parks from the Lost Coast to lagoons and prairies in Mendocino, Humboldt, and Del Norte counties.
• Promote community engagement and environmental stewardship consistent with SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

Event Details and Locations

1. Sinkyone Wilderness State Park
   Date: Saturday, March 7, 10 a.m. – 2 p.m.
   Activities: Restoration of coastal prairies through removal of invasive plants.
   Meeting Point: Jones Beach trailhead, one mile north of the visitor center.
   Note: Carpooling encouraged due to limited parking.
2. Trinidad State Beach
   Date: Saturday, March 14, 9 a.m. – 12 p.m.
   Activities: Removal of invasive species such as English ivy to protect native coastal habitats.
   Meeting Point: Corner of Anderson Lane and Stagecoach Road.
3. Big Dune – Tolowa Dunes State Park
   Date: Sunday, March 15, 10 a.m. – 2 p.m.
   Activities: Removal of invasive plants like European beachgrass to safeguard rare coastal dune ecosystems.
   Meeting Point: Lake Earl Wildlife Area building, 2591 Old Mill Road, Crescent City, CA 95531.
   Note: Work site is approximately one-mile hike from parking.
4. Humboldt Lagoons State Park
   Date: Saturday, March 21, 10 a.m. – 1 p.m.
   Activities: Restoration of western azaleas by removing invasive vegetation.
   Meeting Point: Stagecoach Hill Azalea Trailhead off Kane Road/Big Lagoon Ranch Road.
   Note: Carpooling encouraged due to limited parking.
5. Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park
   Date: Sunday, March 29, 10 a.m. – 1 p.m.
   Activities: Prairie restoration through removal of invasive plants and encroaching vegetation.
   Meeting Point: In front of the visitor center; park in day-use parking area or along Newton B. Drury Scenic Parkway.

Participation Information

• All events are free and open to the public.
• Volunteers of all ages are welcome; minors must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian.
• Participants should bring sturdy shoes, a hat, drinking water, and be prepared for moderate physical activity.
• Free transportation from Crescent City is available on a first-come, first-served basis. Reservations can be made by emailing autumn@redwoodparks.org or calling (707) 564-7388.

How to Register and Learn More

Interested individuals can sign up or obtain additional information by visiting the event registration page at bit.ly/rpc-eventbrite.

Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

• SDG 15: Life on Land – Protecting, restoring, and promoting sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems through habitat restoration.
• SDG 13: Climate Action – Enhancing ecosystem resilience to climate change by controlling invasive species and restoring native vegetation.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities – Encouraging community participation in environmental conservation.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals – Collaboration between Redwood Parks Conservancy and California State Parks to achieve restoration objectives.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed

1. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • The article focuses on restoring fragile coastal habitats and removing invasive non-native plants, which directly relates to protecting, restoring, and promoting sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems.
2. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • By restoring native ecosystems and removing invasive species, the activities contribute to ecosystem resilience and carbon sequestration, indirectly supporting climate action.
3. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • The volunteer events promote community engagement and stewardship of natural spaces, contributing to making communities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.
4. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • Encouraging outdoor physical activity and community participation supports health and well-being.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs

1. SDG 15 Targets:
   • 15.1 – Ensure the conservation, restoration, and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services.
   • 15.5 – Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity.
2. SDG 13 Targets:
   • 13.1 – Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.
3. SDG 11 Targets:
   • 11.7 – Provide universal access to safe, inclusive, and accessible green and public spaces.
4. SDG 3 Targets:
   • 3.4 – Promote mental health and well-being.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied in the Article

1. Indicators for SDG 15:
   • Proportion of land that is degraded over total land area (implied by efforts to remove invasive species and restore habitats).
   • Coverage of protected areas and restoration activities in coastal and terrestrial ecosystems.
2. Indicators for SDG 13:
   • Number of ecosystem restoration projects contributing to climate resilience.
3. Indicators for SDG 11:
   • Access to green public spaces measured by community participation in restoration activities.
4. Indicators for SDG 3:
   • Participation rates in outdoor physical activities promoting health and well-being.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: krcrtv.com

Volunteer Restoration Events to Support Sustainable Development Goals in Northern California

Redwood Parks Conservancy (RPC), in collaboration with California State Parks North Coast Redwoods District, is organizing a series of volunteer restoration events throughout March aimed at restoring coastal prairies, dunes, and native plant habitats across Northern California. These initiatives strongly contribute to the achievement of several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including SDG 15 (Life on Land), SDG 13 (Climate Action), and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

Objectives and Focus Areas

The restoration activities focus on:

• Removal of invasive non-native plants and encroaching vegetation threatening native ecosystems
• Supporting habitat recovery across diverse parks from the Lost Coast to Mendocino, Humboldt, and Del Norte counties
• Enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem resilience in line with SDG 15

These volunteer opportunities provide meaningful engagement with nature, fostering environmental stewardship and community participation, aligning with SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

Scheduled Volunteer Events

1. Sinkyone Wilderness State Park

   Date & Time: Saturday, March 7, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.

   Activity: Restoration of coastal prairies through removal of invasive non-native plants and encroaching vegetation.

   Meeting Point: Jones Beach trailhead (approximately one mile north of the visitor center). Carpooling is encouraged due to limited parking.

2. Trinidad State Beach

   Date & Time: Saturday, March 14, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.

   Activity: Removal of invasive species such as English ivy to protect native coastal habitats.

   Meeting Point: Corner of Anderson Lane and Stagecoach Road.

3. Big Dune – Tolowa Dunes State Park

   Date & Time: Sunday, March 15, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.

   Activity: Removal of invasive plants such as European beachgrass to safeguard rare coastal dune ecosystems.

   Meeting Point: Lake Earl Wildlife Area building, 2591 Old Mill Road, Crescent City, CA 95531. Note: The work site is approximately a one-mile hike from the parking area.

4. Humboldt Lagoons State Park

   Date & Time: Saturday, March 21, 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.

   Activity: Restoration of western azaleas by removing invasive vegetation.

   Meeting Point: Stagecoach Hill Azalea Trailhead off Kane Road / Big Lagoon Ranch Road. Carpooling recommended due to limited parking.

5. Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park

   Date & Time: Sunday, March 29, 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.

   Activity: Prairie restoration through removal of invasive non-native plants and encroaching vegetation.

   Meeting Point: In front of the visitor center. Volunteers should park in the day-use parking area or along Newton B. Drury Scenic Parkway.

Volunteer Participation Details

• All events are free and open to the public.
• Volunteers of all ages are welcome; minors must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian.
• Free transportation from Crescent City is available on a first-come, first-served basis. Reservations can be made by emailing [email protected] or calling (707) 564-7388.

Preparation and Registration

• What to Bring: Sturdy shoes, a hat, drinking water, and readiness for moderate physical activity.
• Registration and Information: Interested participants can sign up or learn more at bit.ly/rpc-eventbrite.

Conclusion

These volunteer restoration events exemplify community-driven efforts to promote environmental sustainability and biodiversity conservation, directly supporting the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. By engaging in habitat restoration, volunteers contribute to preserving life on land (SDG 15), combating climate change (SDG 13), and fostering sustainable communities (SDG 11), thereby advancing global sustainability agendas at the local level.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected

1. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • The article focuses on restoring coastal prairies, dunes, and native plant habitats, which directly relates to protecting, restoring, and promoting sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems.
2. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • By removing invasive species and restoring native habitats, the activities contribute to ecosystem resilience and carbon sequestration, supporting climate change mitigation efforts.
3. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • Encouraging outdoor volunteer activities promotes physical health and mental well-being.
4. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • The partnership between Redwood Parks Conservancy and California State Parks exemplifies collaboration for sustainable development.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified

1. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Target 15.1: By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services.
   • Target 15.5: Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity.
2. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.
3. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • Target 3.4: Promote mental health and well-being.
4. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied to Measure Progress

1. SDG 15 Indicators
   • Proportion of land that is degraded over total land area (implied by efforts to remove invasive species and restore habitats).
   • Coverage of protected areas in relation to terrestrial ecosystems (implied by restoration activities in state parks).
2. SDG 13 Indicators
   • Number of ecosystems restored to improve resilience to climate change (implied by habitat restoration efforts).
3. SDG 3 Indicators
   • Participation rates in physical outdoor activities (implied by volunteer engagement).
4. SDG 17 Indicators
   • Number of partnerships and collaborations established (implied by the partnership between Redwood Parks Conservancy and California State Parks).

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: kymkemp.com

Report on the West Coast Marine Heatwave and Its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Overview of the Marine Heatwave Event

Since the summer of 2025, a massive marine heatwave has persisted in the waters off the West Coast of the United States. This event marks only the third recorded instance of such an extensive and prolonged warming of coastal ocean waters, notably continuing into the winter months without being associated with an El Niño phenomenon, according to NOAA scientists. NOAA Fisheries and partner organizations are actively monitoring potential impacts, including harmful algal blooms that can adversely affect marine mammals and result in the closure of shellfish fisheries.

Significance in the Context of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

• SDG 14: Life Below Water – The heatwave poses significant threats to marine biodiversity and ecosystem health, necessitating enhanced monitoring and conservation efforts.
• SDG 13: Climate Action – The event underscores the urgent need for climate resilience strategies to mitigate ocean warming impacts.
• SDG 1: No Poverty and SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth – The closure of fisheries affects livelihoods and economic stability in coastal communities.

Third Time as Warm: Historical and Scientific Context

In September 2025, the marine heatwave reached temperatures comparable to the 2013–2016 event known as “The Blob,” with surface waters along the West Coast rising approximately 3 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit above normal. On September 9, 2025, the northeast Pacific recorded its highest average temperature ever at 20.6°C (69°F), nearly half a degree warmer than previous records. Historical data indicate that such heatwaves disrupt marine ecosystems, causing species shifts, die-offs, and ecosystem imbalances.

Download pdf version

Monitoring and Forecasting Efforts

Andrew Leising, research oceanographer at NOAA Fisheries’ Southwest Fisheries Science Center, operates the California Current Marine Heatwave Tracker, which compiles data from satellites, ships, and buoys since 2019. Despite the current La Niña conditions, coastal water temperatures remain anomalously high, presenting unprecedented challenges for interpretation and response.

Ecological and Economic Impacts of Heatwaves

Species Distribution and Ecosystem Disruption

The heatwave has resulted in unusual species distributions, such as increased tuna catches in Alaska. Previous heatwaves have been linked to reduced salmon survival rates, impacting both ecosystems and fisheries. These changes highlight the vulnerability of marine life to temperature anomalies and the importance of adaptive management.

Harmful Algal Blooms and Marine Health

• Early and intense harmful algal blooms, as experienced in Southern California in 2025, have caused mass mortalities among sea lions, dolphins, and seabirds.
• Such blooms also threaten shellfish fisheries, leading to closures that affect local economies and food security.

Projections and Future Considerations for 2026

While the current marine heatwave rivals previous events in spatial extent, its ecological impact has been less severe due to shallower penetration and shorter duration near the coast. NOAA forecasts indicate potential dissipation of warm surface waters through mixing with cooler subsurface waters. However, the risk remains that residual warm waters could fuel further harmful algal blooms.

Implications for Sustainable Development and Ocean Stewardship

1. Enhanced Monitoring: Continued development of forecasting tools and ecosystem assessments to anticipate and mitigate heatwave impacts.
2. Community Engagement: Collaboration with fishing fleets and coastal stakeholders to gather real-time observations and adapt management strategies.
3. Policy Integration: Incorporation of marine heatwave data into climate adaptation policies to support SDG 13 and SDG 14 objectives.

As Andrew Leising emphasizes, the unprecedented nature of these conditions demands cautious interpretation and comprehensive ecosystem-based approaches to understand and respond effectively.

Call to Action

Members of the public are encouraged to report stranded marine mammals such as sea lions and dolphins to the West Coast Region Stranding Hotline at (866) 767-6114, supporting conservation and response efforts aligned with SDG 15: Life on Land and SDG 14: Life Below Water.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected

1. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • The article focuses on marine heatwaves affecting ocean temperatures, marine ecosystems, species distribution, and harmful algal blooms, all of which directly relate to the conservation and sustainable use of oceans, seas, and marine resources.
2. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • The article discusses the unprecedented marine heatwave and its relation to changing ocean temperatures, which are linked to climate variability and change, emphasizing the need for climate action and adaptation.
3. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Indirectly connected through the impact of harmful algal blooms on marine mammals and seabirds, affecting biodiversity on land and coastal ecosystems.
4. SDG 1: No Poverty and SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • The closure of shellfish fisheries due to harmful algal blooms impacts coastal economies and livelihoods, linking to poverty reduction and sustainable economic growth.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified

1. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • Target 14.2: Sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience and taking action for their restoration.
   • Target 14.4: Effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, and destructive fishing practices to restore fish stocks.
   • Target 14.3: Minimize and address the impacts of ocean acidification, including through enhanced scientific cooperation at all levels.
2. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.
   • Target 13.3: Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction, and early warning.
3. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Target 15.5: Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity, and protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species.
4. SDG 1: No Poverty and SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • Target 1.4: Ensure that all men and women have equal rights to economic resources, including access to basic services and ownership of land and other forms of property.
   • Target 8.9: Devise and implement policies to promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied to Measure Progress

1. Indicators Related to SDG 14
   • Sea surface temperature anomalies (SSTa) and average ocean temperatures as measured by satellites, ships, and buoys to monitor marine heatwaves.
   • Frequency and extent of harmful algal blooms affecting marine life and fisheries closures.
   • Population and health status of marine mammals and fish species such as salmon and tunas.
   • Changes in fish stock abundance and distribution, especially salmon survival rates.
2. Indicators Related to SDG 13
   • Records of marine heatwave occurrences, duration, and intensity as climate-related hazards.
   • Forecasting and early warning systems for marine heatwaves and harmful algal blooms.
3. Indicators Related to SDG 15
   • Number of marine mammals and seabirds affected or killed by harmful algal blooms.
   • Incidence of species shifting habitats due to changing ocean conditions.
4. Indicators Related to SDG 1 and 8
   • Economic impact measurements from fishery closures and loss of livelihoods in coastal communities.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: fisheries.noaa.gov

Global Analysis Reveals Significant Changes in Fish Communities and Food Webs

Overview of the Study

A comprehensive global study analyzing nearly 15,000 marine and freshwater fish communities has identified significant shifts in aquatic food webs, even in ecosystems where species numbers remain stable. Conducted by researchers from the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv), Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, and Friedrich Schiller University Jena, the study utilized long-term data spanning up to 70 years to assess changes in species composition, body size, and feeding relationships.

Key Findings

1. Stable Species Richness but Changing Composition: While overall species richness showed no consistent global trend, species composition shifted markedly, with communities increasingly dominated by smaller-bodied fish species.
2. Decline of Large Top Predators: The proportion of large top predators such as sharks, goliath groupers, muskellunge, and marble trout has declined significantly.
3. Increase in Generalist Feeders: Fish food webs have become more densely connected, with species feeding on a wider range of prey, indicating a rise in generalist feeders with broader, less specialized diets.
4. Restructuring of Trophic Levels: Mid-level predators and primary consumers have increased, altering species distribution across trophic levels and reshaping aquatic food web structures.

Implications for Ecosystem Function and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The observed changes in fish community structure and food-web dynamics have profound implications for ecosystem function and align closely with several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

• SDG 14 – Life Below Water: The decline in large predators and shifts toward smaller, generalist species highlight the urgent need for sustainable management of marine and freshwater ecosystems to preserve biodiversity and maintain ecosystem services.
• SDG 2 – Zero Hunger: Changes in fish community composition affect fisheries productivity and food security, emphasizing the importance of monitoring ecosystem health to support sustainable seafood resources.
• SDG 13 – Climate Action: Increased food-web connectance may influence ecosystem resilience to climate-related disturbances such as warming and eutrophication, underscoring the need for adaptive management strategies.
• SDG 15 – Life on Land: Freshwater ecosystem changes also impact biodiversity conservation efforts on land, as aquatic and terrestrial systems are interconnected.

Research Insights on Food-Web Dynamics

Juan Carvajal-Quintero, first author and Assistant Professor at Dalhousie University, emphasized the ecological rule that “big fish eat small fish,” noting that changes in predator and prey sizes reshape feeding relationships and ecosystem functions.

Ulrich Brose, research group head at iDiv and the University of Jena, highlighted that increased food-web connectance could both accelerate the spread of disturbances and enhance buffering capacity against environmental pressures such as overfishing and nutrient loading.

Global and Long-Term Patterns

• The study found consistent patterns across multiple marine and freshwater ecosystems worldwide, indicating a broad, long-term reorganization of food webs rather than isolated local changes.
• Jonathan Chase, senior author and research group head at iDiv and Martin Luther University, stressed the importance of synthesizing extensive datasets to reveal these widespread restructuring trends.

Recommendations for Biodiversity Monitoring and Conservation

The study suggests that relying solely on species richness metrics may overlook critical ecosystem changes. Instead, monitoring should integrate species traits such as body size, feeding behavior, and trophic interactions to provide a comprehensive understanding of ecosystem dynamics.

Incorporating food-web perspectives into biodiversity monitoring can enhance conservation strategies and support the achievement of SDGs by informing sustainable management and policy decisions.

Additional Resources

For further details, the full study is available in Science Advances.

Supporting Sustainable Seafood Practices

The Global Seafood Alliance (GSA) encourages support for responsible seafood practices through education, advocacy, and third-party assurances. Membership supports ongoing efforts to document and promote sustainable seafood, contributing to SDG 14 and related goals.

• Individual membership costs $50 per year.
• Members help advance pre-competitive work, resources, and events focused on sustainable seafood.
• Support GSA and Become a Member

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected

1. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • The article discusses changes in marine and freshwater fish communities, focusing on aquatic food webs, species composition, and ecosystem functions.
   • Issues such as the decline of large top predators, shifts in fish body sizes, and impacts of overfishing and ocean warming are directly related to the conservation and sustainable use of oceans, seas, and marine resources.
2. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Although the focus is aquatic ecosystems, freshwater ecosystems are part of terrestrial biodiversity and their health is critical to overall biodiversity conservation.
   • The article’s emphasis on biodiversity monitoring and ecosystem function relates to protecting, restoring, and promoting sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems and freshwater habitats.
3. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • The article mentions the effects of global change factors such as warming and eutrophication on aquatic ecosystems.
   • Understanding ecosystem responses to climate change and human pressures aligns with SDG 13’s goal to combat climate change and its impacts.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified

1. Under SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • Target 14.2: Sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience and taking action for their restoration.
   • Target 14.4: Effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and destructive fishing practices to restore fish stocks.
   • Target 14.5: Conserve at least 10% of coastal and marine areas, consistent with national and international law.
2. Under SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Target 15.1: Ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems.
   • Target 15.5: Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats and halt biodiversity loss.
3. Under SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied to Measure Progress

1. Species Richness and Composition
   • The article highlights that species richness alone does not fully capture ecosystem changes, but it remains a key indicator for biodiversity monitoring.
2. Fish Body Size and Trophic Structure
   • Changes in average fish body size and the proportion of top predators versus generalist feeders are implied indicators to assess ecosystem health and food web structure.
3. Feeding Relationships and Food-Web Connectance
   • Indicators related to feeding interactions, such as the degree of connectance in food webs and the prevalence of generalist feeders, are suggested as measures of ecosystem function and resilience.
4. Impacts of Human Pressures
   • Indicators related to overfishing, ocean warming, eutrophication, and nutrient loading are implied as factors influencing ecosystem changes and can be monitored to evaluate progress.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: globalseafood.org

Report on Environmental and Military Impacts on Guam’s Coral Reefs with Emphasis on Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

Ritidian Point, located at the northern tip of Guam, is an area of ecological significance featuring an ancient limestone forest and diverse marine life, including the most diverse coral reef within U.S. jurisdiction. However, this natural environment faces significant threats from military activities and federal policies prioritizing national security and economic interests. This report highlights these challenges with a focus on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 14 (Life Below Water), SDG 13 (Climate Action), and SDG 15 (Life on Land).

Context and Background

• Guam, smaller than New York City, hosts a military community of nearly 23,000 personnel.
• The island is described as a “tip of the spear” in the American military arsenal, creating a juxtaposition of natural beauty and military operations.
• The coral reefs around Guam are biologically resilient but are increasingly threatened by live-fire testing ranges and military infrastructure expansion.

Environmental Threats and Military Activities

1. Accelerated Coral Reef Collapse: A team of international researchers published a letter in Science warning that military dredging, infrastructure development, and live firing are accelerating coral reef degradation around Guam.
2. Policy Challenges: The Endangered Species Act (ESA) currently suffers from a conservation gap due to misunderstandings of coral taxonomy, hindering effective protection of reef-building corals.
3. Regulatory Changes: NOAA’s recent proposals aim to ease critical habitat regulations, potentially prioritizing economic and military interests over ecological conservation.

Key Issues Identified

• Misclassification of Coral Species: Coral species, especially Acropora corals, are difficult to categorize due to phenotypic plasticity, complicating conservation efforts under ESA.
• Functional Extinction Risk: Guam’s coral reefs risk “functional extinction” similar to that experienced in Florida, where 98% mortality of key coral species was recorded following marine heatwaves.
• Environmental Baseline Reclassification: Proposed changes would allow the Navy to treat degraded reefs as a baseline, reducing accountability for further damage.

Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

1. SDG 14 – Life Below Water:
   • Protection of marine biodiversity is compromised by military activities and regulatory rollbacks.
   • Coral reef degradation threatens marine ecosystems that support fisheries and coastal protection.
2. SDG 13 – Climate Action:
   • Repeated heatwaves and climate change exacerbate coral bleaching and mortality.
   • Urgent climate adaptation and mitigation strategies are needed to preserve marine habitats.
3. SDG 15 – Life on Land:
   • Military pollution from substances such as PCBs, PFAS, and dieldrin has historically harmed terrestrial and marine environments.
   • Indigenous Chamorro communities face environmental injustices linked to these impacts.
4. SDG 12 – Responsible Consumption and Production:
   • Federal agencies’ shift towards prioritizing economic gains and energy production risks unsustainable exploitation of marine resources.
5. SDG 16 – Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions:
   • Calls for transparent and science-based regulatory processes to balance national security and environmental conservation.

Recent Developments and Policy Actions

• In July 2025, NOAA rejected a Navy request to expand exempt military zones in northern Guam, citing conservation benefits.
• NOAA finalized critical habitat designations for five threatened coral species across 92 square miles in the Pacific, including Guam.
• Following Executive Order 14154 (“Unleashing American Energy”) in January 2025, federal agencies were pressured to reduce regulatory burdens on energy and security projects.
• NOAA proposed regulatory changes in November 2025 to expand authority to bypass critical habitat protections, raising concerns among researchers.

Scientific and Conservation Challenges

1. Taxonomic Verification: Many Indo-Pacific corals, including those in Guam, lack DNA barcoding verification due to cost and time constraints, risking loss of undocumented species.
2. Coral Growth and Reproduction: Staghorn Acropora corals grow in large genetically uniform thickets, limiting their ability to self-fertilize and establish new colonies.
3. Heatwave Impacts: Guam lost 34-37% of live coral between 2013 and 2017 due to heatwaves, low tides, and diseases, with ongoing vulnerability to future events.

Community and Indigenous Perspectives

• Indigenous Chamorro people, with over 3,000 years of heritage, express frustration over environmental damage linked to military activities.
• Local communities highlight the disconnect between economic gains from military presence and the lack of improvements in food, health, and education security.
• Small island nations disproportionately suffer climate change impacts despite minimal contributions to global emissions.

Recommendations and Calls to Action

1. NOAA should reverse proposed ESA regulatory changes that weaken habitat protections.
2. Extend ESA protections to the entire Acropora genus to address taxonomic uncertainties and enhance conservation.
3. Implement comprehensive ecological surveys prior to military or energy projects to minimize environmental harm.
4. Prioritize sustainable development that balances national security with environmental stewardship and community well-being.
5. Increase funding and support for genetic research and coral taxonomy to improve species identification and protection.

Conclusion

The ecological integrity of Guam’s coral reefs is at a critical juncture, threatened by military expansion and regulatory rollbacks. Aligning policies with the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly those focused on marine conservation, climate action, and sustainable communities, is essential to prevent irreversible damage. Immediate and coordinated efforts involving government agencies, scientists, indigenous communities, and international stakeholders are required to safeguard Guam’s marine ecosystems for future generations.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected

1. SDG 14: Life Below Water – The article focuses heavily on the degradation of coral reefs around Guam due to military activities, heatwaves, and ecological mismanagement, directly relating to the conservation and sustainable use of oceans, seas, and marine resources.
2. SDG 13: Climate Action – The article discusses the impacts of marine heatwaves and climate-related stressors on coral reefs, highlighting the need for urgent climate action to protect marine ecosystems.
3. SDG 15: Life on Land – Although primarily marine-focused, the article mentions terrestrial impacts such as saltwater intrusion affecting outer islands and indigenous communities, linking to terrestrial ecosystem protection.
4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions – The article highlights conflicts between national security priorities and environmental conservation, touching on governance, policy-making, and regulatory challenges.
5. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production – Implied through concerns about economic interests overriding environmental protections and the call for sustainable policy implementation.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified

• SDG 14 – Target 14.2: Sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including through strengthening their resilience and taking action for their restoration.
• SDG 14 – Target 14.5: Conserve at least 10% of coastal and marine areas, consistent with national and international law and based on best available scientific information.
• SDG 13 – Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.
• SDG 15 – Target 15.1: Ensure the conservation, restoration, and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services.
• SDG 16 – Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable, and transparent institutions at all levels.
• SDG 12 – Target 12.8: Ensure that people have relevant information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles in harmony with nature.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied to Measure Progress

• Indicator 14.2.1: Proportion of national exclusive economic zones managed using ecosystem-based approaches. Implied through discussions on habitat protection and military impact on marine areas.
• Indicator 14.5.1: Coverage of protected areas in relation to marine areas. Referenced by NOAA’s designation of critical habitats for threatened coral species.
• Indicator 13.1.2: Number of countries with national and local disaster risk reduction strategies. Implied by the need to brace for marine heatwaves and ecological disasters.
• Coral Mortality Rates: Specific data such as Guam losing 34-37% of live coral (2013-2017) and Florida’s 98% mortality rate in certain coral species serve as ecological indicators of reef health and resilience.
• Taxonomic Verification and DNA Barcoding: Mentioned as scientific methods to identify and monitor coral species, essential for tracking biodiversity and conservation status.
• Regulatory and Policy Indicators: Changes in Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections and NOAA’s regulatory decisions serve as governance indicators impacting conservation outcomes.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: insideclimatenews.org

Report on the Silver Branch Vegetation Management Project and Its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Project Overview

The US Forest Service has proposed the Silver Branch Vegetation Management Project in the Ottawa National Forest, located in Michigan’s western Upper Peninsula. This extensive project covers approximately 40 miles north to south along the eastern edge of the forest near the Wisconsin border.

• Logging operations including clear-cutting and selective tree removal over approximately 130 square miles.
• Expansion of gravel mining activities to support road construction and maintenance.
• Forest restoration efforts including wild rice seeding, campground and lake access improvements, and habitat enhancement for protected species such as the Kirtland’s warbler.
• Projected duration of around 30 years with periodic environmental reviews.

Environmental and Social Concerns

The project has elicited concerns from environmental organizations and recreational groups, particularly regarding potential impacts on biodiversity, climate regulation, and recreational trail availability.

• Potential habitat disruption for endangered species including the northern long-eared bat and gray wolves.
• Risk of spreading invasive species and increased water runoff due to logging activities.
• Removal of mature trees over 100 years old, which play a critical role in carbon sequestration and climate stabilization.
• Reduction in off-road vehicle trails, affecting recreational use.

Stakeholder Engagement and Responses

A coalition of organizations submitted detailed concerns to the US Forest Service, requesting:

1. Modification of project boundaries to better protect designated wilderness areas.
2. Preparation of a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to thoroughly assess potential environmental effects.

The Forest Service has conducted an Environmental Assessment (EA) and concluded no significant impact is expected. However, they have incorporated measures to mitigate risks, including:

• Protective buffers around northern long-eared bat roosts.
• Best management practices to reduce water runoff and limit invasive species spread.
• Forest thinning and prescribed burns to enhance resilience against pests, disease, and wildfire exacerbated by climate change.

Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The Silver Branch project intersects with several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, notably:

SDG 13: Climate Action

• Preservation of mature forests contributes to carbon sequestration, aiding climate stabilization.
• Forest restoration and management practices aim to increase resilience to climate-related disturbances such as wildfires and pest outbreaks.

SDG 15: Life on Land

• Protection and enhancement of habitats for endangered species including the northern long-eared bat and Kirtland’s warbler.
• Efforts to control invasive species and maintain biodiversity within the national forest.
• Maintenance of ecological balance through active forest management.

SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

• Timber harvesting conducted through competitive bidding promotes sustainable resource use.
• Use of gravel mined on-site for forest roads supports efficient resource management.

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

• Improvements to campgrounds and lake access enhance sustainable recreational opportunities.
• Balancing multiple forest uses including recreation, habitat conservation, and timber production.

Project Implementation and Future Steps

• Logging contracts will be awarded to private contractors via competitive bidding, with fees paid to the federal government.
• The Forest Service plans to open a formal objection period in March, followed by a decision expected the same month.
• Project commencement is anticipated in June, subject to approval.

Expert Opinions

Forestry experts acknowledge the complexity of managing national forests to meet ecological, economic, and social objectives. While some view the project as a standard forest management initiative, others emphasize the need for thorough environmental scrutiny to safeguard ecosystem services and community interests.

Conclusion

The Silver Branch Vegetation Management Project represents a multifaceted approach to forest management that aims to balance ecological restoration, sustainable resource use, and recreational access. Its alignment with key Sustainable Development Goals underscores the importance of integrating environmental stewardship with community and economic considerations. Ongoing stakeholder engagement and rigorous environmental assessments will be critical to ensuring the project’s success and sustainability.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected

1. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • The article discusses forest management to stabilize climate and sequester carbon, addressing climate change mitigation.
2. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Concerns about habitat for endangered species like the northern long-eared bat and Kirtland’s warbler.
   • Forest restoration efforts and protection of biodiversity.
   • Management of invasive species and wildfire risk.
3. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • Logging and timber harvesting practices, including sustainable forest management.
4. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
   • Concerns about water runoff and its environmental impact.
5. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • Recreation and access improvements in national forests.

2. Specific Targets Under the Identified SDGs

1. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters.
   • Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies and strategies.
2. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Target 15.1: Ensure conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services.
   • Target 15.2: Promote sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests.
   • Target 15.5: Take urgent action to reduce degradation of natural habitats and halt biodiversity loss.
3. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • Target 12.2: Achieve sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.
   • Target 12.5: Substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse.
4. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
   • Target 6.6: Protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including forests, to improve water quality and reduce runoff.
5. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • Target 11.7: Provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible green and public spaces.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied to Measure Progress

1. Forest Area and Health
   • Area of forest logged or restored (e.g., 25,000 acres clear-cut, 57,000 acres targeted logging).
   • Presence and health of endangered species habitats (northern long-eared bat, Kirtland’s warbler, gray wolves).
   • Forest composition and age structure (e.g., proportion of trees over 100 years old, hardwood vs. conifer mix).
2. Carbon Sequestration
   • Carbon storage capacity of mature forests versus replanted young trees.
3. Water Quality and Runoff
   • Measurement of water runoff and sedimentation levels post-logging activities.
4. Invasive Species Spread
   • Incidence and spread of invasive species linked to logging equipment and activities.
5. Wildfire Risk
   • Accumulation of hazardous surface fuels after timber harvest.
   • Incidence of wildfires in treated vs. untreated forest areas.
6. Recreation and Access
   • Number and condition of off-road vehicle trails and campground improvements.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: bridgemi.com

Global Coral Bleaching and Its Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction to Coral Bleaching

Coral reefs, among the most productive ecosystems on Earth, rely on a symbiotic relationship between coral polyps and microscopic algae that supply most of their energy. When ocean temperatures rise unusually, this partnership breaks down, causing corals to expel their algae, lose color, and become weakened—a process known as coral bleaching. Prolonged heat stress often leads to widespread coral mortality.

Recent Global Coral Bleaching Events

1. The 2014–2017 Global Coral Bleaching Event was the most severe on record, affecting over half of the world’s coral reefs and causing significant mortality.
2. A new global bleaching event began in 2023, indicating ongoing large-scale damage due to warming oceans.

Mechanisms and Consequences of Coral Bleaching

• Bleaching results from the breakdown of symbiosis between corals and algae, depriving corals of up to 90% of their energy.
• Heat stress causes algae to produce harmful oxygen radicals, prompting corals to expel them for self-protection.
• Bleached corals face nutritional stress, increased disease susceptibility, slower growth, and reduced reproduction.
• Severity depends on both temperature elevation and duration, measured in degree heating weeks.

Interacting Pressures on Coral Reefs

Coral bleaching interacts with multiple other stressors, which collectively reduce reef resilience and recovery capacity:

• Ocean acidification reduces carbonate ions necessary for coral skeleton formation.
• Overfishing disrupts ecological balance, allowing algae to overgrow corals.
• Pollution and runoff introduce nutrients and toxins harmful to coral health.
• Coastal development and destructive fishing physically damage reef structures.

Significance for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The degradation of coral reefs directly impacts several SDGs, including:

• SDG 13 (Climate Action): Coral bleaching highlights the urgent need to limit global warming to preserve marine ecosystems.
• SDG 14 (Life Below Water): Protecting coral reefs is essential for maintaining marine biodiversity and ecosystem services.
• SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): Millions depend on reef fisheries for food security and livelihoods.
• SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): Coral reefs act as natural coastal barriers, reducing flooding and erosion risks.
• SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): Reef-related tourism contributes significantly to the economies of tropical countries.

Adaptation, Restoration, and Management Strategies

1. Enhancing Resilience: Local management efforts focus on reducing pollution, managing fisheries, and establishing marine protected areas to improve reef recovery.
2. Restoration Efforts: Coral transplantation and artificial reef construction can rebuild habitats locally but face challenges in scaling and cost-effectiveness.
3. Experimental Interventions: Innovative approaches such as assisted evolution, microbiome manipulation, shading, and artificial upwelling are under research to enhance coral thermal tolerance.
4. Climate Refugia Protection: Identifying and safeguarding areas less affected by heat stress is critical for conservation planning.

Challenges and Future Outlook

• Frequent and prolonged marine heatwaves reduce recovery time, increasing the risk of permanent reef degradation.
• Climate models predict longer bleaching seasons and year-round risk in some regions by the end of the century.
• Without significant global emission reductions, many reefs may shift to altered ecological states dominated by heat-tolerant species.
• Coral reefs’ survival is tightly linked to global climate policies and local management effectiveness.

Conclusion

Coral bleaching represents a recurring and escalating stressor that threatens marine biodiversity, coastal protection, and human livelihoods. Addressing this challenge aligns closely with multiple Sustainable Development Goals, emphasizing the importance of integrated climate action, marine conservation, and sustainable resource management. While local interventions provide critical support, limiting global warming remains paramount to preserving coral reefs as functioning ecosystems for future generations.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected

1. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • The article discusses the impact of ocean warming and marine heatwaves on coral bleaching, highlighting the urgent need to limit global warming to preserve coral reefs.
2. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • The core focus is on coral reefs, their degradation due to bleaching, ocean acidification, overfishing, pollution, and coastal development, and the importance of conserving marine ecosystems.
3. SDG 15: Life on Land (Indirectly)
   • Coastal development and land reclamation activities affecting reefs imply a connection to sustainable land use and ecosystem management.
4. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • Issues such as pollution, overfishing, and destructive fishing practices relate to sustainable management and reduction of environmental impacts.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified

1. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters.
   • Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies and strategies.
   • Target 13.3: Improve education, awareness-raising, and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction, and early warning.
2. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • Target 14.2: Sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including through strengthening their resilience.
   • Target 14.3: Minimize and address the impacts of ocean acidification.
   • Target 14.4: Effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing.
   • Target 14.5: Conserve at least 10% of coastal and marine areas.
3. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • Target 12.4: Achieve environmentally sound management of chemicals and wastes to reduce their release to air, water, and soil.
   • Target 12.8: Ensure that people have relevant information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied to Measure Progress

1. Indicators Related to SDG 13 and 14
   • Degree Heating Weeks (DHW): A scientific indicator measuring heat stress on coral reefs by combining temperature intensity and duration, used to assess bleaching risk and mortality.
   • Extent and Severity of Coral Bleaching: Percentage of reefs experiencing moderate or worse bleaching and mortality rates (e.g., 15% mortality during 2014–2017 event).
   • Frequency and Duration of Marine Heatwaves: Tracking the occurrence and length of heat stress events affecting reefs globally.
   • Coral Reef Cover and Growth Rates: Monitoring changes in coral cover, growth, and erosion as indicators of reef health and resilience.
   • Marine Protected Areas Coverage: Percentage of coastal and marine areas under protection, especially those designated as climate refugia.
2. Indicators Related to SDG 12
   • Levels of Pollution and Nutrient Loading: Measuring pollutants such as sediments, pesticides, and heavy metals affecting coral reefs.
   • Fish Stock Status: Monitoring overfishing and herbivorous fish populations to assess ecosystem balance.
3. Implied Indicators
   • Restoration success rates and costs per hectare for coral reef restoration projects.
   • Effectiveness of early warning systems and reef management plans in mitigating bleaching impacts.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: news.mongabay.com

Report on the Role of Forests in Climate Adaptation and Sustainable Development

Introduction

Forests play a critical role in influencing climate beyond carbon storage. A recent academic review published in Science highlights how forests contribute to cooling the air, moderating extreme temperatures, and regulating water flows, directly impacting human well-being. These functions align closely with several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 15 (Life on Land), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), and SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation).

Key Findings on Forests and Climate Regulation

1. Local Climate Moderation:
   • Intact forests create cooler microclimates, stabilizing rainfall and supporting agriculture, health, and daily life.
   • Daytime temperatures inside forests average about 4°C lower than nearby cleared areas; tropical forests can exceed 6°C cooling.
   • Urban trees reduce air temperatures by approximately 1.5–1.7°C on sunny days, mitigating heat stress.
2. Impact of Deforestation:
   • Clearing forests leads to hotter, drier conditions, increasing heat stress and related health risks for large populations.
   • Forest loss in tropical regions exposes hundreds of millions to higher temperatures, contributing to tens of thousands of heat-related deaths annually.
   • Local warming from deforestation can rival or exceed global climate change effects over similar periods.
3. Water Regulation:
   • Forests intercept rainfall, enhance groundwater recharge, and return moisture to the atmosphere through evapotranspiration.
   • In humid regions, forests reduce flood risk and stabilize streamflows, supporting SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation).
   • In drier areas, expanded tree cover may reduce downstream water availability, indicating the need for context-specific forest management.

Forests as Climate Infrastructure

Forests serve as natural climate infrastructure by moderating heat, managing water, and shaping local weather patterns. These ecosystem services support human adaptation to climate change, complementing mitigation efforts focused on carbon sequestration (SDG 13).

• Forests help narrow temperature extremes, providing cooler afternoons and milder nights.
• They contribute to atmospheric processes by emitting organic compounds that form aerosols and clouds, influencing precipitation patterns.
• Protecting and restoring native forests maximizes climate adaptation benefits and biodiversity conservation (SDG 15).

Implications for Sustainable Development and Policy

The review underscores the importance of integrating forest conservation and restoration into climate adaptation strategies. Key implications include:

1. Enhancing Human Health and Well-being (SDG 3):
   • Forests reduce heat stress and associated health risks by lowering local temperatures during heatwaves.
2. Supporting Climate Resilience (SDG 13):
   • Forest protection offers cost-effective adaptation benefits compared to engineered solutions such as seawalls and cooling systems.
3. Water Resource Management (SDG 6):
   • Maintaining forest ecosystems stabilizes water cycles, reducing flood risks and supporting sustainable water supplies.
4. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health (SDG 15):
   • Restoring native forests supports biodiversity and ecosystem services critical for sustainable development.

Contextual Considerations and Limitations

• Forests provide the greatest benefits when conserved or restored in their native ecosystems; afforestation in non-native areas may cause warming effects.
• Forests cannot fully counteract global warming trends; temperatures continue to rise even under dense canopy cover.
• Poorly planned afforestation may strain water resources or disrupt existing ecosystems, highlighting the need for careful management.

Case Studies and Evidence

• Research from Borneo demonstrates that forest loss correlates with rising temperatures, increased heat extremes, and reduced rainfall, emphasizing the role of forests in local climate stability.
• Studies estimate that tropical deforestation contributes significantly to heat-related mortality, reinforcing the health benefits of forest conservation.

Conclusion

Forests are vital for both mitigating climate change and enabling human adaptation, providing ecosystem services that engineering solutions cannot easily replicate. Their protection and restoration support multiple Sustainable Development Goals, including climate action, health, water security, and biodiversity conservation. Integrating forest-based strategies into climate policies is essential for sustainable development and human well-being in a warming world.

References

• Reek, J.E., et al. (2026). More than mitigation: The role of forests in climate adaptation. Science, 391(6786). DOI:10.1126/science.ads4361
• Reddington, C.L., et al. (2025). Tropical deforestation is associated with considerable heat-related mortality. Nature Climate Change, 15, 992–999.
• McAlpine, C.A., et al. (2018). Forest loss and Borneo’s climate. Environmental Research Letters, 13(4), 044009.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected to the Issues Highlighted in the Article

1. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • The article discusses forests as a critical component in climate mitigation and adaptation, highlighting their role in regulating temperature, stabilizing rainfall, and reducing heat stress.
2. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Focus on protecting and restoring forests and natural ecosystems to maintain biodiversity and ecosystem services.
3. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • Forests help reduce heat stress and associated health risks, thus contributing to better health outcomes.
4. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
   • Forests influence water cycles by intercepting rainfall, enhancing infiltration, and stabilizing streamflows, which affect water availability and quality.
5. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • Urban trees provide cooling effects that improve living conditions in cities.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified Based on the Article’s Content

1. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters.
   • Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies, and planning.
2. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Target 15.1: Ensure the conservation, restoration, and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services.
   • Target 15.2: Promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests.
3. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • Target 3.9: Reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.
4. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
   • Target 6.6: Protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes.
5. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • Target 11.7: Provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied in the Article to Measure Progress Towards the Identified Targets

1. Temperature Regulation and Heat Stress Reduction
   • Average temperature differences between forested and deforested or urban areas (e.g., 4°C cooler daytime temperatures inside forests, 1.5–1.7°C cooler urban tree areas).
   • Apparent temperature reductions during heat events inside forests (6–14.5°C lower).
   • Heat-related mortality rates linked to deforestation.
2. Forest Cover and Restoration
   • Extent of native forest cover and restoration efforts.
   • Rates of deforestation and afforestation.
3. Water Cycle and Quality
   • Measures of rainfall interception, infiltration rates, groundwater recharge, and streamflow stability.
   • Downstream water availability in different climatic contexts.
4. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health
   • Indicators of ecosystem stability and biodiversity in forested versus deforested areas.
5. Urban Green Space Accessibility
   • Temperature measurements in urban green spaces.
   • Access to green spaces for urban populations.

4. Table: SDGs, Targets and Indicators

Source: news.mongabay.com

NOAA’s Role in the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Response and Restoration: A Sustainable Development Perspective

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill marked a critical environmental disaster, prompting NOAA to lead extensive response and restoration efforts in the Gulf of America. Over 15 years, NOAA has engaged in activities aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 14 (Life Below Water), SDG 13 (Climate Action), and SDG 15 (Life on Land), focusing on ecosystem restoration, biodiversity protection, and sustainable resource management.

The Oil Spill Incident

On April 20, 2010, an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon Macondo oil well platform triggered the largest marine oil spill in U.S. history. Over 87 days, approximately 134 million gallons of oil were released into the Gulf, severely impacting marine and coastal ecosystems. The spill cessation occurred on July 15, 2010, with the installation of a capping stack.

Emergency Response and Scientific Leadership

NOAA, as the lead science agency for coastal oil spill response, mobilized immediately, deploying experts to the site and utilizing advanced technologies such as satellite imagery and real-time oceanographic data to track and manage the spill. This response supported SDG 14 by protecting marine biodiversity and fisheries.

• Deployment of NOAA’s Office of Response and Restoration starting within hours of the explosion.
• Engagement of thousands of agency staff through 2015 for well capping, cleanup, and assessment.
• Water and seafood sampling to ensure public health and sustainable fisheries (SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being).
• Formation of specialized groups for marine mammal and sea turtle rescue and rehabilitation.

Damage Assessment and Ecosystem Evaluation

Under the Oil Pollution Act, NOAA’s Damage Assessment, Remediation, and Restoration Program (DARRP) coordinated with the Deepwater Horizon Trustee Council to conduct a comprehensive natural resource damage assessment. This process aligns with SDG 15 by evaluating impacts on terrestrial and marine ecosystems and planning restoration.

1. Extensive fieldwork from 2010 to 2015 covering thousands of square miles of ocean and shoreline.
2. Collection of over 100,000 samples through more than 20,000 field trips.
3. Use of scientific literature and modeling to quantify oil distribution and ecological impacts.

Development of a Comprehensive Restoration Plan

Following assessment findings, NOAA and Trustee partners initiated a public-inclusive planning process in 2011 to guide restoration efforts, promoting SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) through stakeholder engagement. The 2016 Deepwater Horizon Final Programmatic Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan established governance structures and restoration strategies.

• Creation of Trustee Implementation Groups for seven restoration areas, including five Gulf states, Open Ocean, and Regionwide.
• Public meetings and comment periods to incorporate community and tribal input.
• Establishment of project-specific restoration plans with clear responsibilities and progress tracking.

Historic Settlement and Funding for Restoration

In parallel with damage assessments, legislative and legal actions supported restoration financing, reinforcing SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) through multi-agency collaboration.

• 2012 RESTORE Act: Established a fund receiving 80% of Clean Water Act penalties, creating the RESTORE Council comprising Gulf states and federal agencies including NOAA.
• NOAA programs funded include:
  • GulfCorps: Restoration teams across Gulf states.
  • Connecting Coastal Waters: Restoration of over 22,000 acres of habitat.
  • Monitoring and Assessment Program: Science-based decision support.
• NOAA RESTORE Science Program: Supports applied research and monitoring to inform restoration and management.
• 2013 Gulf Environmental Benefit Fund: Directed by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation from criminal plea agreements, with NOAA providing technical and compliance support.
• 2016 $20.8 billion settlement with BP and Gulf states, including $8.8 billion for natural resource damages—the largest environmental damage settlement in U.S. history.

Initiation of Early Restoration Projects

Before the final settlement, NOAA and Trustees began early restoration in 2011 with up to $1 billion from BP, enabling immediate ecological recovery efforts consistent with SDG 15.

• Negotiation and public review of early restoration projects.
• Implementation of NOAA-led projects such as the Upper Barataria Marsh Creation.

Ongoing Restoration and Sustainable Outcomes

Since the settlement, NOAA and Trustees have approved 368 restoration activities through 2024, focusing on restoring fish, marine mammals, sea turtles, Gulf sturgeon, marine and coastal habitats, and deep-Gulf ecosystems—directly contributing to SDG 14 and SDG 15.

• Collaborative efforts with hundreds of partners nationwide.
• Restoration of ecosystem services that support community livelihoods, recreation, flood protection, and quality of life.

Monitoring and Evaluation of Restoration Progress

NOAA and Trustees publish annual reports detailing restoration progress, fund allocation, and project implementation, promoting transparency and accountability aligned with SDG 16.

1. Annual updates on planning and restoration activities by Trustee Implementation Groups.
2. Comprehensive programmatic reviews every five years, with the first completed in 2021 and the next underway for 2025.
3. Adaptive management based on monitoring data to optimize restoration outcomes.
4. Assessment of cumulative ecological recovery and establishment of baseline data for future ecosystem health.

Monitoring data and reports are publicly accessible via the Deepwater Horizon Trustees’ website and NOAA’s DIVER database.

Future Directions and Continued Commitment

NOAA remains committed to long-term restoration leadership, focusing on maximizing benefits to habitats, marine resources, and dependent communities. Lessons learned from the Deepwater Horizon response enhance preparedness for future oil spills, supporting sustained environmental and community resilience in line with multiple SDGs.

• Continued planning, implementation, and monitoring of large-scale restoration projects.
• Evaluation and adaptation to improve restoration effectiveness.
• Ongoing public reporting on restoration progress and fund usage.
• Integration of scientific knowledge to ensure lasting benefits to natural resources and communities.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected

1. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • The article focuses extensively on marine ecosystem restoration, protection of marine mammals, sea turtles, fish, and habitats in the Gulf of America after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
2. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Restoration of coastal habitats such as marshes, dunes, and barrier islands is highlighted, which relates to terrestrial and coastal ecosystem conservation.
3. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
   • Efforts to monitor water quality and seafood safety after the oil spill connect to maintaining clean water resources.
4. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • While not explicitly mentioned, restoration of ecosystems contributes to climate resilience and carbon sequestration.
5. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • The article describes collaboration among federal agencies, states, tribes, NGOs, and the public, illustrating partnerships essential for sustainable development.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified

1. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • Target 14.2: Sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts.
   • Target 14.5: Conserve at least 10% of coastal and marine areas.
   • Target 14.3: Minimize and address the impacts of ocean acidification and pollution.
2. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Target 15.1: Ensure conservation, restoration, and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services.
   • Target 15.5: Take urgent action to reduce degradation of natural habitats.
3. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
   • Target 6.3: Improve water quality by reducing pollution and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals.
4. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • Target 17.16: Enhance global partnerships for sustainable development.
   • Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied to Measure Progress

1. Indicators for SDG 14
   • Number and area of restoration projects implemented (e.g., 368 restoration activities approved).
   • Monitoring data on marine species populations such as marine mammals, sea turtles, and fish stocks.
   • Water and seafood sample testing results to assess pollution levels and safety.
2. Indicators for SDG 15
   • Area of coastal habitats restored (e.g., marsh, dune, barrier island restoration projects).
   • Number of field trips and samples collected to assess ecosystem health (e.g., 20,000 trips, 100,000 samples).
3. Indicators for SDG 6
   • Water quality measurements and seafood safety monitoring results.
4. Indicators for SDG 17
   • Number of partnerships and collaborative programs (e.g., RESTORE Council, NOAA RESTORE Science Program).
   • Amount of funding allocated and spent on restoration projects (e.g., $20.8 billion settlement, $1 billion early restoration funds).
   • Annual and comprehensive programmatic review reports documenting progress.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: fisheries.noaa.gov

Report on Restoring Coral Reef Fish Populations and Its Impact on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Introduction

Recent research highlights the significant potential of restoring fish populations in coral reefs to enhance coastal food supply, potentially feeding up to 1.4 million additional people, particularly in developing countries. This restoration aligns closely with several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 14 (Life Below Water), and SDG 13 (Climate Action).

Current Importance of Reef Fisheries

• Reef fisheries currently provide a primary source of protein for millions worldwide, especially in coastal regions with limited alternative food sources.
• These fisheries are crucial for food security in many developing countries, directly supporting SDG 2 (Zero Hunger).

Challenges Due to Overfishing

1. Many coral reef fish populations have been overfished, resulting in depleted stocks and reduced fish availability for dependent communities.
2. Overfishing disrupts marine ecosystems, damaging food webs and weakening the ocean’s capacity to sequester carbon, impacting SDG 14 (Life Below Water) and SDG 13 (Climate Action).
3. Communities in developing countries face increased malnutrition risks due to declining fish stocks.

Research Findings on Fish Population Recovery

Researchers analyzed 1,211 coral reef sites across 23 nations and found:

• Allowing fish stocks to recover could increase sustainable catches by nearly 50%, improving food security (SDG 2).
• Recovery timelines vary from 6 years (with complete fishing moratorium) to 50 years (with less severe restrictions).
• Recovery requires careful fisheries management and community cooperation, supporting SDG 14 and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

Impact on Food Security and Coastal Communities

• Rebuilding fish populations could add approximately 300,000 fish servings annually in smaller regions (e.g., Reunion Island) and up to 484 million servings in larger countries (e.g., Indonesia).
• In some locations like French Polynesia, recovered reefs could feed nearly the entire coastal population.
• Other countries such as the Maldives, Mauritius, and Tanzania could see over 20% of coastal residents benefiting from increased fish availability.

Climate Change and Its Complications

1. Rising ocean temperatures threaten coral reef biomass, potentially reducing fish production despite improved management (SDG 13).
2. Overfishing has already damaged reef ecosystems, hindering their recovery and food provision capacity.
3. Climate change impacts agriculture, increasing reliance on fisheries as a food source, which may intensify fishing pressure.

Recommendations for Sustainable Fisheries Management

• Temporary reductions in fishing pressure are essential to allow fish stocks to recover.
• Recovery strategies must balance food security needs with ecological sustainability, respecting the cultural importance of fishing (SDG 2, SDG 14, SDG 3 – Good Health and Well-being).
• Complete fishing moratoria are not realistic; instead, targeted interventions and community engagement are necessary.
• Alternative food sources and local cooperation are critical to support communities during recovery periods (SDG 17).

Conclusion

The study reinforces the principle that reducing excessive fishing pressure leads to larger, more sustainable fish catches benefiting both people and ecosystems. Achieving this requires integrated approaches addressing ecological, social, and economic dimensions, thereby advancing multiple Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 2, SDG 13, SDG 14, and SDG 17.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger – The article focuses on boosting coastal food supply by restoring fish populations, which directly relates to ending hunger and improving nutrition.
2. SDG 14: Life Below Water – The article discusses overfishing, coral reef fish populations, and marine ecosystem health, which are central to conserving and sustainably using oceans, seas, and marine resources.
3. SDG 13: Climate Action – The article highlights the impact of climate change on coral reefs and fisheries, emphasizing the need to address climate-related challenges.
4. SDG 1: No Poverty – By improving fish stocks and food security in developing coastal communities, the article indirectly addresses poverty reduction.
5. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production – The article emphasizes sustainable fishing practices and managing fish stocks responsibly.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • Target 2.1: End hunger and ensure access by all people to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food all year round.
   • Target 2.2: End all forms of malnutrition.
2. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • Target 14.4: Effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing to restore fish stocks.
   • Target 14.2: Sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts.
3. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters.
4. SDG 1: No Poverty
   • Target 1.2: Reduce at least by half the proportion of people living in poverty in all its dimensions.
5. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • Target 12.2: Achieve sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied to Measure Progress

1. Fish Biomass and Stock Recovery
   • Indicator measuring the biomass (total weight) of fish populations on coral reefs, reflecting stock health and recovery progress.
   • Percentage increase in sustainable fish catches (e.g., potential 50% rise in sustainable catches).
2. Food Supply and Nutrition
   • Number of sustainable fish servings produced annually (e.g., millions of servings added per year in specific countries).
   • Proportion of coastal populations fed by recovered fish stocks (e.g., nearly entire coastal population in French Polynesia).
   • Levels of malnutrition in coastal communities dependent on reef fisheries.
3. Fishing Pressure and Management
   • Measures of fishing pressure reduction (e.g., moratorium periods, percentage reduction in fishing activity).
   • Recovery time estimates based on fishing restrictions (6 to 50 years).
4. Climate Impact on Reef Ecosystems
   • Changes in coral reef biomass due to rising ocean temperatures.
   • Frequency and severity of climate-related events affecting fisheries and agriculture.

4. Table: SDGs, Targets and Indicators

Source: sentientmedia.org

Report on Forest Management and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Introduction

Global discussions have intensified regarding optimal forest management strategies amid climate change and increasing bushfire frequency. This report examines the implications of mechanical thinning in forests, with a focus on Victorian mountain ash forests, and emphasizes the relevance of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in guiding forest management practices.

Mechanical Thinning in Forest Management

Mechanical thinning involves the removal of a proportion of trees using machinery to increase the size of remaining trees. It is commonly applied in timber plantations to accelerate timber development. The Victorian government’s new forest plan includes a “healthy forests” program likely to implement extensive mechanical thinning to reduce tree density and increase spacing.

Key Questions Raised by Mechanical Thinning

• What are the ecological effects of mechanical thinning?
• Could mechanical thinning be harmful to forest ecosystems?
• Is mechanical thinning necessary for maintaining forest health?

Current Knowledge on Thinning and Its Impacts

Effects on Wildfire Risk

Research indicates thinning can reduce severe wildfire risk in some forest types (e.g., certain US pine forests). However, in Australian eucalypt forests, thinning may have no effect or potentially exacerbate fire severity. Australian forestry manuals warn of increased fire risks associated with thinning.

Water Yield and Drought Resilience

Thinning has been shown to temporarily increase water yield and drought resilience in some forests, including tall eucalypt forests. However, these benefits are short-lived due to rapid plant regeneration in thinned gaps.

Environmental and Economic Costs

• Soil compaction and degradation
• Increased bushfire risk
• Habitat degradation for wildlife
• Carbon emissions from machinery
• High financial costs (approximately $A1830 per hectare in the US)

Natural Self-Thinning Process

Forests naturally undergo self-thinning, where tree density decreases over time as larger trees outcompete smaller ones for resources. This ecological principle shapes forests globally and reduces the need for human intervention.

Findings from Victorian Mountain Ash Forests

Natural Self-Thinning Quantified

A recent study quantified natural self-thinning in mountain ash forests, showing a 50-60% reduction in tree density from young (15 years post-fire) to old growth forests (over 120 years). Tree densities decreased from approximately 7000 to 1450 trees per hectare.

Variation by Species and Terrain

• Young forests dominated by thousands of wattles and eucalypts per hectare
• Old growth forests contain fewer than 100 eucalypts and about 20 wattles per hectare
• Tree density varies with slope, elevation, light, moisture, and soil properties

Importance of Tree Size Diversity

As forests mature, trees become larger and more varied in size, creating habitats essential for wildlife such as arboreal marsupials and birds, supporting SDG 15 (Life on Land).

Implications for Forest Management and SDGs

Benchmark for Restoration Practices

The study provides a natural benchmark for forest development without human intervention, guiding restoration efforts aligned with SDG 15 (Sustainable Management of Forests).

Risks of Mechanical Thinning

• Potential to increase bushfire risk and degrade habitats
• Compromises water security, impacting SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation)
• Generates carbon emissions, affecting SDG 13 (Climate Action)
• Financial inefficiency and resource misallocation

Recommendations for Sustainable Forest Management

1. Prioritize ecological evidence-based management to avoid risky interventions like widespread mechanical thinning.
2. Allocate funding to restoration activities targeting areas where forest regeneration has failed, particularly after logging operations.
3. Recognize and support natural self-thinning processes to maintain biodiversity and ecosystem health.
4. Integrate forest management policies with SDGs, emphasizing climate resilience, biodiversity conservation, and sustainable resource use.

Conclusion

Effective forest management is critical under changing climate conditions. Evidence indicates that mechanical thinning is unnecessary and potentially harmful in Victorian mountain ash forests. Sustainable practices that align with the SDGs—particularly SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 15 (Life on Land), and SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation)—should guide future forest management to enhance ecosystem resilience, conserve biodiversity, and ensure long-term forest health.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • The article discusses forest management in the context of climate change and increasing bushfires.
2. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • The article focuses on sustainable forest management, biodiversity conservation, and restoration of native forests.
3. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
   • Thinning’s impact on water yield and drought resilience relates to water security.
4. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • Discussion on the cost-effectiveness and environmental impact of mechanical thinning relates to sustainable resource management.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters (addressing bushfire risks).
   • Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into policies and planning (forest management policies).
2. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Target 15.1: Ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services (forest restoration and natural self-thinning).
   • Target 15.2: Promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests (avoiding harmful mechanical thinning).
   • Target 15.5: Take urgent action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats (addressing habitat degradation from thinning and logging).
3. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
   • Target 6.4: Increase water-use efficiency and ensure sustainable withdrawals (related to water yield and drought resilience benefits from thinning).
4. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • Target 12.2: Achieve sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources (cost and environmental impact of thinning practices).

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicators related to SDG 13 (Climate Action)
   • Frequency and severity of bushfires in forest areas.
   • Extent of forest area affected by climate-related hazards.
2. Indicators related to SDG 15 (Life on Land)
   • Forest tree density per hectare (e.g., reduction from 7000 to 1450 trees per hectare over time).
   • Proportion of native forest area restored or degraded (e.g., 20% of forests failed to regrow after logging).
   • Diversity of tree sizes and species composition in forests.
   • Habitat quality indicators for wildlife such as arboreal marsupials and birds.
3. Indicators related to SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation)
   • Water yield measurements in forests before and after thinning.
   • Drought resilience metrics in forest ecosystems.
4. Indicators related to SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production)
   • Cost per hectare of mechanical thinning operations.
   • Carbon emissions produced by forest management activities.
   • Soil compaction levels following mechanical thinning.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets and Indicators

Source: theconversation.com

Report on the Future of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef and Sustainable Development Goals

Overview of the Study

Researchers from Tulane University have conducted a study projecting that Australia’s Great Barrier Reef will experience mass coral bleaching in most years throughout this century. The study emphasizes that while the reef faces severe threats, damage could be mitigated by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing coral heat tolerance.

Research Methodology

1. Analysis of four decades of data on sea-surface temperature, ocean currents, and cloud cover.
2. Calibration of models reproducing all major mass bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef since the early 1980s.
3. Utilization of climate projections from 23 global models to estimate bleaching frequency through 2100 under various emissions scenarios.

Key Findings

• Mass coral bleaching is projected to occur in most years this century under most scenarios, even when accounting for natural protective factors such as clouds and currents.
• The frequency of bleaching events leaves insufficient time for corals to reach reproductive age and recover.
• In an optimistic scenario where corals increase heat tolerance, bleaching breaks average only four to five years under the lowest emissions pathways, which is still shorter than the recovery period needed.
• There is no realistic future this century in which the Great Barrier Reef returns to its pre-bleaching state.
• Every reduction in greenhouse gas emissions contributes to preventing bleaching events and reducing overall reef damage.

Implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This study directly relates to several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, including:

• SDG 13: Climate Action – The research highlights the critical importance of cutting greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate climate change impacts on marine ecosystems.
• SDG 14: Life Below Water – Protecting coral reefs is essential for maintaining marine biodiversity and ecosystem services.
• SDG 15: Life on Land – The study’s broader research efforts include coastal ecosystem restoration, which supports terrestrial and marine habitat conservation.

Ongoing and Future Research Efforts

• Use of high-precision drone and laser scanning systems to study water flow and temperature variations within coral reef habitats.
• Mapping water flow patterns at St. Croix to predict reef areas at highest risk of bleaching.
• Application of the same technology in Louisiana to survey restored oyster reefs and assess their effectiveness in growth and marsh stabilization.

Conclusion

The findings underscore the urgent need for global climate action to protect the Great Barrier Reef and similar ecosystems. While the reef’s full recovery to its original state is unlikely this century, efforts to reduce emissions can significantly diminish bleaching frequency and severity, contributing to the achievement of key Sustainable Development Goals.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected to the Issues Highlighted in the Article

1. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • The article discusses the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on coral bleaching and the importance of reducing emissions to protect the Great Barrier Reef.
2. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • The focus on coral bleaching and reef health directly relates to conserving and sustainably using the oceans, seas, and marine resources.
3. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • The article mentions coastal restoration efforts, including oyster reef restoration and marsh stabilization in Louisiana, linking to ecosystem restoration on land.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified Based on the Article’s Content

1. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into policies and planning.
   • Target 13.3: Improve education, awareness, and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction, and early warning.
2. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • Target 14.2: Sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts.
   • Target 14.3: Minimize and address the impacts of ocean acidification, including through enhanced scientific cooperation.
3. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Target 15.1: Ensure the conservation, restoration, and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems.
   • Target 15.3: Combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied in the Article to Measure Progress Towards the Identified Targets

1. Indicators Related to SDG 13
   • Frequency of mass coral bleaching events (implied as a measure of climate change impact).
   • Greenhouse gas emissions levels (implied as a factor influencing coral bleaching frequency).
2. Indicators Related to SDG 14
   • Extent and frequency of coral bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef.
   • Coral heat tolerance thresholds (implied as an indicator of reef resilience).
   • Health and recovery rates of coral reefs after bleaching events.
3. Indicators Related to SDG 15
   • Growth and stabilization rates of restored oyster reefs.
   • Effectiveness of marsh stabilization efforts (implied through measurements of water flow and temperature variations).

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: news.tulane.edu

Report on the Emerging Crown-of-Thorns Starfish Outbreak on the Great Barrier Reef

Introduction

Scientists have identified an emerging outbreak of crown-of-thorns starfish (COTs) on the Great Barrier Reef, which poses a significant threat to the reef’s health and biodiversity. Early containment is critical to prevent this outbreak from becoming one of the most severe in decades. This report emphasizes the importance of addressing this issue in alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 14: Life Below Water.

Background on Crown-of-Thorns Starfish

• Species: Acanthaster cf solaris, native to the Great Barrier Reef and Indo-Pacific region.
• Ecological Role: Corallivores that maintain reef ecosystem balance at natural densities below one starfish per hectare.
• Outbreak Impact: Population explosions lead to coral consumption rates exceeding reef recovery, causing severe coral loss.

Current Outbreak Status

1. Outbreak detected along a 240-kilometre stretch between Cairns and Lizard Island.
2. Starfish densities exceeding 10 to 15 per hectare define outbreak conditions.
3. Four major outbreaks documented since the 1960s; the latest began in 2010 and is ongoing.
4. Current observations indicate early stages of a new outbreak, prompting intensified monitoring.

Management and Control Efforts

• Monitoring: Enhanced surveillance by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) and the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS).
• Control Program: The Crown-of-thorns Starfish Control Program employs trained divers to manually remove or inject starfish with environmentally safe substances such as vinegar or cow bile.
• Tourism Sector Involvement: The Tourism Reef Protection Initiative (TRPI) engages dive operators and tourism professionals in monitoring and culling efforts.

Environmental and Socioeconomic Implications

• Coral Reef Health: Outbreaks cause widespread coral mortality, threatening biodiversity and ecosystem services.
• Tourism Impact: The affected reef area is vital for scuba diving tourism, supporting local economies and employment.
• Community and Industry Collaboration: Partnerships between government, science, and tourism sectors exemplify integrated approaches to sustainable reef management.

Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

1. SDG 14 – Life Below Water: Protecting marine ecosystems by controlling COTs outbreaks supports the conservation and sustainable use of oceans, seas, and marine resources.
2. SDG 13 – Climate Action: Healthy coral reefs enhance resilience to climate change impacts.
3. SDG 8 – Decent Work and Economic Growth: Sustaining reef health safeguards tourism-related jobs and economic benefits for coastal communities.
4. SDG 17 – Partnerships for the Goals: The collaboration among government agencies, scientists, and tourism operators demonstrates effective multi-stakeholder partnerships.

Conclusion

The emerging crown-of-thorns starfish outbreak on the Great Barrier Reef represents a critical environmental challenge with direct implications for biodiversity, climate resilience, and sustainable economic development. Continued and enhanced efforts in monitoring, control, and stakeholder collaboration are essential to mitigate this threat and advance the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected

1. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • The article focuses on the outbreak of crown-of-thorns starfish (COTs) on the Great Barrier Reef, which directly impacts marine biodiversity and ecosystem health.
   • It highlights coral reef degradation and the efforts to manage and protect marine life.
2. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • While not explicitly mentioned, the health of coral reefs is closely linked to climate change impacts such as ocean warming and acidification, which exacerbate outbreaks and reef vulnerability.
3. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • The article discusses the importance of the reef for tourism and local communities, emphasizing jobs and economic sustainability related to reef health.
4. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • The article describes collaboration between government agencies, scientists, and tourism operators to manage the outbreak and protect the reef.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified

1. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • Target 14.2: Sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including coral reefs.
   • Target 14.5: Conserve at least 10% of coastal and marine areas, which relates to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s efforts.
2. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters, relevant to managing outbreaks exacerbated by environmental changes.
3. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • Target 8.9: Promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products, as seen in the tourism sector’s involvement in reef protection.
4. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private, and civil society partnerships, demonstrated by the cooperation between scientists, government, and tourism operators.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied to Measure Progress

1. SDG 14 Indicators
   • Indicator 14.2.1: Proportion of national exclusive economic zones managed using ecosystem-based approaches — implied through GBRMPA’s monitoring and control programs.
   • Indicator related to coral cover and health — implied by monitoring coral loss and starfish densities per hectare.
2. SDG 8 Indicators
   • Indicators measuring sustainable tourism employment and economic benefits — implied by the role of tourism operators in reef protection and the importance of the reef for tourism jobs.
3. SDG 17 Indicators
   • Indicators tracking multi-stakeholder partnerships and collaboration effectiveness — implied by the description of joint efforts in monitoring and controlling the outbreak.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: divemagazine.com

Manulife Forest Management Announces New Permit-Based Access Program in Northeast Oregon

Background and Context

Following the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW) announcement that Manulife would not renew its cooperative agreement with ODFW’s Access and Habitat program, Manulife Forest Management has introduced a new permit-based program to continue providing public recreational access to its managed forest lands in Northeast Oregon.

New Northeast Oregon Access Permit Program

Manulife’s new program aims to maintain public access while addressing the increasing costs and responsibilities of managing visitor activities on working forest lands. The program will commence on June 1 and requires visitors to obtain permits to access the properties.

Key Features of the Program

• Permit fees to offset costs related to property maintenance, safety, security, and insurance.
• Permit issuance will align with the number of tags previously distributed during past hunting seasons, ensuring no increase in visitor numbers.
• Enforceable rules governing appropriate use of the land.
• Liability waivers included with permits.
• Authority to close properties promptly in cases of wildfire risk, public safety concerns, or operational needs.

Fee Structure

1. $400 for Annual Individual day-use only permits.
2. $700 for Annual Family permits including camping privileges.

Addressing Environmental and Social Challenges

The permit program is designed to tackle issues such as illegal dumping, vandalism, and unauthorized activities that have affected the lands in recent years. By regulating access, Manulife aims to preserve the ecological integrity of the forests and ensure responsible recreational use.

Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

• SDG 15 – Life on Land: The program supports sustainable forest management by protecting biodiversity and preventing land degradation through controlled access and maintenance efforts.
• SDG 11 – Sustainable Cities and Communities: By promoting responsible recreational use and ensuring public safety, the program contributes to creating inclusive, safe, and sustainable communities.
• SDG 12 – Responsible Consumption and Production: The permit fees help cover the real costs of maintaining the forests, encouraging sustainable use of natural resources.
• SDG 13 – Climate Action: The ability to close lands during wildfire risks supports climate resilience and disaster risk reduction.

Additional Information

Further details about the Northeast Oregon Access Permit Program, including fees, rules, and permit acquisition procedures, are available on the Manulife FAQ Page under the “Northeast Oregon Access Permit Program” section.

References

• Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife original announcement: https://elkhornmediagroup.com/manulife-to-end-participation-in-access-and-habitat-program-may-31-hunter-access-to-be-impacted-in-northeast-southwest-oregon/

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected

1. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • The article discusses forest management, public access to forest lands, and addressing issues such as illegal dumping, vandalism, and wildfire risk, which are directly related to sustainable use and conservation of terrestrial ecosystems.
2. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • Ensuring safe, inclusive, and accessible green spaces for recreation aligns with making communities sustainable and resilient.
3. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • The permit program aims to cover costs related to maintenance and responsible use of natural resources, promoting sustainable management practices.
4. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Measures such as the ability to close properties during wildfire risk relate to climate resilience and disaster risk reduction.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified

1. SDG 15 Targets
   • 15.1: Ensure the conservation, restoration, and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems.
   • 15.3: Combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods.
2. SDG 11 Targets
   • 11.7: Provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces.
3. SDG 12 Targets
   • 12.2: Achieve sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.
4. SDG 13 Targets
   • 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied to Measure Progress

1. Number of Permits Issued
   • The article mentions maintaining the number of tags issued for hunting, which can be an indicator of controlled and sustainable public access.
2. Incidents of Illegal Dumping and Vandalism
   • Tracking the frequency of illegal dumping and vandalism can measure effectiveness of the permit program in protecting the land.
3. Property Maintenance and Safety Measures
   • Monitoring maintenance activities, safety enforcement, and the ability to close properties during wildfire risk can serve as indicators of sustainable management and risk mitigation.
4. Permit Fee Revenue
   • Revenue from permit fees can indicate financial sustainability and capacity to maintain the lands.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: elkhornmediagroup.com

Report on the Conservation Efforts and Challenges of the Great Barrier Reef

Introduction

The Great Barrier Reef, located off the coast of northern Queensland, Australia, is the largest living structure on Earth, encompassing approximately 133,000 square miles and consisting of around 3,000 individual reefs. This World Heritage site supports a diverse ecosystem, including over 450 species of hard coral and more than 1,600 fish species, and plays a vital role in Australia’s $5.3 billion annual reef tourism industry.

Coral Spawning and Ecological Significance

Each year, shortly after the full moon in the Australian summer, millions of corals engage in a mass spawning event, releasing bundles of sperm and eggs into the water. This natural reproductive process is critical for the regeneration and sustainability of coral populations.

• Coral spawn is collected by scientists using specialized methods, including surface skimming and floating pools.
• The collected spawn is used to cultivate baby corals both at sea and in research aquariums.

Threats to the Great Barrier Reef

The reef faces existential threats primarily due to climate change-induced marine heatwaves, which cause coral bleaching and mortality. Other challenges include cyclones, agricultural runoff, and predation by crown-of-thorn starfish.

1. Marine heat stress leads to the loss of symbiotic algae in coral polyps, causing bleaching and starvation.
2. Frequent mass bleaching events have resulted in significant coral cover decline, with projections indicating a potential loss of over 50% in the next 15 years under all emissions scenarios.
3. Recovery is hindered by the increasing prevalence of “weedy” coral species that are more vulnerable to environmental stressors.

Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program (RRAP)

In response to these threats, the Australian government launched the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program (RRAP) in 2018, aiming to develop and scale tools to help the reef adapt to warming oceans.

• RRAP involves over 300 scientists and experts across more than 20 institutions, supported by nearly $300 million in funding.
• Key strategies include assisted reproduction (“coral IVF”) to increase coral larvae survival and breeding heat-tolerant corals both at sea and in the National Sea Simulator (SeaSim) aquarium.
• RRAP aims to stock the reef with 100 million corals annually that survive to at least one year of age.

Assisted Reproduction Techniques

Assisted reproduction efforts focus on enhancing coral fertility and resilience:

• Collection of coral spawn from regions exhibiting heat tolerance.
• Use of floating pools with ceramic structures for larval settlement and growth.
• Laboratory breeding at SeaSim using autospawner tanks that mimic natural conditions.
• Introduction of heat-adapted symbiotic algae to increase coral resistance to warming.

Challenges and Limitations

Despite the scale and innovation of RRAP, significant challenges remain:

• The program does not address the root cause of reef decline: rising greenhouse gas emissions.
• Frequent bleaching events reduce coral recovery time, undermining ecosystem resilience.
• Some reef conservation and tourism sectors under-communicate the climate threat, limiting public awareness and advocacy.
• Funding from mining and energy companies raises concerns about conflicts of interest and the adequacy of emissions reductions.

Climate Change and Policy Context

Climate change is the primary existential threat to coral reefs globally, including the Great Barrier Reef. Australia’s per-capita emissions rank among the highest worldwide, and government policies have been criticized for insufficiently addressing emissions linked to fossil fuel projects.

• The Albanese government has approved extensions of major gas projects contributing significantly to national carbon footprints.
• Existing policies like the Safeguard Mechanism limit only direct emissions, excluding exported gas emissions.
• Calls for urgent, steep emissions reductions align with Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 13: Climate Action.

Integration with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The conservation efforts and challenges of the Great Barrier Reef relate directly to several SDGs:

1. SDG 13: Climate Action – Urgent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is critical to prevent further reef degradation.
2. SDG 14: Life Below Water – Protecting and restoring marine ecosystems like coral reefs supports biodiversity and sustainable fisheries.
3. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth – The reef supports tourism and fishing industries vital to local economies and Indigenous livelihoods.
4. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals – RRAP exemplifies multi-stakeholder collaboration involving scientists, Indigenous peoples, government, and private sectors.

Role of Indigenous Peoples and Community Engagement

Indigenous Australians, including the Gunggandji peoples, have a longstanding relationship with the reef and are active partners in conservation efforts.

• RRAP collaborates with First Nations peoples to integrate traditional knowledge and stewardship.
• Indigenous communities rely on the reef for food and cultural practices, linking conservation to social sustainability.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The Great Barrier Reef remains a vibrant and vital ecosystem but faces unprecedented threats from climate change. While restoration programs like RRAP provide hope and tangible support for reef resilience, they must be complemented by immediate and substantial global and national climate actions to reduce emissions.

1. Enhance communication and education within the tourism industry to raise awareness of climate impacts and promote sustainable practices.
2. Strengthen government policies to address all sources of emissions, including exported fossil fuels.
3. Increase investment in both reef restoration and climate mitigation to align with SDGs and ensure long-term reef survival.
4. Support Indigenous-led conservation initiatives to foster inclusive and effective stewardship.

Only through integrated efforts addressing both local restoration and global climate action can the Great Barrier Reef be preserved for future generations, contributing to the achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed in the Article

1. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • The article emphasizes the urgent need to reduce carbon emissions to save the Great Barrier Reef from collapse due to climate change-induced marine heat and bleaching events.
2. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • The focus on coral reef conservation, restoration efforts, and sustainable management of marine ecosystems directly relates to protecting and sustainably using the oceans, seas, and marine resources.
3. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • The article touches on the tourism industry’s role and the need for sustainable practices, including reducing emissions associated with tourism activities.
4. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Indigenous peoples’ involvement and traditional knowledge in reef conservation highlight the importance of sustainable use of terrestrial and marine ecosystems.
5. SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
   • Reference to Australia’s investments in renewable energy projects and clean energy initiatives to combat climate change.

2. Specific Targets Under the Identified SDGs

1. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies, and planning.
   • Target 13.3: Improve education, awareness-raising, and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction, and early warning.
2. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • Target 14.2: Sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts.
   • Target 14.5: Conserve at least 10% of coastal and marine areas.
   • Target 14.7: Increase the economic benefits to Small Island developing States and least developed countries from the sustainable use of marine resources.
3. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • Target 12.8: Ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles in harmony with nature.
4. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Target 15.2: Promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests.
   • Target 15.a: Mobilize significant resources to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity and ecosystems.
5. SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
   • Target 7.2: Increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied in the Article

1. Coral Cover and Health
   • Percentage of reef area covered by hard coral (e.g., AIMS reports on coral cover and bleaching events).
   • Frequency and severity of coral bleaching events.
   • Survival rate of coral embryos and larvae after restoration efforts.
2. Carbon Emissions
   • National greenhouse gas emissions levels, including Scope 1 emissions and exported emissions.
   • Emission limits set by policies such as Australia’s Safeguard Mechanism.
3. Restoration Efforts
   • Number of coral embryos produced and successfully reseeded onto reefs (e.g., RRAP’s goal of 100 million corals surviving to 1 year old annually).
   • Number of ceramic structures deployed for coral reseeding.
4. Tourism Industry Engagement
   • Extent of climate change messaging and education provided by tourism operators.
   • Tourism revenue linked to reef health and visitor perceptions.
5. Renewable Energy Projects
   • Number and scale of renewable energy projects approved and operational.
   • Government investment in clean energy initiatives.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: vox.com

Report on Forest Loss in Tesso Nilo National Park, Sumatra: Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

Over the past twenty years, Tesso Nilo National Park in Sumatra has experienced a loss of more than half of its forest cover. This report examines the drivers behind this deforestation, with a focus on the encroachment of oil palm plantations, and highlights the critical connections to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to life on land, climate action, and sustainable communities.

Sumatran Forest Destruction and Its Monitoring

1. Extent of Loss: Satellite imagery and field research led by Denni Susanto of Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM) have documented progressive forest clearing from the park’s edges inward over two decades.
2. Research Methodology: Utilizing Landsat satellite data since 1972, remote sensing techniques classified land into forest, agricultural, or bare ground categories. Ground verification was conducted to ensure accuracy.
3. Impact on Biodiversity: The park’s lowland rainforest, home to endangered species such as the Sumatran tiger (Panthera tigris sumatrae) and Sumatran elephant (Elephas maximus sumatranus), is critically threatened by habitat fragmentation.

Forest Fragmentation and Its Consequences

• Fragmentation increases forest edges, reducing core habitat areas essential for wildlife that avoid human disturbance.
• Smaller and isolated patches lead to increased human-wildlife conflict and poaching risks.

Role of Oil Palm Plantations in Forest Loss

1. Expansion Pattern: Oil palm plantations have expanded quietly from the park’s boundaries, involving clearing mixed forest and draining wetlands, which exacerbates soil drying and ecosystem degradation.
2. Long-Term Impact: Mature plantations represent long-term land use, making forest restoration increasingly difficult.
3. Policy and Enforcement Challenges: Despite Indonesia’s presidential instruction to halt new permits for primary forests and peatlands and the implementation of the Indonesia Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) certification, enforcement remains weak, especially among smallholders, leading to illegal planting.

Human Influence and Land Use Change

• Road development and transportation facilitate access, enabling settlers to introduce agriculture deep within the park.
• The human footprint within the park has reached 99.39% modified land, severely threatening key species’ habitats.
• Rangers face continuous pressure to protect remaining forest fragments, which are increasingly difficult to defend.

Strategies for Restoration and Sustainable Management

1. Protection of Core Forest Blocks: Prioritize safeguarding the largest remaining forest patches that serve as wildlife habitats and seed sources.
2. Establishment of Connectivity Corridors: Replanting trees along rivers and ridges to link fragmented habitats and support biodiversity.
3. Enhanced Monitoring and Enforcement: Utilize satellite monitoring to detect new clearing promptly and strengthen enforcement mechanisms to respond effectively.
4. Livelihood Transitions: Support sustainable livelihood programs in buffer zones to reduce dependence on illegal clearing and promote community engagement.

Integration with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

• SDG 15 – Life on Land: Protecting and restoring forest ecosystems to conserve biodiversity and prevent habitat loss.
• SDG 13 – Climate Action: Maintaining forest cover to enhance carbon sequestration and mitigate climate change.
• SDG 1 – No Poverty and SDG 8 – Decent Work and Economic Growth: Promoting sustainable livelihoods in communities surrounding the park to reduce illegal activities and improve economic resilience.
• SDG 16 – Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions: Strengthening governance and enforcement to uphold environmental laws and protect natural resources.

Conclusion

The case of Tesso Nilo National Park illustrates that protected area boundaries alone are insufficient to prevent deforestation without integrated landscape management, effective enforcement, and community involvement. Long-term satellite monitoring combined with sustainable livelihood initiatives offers the most viable path to restoring forest connectivity and safeguarding biodiversity. Achieving these goals aligns directly with multiple SDGs, emphasizing the importance of coordinated efforts to balance environmental conservation with human development.

References

• Susanto, D. et al. (2025). Environmental Management. Environmental Management
• Indonesia Ministry of Environment and Forestry. Tesso Nilo National Park Profile. ksdae.kehutanan.go.id
• Indonesia Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) Certification. ISPO Policy Document

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected

1. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • The article discusses forest loss, fragmentation, and habitat destruction in Sumatra’s national park, directly relating to the conservation and sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems.
   • Protection of endangered species like Sumatran tigers and elephants is highlighted.
2. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • The expansion of oil palm plantations and the role of certification programs (ISPO) relate to sustainable agricultural practices and production.
3. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Forest loss affects carbon storage and local climate regulation, implying relevance to climate mitigation efforts.
4. SDG 1: No Poverty
   • The article mentions livelihood transitions and sustainable income sources for local communities, linking to poverty reduction.
5. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • Issues of enforcement, illegal planting, and land claims highlight governance and institutional challenges.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified

1. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Target 15.1: Ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services.
   • Target 15.5: Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats and halt the loss of biodiversity.
   • Target 15.2: Promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests.
2. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • Target 12.2: Achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.
   • Target 12.6: Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle (e.g., ISPO certification).
3. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning (e.g., forest conservation to maintain carbon sinks).
4. SDG 1: No Poverty
   • Target 1.2: Reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children living in poverty in all its dimensions (linked to livelihood transitions and sustainable income from oil palm).
5. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels (improving enforcement and monitoring).
   • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all (addressing illegal planting and land claims).

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied to Measure Progress

1. Forest Cover and Loss
   • Satellite imagery and remote sensing data (e.g., Landsat) measuring forest area, fragmentation, and core forest patches.
   • Indicators such as the rate of forest loss over time and the number and size of forest fragments.
2. Human Footprint
   • Percentage of land modified by human activities within the park (e.g., 99.39% modified land).
3. Species Habitat and Population Status
   • Presence and habitat connectivity for key species like Sumatran tigers and elephants.
4. Certification and Compliance
   • Implementation and enforcement of ISPO certification among palm oil producers.
5. Law Enforcement and Illegal Activities
   • Monitoring of illegal clearing and permit compliance through satellite alerts and ground verification.
6. Livelihood and Socioeconomic Indicators
   • Measures of community income sources and transitions away from destructive practices.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: earth.com

Report on the Impact of Warming and Resource Enhancement on Food Webs in the South China Sea Coral Reef System

Introduction

Coral reef ecosystems, vital for marine biodiversity and human livelihoods, are increasingly impacted by rising ocean temperatures and nutrient inputs. Understanding how these environmental changes influence food-web structures is crucial for achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 14 (Life Below Water) and SDG 13 (Climate Action).

Methodology

A comprehensive analysis was conducted on 130 coral reef food webs across the South China Sea. These food webs were constructed using environmental DNA (eDNA) surveys combined with trophic interaction data. The food webs were categorized into three habitat types:

1. Surface-water habitats
2. Bottom-water habitats
3. Sediment habitats

Findings

The study revealed significant structural differences among the habitats:

• Surface- and bottom-water food webs: Exhibited higher connectance and nestedness, indicating more complex and interconnected trophic relationships.
• Sediment food webs: Displayed greater compartmentalization, suggesting more isolated trophic modules.

Using linear mixed-effects models, the interaction between temperature and productivity was found to nonlinearly influence food-web properties:

• In surface waters, increased temperature combined with higher productivity enhanced connectance, potentially supporting ecosystem resilience.
• In deeper waters, the same environmental conditions extended trophic pathways and decreased stability, posing risks to ecosystem function.

Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

This research highlights the complex responses of coral reef food webs to climate change and nutrient enrichment, emphasizing the need for integrated management approaches to support SDGs:

• SDG 14 (Life Below Water): Protecting and sustainably managing coral reef ecosystems requires understanding food-web dynamics under environmental stressors.
• SDG 13 (Climate Action): Addressing ocean warming impacts on marine biodiversity is critical for maintaining ecosystem services.
• SDG 15 (Life on Land): Nutrient inputs often originate from terrestrial sources, linking land and marine ecosystem health.
• SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals): Collaborative research and policy efforts are essential to mitigate adverse effects on coral reefs.

Conclusion

The study concludes that future environmental changes will differentially affect pelagic and benthic coral reef food webs. These findings underscore the importance of targeted conservation strategies to enhance ecosystem stability and biodiversity, aligning with global sustainable development objectives.

Data Availability

The raw sequence data supporting this study are publicly accessible at the China National Center for Bioinformation / Beijing Institute of Genomics, Chinese Academy of Sciences (GSA: CRA018229) via https://ngdc.cncb.ac.cn/gsa.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected

1. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • The article focuses on coral reef ecosystems in the South China Sea, their food-web structures, and the impact of warming and nutrient inputs, which directly relates to the conservation and sustainable use of oceans, seas, and marine resources.
2. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • The article discusses rising ocean temperatures and their effects on coral reef food webs, highlighting the need for urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts on marine ecosystems.
3. SDG 15: Life on Land (Indirectly)
   • Increasing nutrient inputs often originate from terrestrial sources (e.g., runoff), linking terrestrial ecosystem management with marine health.

2. Specific Targets Under Identified SDGs

1. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • Target 14.2: Sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, and take action for their restoration to achieve healthy and productive oceans.
   • Target 14.3: Minimize and address the impacts of ocean acidification, including through enhanced scientific cooperation at all levels.
2. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.
   • Target 13.3: Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction, and early warning.
3. SDG 15: Life on Land (Indirectly)
   • Target 15.1: Ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied to Measure Progress

1. Food-Web Structural Properties
   • Connectance: Measures the proportion of possible links between species that are realized in the food web.
   • Nestedness: Indicates the degree to which interactions are organized in a nested pattern.
   • Compartmentalization: Degree to which the food web is divided into relatively independent sub-networks.
   • Trophic Pathway Length: Length of energy transfer chains in the food web.
   • Stability Metrics: Related to the resilience and stability of the food web under environmental changes.
2. Environmental Variables
   • Ocean Temperature: Rising temperatures measured to assess impact on food webs.
   • Productivity: Nutrient inputs and productivity levels influencing food-web structure.
3. Use of Environmental DNA (eDNA) Surveys
   • eDNA metabarcoding as a tool to reconstruct food webs and monitor biodiversity changes.

4. Table: SDGs, Targets and Indicators

Source: nature.com

Report on the State of Massachusetts Maritime Economy and Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

Marine industry leaders and elected officials convened at the Menino Convention Center in Boston during the 70th annual New England Boat Show to discuss the current state and future prospects of Massachusetts’ maritime economy. The event, held from Wednesday to Sunday, highlighted key issues aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to sustainable economic growth, innovation, climate action, and life below water.

Enhancement of the Ferry System (SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure; SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities)

1. Current Initiatives: Representatives from the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) announced plans to improve the state’s ferry system.
2. Strategic Development: MBTA Ferry Operations Director David Perry emphasized the intention to expand and optimize the water transportation network by collecting commuter data and feedback to assess potential changes to existing ferry routes, new route locations, and overall system accessibility.
3. Government Commitment: Lieutenant Governor Kim Driscoll expressed the goal for Massachusetts ferry services to reach the operational standards of established systems in cities like New York and Seattle, reflecting a commitment to sustainable urban transport solutions.

Challenges Facing Commercial Fisheries (SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth; SDG 14: Life Below Water)

• Economic Pressures: Commercial fishermen voiced concerns about rising costs impacting the industry’s viability. Edward Barrett, President of the Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership, highlighted the dramatic increase in entry costs—from $100,000 to approximately $2 million for assets such as housing, boats, permits, and vehicles in coastal towns like Marshfield.
• Climate Change Impact: Changes in marine wildlife patterns due to climate change pose uncertainty for the local fishing economy. Robert Nagle, senior advisor at John Nagle Seafood Company, raised the question of whether southern species migrating northward could become commercially viable, indicating the need for adaptive strategies in fisheries management.

Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

• SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): Addressing economic challenges in the fishing industry to ensure sustainable livelihoods for coastal communities.
• SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure): Investing in innovative water transportation infrastructure to enhance connectivity and economic development.
• SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): Developing accessible and efficient ferry services to support sustainable urban mobility.
• SDG 13 (Climate Action): Recognizing and responding to the impacts of climate change on marine ecosystems and local economies.
• SDG 14 (Life Below Water): Promoting sustainable use of marine resources and adapting to ecological shifts affecting fisheries.

Conclusion

The discussions at the New England Boat Show underscore Massachusetts’ commitment to advancing its maritime economy through sustainable development practices. By focusing on improved transportation infrastructure, addressing economic challenges in fisheries, and adapting to climate-induced changes, the state aims to align its maritime sector with the Sustainable Development Goals, fostering resilience and long-term prosperity.

Report by WBZ NewsRadio’s Jeromey Russ (@JeromeyRuss)

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed in the Article

1. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • The article discusses economic pressures on the commercial fishing industry and the maritime economy, highlighting concerns about costs and viability.
2. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
   • Improvement and expansion of the ferry system and water transportation network are discussed, which relates to infrastructure development and innovation.
3. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • The article mentions changing wildlife habits due to climate change and its impact on the maritime economy.
4. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • Concerns about marine species shifting due to climate change and their commercial viability relate to sustainable use of marine resources.
5. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • Enhancing ferry services and water transportation contributes to sustainable urban transport solutions.

2. Specific Targets Under the Identified SDGs

1. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • Target 8.3: Promote development-oriented policies that support productive activities and decent job creation, especially in sectors like fishing.
   • Target 8.5: Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including in maritime industries.
2. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
   • Target 9.1: Develop quality, reliable, sustainable, and resilient infrastructure, including regional and transborder infrastructure.
   • Target 9.5: Enhance scientific research and upgrade technological capabilities of industrial sectors.
3. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters.
   • Target 13.3: Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction, and early warning.
4. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • Target 14.4: Effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing to restore fish stocks in the shortest time feasible.
   • Target 14.7: Increase economic benefits to Small Island developing States and least developed countries from sustainable use of marine resources.
5. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • Target 11.2: Provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied in the Article

1. SDG 8 Indicators
   • Unemployment rate in maritime industries (implied through economic pressures on fishermen).
   • Average income or cost of entry into the fishing industry (implied by the increase in costs mentioned).
2. SDG 9 Indicators
   • Number and accessibility of ferry routes (explicitly mentioned as data to be collected by MBTA).
   • Passenger feedback and usage statistics of ferry services.
3. SDG 13 Indicators
   • Changes in marine species distribution (implied by discussion of southern species moving north).
   • Climate-related impacts on fisheries productivity.
4. SDG 14 Indicators
   • Fish stock levels and species composition in Massachusetts waters (implied by concerns over species viability).
5. SDG 11 Indicators
   • Accessibility and coverage of water transportation systems.
   • Commuter satisfaction and usage rates of ferry services.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: wbznewsradio.iheart.com

Report on the Impact of Climate Change on Maine Fisheries and Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

Fisheries in Maine represent a critical economic and nutritional resource, providing thousands of jobs and millions of servings of sustainable protein. However, the industry faces significant challenges due to climate change, particularly warming waters in the Gulf of Maine, which is the fastest-warming body of water globally. The year 2024 ranked as the 12th warmest year on record, impacting marine ecosystems and necessitating adaptive strategies within the fishing community.

Climate Change Effects on Fisheries

1. Species Migration: Fish species are shifting their geographic locations in response to changing water temperatures, seeking optimal thermal conditions.
2. Ecosystem Alterations: These shifts disrupt predator-prey dynamics, fundamentally changing the marine ecosystem that fisheries depend upon.

Industry Response and Adaptation

According to Jonathan Labaree, Chief Community Officer at the Gulf of Maine Research Institute (GMRI), the fisheries sector is adapting through research, innovation, and collaborative management:

• Research Initiatives: Enhanced understanding of ecological changes enables the development of new solutions.
• Collaborative Management: Stakeholders discuss fishing rights, gear usage, and seasonal regulations to sustainably manage resources.
• Innovative Gear Design: GMRI collaborates with fishermen to design selective nets that target specific species while avoiding others.

Socioeconomic Importance and Conservation Efforts

• Maine’s lobster fishery supports approximately 5,000 families, with additional fisheries supporting many more.
• Beyond harvesters, multiple supply chain workers contribute to delivering seafood to consumers.
• Conservation efforts are strengthened by integrating fishermen’s perspectives and scientific research to sustainably manage marine resources.

Role of Local Communities and Sustainable Consumption

Local consumers play a vital role in supporting sustainable fisheries by:

• Shopping locally and embracing diverse seafood varieties.
• Engaging with fishmongers for informed purchasing decisions.
• Choosing restaurants that prioritize responsibly harvested seafood.

The Gulf of Maine Tastemakers Program, initiated by GMRI, facilitates responsible seafood consumption in southern New England.

Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger – By providing sustainable protein sources, Maine fisheries contribute to food security.
2. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth – The fisheries sector supports thousands of jobs and economic livelihoods.
3. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production – Encouraging sustainable seafood consumption promotes responsible resource use.
4. SDG 13: Climate Action – Research and adaptive management address climate change impacts on marine ecosystems.
5. SDG 14: Life Below Water – Conservation and sustainable fisheries management protect marine biodiversity and ecosystems.

Conclusion

Maine’s fisheries are confronting complex challenges posed by climate change, necessitating integrated approaches that combine scientific research, community collaboration, and sustainable consumption practices. These efforts directly support multiple Sustainable Development Goals, ensuring the long-term viability of marine resources and the communities that depend on them.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger – The article highlights the importance of fisheries in providing sustainable protein to millions, contributing to food security.
2. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth – Fisheries provide thousands of jobs, supporting livelihoods and economic activity in Maine.
3. SDG 13: Climate Action – The article discusses the impact of warming waters and climate change on marine ecosystems and fisheries.
4. SDG 14: Life Below Water – The focus on marine life, sustainable fishing practices, ecosystem changes, and conservation efforts directly relates to this goal.
5. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals – Collaborative research and management involving fishermen, scientists, and organizations like GMRI illustrate partnerships to address complex challenges.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified

• SDG 2 Targets:
  • 2.1 – End hunger and ensure access to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food all year round.
  • 2.4 – Ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices.
• SDG 8 Targets:
  • 8.3 – Promote development-oriented policies that support productive activities, decent job creation, and entrepreneurship.
• SDG 13 Targets:
  • 13.1 – Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters.
  • 13.3 – Improve education, awareness, and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction, and early warning.
• SDG 14 Targets:
  • 14.2 – Sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts.
  • 14.4 – Effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing.
  • 14.7 – Increase economic benefits to small island developing states and least developed countries from sustainable use of marine resources.
• SDG 17 Targets:
  • 17.16 – Enhance global partnerships for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied to Measure Progress

• Indicators related to SDG 2:
  • Prevalence of undernourishment or access to sustainable protein sources (implied by the role of fisheries in providing protein).
  • Measures of sustainable food production systems (implied by research and innovation in fisheries management).
• Indicators related to SDG 8:
  • Number of jobs supported by the fisheries sector (explicitly mentioned as thousands of jobs).
  • Economic contribution of fisheries to local communities.
• Indicators related to SDG 13:
  • Sea surface temperature changes (explicitly mentioned as Gulf of Maine being the fastest-warming body of water).
  • Adaptive measures taken by fisheries to climate change (implied by research and innovation efforts).
• Indicators related to SDG 14:
  • Fish species distribution and abundance (implied by species shifting locations and ecosystem changes).
  • Effectiveness of fishing gear in selective harvesting (explicitly mentioned research on nets to catch certain species and avoid others).
  • Conservation status of marine species.
• Indicators related to SDG 17:
  • Number and effectiveness of multi-stakeholder partnerships (implied by collaboration between GMRI, fishermen, and other stakeholders).

4. Table: SDGs, Targets and Indicators

Source: wmtw.com

Report on the Development and Application of the Gear-based Fisheries Management Index (GFMI) in Korea

Introduction and Context

The Gear-based Fisheries Management Index (GFMI) was developed to address the complexities of fisheries management in Korea by focusing on gear-specific attributes linked to ecological sustainability, ecosystem effects, regulatory compliance, and socio-economic performance. This approach aligns closely with several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 14 (Life Below Water), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).

Background and Rationale

• The precautionary principle, a core tenet of modern fisheries management and ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM), emphasizes caution to safeguard marine ecosystems and ensure long-term resource health, supporting SDG 14.
• Korea’s fisheries are characterized by diverse gear types and small-scale operations, complicating traditional species-centric management approaches.
• Existing management systems such as total allowable catch have limitations in addressing the heterogeneity of fisheries gear impacts.
• The GFMI was proposed as a gear-based analytical tool to systematically assess and compare fisheries, facilitating targeted management interventions.

Study Setup and Methodology

The GFMI framework, based on the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) “ideal gear attributes,” was developed for 24 coastal and offshore fisheries in Korea. It encompasses three primary objectives:

1. Gear Controllability: Assessing the ability to control catch and reduce bycatch.
2. Environmental Sustainability: Evaluating ecosystem impacts including habitat disturbance and reproductive capacity.
3. Operational Functionality: Considering operational aspects such as gear cost, ease of use, and crew safety.

Sub-indicators and weighting factors were derived through expert consultation to ensure comprehensive evaluation. This multidimensional approach supports SDG 14 by promoting sustainable use of marine resources and SDG 8 by enhancing operational safety and economic viability.

Results and Discussion

Key Findings

• Coastal Fisheries: Coastal gillnet and improved stow net fisheries exhibited high GFMI scores, indicating significant management challenges related to bycatch, reproductive capacity, and gear loss.
• Offshore Fisheries: Large bottom pair trawls and medium-size bottom pair trawls scored high due to habitat impacts and fishing mechanisms.
• Operational Vulnerabilities: Certain fisheries such as coastal purse seines showed lower scores, reflecting better species selectivity and operational ease.

Policy Implications and SDG Integration

The GFMI provides a practical basis for prioritizing management actions that contribute to multiple SDGs:

• Improving Selectivity: Encouraging the use of larger mesh sizes and escapement devices to reduce bycatch supports SDG 14 by protecting marine biodiversity.
• Promoting Gear Substitution: Incentivizing transitions to more sustainable gear aligns with SDG 12 by fostering responsible production practices.
• Preventing Gear Loss: Implementing biodegradable panels and gear tracking systems reduces marine pollution, contributing to SDG 14.
• Enhancing Crew Safety: Providing safety equipment subsidies and training supports SDG 8 by promoting decent work conditions.

Limitations and Future Directions

1. The GFMI does not explicitly model species ecosystem interactions, limiting its scope compared to ecosystem-based models.
2. Data availability and reliance on expert elicitation may affect indicator accuracy and comparability.
3. The index is tailored to Korea’s fisheries and requires calibration for international application.
4. Temporal responsiveness is limited, necessitating development of time-series analyses to capture dynamic changes.

Future work aims to incorporate ecosystem dynamics, enhance data-driven methods, improve cross-national comparability, and integrate socioeconomic indicators to strengthen policy relevance and support SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) through equitable resource management.

Conclusions and Perspectives

The GFMI represents an innovative, intermediate tool between qualitative assessments and complex ecosystem models. By focusing on gear-specific vulnerabilities and integrating ecological, technical, and operational dimensions, it supports sustainable fisheries management consistent with SDG 14 and related goals.

This index enables targeted, multidimensional management strategies rather than broad, single-instrument policies, facilitating sustainable economic growth (SDG 8) and responsible resource use (SDG 12).

Expanding the GFMI’s generality and policy utility through ecosystem integration, data enhancement, and socioeconomic considerations will further its contribution to global sustainable fisheries management efforts.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected to the Issues Highlighted in the Article

1. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • The article focuses on sustainable fisheries management in Korea, emphasizing ecological sustainability, ecosystem effects, and regulatory compliance to safeguard marine resources and ecosystems.
   • It discusses ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM), precautionary principles, and minimizing ecosystem impacts, all directly related to conserving and sustainably using the oceans, seas, and marine resources.
2. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • The Gear-based Fisheries Management Index (GFMI) promotes sustainable fishing practices by improving gear selectivity, preventing gear loss, and encouraging gear substitution, which aligns with sustainable consumption and production patterns.
3. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • The article addresses socio-economic performance and crew safety in fisheries, highlighting operational functionality and the need for safety training and subsidies, which relate to promoting safe and secure working environments and sustainable economic growth.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified Based on the Article’s Content

1. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • Target 14.4: By 2025, effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and destructive fishing practices to restore fish stocks in the shortest time feasible.
   • Target 14.2: Sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts.
2. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • Target 12.2: Achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources, including marine resources.
   • Target 12.5: Substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse, which can be linked to preventing gear loss and promoting biodegradable gear components.
3. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • Target 8.8: Protect labor rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers, including fishery workers.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied in the Article to Measure Progress Towards the Identified Targets

1. Ecological and Ecosystem Indicators
   • Average trophic level of marine ecosystems (indicator of ecosystem health and overfishing impact).
   • Bycatch rates and composition (percentage of non-target species caught, e.g., gillnets accounting for 71.2% of bycatch).
   • Reproductive capacity penalties (impact on fish populations’ ability to reproduce).
   • Habitat impact scores (effect of fishing gear on marine habitats).
2. Operational and Socio-economic Indicators
   • Gear loss rates and risk assessments (frequency and impact of lost fishing gear).
   • Gear cost and operational ease (economic and functional vulnerabilities of fishing gear).
   • Accident rates and crew safety metrics (workplace safety indicators).
   • Compliance with regulatory measures such as gear registration and tracking systems.
3. Composite Index
   • The Gear-based Fisheries Management Index (GFMI) itself, which integrates multiple sub-indicators related to ecological sustainability, ecosystem effects, regulatory compliance, and socio-economic performance to provide a quantitative measure of fisheries management effectiveness.

4. Table: SDGs, Targets and Indicators

Source: globalseafood.org

Report on the Special Issue of IFT’s Journal of Food Science: Health, Safety, and Sustainability of Aquatic Foods

Introduction

The Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) has announced the release of a Special Issue on Health, Safety, and Sustainability of Aquatic Foods in its peer-reviewed Journal of Food Science (JFS). This free-to-read issue, developed by IFT’s Aquatic Food Products Division, presents critical reviews and explores diverse aspects of aquatic foods and their significant role in achieving a sustainable future aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Scope and Content of the Special Issue

The special issue covers a broad range of topics essential to the aquatic food industry, including:

• Production and processing techniques
• Food safety and nutrition
• Shelf life and emerging technologies
• Monitoring environmental toxins and pathogens
• Product authentication and labeling integrity
• Innovations in processing methods
• Efficient utilization of processing byproducts to reduce environmental impact and enhance value

These topics directly contribute to SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), and SDG 14 (Life Below Water) by promoting sustainable aquatic food systems that ensure food security, improve nutrition, and protect marine ecosystems.

Importance of Aquatic Foods in Sustainable Development

According to Dr. Qinchun Rao, Betty M. Watts Endowed Professor of Food Science at Florida State University and member of the IFT Aquatic Food Products Division, aquatic foods such as fish, shellfish, seaweed, and microalgae are vital sources of nutrition for the growing global population. These foods provide:

1. High-quality proteins
2. Essential omega-3 fatty acids
3. Vitamins and minerals
4. Bioactive compounds important for human health

Promoting aquatic foods can reduce reliance on red meat and poultry, which have higher carbon footprints, thereby supporting SDG 13 (Climate Action) and enhancing food security for vulnerable populations (SDG 1: No Poverty, SDG 2: Zero Hunger).

Role of the IFT Aquatic Food Products Division

Established in 1982, the IFT Aquatic Food Products Division serves as a global hub for professionals, researchers, and students specializing in aquatic food science and technology. With over 400 members across 35 countries, the division is committed to:

• Advancing knowledge in aquatic food safety, nutrition, and sustainability
• Fostering international collaboration and innovation
• Promoting sustainable product development aligned with global SDGs

Access to the Special Issue

The Special Issue on Health, Safety, and Sustainability of Aquatic Foods is available for free and can be accessed here.

IFT’s Journal of Food Science

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • The article emphasizes the role of aquatic foods as vital sources of nutrition, contributing to food security and reducing hunger.
2. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • Aquatic foods provide high-quality proteins, essential omega-3 fatty acids, vitamins, minerals, and bioactive compounds crucial for human health.
3. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • The article discusses innovations in processing methods and efficient utilization of processing byproducts to minimize environmental impact and add value.
4. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • Focus on monitoring environmental toxins, pathogens, and ensuring sustainable aquatic food production relates to conserving marine resources.
5. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Promotion of aquatic foods as alternatives to red meat and poultry, which have high carbon footprints, supports climate action.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • Target 2.1: End hunger and ensure access by all people to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food all year round.
   • Target 2.2: End all forms of malnutrition, including achieving targets on stunted and wasted children.
2. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • Target 3.4: Reduce premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being.
3. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • Target 12.2: Achieve sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.
   • Target 12.5: Substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse.
4. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • Target 14.1: Prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds.
   • Target 14.4: Effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing.
5. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies, and planning.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied in the Article

1. Indicators for SDG 2
   • Prevalence of undernourishment and access to nutritious food (implied through focus on aquatic foods as nutrition sources).
2. Indicators for SDG 3
   • Intake levels of essential nutrients such as omega-3 fatty acids, vitamins, and minerals (implied by emphasis on nutritional content).
3. Indicators for SDG 12
   • Amount of food processing byproducts recycled or reused (implied by discussion on efficient utilization of byproducts).
   • Levels of environmental toxins and pathogens monitored in aquatic foods (related to safety and sustainability).
4. Indicators for SDG 14
   • Concentration levels of environmental toxins and pollutants in aquatic environments (implied by monitoring efforts).
   • Rates of sustainable harvesting and reduction of overfishing (implied by sustainable production focus).
5. Indicators for SDG 13
   • Carbon footprint comparison between aquatic foods and red meat/poultry consumption (implied by mention of reducing carbon footprints).

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: provisioneronline.com

Sources:

“Coral Bleaching.” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2023. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coral_bleach.html

“Mission: Iconic Reefs.” NOAA Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, 2023. https://floridakeys.noaa.gov/restoration.

Coral Restoration Foundation. About Us. https://www.coralrestoration.org

Underwater systems of biological marvel—the hydrodynamic bodies of turtles swerving water currents, school of fishes in conjoined movement like one big conscious body… Miami is a city that flourishes with diverse maritime wildlife. Although these precious forms of life that are associated with Miami have become a huge draw for hospitality jobs, they are currently under the threat of the immense floods of sargasso cluttering the bays for miles. However, with the diligent study of UM students aiming for sargassum to become biomatter as an alternative of generic carbon material used for screens in technological devices, there is a clear direction to a better outlook for how to manage the shores and impact the blow from sargasso; seeing it not as a problem, but the solution. 

At first, the expansive belt of sargassum was a mystery to scientists around the world. The great amassment of organic yellow—like blots of petroleum in the abyssal sea—started to catch the attention starting the 2010s, as seen in Modern Science's article: “First appearing in 2011, the Great Atlantic Sargassum Belt is believed to have originated near the nutrient-rich mouth of the Amazon River, whose outflows contribute significantly to its development…” In a prior natural state of a mere 5000 pounds max of sargassum it is credible to being a great way for maritime creatures to have shelter and pockets of space to be safe from hazardous instances. They are the parallel of corals that way; except, they are the stalactites to stalagmites in the intricate cave system that is the ocean. However, an excessive amount of sargassum can make for the benefits to become tangible harm. Since the 80's, scientists have observed the data of how emissions have increased over the years.  For them, rafts that give marine life protection become a barren land of oxygen, trapping and asphyxiating life in the process. Data states that the emissions have risen to “a stunning 55” (Modern Science Team), a dangerous elevation in nitrogen emissions detrimental as it sounds—leaving the species of fish, amphipods and other marine life dependent on said sargassum suffering from the abundance. 

Due to the decay of sargassum, a higher accumulation of emissions will mean that it will trickle into several SDGS such as 11 and 6; meaning, problems with the economy and clean water for our communities. As quoted from the article Sargassum blooms in the Caribbean alter the trophic structure of the sea urchin Diadema antillarum, on page three, it covers the gist of how these emissions cause harm: “Sargassum mats produce hypoxia in near-shore coral reef communities… ammonium concentrations have been shown to cause faunal mortality in the Mexican Caribbean” Sargassum has not only an economical impact on industries that depend on the monetary, but as seen it affects the wildlife within these gems of carribean/mexican seas, threatening entire ecosystems to crumble from a disbalance in PH, density and issues of hypoxia. 

Nursing and feeding grounds, where life starts, are deeply affected as well. For instance, Miami has ecosystems that depend on the settlement of mangroves. However, due to the excess it can actually affect mangroves as well, leading to issues with development and life expectancy for marine life—at some point the lives of fish and other maritime creatures, often in their youth, need shelter and sustenance that mangroves offer. Furthermore, the immense excrements of warmth emanating from the pounds of biomass cause the embryos of turtles for instance to have detrimental problems.  Even downright genetic issues can be caused from the amalgamation of sargassum, as its “preliminary data suggest a cooling effect, which could result in the production of more male hatchlings since gender is temperature-dependent in this taxon” (Andrew S. Maurer, Emma De Neef, Seth Stapleton, p.7) Problems with the heat excess and the lack of sunlight can cause the species to suffer a drawback in the normal populations, causing a great danger to the future breeding and survival rates of species. 

As Miami's new generation of agents of change rise to the occasion, there has been an incredible effort to bring awareness and a tangible solution to the problem. UM's students have been conducting research to re-purpose the sargassum to innovative solutions—possibly the makeup matter for our TV's of the future. Yiming Xi, a Ph.D candidate, has been conducting research on how to turn sargassum into carbon dots through the process of aerosol and large amounts of heat at the celsius grade of 800*C. “During that superheating process, those droplets decompose, or pyrolyze, and form carbon dots at the nanoscale,” Peering into using sargassum as a resource, it is possible to find a way to re-purpose the pounds into the screens of the devices in homes; providing the alternative that is mindful ecologically, and carving the path for organic matter to become commercially used in a global scale. With a nod to the right direction, Miami can preserve its marine life and flora that is essential for the ecosystem to thrive—and for the likelihood of the thousands of people who depend on jobs that are brought by the biodiversity of Florida. Change is inevitable, but how an individual absorbs change and reflects it into action is key. Looking out into the paths few have treaded, remaining brave and dipping into uncharted waters deep as the coral constructs that barrier our bays, that is where change starts. 

Works Cited

Cabanillas-Terán N, Hernández-Arana HA, Ruiz-Zárate M, Vega-Zepeda A, Sanchez-Gonzalez A. 2019. Sargassum blooms in the Caribbean alter the trophic structure of the sea urchin Diadema antillarum. PeerJ 7:e7589 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7589

Andrew S Maurer, Emma De Neef, Seth Stapleton. Sargassum accumulation may spell trouble for nesting sea turtles. 1 September 2015. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295-13.7.394

Modern Science Team. Review: Human pollution fuels record Sargassum seaweed blooms. 11 September 2015. http://modernsciences.org/sargassum-seaweed-bloom-pollution-september-2025/

Robert C. Jones Jr. From flatscreens to bioimaging: Putting sargassum seaweed to good use. 2 September 2025. https://share.google/Sj3EzidnNz66fRv6c

Light pollution is a substantial problem that occurs when artificial light is used inefficiently and ineffectively. Multiple studies indicate that over 80% of the world's population is affected by light pollution, leading to the disruption of the human circadian rhythm. Furthermore, artificial light disrupts natural behaviors, particularly among species like sea turtles that rely on natural darkness for navigation. For instance, in Miami, the Sea Turtle Conservancy has found that over 90% of hatchlings disoriented by artificial light fail to reach the ocean, instead heading towards roads and buildings. This causes a strain on the ecological food web and the environment as a whole. With more turtles falling victim to light pollution, some species may go down the route of extinction in the near future. AI-enhanced systems may provide a solution, according to researchers: “AI’s ability to analyze complex energy data and optimize renewable energy systems has propelled the development of more efficient solar panels, wind turbines, and energy storage technologies.”(Rayhan 2) By applying these AI-driven optimizations to urban lighting, Miami-Dade County can promote cleaner methods of energy production, lower energy consumption, and minimize ecological disruption, thereby helping to protect coastal ecosystems while promoting public safety.

Additionally, AI-enhanced systems can help reduce light pollution and enhance the efficiency of sediment transportation. This approach lowers energy consumption compared to traditional manual labor used along the coast, which has hurt coastal areas due to the construction of new buildings. Implementing these AI-driven adaptive coastal management systems can help predict the erosion patterns and optimize sediment redistribution. Analyzing real-time data on wave movement allows for a method of erosion control around the coast of Miami, increasing the amount of habitats for animals such as manatees, shorebirds, and coral fish. Furthermore, the correlation between light pollution can be closely linked; when there's significant light pollution in one area, it can be an indication of ongoing urban construction, which contributes to coastal erosion. AI-enhanced technology can help alleviate both problems in one area, fostering environmental stability and paving the way for preserving both our marine ecosystems and shorelines.

Many cities, such as Miami, may struggle to afford such an investment. However, similar concerns on environmental sustainability were brought up in the past, yet we continue to delay such innovative advancements, clinging to the idea of avoiding costly investments in favor of so-called “affordable” alternatives, often leading to greater expenses and environmental consequences. While these concerns are valid, they completely overlook the long-term economic and environmental advantages. An AI-driven solution allows for groundbreaking opportunities in combating light pollution and coastal erosion, two interconnected environmental issues threatening Miami-Dade County and other coastal cities. AI can help protect marine and nocturnal systems while promoting energy conservation by introducing adaptive light, real-time data analysis, and automated regulation. 

Imagine standing by the ocean, watching the waves sparkle under the Miami sun. The water looks clean, peaceful, and infinite. But beneath that calm surface hides an invisible danger — countless tiny particles of plastic drifting with the waves. They are called microplastics, and although we can’t see them, they are everywhere: in our oceans, in the animals that live there, and even in our own bodies. 

Teanaway Forks Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Restoration

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) received $3,805,400 to revitalize five miles of steelhead, Chinook, and coho salmon spawning and rearing habitat in the West and Middle Forks of the Teanaway River. The project will involve berm removal and the installation of up to 2,500 large wood structures, transforming the river corridors into diverse and productive habitats while enhancing groundwater storage.

WDFW will contribute $423,200 in matching funds to support this effort.

“The Teanaway River watershed has some of the best and coldest streams for steelhead, Chinook, and coho in the Yakima River Basin. This funding will help remove barriers to salmon migration and improve habitat to support fish spawning and rearing,” said Sen. Maria Cantwell.

Sen. Patty Murray added, “This project will be transformative for endangered salmon and steelhead in the Teanaway River—revitalizing miles of spawning habitat and helping to create a healthier and more robust ecosystem.”

Sanpoil River Redband Trout Habitat Restoration

The Colville Tribes Fish and Wildlife Department was awarded $3,486,400 for habitat restoration in the Upper Columbia and Sanpoil River areas. The project will restore redband trout and other native fish habitats through the use of large woody debris, engineered log jams, livestock fencing, and riparian plant restoration.

“Redband trout are culturally significant to the Colville Tribes, and restoring populations is important to meeting the Tribes’ subsistence needs,” said Sen. Cantwell. “This funding will support the Tribes’ efforts to revitalize Redband trout and other native fish species in the Upper Columbia River Basin.”

Sen. Murray emphasized the project’s cultural and ecological importance, stating, “This grant will make a big difference in restoring native trout populations and habitat in the Upper Columbia and Sanpoil River, which is absolutely critical for Colville Tribal Members who rely on redband trout as an essential part of their culture, diet, and way of life.”

Upper Wenatchee Forest Health and Habitat Improvements

The Chelan County Natural Resource Department (CCNRD) secured $1.5 million to address forest health and aquatic restoration in the Upper Wenatchee Landscape. Efforts will include forest health treatments on 5,000 acres, 30 miles of aquatic restoration, and nine aquatic-organism passage projects across 15,000 acres in the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest.

“The Okanogan-Wenatchee Forest is a hotspot every wildfire season—improving the health of the forest makes the habitat more resilient,” noted Sen. Cantwell.

Sen. Murray highlighted the forest's importance, saying, “The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest is one of Washington state’s natural treasures. I’m glad we’re able to deliver this funding to invest in the long-term health of the forest, sustain local species and habitat, and ensure that generations to come can continue to enjoy and rely on this majestic natural resource.”

Investing in Washington’s Natural Resources

These projects are part of a larger effort under the America the Beautiful Challenge, which aims to conserve 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030. The funding will not only protect critical ecosystems but also support local economies, Tribal communities, and collaborative conservation efforts across the state.

Fourteen years after the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, would we fare any better at cleaning up another huge oil spill? Jocelyn Timperley examines the latest science of ocean clean-ups.

Getty Images

Noaa/BBC

Getty Images

Wade Jeffrey

Beneath the azure skies of Miami's shore,

World Ocean Day whispers secrets of the deep.

As we gather by the gentle roar,

Into the ocean of knowledge, we eagerly leap.

Let's dive beneath the surface, bold and wise,

Where hidden truths and mysteries blend.

Each wave a lesson, before our eyes,

Revealing wonders that never end.

In coral cities and forests of kelp,

We find the stories of Earth’s grand ballet.

A world beneath waves, a hidden whelp,

Urging us to protect it, come what may.

So as we celebrate, let minds entwine

With marine life’s delicate, profound embrace.

Discovering how oceans are a sign,

Of nature’s resilience, beauty, and grace.

On this World Ocean Day, let’s make a vow,

To cherish and defend the blue below.

For the health of our seas reflects, somehow,

The future we craft, the seeds we sow.

Explore more about UN World Oceans Day 2024

Mariculture has gradually become a proposed solution to address the global food production crisis, prompting it to become the fastest growing food production sector in recent years. Therefore, mariculture's environmental and ecological influences have also been paid more attention, including both negative and positive aspects. At present, a comprehensive evaluation of mariculture's ecological performance is still lacking, so we propose an evaluation framework with China as a case study. We find that both cultured species and cultivation patterns determine the performance of mariculture. At present, mariculture in Liaoning, Shandong, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang performs better than that in other regions. Offshore mariculture will be paid more attention in the future. By identifying priority areas for offshore mariculture development, ecological benefits such as carbon sequestration and water purification can be significantly improved, while environmental impacts such as water contamination can be reduced. If the local cultured species can be properly matched, ecological burden such as water contamination can be reduced and even converted into ecological benefit. The goal of the study is to provide a way of comprehending the complexity of the mariculture system, thus providing reference and theoretical support for the sustainable development of mariculture both in China and around the world.

1 Introduction

With the continuous growth of global population and the shortage of land and fresh water resources, mariculture has gradually become a proposed solution to address the global food production crisis, prompting such an economic sector to become the fastest growing food production sector in recent years (FAO, 2016). It is estimated that by 2050, the increase of edible seafood will be equivalent to 12%–25% of the increase in all meat needed to feed 9.8 billion people in the world, and the contribution of mariculture to seafood will be about 44%–76% (Costello et al., 2020). Almost all of the coastal countries have large areas suitable for the development of mariculture, and the annual finfish production potential will be over 100 times of the current global seafood consumption under the condition that all suitable areas are developed (Gentry, Froehlich, et al., 2017). Besides, a form of mariculture called “marine ranching” has received wide attention in the past few years (Yu & Zhang, 2020). Countries such as Japan, South Korea, the United States and China, etc., have vigorously carried out marine ranching implementation (Lee & Zhang, 2018; Qin et al., 2020), and treat it as a robust tool for resource enhancement and ecological restoration.

Since mariculture has gained in popularity, its environmental and ecological influences have also been paid more attention, including both negative and positive aspects. In most cases, mariculture is better known for its negative environmental impacts and socio-economic conflicts (Alleway et al., 2019), such as water pollution (Islam, 2005), biodiversity reduction (Diana, 2009), coastal wetlands destruction (Richards & Friess, 2016), alien species invasion (Naylor et al., 2005), disease or parasite outbreak (Krkosek et al., 2007), etc. In addition, fed mariculture relies on large amounts of feed input such as fish meal, fish oil and forage fish. As these feed materials are mainly obtained from wild fishing, the rapid growth of mariculture may lead to the depletion of wild fish resources (Cao et al., 2015; Naylor et al., 2000). In terms of socio-economic impacts, mariculture may aggravate social inequality and lead to poverty traps (Abdullah et al., 2017). Sometimes the economic losses caused by unsustainable mariculture even exceed the economic incomes (Malik et al., 2015).

Recently, however, environmental and social benefits of mariculture have been identified and pointed out, and researchers are committed to maximizing benefits through effective management (Alleway et al., 2019). Although its ultimate goal is seafood provision, mariculture is capable of providing important ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration (Tang et al., 2011), water purification (Xiao et al., 2017), coastal protection (Jackson et al., 2020), tourism and leisure (Liu et al., 2019), habitat provision (Theuerkauf et al., 2022), etc. In addition, employment opportunities can be offered to coastal residents to help maintain livelihoods (McCausland et al., 2006). Although mariculture is usually regarded as a food industry, mariculture activities align with a much broader spectrum of ecological concepts (Theuerkauf et al., 2022). It has been suggested that shellfish and seaweed cultivation can support the restoration of oyster reefs and seaweed forests, thus avoiding the loss of corresponding ecosystem services due to habitat degradation (Tang et al., 2011). Furthermore, mariculture may also be associated with a series of sustainable development goals (SDGs) (United Nations, 2015). For example, it helps to achieve SDG1 (no poverty) and SDG2 (zero hunger) by offering employment opportunities and ensuring seafood supply (Blanchard et al., 2017). The healthy development of mariculture can support the long-term sustainable utilization of marine resources, which is closely related to SDG12 (responsible consumption and production) and SDG14 (life below water) (Theuerkauf et al., 2022). Moreover, seafood is an important source of protein and micronutrients (SDG3: good health and well-being) (FAO, 2016) and climate-friendly seafood may contribute to greenhouse gases (GHGs) reduction and carbon sequestration (SDG13: climate action) (Jones et al., 2022).

As mentioned above, mariculture is a “double-edged sword” (Meng & Feagin, 2019), that is, the development of mariculture not only may cause ecological burdens, but also could bring ecological benefits. However, ecological benefits and burdens often operate in an overlapping or synchronous manner. Although individual benefits or burdens elicit their own suite of environmental responses, their interactions within and between may have yet-unpredictable influence on marine ecosystems. In some cases, ecological burdens can even be transferred to ecological benefits, which is beneficial to the ecosystems and the species, including humans. Therefore, one of the goals of the present study is to figure out these benefits and burdens, and the transformation potential between them.

At present, a comprehensive evaluation of mariculture's ecological performance is still lacking, which has become the core and the difficulty of current research (Weitzman, 2019). Common approaches for mariculture's environmental performance assessment mainly include three categories: Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Ecological Footprint (EF) and Emergy Accounting (EMA). Oriented to environmental impact, LCA is often used to assess the environmental burden, and material and energy consumption of products or processes across their whole life (Pelletier & Tyedmers, 2008; Rebitzer et al., 2004), which has been widely recognized and implemented in aquaculture sector (Bohnes et al., 2019; Cao et al., 2013). The framework for LCA includes: definition of the goal and scope of the LCA, the life cycle inventory analysis (LCI), the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), and the life cycle interpretation (ISO, 2006), among which LCIA matters the most. Common LCIA indicators of mariculture implementation are global warming, eutrophication, acidification, energy use and ecological toxicity (Cao et al., 2013). However, as a mostly anthropocentric approach, LCA focuses on the processes occurring in the technical field and the environment in which these processes are built. The resources considered in LCA are mainly non-renewable or abiotic resources, while the quantification of renewable resources supporting the production process is still lacking. In addition, LCA very seldom accounts for most of the ecosystem services that are required for emissions dissipation and impact absorption (Zhang et al., 2010). Ecological footprint (EF) reflects the areas (land or sea) needed to support the current resource consumption and waste discharge level of a specific population, product, or economic activity (Wackernagel & Rees, 1996), under the implicit assumption that all resource uses can be assessed and translated into needed areas (Zhao et al., 2005). EF transforms different land use types for both supply and demand of ecological resources into a common unit, the “global hectare,” thus comparing the discrepancy between areas needed for sustainable resource consumption and actual biological carrying capacity. At present, this approach has been applied to some extent in mariculture of different types and regions (Bala & Hossain, 2010; Folke et al., 1998). Nevertheless, ecosystems are complex systems with nonlinearities, thresholds and discontinuities (Costanza et al., 1993), while EF is a static measurement, with some difficulty to capture the dynamic characteristics of the ecosystems (Folke et al., 1998). Moreover, one ecosystem can provide several ecosystem services, while the EF concept assumes that the ecosystem is only associated to provide one service only, in so generating double counting problems in the calculation process (Roth et al., 2000). Therefore, under an eco-centric perspective, Emergy Accounting (EMA) can be used to calculate the natural capital needed to provide products and services within the evolutionary trial-and-error framework and preventing the risk for supporting areas double-counting (Odum, 1996). This approach views any given environment/system as a complex available energy (exergy) flow network, quantifies all the efforts made by nature to provide these flows, and unifies them into the (virtual) common denominator of solar emergy (Odum, 1996). The advantage of EMA lies in considering not only the non-renewable resource inputs, but also the free environmental inputs, which are also necessary for each production process. In most cases, environmental inputs have no market value and are hardly measured by money, while EMA provides a basis for quantitative evaluation (Brown & Ulgiati, 2004). Another advantage of the EMA approach is that it can help quantify a variety of ecosystem services and disservices, so as to better support discussions and proposals for more sustainable systems (David et al., 2021). At present, although some studies have applied EMA to evaluate mariculture systems such as fish (Vassallo et al., 2007), shrimp (Lima et al., 2012), shellfish (Shi et al., 2013), etc., also comparing with results from other approaches, the application of EMA to mariculture environmental performance evaluation is still in the initial stage (David et al., 2021).

Therefore, this study proposes a comprehensive “Multiple Inputs-Ecosystem Service Multifunctionality-Multiple Environmental Impacts” (MI-ESM-MEI) evaluation framework, constructs an emergy-based evaluation method, and takes the largest mariculture producer worldwide—China as a telling case study for evaluation. The goal of the present manuscript is to provide a way of comprehending the complexity of the mariculture system, and evaluate—in terms of varying environmental performances—the multifaceted responses of marine ecosystems to dynamic environmental perturbations, thus providing reference and theoretical support for the sustainable development of mariculture both in China and around the world.

2 Materials and Methods

2.1 Mariculture “MI-ESM-MEI” Framework

The normal operation of mariculture systems often involves multiple inputs (MI), which can be roughly divided into two parts: renewable environmental inputs and human inputs. Among them, renewable inputs are often associated to positive environmental benefits brought by mariculture activities, while the increase of human inputs most often leads to the aggravation of negative environmental impacts. Meanwhile, the mariculture ecosystem multifunctionality has also received increasing attention (Popp et al., 2019), in which the ecosystem service multifunctionality (ESM) represents the co-supply of multiple human-related ecosystem services (Manning et al., 2018). The assessment of ESM reveals the multidimensional nature of ecosystem services, allowing for the weighting of individual ecosystem services from distinct categories, so as to decouple the comprehensive indicator of ESM from individual services and embrace the complexity of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies (Custer & Dini-Andreote, 2022; Power, 2010). In addition, the mariculture activities also bring multiple environmental impacts (MEI). Similar to the interactions between ecosystem services, synergies and trade-offs may exist between different types of environmental impacts and even between environmental impacts and ecosystem services. Therefore, it is of great importance to understand the interactions within and between resources input, ecosystem services and environmental impacts. Combining the assessment of MI, ESM, and MEI is an important step to maximize mariculture's social and ecological benefits.

Based on this, this study proposes a comprehensive “MI-ESM-MEI” evaluation framework (Figure 1), which helps understand the complexity of marine ecosystem and its multiple responses to dynamic environmental perturbations, with focus on mariculture in China as a case study. The evaluation framework includes: (a) MI evaluation: including renewable inputs and human inputs; (b) ESM evaluation: including carbon sequestration, water purification, erosion control, biodiversity conservation and cultural value; (c) MEI evaluation: including GHGs emission, water contamination, coastal erosion, biodiversity reduction and cultural value reduction.

Although there is significant diversity in mariculture systems, all types of mariculture fall into three broad categories (Figure 2): fed mariculture (e.g., fish, most crustaceans, etc.), autotrophic mariculture (e.g., seaweed), and unfed mariculture (e.g., shellfish). Each category of mariculture interacts with the environment in different ways, both in terms of the external inputs required and the influence on the surrounding environment (Gentry, Lester, et al., 2017).

For fed mariculture (Figure 2a), renewable resources drive the photosynthesis of marine phytoplankton, which later becomes a part of natural feed. The growth of cultured species mainly depends on human feed input. In order to ensure the normal progress of mariculture activities, plenty of non-renewable resources are also put into the mariculture system, and many unused feed, chemicals and generated wastes are discharged into marine environment, causing water contamination. During the production, processing and transport of feed as well as on-farm energy use, GHGs will also be emitted. In addition, if the cultivation pattern is pond mariculture, it may cause the destruction of coastal wetlands, thus leading to the aggravation of coastal erosion.

For autotrophic mariculture (Figure 2b), renewable resources such as solar, wind, rain and tidal energy drive the photosynthesis of seaweed, in which CO₂ is sequestrated by plant organisms. In the meanwhile, human inputs such as infrastructure, machinery, fishing boats, fuels, fertilizers, disinfectants, labor, seeds, are also invested into the mariculture system and support the seaweed production together with renewable resources. However, during the seaweed growing process, organic carbon will be deposited and exported, thus playing the role of carbon sequestration. Furthermore, seaweed can absorb and enrich nutrients and wastes brought in by tides and runoff, contributing to water purification. Seaweed-raft mariculture can also reduce waves energy and alleviate coastal erosion by its canopy structure.

For unfed mariculture (Figure 2c), renewable resources drive the photosynthesis of marine phytoplankton, while shellfish assimilate the energy in phytoplankton and other organic substances through biological filtration process. A large number of external resources are also put into the mariculture system to jointly support the shellfish production. However, shellfish may produce feces and pseudo-feces in the growing process, and these biological sediments can be buried for a long time, contributing to carbon sequestration. Moreover, nutrients such as N and P are absorbed for the growth of shells and tissues, which will be removed from the marine ecosystem during shellfish harvest, thus playing a role of water purification. In addition, shellfish-raft and hanging cage mariculture may also rely on the physical barrier of farm facilities and the biological barrier of shellfish itself to buffer water flow and reduce the coastline retreat. However, on-farm energy use and aquatic N₂O generation may lead to GHGs emission.

2.2 Mariculture's Environmental Performances Accounting Methods

Mariculture's environmental performances accounting methods is composed of the following parts: (a) Multiple inputs (MI) accounting methods; (b) Ecosystem service multifunctionality (ESM) accounting methods; (c) Multiple environmental impacts (MEI) accounting methods. Based on this, two comprehensive indicators, greenness (GN) and total ecological benefit (TEB), are also proposed for further evaluation.

In order to make the relationships of the environmental performance accounting methods easily understood, Table 1 is provided to briefly explain the meaning and calculation of each index, and the detailed description can be found in Text S1 and Table S1 of the Supporting Information S1.

Table 1. Explanation of Index in This Study

Abbreviation	Full title	Unit	Formula	Meaning
MI	Multiple inputs	solar equivalent joule (sej)/yr	MI = ∑(EmRi + EmHi)	MI is defined as the sum of renewable (EmRi) and human inputs (EmHi). The larger a MI index value, the more resources are needed to maintain the normal operation of the mariculture system
ESM	Ecosystem service multifunctionality	sej/yr	ESM = EmCS + EmWP + EmEC + EmBC + EmCV	ESM is defined as the sum of the five ecosystem services including carbon sequestration (EmCS), water purification (EmWP), erosion control (EmEC), biodiversity conservation (EmBC), and cultural value (EmCV). Higher ESM index values represent a greater capacity of the mariculture systems to provide more ecosystem services
MEI	Multiple environmental impacts	sej/yr	MEI = EmGE + EmWC + EmCE + EmBR + EmCR	MEI is defined as the sum of the five environmental impacts including GHGs emission (EmGE), water contamination (EmWC), coastal erosion (EmCE), biodiversity reduction (EmBR), and cultural value reduction (EmCR). Higher MEI index values represent greater negative environmental impacts caused by mariculture activities. For the sake of clarity, measuring MEI in emergy terms means to assess the minimum amount of emergy that would be needed to fix the damages caused by the different impacts
GN	Greenness	%	$$	GN is defined as the proportion of renewable inputs to total resource inputs. Larger value indicates higher environmental-friendly degree
TEB	Total ecological benefit	sej/yr	TEB = ESM − MEI	TEB is defined as the difference between ESM and MEI. Positive indicator value indicates that the environmental benefits of mariculture activities are relatively higher, while negative indicator value has the opposite meaning

2.3 Constraints of Offshore Mariculture Priority Areas

The delivery of mariculture ecosystem services can be affected by biotic, abiotic and socio-economic factors, and a suitable marine spatial planning may help to release this service potential (Alleway et al., 2019). Traditionally, mariculture activities are mostly concentrated in the coastal regions with shallow water depth (<20 m). Recently, however, offshore mariculture has gradually been paid more attention due to space and resources limitation (Gentry, Froehlich, et al., 2017). Compared with nearshore and land-based mariculture, offshore mariculture has less freshwater demand, less land occupation, higher nutrient assimilation capacity, and less pollution and disease occurrence (Froehlich et al., 2018).

In order to identify the priority areas for offshore mariculture development in China, this study makes the overall assumptions: mariculture activities are not allowed in marine protected areas in most cases, so these areas are excluded. Meanwhile, since seaweed and shellfish mariculture have been proved to be more environmental-friendly and have higher environmental benefits in this study, they are regarded as the first choice for offshore mariculture development. The negative environmental impacts of nearshore and land-based fish mariculture cannot be ignored, and the development of fish offshore mariculture is equally urgent with increasing demand for fish consumption. The fish, shellfish and seaweed offshore mariculture priority areas are limited to conservative thresholds for each of the environmental variables, which are shown as follows:

For fish mariculture, water depth is limited to 30–100 m, which is based on the current practical experience of offshore mariculture (Lester et al., 2018). In addition, the seawater flow rate is limited to 10–100 cm/s, because the low flow rate leads to the weak pollutants removal capacity, while the excessive flow rate damages the farm infrastructure and affects the growth of fish (Oyinlola et al., 2018). Dissolved oxygen concentration is another key factor affecting fish survival, so fish mariculture activities are limited in areas with dissolved oxygen concentration ≥4.41 mg/kg (Gentry, Froehlich, et al., 2017).

For shellfish mariculture, water depth is limited to 20–80 m (Lester et al., 2018). Moreover, shellfish needs sufficient natural food supply for growth, and Chlorophyll a concentration is considered to be the most reliable measure of food availability. Only areas with Chlorophyll a concentration ≥2 mg/m³ can carry out shellfish mariculture activities (Gentry, Froehlich, et al., 2017).

For seaweed mariculture, water depth is also limited to 20–80 m (Lester et al., 2018). Besides, the environmental conditions with low salinity may inhibit the growth of seaweed, so it is assumed that the salinity should be ≥25‰ (Kerrison et al., 2015).

We use ArcGIS 10.2 software for data analysis. By adding data layers and performing intersection analysis, areas that meet all the constraints can be identified.

2.4 Study Areas

China is the largest mariculture producer worldwide, of which the mariculture production ranked first in 2020 (Xu et al., 2022), contributing more than 65% to the global mariculture production (Zhou et al., 2022). The main characteristics of mariculture in China are wide variety, rich diversity, low trophic levels, high ecological efficiency and large biological output (Tang et al., 2016). In addition, affected by river input, atmosphere deposition and submarine groundwater discharge, etc., China is facing a serious coastal eutrophication problem (Wang et al., 2021), but mariculture provides a solution to alleviate the effects of eutrophication on coastal ecosystems. The scale and production of seaweed mariculture in China ranks first in the world (FAO, 2022), which plays an important role in eliminating nutrients in coastal waters. It is estimated that total N removal by seaweed mariculture represents about 5.5% of N inputs to Chinese coastal waters in 2014 (Xiao et al., 2017). Therefore, China is taken as a typical case study of this investigation.

Cultured species and cultivation patterns are key factors determining the input and environmental performance of various kinds of mariculture (Alleway et al., 2019). According to the difference of cultured species, China’s mariculture can be roughly divided into five categories: shellfish, seaweed, crustaceans, fish, and others (including sea cucumber, sea urchin, jellyfish, seawater pearls, etc.). According to the difference of cultivation patterns, mariculture can be divided into six categories: raft, hanging cage, bottom sowing, common cage, deep-water cage, and pond. According to the main cultivation patterns of different mariculture species, 12 types of typical mariculture systems are divided in this study (Figure 3).

Among 11 coastal regions in China, most regions have reported their mariculture activities except for Shanghai. The basic situation of China's mariculture in 2020 is shown in Figure 4.

2.5 Data Sources

The data used in this study mainly include:

• (1)

  Basic data: mariculture production, area, fishing boats and labor input data are from China Fisheries Statistical Yearbook 2021 (China Fisheries Statistical Yearbook Editing Committee, 2022).

• (2)

  External input data: feed coefficient data related to feed input come from Research Report on the Utilization of Marine Fishery Resources by China’s Aquaculture provided by Greenpeace (2017); fuel and energy use data in mariculture activities are from Muir (2015); other input related data (such as infrastructure, machinery, fertilizers, disinfectants, seedlings, etc.) come from extensive literature research.

• (3)

  Renewable input data: the solar radiation data come from Global Solar Atlas (2019); the precipitation data come from China Water Resources Bulletin 2020 (China Ministry of Water Resources, 2021); the wind speed data come from Global Wind Atlas (2019); the evaporation data come from Objectively Analyzed air-sea Fluxes (OAFlux) provided by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) (Yu et al., 2006).

• (4)

  Environmental impact related data: the GHGs emission data are from MacLeod et al. (2020); the production coefficient of pollutants in mariculture activities comes from First National Pollution Source Census Handbook of Pollution Production and Discharge Coefficient of Aquaculture (Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences, 2010).

• (5)

  Offshore mariculture related data: the water depth data are from ETOPO1 (NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, 2022); the salinity data are from Zweng et al. (2018); the dissolved oxygen concentration data are from Garcia et al. (2018); Chlorophyll a concentration data are from Li et al. (2021).

In this study, the global emergy baseline is 1.2E + 25 sej/yr (Brown & Ulgiati, 2016). Besides, typical cases are selected to show the detailed “Multiple Inputs-Ecosystem Service Multifunctionality-Multiple Environmental Impacts” calculation process, and the results are shown in Text S2 of the Supporting Information S1.

It should be noted that although mariculture activities can bring positive or negative influences on biodiversity and cultural value, due to the lack of relevant research and the difficulty in obtaining data (Gentry et al., 2020), these two aspects will not be evaluated in this study.

3 Results

3.1 Performance of Mariculture Systems in China

Figure 5a shows the MI of different types of mariculture systems to produce seafood per ton. Among them, the MI of shellfish mariculture is obviously lower than that of the rest, followed by seaweed mariculture and crustaceans mariculture, while the MI of fish and others mariculture is relatively higher. The cultivation patterns also affect MI: for seaweed, the MI of pond mariculture is obviously higher than that of raft mariculture. The MI order of others is pond mariculture > hanging cage mariculture > bottom sowing mariculture. However, for shellfish and fish, there is no significant difference in MI between each cultivation pattern.

As shown in Figure 5b, only seaweed and shellfish mariculture have ESM when three ecosystem services (carbon sequestration, water purification, erosion control) are evaluated, and the ESM versatility of seaweed mariculture is significantly higher than that of shellfish mariculture. The cultivation patterns also affect ESM: for seaweed, the ESM of pond mariculture is significantly higher than that of raft mariculture, but the latter provides more abundant ecosystem services. However, for shellfish, the ESM of cage and raft mariculture is higher than that of bottom sowing mariculture and provides more types of ecosystem services. In addition, cultured species is another important factor affecting ESM: water purification is the main service provided by seaweed mariculture, while both water purification and erosion control are main services provided by shellfish mariculture.

Under the condition that only three environmental impacts (GHGs emission, water contamination, coastal erosion) are evaluated (Figure 5c), the MEI of others-pond mariculture is the highest, followed by others-hanging cage mariculture and fish-pond mariculture, while that of shellfish mariculture, others-bottom sowing mariculture and fish-deep-water cage mariculture is relatively lower. Besides, seaweed-raft mariculture doesn't show MEI. What's more, the cultivation patterns affect MEI: for others, the MEI of pond mariculture is significantly higher than that of cage and bottom sowing mariculture as well as causing more types of environmental impacts. For fish, the MEI of pond and common cage mariculture is higher than that of deep-water cage mariculture, and the impact categories caused by pond mariculture is also more. In addition, the main environmental impacts differ from type to type: water pollution is the main impact of others-hanging cage, fish-common cage and fish-pond mariculture, while coastal erosion is the main impact of seaweed-pond and crustaceans-pond mariculture. Besides, water pollution and coastal erosion are two main impacts of others-pond mariculture, while GHGs emission is the main impact of shellfish-raft, shellfish-hanging cage, shellfish-bottom sowing, others-bottom sowing and fish-deep-water cage mariculture.

3.2 Performance of Mariculture Activities in China Coastal Regions

Figure 6a shows that the MI of mariculture in Hainan and Tianjin is much higher than that in other regions, while the MI of mariculture in Liaoning and Shandong is relatively lower.

When only three ecosystem services are evaluated, the ESM of mariculture in all regions shows positive values except for Tianjin (Figure 6b); Fujian has the highest ESM, while Guangxi has a relatively lower ESM. Moreover, the mariculture in Hebei keeps erosion control as its main ecosystem service, while water purification is the main ecosystem service provided in other regions.

If only three environmental impacts are considered (Figure 6c), the MEI of mariculture in Hainan records the highest value, while the MEI in Shandong and Liaoning is relatively lower. Water pollution is the main environmental impact in all regions.

3.3 Performance of Comprehensive Mariculture Indicators

If the environmental performance is compared according to the ranking of indicators, interesting results can be identified in both mariculture systems and mariculture regions. The results are summarized in Figure 7, and the indicator values are shown in Table S2 and Table S3 of the Supporting Information S2.

Figure 7a reveals the ranking of indicators in different types of mariculture systems in China. By comparing the greenness (GN) indicator, it can be found that others-bottom sowing and shellfish-bottom sowing mariculture rank as the two top-performing systems, with indicator values greater than 11%, suggesting that these two types of mariculture systems are more environmental-friendly. Instead, fish-common cage, deep-water cage and pond mariculture rank at the bottom with indicator values lower than 0.6%, revealing that fish mariculture generally depends on the external inputs, and the environmental protection degrees are very low. From the ranking of total ecological benefit (TEB) indicators, it can be found that seaweed-pond, seaweed-raft, shellfish-hanging cage, shellfish-raft and shellfish-bottom sowing mariculture rank in the top five, and the indicator values are greater than 0, showing their overall positive ecological benefits. The TEB indicator values of the remaining types of mariculture systems are less than 0, and others-pond, others-hanging cage and fish-pond mariculture rank at the bottom with relatively highly negative ecological impacts. Considering the overall performance, 12 types of mariculture systems can be divided into three categories: the first category includes others-bottom sowing, shellfish-raft, shellfish-hanging cage, shellfish-bottom sowing and seaweed-raft mariculture, of which both TEB and GN indicators rank in the top 50%. The second category includes seaweed-pond and others-pond mariculture with only one indicator ranking in the top 50%, among which the former performs better in TEB, while the latter performs better in GN. The third category includes others-hanging cage, crustaceans-pond and fish-common cage, fish-deep-water cage and fish-pond mariculture, with both indicators ranking much lower.

Figure 7b reflects the indicator ranking of mariculture in different China coastal regions. Based on the GN indicator, it can be found that the mariculture in Liaoning ranks first, with the indicator value greater than 14%, showing the highest environmental-friendly degree. Instead, mariculture in Hainan, Guangxi and Guangdong rank at the bottom with indicator values less than 1.3%, reflecting their high dependence on external inputs. When the comparison is based on the TEB indicator, it can be noticed that mariculture systems in Fujian, Liaoning, Shandong, Zhejiang and Jiangsu rank among the top five, with indicator values greater than 0, confirming that mariculture activities in these regions provide positive ecological benefits. Nonetheless, the indicator values in the remaining regions are less than 0, with Hainan and Tianjin ranking at the bottom, revealing that mariculture in these two regions has caused serious negative ecological impacts. Considering the overall performance, 10 mariculture regions can be divided into three categories: the first category includes Liaoning, Shandong, Jiangsu and Zhejiang with two indicators ranking in the top 50% group. The second category includes Hebei and Fujian, among which only the former ranks in the top 50% in terms of GN, while the latter only ranks in the top 50% in terms of TEB. The third category includes Tianjin, Guangdong, Guangxi, and Hainan, which perform poorly in both indicators ranking.

3.4 Priority Areas for Offshore Mariculture Development

The priority areas for offshore mariculture in China are shown in Figure 8, of which the areas for fish, seaweed and shellfish are 1.31E + 07, 5.65E + 07, 1.10E + 07 ha, respectively, covering about 4.37%, 18.84%, 3.65% of China's territorial sea area. In addition, the overlapping area of fish and seaweed is 7.91E + 06 ha, and that of fish, shellfish and seaweed is 1.11E + 05 ha, indicating that these areas may have the potential for integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) development.

For seaweed and shellfish, if these regions can be developed in the future, by multiplying the priority area data and the ESM per area (3.05E + 15 sej/ha/yr for seaweed; 1.77E + 14 sej/ha/yr for shellfish), it can be preliminarily estimated that the ESM increase potential of seaweed and shellfish may be 1.73E + 23 and 1.94E + 21 sej/yr, equivalent to about 398 times and 16 times of the ESM of current seaweed and shellfish mariculture. For fish, as the development of offshore mariculture may reduce the impact of water contamination, by multiplying the priority area data and the impact of water contamination per area (3.42E + 16 sej/ha/yr for fish), it can be estimated that the impact reducing potential of water contamination will be 4.49E + 23 sej/yr, which is capable of counteracting the impact of water contamination caused by 1,758 times expansion of current fish mariculture. However, since the offshore farm is always far away from the land and the cultivation environmental conditions are relatively poor, the impact of GHGs emissions related to transport fuel use and on-farm energy consumption may greatly rise (Holmer, 2010). This impact cannot be quantitatively assessed at present due to data limitations, which may lead to the underestimation of the environmental impact of offshore mariculture, requiring further investigation. In addition, we have not estimated the role of IMTA system in increasing ESM and reducing water contamination for the time being, which needs to be considered in the future.

Although our preliminary assessment results show that there are still large potential areas for offshore mariculture, some important environmental and socio-economic factors are still not considered, which may contribute to the exclusion of more seemingly suitable mariculture spaces. For example, the distance-related cost-effectiveness of offshore mariculture needs to be taken into account, so areas that are far away from ports or shoreside infrastructure should be excluded. Offshore regions for shipping, industry, mineral development, military and other purposes also need to be excluded. In addition, areas with high environmental sensitivity and biodiversity (such as coral reefs and seagrass beds) may not be suitable for large-scale mariculture. Therefore, the actual potential areas would result definitely to be smaller than the above-mentioned evaluation areas.

4 Discussion

4.1 Transformation Potential of Mariculture From Ecological Burden to Ecological Benefit

Our study shows that water contamination is one of the most severe negative environmental impacts caused by mariculture. The main reason lies in excessive feed input and high cultivation density, which makes a large number of wastes enter the water body, translating into an “ecological burden” to the marine environment (Cao et al., 2007). On the other side, seaweed and shellfish can improve the water quality by absorbing Nitrogen (N) and Phosphorus (P) during their growth (Gentry et al., 2020), thus providing an “ecological benefit.” In this study, it is found that the impact of water contamination (i.e., the environmental cost of this damage) caused by mariculture activities in China is about 3.04E + 20 sej/yr, while the water purification service (i.e., the increased environmental support to water quality) provided by seaweed and shellfish mariculture is about 4.84E + 20 sej/yr. If an integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) mode can be vigorously developed, it is possible to turn the ecological burden into ecological benefit. Typical IMTA systems include fish-seaweed, fish-shellfish-seaweed, shellfish-seaweed-sea cucumber, etc. IMTA can transform the inedible feed and waste of one species into feed, fertilizer and energy for another species, by making full way to the material utilization capacity of species with different trophic levels, so as to reduce waste discharge (Buck et al., 2018). Jiang et al. (2010) showed that fish-seaweed co-cultivation is an effective way to alleviate the eutrophication in Nansha Bay. In order to balance the N absorption of seaweed mariculture and the N emission of fish mariculture, harvesting 1 kg of fish will also yield 8.28–10.08 kg of seaweed. Huo et al. (2012) also estimated that in order to maintain the N balance of fish-seaweed IMTA system in Xiangshan Harbor, the optimal co-cultivation proportion was 1 kg fish to 7.27 kg seaweed. Stemming from such results, this study also takes N flows as an example to preliminary illustrate the transformation potential from ecological burden to ecological benefits through IMTA in different regions.

In addition to solve the water contamination problem mentioned above, mariculture activities especially seaweed mariculture can also alleviate the effects of eutrophication on coastal ecosystems. Although the N inputs to seas are affected by multiple sources such as river export, atmospheric deposition, submarine fresh groundwater discharge and mariculture, river export is the largest source, constituting over 80% of the total N inputs to Chinese coastal waters (Wang et al., 2021). Therefore, this study also preliminary estimate the role of seaweed mariculture in removing river N export.

As shown in Table 2, the mariculture N emissions in Hebei, Liaoning, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian and Shandong are lower than mariculture N absorption, indicating that if these regions can promote IMTA and reasonably match the types of local mariculture species, the ecological burdens can be reduced and transformed into ecological benefits. In addition to eliminating the nitrogen emission from mariculture, mariculture activities in these regions can also help absorb the river N export, thus alleviating eutrophication. However, the complete removal of river N export in these regions requires the seaweed production to be expanded to 2.94–2,261.83 times of the original production. For Guangxi, it can be found that the mariculture N absorption is greater than the sum of mariculture N emission and river N export, meaning that mariculture activities may be limited by the background nutrient pools, but artificial upwelling has been proposed as a possible solution to overcome this limitation (Duarte et al., 2021).

Table 2. N Budget in Different China Coastal Regions

	Mariculture N absorptiona (t/yr)	Mariculture N emissionb (t/yr)	River N exportc (t/yr)	N net budgetd (t/yr)
Tianjin	0.00E + 00	1.90E + 01	1.05E + 04	1.05E + 04
Hebei	2.20E + 03	3.39E + 02	4.31E + 04	4.13E + 04
Liaoning	2.79E + 04	7.30E + 02	1.53E + 05	1.26E + 05
Jiangsu	5.38E + 03	8.93E + 02	8.24E + 04	7.79E + 04
Zhejiang	9.91E + 03	1.23E + 03	1.01E + 05	9.28E + 04
Fujian	5.69E + 04	1.60E + 04	1.14E + 05	7.29E + 04
Shandong	4.38E + 04	2.11E + 03	1.61E + 05	1.19E + 05
Guangdong	1.30E + 04	1.49E + 04	1.65E + 04	1.84E + 04
Guangxi	6.25E + 03	2.25E + 03	3.17E + 03	−8.38E + 02
Hainan	1.97E + 02	1.53E + 03	1.00E + 04	1.14E + 04

• ^a Shellfish and seaweed mariculture have the capacity of N absorption. Based on the N content of shellfish and seaweed biomass, this study calculates that the N absorption capacity of seaweed is about 30.43 g N/kg dry weight, while that of shellfish is about 5.94 g N/kg.
• ^b Fish, crustaceans and others mariculture generate N emissions. Based on the pollution production coefficient of different types of cultured species, this study calculates that the N emissions of fish-cage and fish-pond mariculture are 75.68 and 9.71 g N/kg respectively. N emission of crustacean mariculture is 2.30 g N/kg, while that of others-cage and others-pond mariculture is 4.66 g N/kg.
• ^c This study converts the published inventory of riverine N export to Chinese seas from Wang et al. (2021) into N flux (t/km²/yr), and then multiply N flux by the coastal water areas (km²) of different coastal regions as river N export. For Tianjin, Hebei, Liaoning, Shandong and Jiangsu, the N flux in the Yellow sea and Bohai Sea (6.64 t/km²/yr) are used for Calculation; For Zhejiang and Fujian, the N flux in the East China Sea (5.74 t/km²/yr) are used for Calculation; For Guangdong, Guangxi and Hainan, the N flux in the South China Sea (0.597 t/km²/yr) are used for Calculation.
• ^d N net budget = (Mariculture N emission) + (River N export) − (mariculture N absorption).

However, for Tianjin, Guangdong and Hainan, the mariculture N emissions are relatively higher, indicating that mariculture can cause overall negative impacts on the local marine environment. Even if IMTA is fully applied in these regions, other measures must be taken. In order to balance the mariculture N absorption and emission, it is necessary to expand the seaweed production in Guangdong and Hainan to 1.93 times and 10.31 times of the original production, and increase the seaweed production in Tianjin to 6.23E + 02 t/yr (currently there is no seaweed production in Tianjin). Furthermore, in order to remove river N export, the seaweed production in Guangdong and Hainan should be expanded to 9.95 times and 80.38 times of the original production, and the seaweed production in Tianjin should be increased to 3.47E + 05 t/yr.

At present, China is at the forefront of IMTA development, and this mode has been practiced in some regions: fish-shellfish-seaweed and fish-seaweed IMTA are popular in Zhejiang, Fujian, Guangdong; shrimp-shellfish IMTA is popular in Shandong and Jiangsu; shellfish-seaweed IMTA has been deployed in almost all coastal regions of China; mangrove-restoration-based IMTA has been developed in Guangxi (Zhou et al., 2022). On this basis, some studies have estimated the ecological benefits of the IMTA system based on ecosystem services evaluation: Tang et al. (2013) investigated the service value of food provision and climate regulation under different mariculture modes in Sanggou Bay, and their results showed that the service value provided by IMTA was much higher than that of single mariculture mode. Zhang et al. (2007) showed that the provision, regulating and cultural service value of mariculture in Sanggou Bay was 607 million yuan, and the mariculture activities made great contributions to local social economy and environmental regulation. However, although IMTA mode can bring plenty of benefits, it is still in the initial stage of development. The reasons mainly lie in that the related theory is still insufficient and the management is difficult with high cost, indicating the urgency of further research on IMTA mode (Ma et al., 2016).

In addition, mariculture may also bring some negative impacts (Bath et al., 2023; Krkosek et al., 2007), such as entanglement risk to marine wildlife, obstacles to marine animal migration, and disease spread, etc. These negative impacts can hardly be converted into positive benefits, so it is necessary to construct responsible mariculture policies and strictly supervise and regulate mariculture activities, so as to promote the development of ocean-friendly mariculture (Naylor et al., 2023). For example, mariculture facilities should be set up outside sensitive areas and wildlife migration corridors, in order to reduce entanglement and maintain animal migration. The use of antibiotics, pesticides and harmful chemicals should be strictly supervised, so as to avoid their risks to the ocean and human health, etc.

4.2 Interaction Between Climate Change and Mariculture Activities

Climate change is affecting the production and development of mariculture, of which the influence can be divided into direct and indirect aspects (Maulu et al., 2021): Direct influence refers to the impact of climate change on the metabolism, growth rate, resistance to diseases and toxins and other biophysical characteristics of mariculture species, while indirect influence means that climate change first alters the marine primary productivity, feed supply and the normal mariculture operations, and then affects the mariculture production. Shellfish and seaweed are main providers of mariculture ecosystem services, but climate change has brought a series of impacts on them. The growth of shellfish may be threatened by temperature change, primary production fluctuation, ocean acidification and other multiple threats (Froehlich et al., 2017), and these threats may hinder shellfish's filtering, calcification and other behaviors, thus affecting its water purification and carbon sequestration services. What's more, the growth of seaweed can also be affected by climate change. For example, ocean acidification may lead to the descent of calcified macroalgae's growth rate, but this view has not been appeared as a unified conclusion at present (Kroeker et al., 2010). Seawater temperature change has direct impacts on the metabolism of seaweed, and related phenomenon of seawater stratification can limit the supply of nutrients required for seaweed growth (Chung et al., 2017).

However, mariculture systems are not only victims of climate change, but also potential contributors to climate mitigation. Krause-Jensen and Duarte (2016) figured out that although the carbon sequestration capacity of global cultured seaweed (0.68 TgC/yr) is only 0.4% of wild seaweed (173 TgC/yr), the current area of cultured seaweed is only 0.04% of the wild seaweed and 0.004% of the coastal regions, indicating the great potential to expand seaweed mariculture. Mongin et al. (2016) showed that seaweed mariculture help reduce the impact of ocean acidification on coral reef ecosystems by reducing CO₂ concentration in seawater and increasing aragonite saturation (used to describe coral calcification capacity). In addition, ocean warming and stratification caused by global climate change may also lead to ocean deoxidation (Keeling et al., 2010), but seaweed cultivation contributes to oxygen content improvement, thus reducing the impact of anoxia and eutrophication (Duarte et al., 2017). Moreover, seaweed mariculture can also contribute to indirect carbon reduction. On one hand, seaweed converted into biofuels or biogas can be treated as a substitute for fossil fuels (Sondak et al., 2017), and later by combining with the technology of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), it is possible to realize the negative emission of CO₂ (Moreira & Pires, 2016). On the other hand, methane emissions can be inhibited by adding certain seaweed into ruminant feed, of which the effectiveness has been proved in some in vitro experiments (Machado et al., 2016). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) proposed to include seaweed mariculture in the international carbon accounting framework (IPCC, 2019), and the High-level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy also adopted seaweed mariculture as an ocean-based climate change mitigation strategy (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2019). Moreover, seaweed mariculture can also be combined with artificial upwelling, as an ecological-engineering-based climate change adaptation scheme: artificial upwelling driven by green energy such as tidal and wave energy can pump deep nutritious seawater to photic zone, which can not only meet the nutrient and dissolved inorganic carbon need of seaweed photosynthesis, but also alleviate the acidification and anoxia occurring in natural upwelling system (IPCC, 2019).

Shellfish mariculture is also able to contribute to climate change mitigation. Shellfish can sequester carbon in organisms, but the carbon storage cycle depends on how carbon is processed afterward: the biomass carbon for edible purpose will be quickly converted into CO₂ (Zhang et al., 2017). However, if shells can be used as building materials, the contained carbon can be stored for a long time, and they can also be used as a substitute for limestone to reduce the carbon emissions associated with limestone mining (Jones et al., 2022). In addition, biodeposition during shellfish growth is more likely to contribute to long-term carbon sequestration (Smaal et al., 2019). However, the respiration and calcification of shellfish will release CO₂, which is one of the important reasons why the function of shellfish carbon sink is questioned at present (Zhang et al., 2017). Co-cultivation of shellfish and seaweed helps to reduce CO₂ emission in a single shellfish system: seaweed can utilize CO₂ released by shellfish through photosynthesis, and its released oxygen can improve the environmental conditions for shellfish growth (Han et al., 2017).

In conclusion, mariculture systems and their services can support climate mitigation and adaptation, but they will also be affected by climate change. However, since many unknowns and uncertainties still lie in their interactions, when it comes to incorporating mariculture and its services into climate mitigation practices, the pace is still slow (Druckenmiller, 2022). Scaling up mariculture activities and enhancing corresponding ecosystem services will not come without costs, and poorly designed plans or assessments can pose a threat to local ecosystems. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that mariculture-based climate actions are consistent with broader social and ecological goals, and the involved ecosystems must remain healthy and resilient (Fankhauser et al., 2022).

5 Conclusion

The multiple effects of mariculture have been recognized recently, but the overall evaluation of its environmental performances has been a difficult problem in current research. A comprehensive “Multiple Inputs-Ecosystem Service Multifunctionality-Multiple Environmental Impacts” (MI-ESM-MEI) evaluation framework is proposed in this study, and an emergy-based method is proposed to help understand the complexity of the mariculture systems. As the largest mariculture producer in the world, China is taken as a typical case study to evaluate the multiple responses of marine ecosystems to the disturbance of mariculture activities, so as to provide reference for the development of a more comprehensive mariculture policy both in China and around the world. This study finds that:

• (1)

  In terms of different types of mariculture systems in China, the multiple input (MI) performance of shellfish mariculture is obviously lower, while the MI of fish and others mariculture are relatively higher. Under the condition that three ecosystem services (carbon sequestration, water purification and erosion control) are evaluated, only seaweed and shellfish mariculture show ecosystem service multifunctionality (ESM), and the former has a significantly higher ESM value. When only three environmental impacts (GHGs emission, water contamination and coastal erosion) are considered, others-pond mariculture has the highest multiple environmental impacts (MEI), while the MEI of shellfish-raft, shellfish-hanging cage, shellfish-bottom sowing, others-bottom sowing, and fish-deep-water cage mariculture is relatively lower. Besides, seaweed-raft mariculture doesn't show MEI.

• (2)

  In terms of mariculture activities in different China coastal regions, the MI of mariculture in Hainan and Tianjin is significantly higher than that in other regions, while that in Liaoning and Shandong is relatively lower. The ESM of mariculture in all regions has positive values except for Tianjin, among which Fujian and Guangxi get the highest and lowest ESM respectively. The MEI of mariculture in Hainan is quite higher than that in other regions, while the MEI in Shandong and Liaoning is lower.

• (3)

  By analyzing the performance of two comprehensive mariculture indicators, it can be found that the mariculture systems in China with both total ecological benefit (TEB) and greenness (GN) indicator ranking in the top 50% include others-bottom sowing, seaweed-raft, and shellfish-raft, shellfish-hanging cage, and shellfish-bottom sowing mariculture. The mariculture regions in China with two indicators ranking in the top 50% include Liaoning, Shandong, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang.

• (4)

  Offshore mariculture will be paid more attention in the future. By identifying priority areas for offshore mariculture development, ecological benefits can be significantly improved and the environmental impacts can be reduced, using about 27% of China's territorial sea area.

• (5)

  Water contamination is one of the most severe negative environmental impacts caused by mariculture activities. However, for most China coastal regions, if integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) mode can be promoted and the local cultured species can be properly matched, this ecological burden can be reduced and even converted into ecological benefit. In addition, expanding the scale of seaweed mariculture can also eliminate river N export, thus alleviating coastal eutrophication.

• (6)

  Mariculture activities such as seaweed and shellfish mariculture can contribute to climate mitigation, but they will also be affected by climate change. It is necessary to ensure that mariculture-based climate actions are corresponding to broader social and ecological goals, and the involved ecosystems must remain healthy and resilient.

Compared with previous studies, this study comprehensively considered the resource input and associated environmental benefits and impacts in different regions, of different cultured species and cultivation patterns, by means of the Emergy Accounting approach applied to different dimensions of mariculture performance. However, some limitations still exist in this study: due to the lack of basic data and insufficient research, some positive ecosystem services (such as acidification regulation, biodiversity conservation, cultural values, etc.) and negative environmental impacts (such as disease outbreak, benthic environment degradation, biological invasion, etc.) are not yet considered, which may affect the overall benefits of mariculture. In addition, industrial mariculture is another common form, but it was excluded from this study, which may also lead to the underestimation of resource consumption and negative environmental impacts. Moreover, cross-scale issues have not been well discussed in this study, such as regional impacts caused by local systems, and these issues should be carefully considered in the future.

All in all, this study strives to provide new methods and ideas for the overall assessment of mariculture. In the future research, multi-channel data should be combined to make the assessment results refined and dynamic, so as to promote the healthy development of mariculture and the sustainable utilization of marine resources.

Acknowledgments

This paper is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 52070021) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.

To add, Asian countries, including China, India, Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam, contribute about 85% of mismanaged plastic waste globally. These countries lack complete waste management systems, which would require significant government, intergovernmental, and private-sector funding.

This is true in the Philippines, which produces less waste, has the highest number of mismanaged plastic waste per person, with 37.23 kg per person in 2019.

Most of this mismanaged plastic ends up in water sources and the ocean, with seven out of the top ten rivers releasing debris into the ocean. Indeed, ASEAN’s endeavors to solve these problems should collaborate, and co-generate regional action plans, strengthen global partnerships, and continue community-driven activities that emphasize the gravity of the situation and the proactive measures being implemented to tackle pollution.

On the same hand, plastic waste generation in ASEAN is substantial, with over 31 million tons of plastic waste produced annually by six of the ten member states alone. This volume emphasizes the urgent need for effective waste management and recycling strategies to mitigate environmental impact​ [1]. Economically, the ASEAN region faces considerable losses due to inefficient plastic waste management, with approximately $6 billion [2] annually lost from the material value of discarded single-use plastics. These figures highlight significant opportunities for economic recovery through enhanced recycling and the adoption of circular economy principles.

ASEAN’s Strategic Initiatives to Combat Plastic Pollution

The ASEAN Regional Action Plan for Combating Marine Debris (2021–2025) [3] outlines comprehensive measures aimed at minimizing plastic waste. These measures include phasing out single-use plastics, harmonizing recycling policies across member states, and enhancing regional cooperation in monitoring and managing plastic pollution. This plan builds upon earlier commitments and emphasizes the need for sustainable coastal and marine development [4].

Local Actions and Community Engagement

Actions taken at the local level are very important for reducing plastic waste. Koh Panyi in Thailand, for example, people regularly hold clean-up days to get rid of plastic trash, which has a direct impact on their environment and on tourists​ [5].

Innovative solutions and technology development are also critical to ASEAN’s strategy. The region is fostering technological solutions and promoting investments in plastic recycling technologies. Additionally, studies supported by international organizations like the World Bank have underscored the untapped economic potential of plastic circularity, identifying substantial economic benefits from improving plastic recycling rates [6]​​.

However, the problem extends to the deepest part of the ocean[7] and to the tallest mountain[8] in the world — Microplastics are getting prevalent!

The term “microplastics” was used in 2004 to refer to tiny plastic particles that result from the degradation of bigger materials or are purposely produced in a very small size range. Plastic pollution is increasingly widespread in marine and freshwater habitats, as well as on highest land, deepest ocean [9] and in the atmosphere [10]. Furthermore, recent studies on microplastics in the ASEAN region and their impacts highlight significant concerns regarding both environmental and human health. Research has shown that microplastics are ubiquitous in our environment, permeating marine and coastal ecosystems and even entering the human body, potentially leading to adverse health outcomes, and starting to appear in any parts of the world whether by marine or terrestrial. Alongside, this article presents some significant studies that talk about microplastics and similar studies.

Environmental Impact: Microplastics are found extensively in coastal and inland water systems, where they pose a severe threat to marine life and ecosystems. These tiny particles can serve as vectors for toxic pollutants, which may then enter the human food chain through seafood consumption​ [11]. Furthermore, in ASEAN waters, significant contamination levels have been reported, with studies noting that a large proportion of marine species, including fish and invertebrates like oysters, have ingested microplastics. This ingestion not only harms these marine organisms but also poses risks to the larger ecosystem and human health through bioaccumulation [12]​.

Human Health Risks: Exposure to microplastics has been linked with various health risks in humans, including inflammatory diseases and oxidative stress due to their potential to carry and transfer harmful chemicals. The long-term health impacts of microplastics are still being researched, but the current evidence suggests significant potential for harm [13] ​​[14] . To add, microplastics have been detected in essential human organs and tissues, pointing to widespread exposure and accumulation. The implications of this on human health are profound, with ongoing studies aimed at understanding the full scope of these risks [15]​.

Economic and Social Implications: The presence of microplastics in fishing areas threatens the productivity and economic viability of fisheries and aquaculture, which are vital for the livelihoods of millions of people worldwide. The damage extends beyond the immediate environmental impact, affecting food security and economic stability in coastal communities [16]​​.

Addressing the issue of microplastics, and other pollutants require concerted action at both the local and global levels. ASEAN is urged to strengthen regulations and policies that limit pollution, promote public awareness, and support research into alternative materials and sustainable waste management practices [17] [18]​. Finally, ASEAN must establish robust monitoring mechanisms to evaluate the impact of its policies and initiatives, allowing real-time adjustments and ensuring the region meets environmental goals. These systems can inform future policies and highlight areas needing further research. By addressing both macro and microplastic challenges, ASEAN can protect its biodiversity, ensure citizens’ health, and maintain member states’ economic vitality. The journey towards a plastic-free ocean is complex, but achievable with regional cooperation.

According to the Australian Institute of Marine Science's Annual Summary Report on Coral Reef Condition, which was released today, conditions have been relatively good for coral recovery during 2020-21. 

Researchers surveyed 127 reefs and found that at least 69 had seen an increase in hard coral cover since they were last surveyed.

"This indicates that recovery is well underway, after a particularly intense decade of disturbances prior to this," monitoring team leader Mike Emslie said.

"We've had very few acute disturbances this year," Dr Emslie said.

"There were no sustained heatwaves leading to coral bleaching, there were no large tropical cyclones.

The improvements come after the Great Barrier Reef experienced its most widespread bleaching event on record early last year.

Dr Emslie said the majority of the coral cover growth was driven by common, fast-growing table and branching corals.

However, he said these corals were the most vulnerable.

"Their fast growth comes at a bit of a cost, their skeletons aren't as dense as other corals," Dr Emslie said.

AIMS has warned that the recovery the Great Barrier Reef is currently experiencing is likely to be short-lived with the "increasing prominence" of climate-related disturbances.

"The biggest risk to the reef going forward is climate change," AIMS chief executive Paul Hardisty said.

The World Heritage Committee, which sits under UNESCO, made a draft recommendation to list the Great Barrier Reef as "in danger" in June.

The decision is expected to be finalised at a meeting in China in the coming days.

AIMS declined to comment on the World Heritage Committee recommendation.

However, research program leader Britta Schaffelke said the latest observations of the Great Barrier Reef did not change a grim outlook which was delivered by the institute in 2019.

"The outlook report assessed the future outlook for the reef to be very poor," Dr Schaffelke said.

"The reef outlook into the future is still very poor because of the dangers of climate change and other factors."

'Incredibly rare moment'

The World Wildlife Fund's  Richard Leck said the report told a story of hope and one of a warning. 

"It's great to see the reef still has resilience and we have seen some significant bounce back in coral species," he said.

"But this is an incredibly rare moment in time where we haven't had extreme heat events or crown of thorns outbreaks.

"Those events are more likely to continue into the future."

Mr Leck said the report strengthened arguments to list the Great Barrier Reef as "in danger".

"This report reinforces the importance of the decision faced by the World Heritage Committee this week," he said.

The launch of the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021–2030) aims at catalyzing a global focus to advance SDG 14 (Borja et al., 2020a). This will enhance the co-design of knowledge and actions for transformative ocean solutions, to address the challenges of a growing human population and climate change. Human pressures on the Ocean are important – 37% of the human population live in the coast from small villages to megacities exceeding 10 million people (e.g., New York, Shanghai, Lagos) and use the Ocean for a huge range of inputs, outputs and services, including amenity, food, transport, cooling water and waste disposal, as well as traditional and cultural uses. Many of these ecosystem services are undervalued, being conservatively estimated at $12.6 Trillion annually more than 20 years ago (Costanza et al., 1997). This is without considering two of the most severely undervalued services provided by the Ocean, as heat and carbon sinks, that have buffered many of the negative impacts of climate change. Many anthropogenic activities are leaving significant, direct and measurable global footprints in the Ocean with high profile examples including fishing^1,2,3,, shipping lanes (Liu et al., 2019; Pirotta et al., 2019), dredging⁴, plastic pollution (Hardesty et al., 2017; Barrett et al., 2020), noise pollution (Di Franco et al., 2020; Chahouri et al., 2021; Duarte et al., 2021), and changes in Ocean chemistry⁵.

Human populations rely directly on the Ocean for food and other commercial activities, but a growing body of research has identified our dependency on the Ocean for health and well-being (Borja et al., 2020b). Other ecosystem services provided by the Ocean are also yet to be properly considered. These include the cultural and spiritual services provided by the Ocean (Brown and Hausner, 2017; de Juan et al., 2021), which have developed over millennia of human relationships with the Ocean and represent knowledge and connections that extend beyond monetary value. Aiming to integrate this knowledge in scientific endeavours, many indigenous peoples are bringing their traditional science and knowledge to partner with western science (Mazzocchi, 2006) and provide a more in-depth and long-term understanding of the Ocean, especially in coastal areas (Mustonen et al., 2021).

While the challenges are clear and sometimes seem overwhelming, approaches and solutions are being actively developed and tested; several of these are explored in this Research Topic.

With more than three billion people who rely on fish for at least 20% of their daily protein, and more than 120 million directly employed in the fishing and aquaculture sectors⁶, sustainable fishing (Penca; Fiorentino and Vitale; Jaiteh et al.) and aquaculture (Azra et al.) were a natural focus of several papers. This included a call for reducing effort in mixed species fisheries, and therefore fishing mortality, to take into account the differing and lower productivity of some species and the risk to their sustainability (Newman et al., 2018), and adopt a quota system based on “pretty good yield” (Hilborn, 2010).

Others emphasized the need for better conservation planning and coordination (Katsanevakis et al.; Ceccarelli et al.; Herrera et al.) as well as integration of their cultural and spiritual values into wider society (Baker et al.). This includes the need to improve spatial management, providing specific approaches to minimize human impacts and risks to charismatic megafauna. This management approach could be applied to whale watching activities, to support sustainable non-extractive human activities in the Ocean (Almunia et al.). The article by Adewumi et al., dealing with the Guinea Current Large Marine Ecosystem shared among Benin, Nigeria, and Cameroon, highlighted the challenges of international ocean governance, a result of political characteristics, the relics of colonialism, and increasing ocean use and pressure on marine ecosystems and services. The administrative and political arrangements differ significantly among countries, complicating transnational collaboration. The review of these arrangements revealed varying levels of convergence at international, regional and national levels, and could be a model to assist regional fishery management organizations to support positive steps toward ocean sustainability (Juan-Jordá et al., 2018).

Future risks to the Ocean (Garcia-Soto et al.), including those imposed by climate change (Green et al.), and the tools (Mariani et al.), approaches (e.g., Endrédi et al.; Hsu et al.), and ways to monitor this complex system (Jones et al.), including biodiversity (Herrera et al.), highlighted the extraordinary and diverse values of the Ocean and challenges (Figure 1). Embracing modern technologies (Almunia et al.; Green et al.), including the Internet of Things (Mariani et al.), could also promote and support a harmonization of ocean monitoring among all nations, and support international initiatives and cooperation⁷, including platforms to involve the wider community⁸.

The social dimension (Haward and Haas) will also be critical as a way of valuing and engaging with direct and indirect stakeholders of the Ocean and in developing better policies for governance (Paredes-Coral et al.; Polejack; Adewumi et al.; Kirkfeldt and Frazão Santos; Archana and Baker; Rohmana et al.). This is especially true at the land-sea interface (Singh et al.) where human populations concentrate and the risks from a changing climate are directly evident, with projected sea level rise (Nicholls and Cazenave, 2010; Hooijer and Vernimmen, 2021), and more frequent and intense storms (Pugatch, 2019; Chen et al., 2020). It is also true for the deep ocean (Howell et al.), which remains largely unexplored. The socio-ecological connections described in this Research Topic of Frontiers in Marine Science provide frameworks and hope for a sustainable future for the coasts and ocean.

While this Frontiers in Marine Science Research Topic does not represent all initiatives underway globally to address SDG 14, it provides a glimpse of some of the diverse approaches and intellectual capital invested in ocean sustainability. While the goal focuses on Life Below Water, these approaches directly support many other SDGs, which arguably cannot be achieved without a healthy and sustainable ocean (Mustonen et al., 2021).

We hope that other initiatives currently underway will assist in not only highlighting the links between SDG 14 and other SDGs but also provide a way for synergies among disparate knowledge domains to support transdisciplinary and multi-sectoral approaches for good policy development. As examples, we note the significant initiatives around the globe in areas of blue carbon and an equitable “blue economy.” Blue carbon projects not only protect and restore seagrass, mangrove, salt marsh, and macrophytes, but also support the associated biodiversity and human livelihoods that depend on these critical habitat-forming species. “Working with nature approaches” including in the restoration of corals, seagrasses, seaweeds, and mangroves are underway around the globe, with new methods being developed and tested [e.g., genetic techniques to identify more heat tolerant species of coral (Buerger et al., 2020) and other marine habitat building species (Alsuwaiyan et al., 2021)].

The efforts in these areas will be underpinned by new methods of accounting—such as blue carbon, biodiversity, ecosystem services and a framework of ocean accounting which is currently being developed⁹. This approach embraces environmental, social and cultural accounting, in addition to economic accounting, to better assess and value entire marine areas and ecosystems and integrate a wide range of SDGs. Our hope is that this will support and enable clearer and better decisions by ocean and coastal management agencies. These decisions should be based on a number of decision support tools, including: (i) management strategy evaluation approaches, (ii) scenario testing including assessing a range of alternative approaches, and (iii) potentially creating digital twins to test and explore management decisions before ocean activities commence.

We look forward to making the difficult possible and contributing to a vibrant, thriving future throughout the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development and the UN Decade of Restoration (Waltham et al., 2020) based on some of the cutting-edge approaches detailed in this Research Topic of Frontiers in Marine Science.

Footnotes

It’s the pilot project of Ebb Carbon, one of several companies building a business on ocean carbon removal technology. As money pours into companies promising to take greenhouse gasses out of the atmosphere, there’s a small but fast-growing sector of startups that want to leverage one of the world’s biggest carbon sinks to clean up humanity's pollution: the ocean.

"The ocean basically provides this huge surface for gas exchange for free," says Ebb co-founder Matthew Eisaman. “We were trying to think of the lowest-cost way to do this, and you sort of naturally come to rely on Earth systems that are already happening anyway.”

The system Eisaman is referring to is the carbon cycle. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere naturally seeps in and out of the ocean’s surface waters, but marine organisms take up some of it to build things like shells and coral skeletons. When they die, some of that carbon sinks and is stored for eons in the ocean’s depths.

But carbon dioxide also makes seawater more acidic. So much of humanity’s carbon pollution has ended up in the ocean that it’s impeding those sea creatures’ abilities to grow.

Ebb’s device neutralizes the acid in seawater and resets the natural system so it can lock up even more carbon deep in the ocean. If carbon dioxide is giving the ocean acid reflux, Eisaman says, think of this as giving it a Tums.

“Nature has shown us what works,” says Ben Tarbell, another co-founder. “If we can nudge those ocean processes and those natural ocean ecosystems, we can drive something that can scale very cost-effectively."

This system in Sequim Bay removes about 100 tons of CO2 per year, nowhere near the 1 billion tons per year that some scientists say is necessary, but Tarbell says they hope to scale up by plugging into places that already filter a lot of seawater like desalination plants.

Seashell SOS

Next to Ebb’s system, scientists at the Pacific Northwest National Lab are testing whether “enhancing ocean alkalinity,” as Ebb and others call it, could also help slow or reverse the effects of ocean acidification.

Researchers are raising shellfish in tanks and jars full of water treated by Ebb to different levels of acidification, their pH levels scrawled on pieces of red, orange and yellow tape.

It would be impossible to filter enough ocean water to undo ocean acidification around the world, but the National Lab’s Nicholas Ward says it might be possible to mitigate its effects on a local level, like in a bay where water circulates slowly.

“It’s a little early to tell,” says Ward, “but we are definitely seeing responses both in the chemistry and some of the biology.”

A solution like that would be welcomed by people like Bill Dewey. He has seen the problem firsthand, working with the Taylor Shellfish hatchery in Washington’s Hood Canal.

Fifteen years ago, shellfish populations crashed across the region and alerted many people here to the reality of ocean acidification. The state stepped in, and some hatcheries found temporary solutions. Taylor Shellfish installed a sodium carbonate pump that treats the water coming into its warehouse hatchery and keeps the pH steady.

“We’ve got a workaround, but we’re only treating 400 gallons a minute,” Dewey says, standing next to trays of oysters and buckets of geoducks. “As conditions get worse it’s going to start to affect the seed in our nurseries and the animals on our farms. I don’t want to turn my back on any potential solution at this point.”

Dewey says he hopes carbon removal can undo some of the damage climate change has done to the oceans, but as someone whose livelihood depends on the water, he says, he’s only “cautiously optimistic.”

It might not take new technology. Studies have found native eelgrass and other seagrasses could naturally act as buffers against ocean acidification. Eelgrass is endangered, and restoring its natural habitat is part of climate plans in the Pacific Northwest.

Geoengineering

When it comes to ocean carbon removal companies, there are plenty of fish in the sea. Equatic treats ocean water much like Ebb, but extracts hydrogen. Planetary Technologies also wants to dose ocean water with antacids. Brilliant Planet is farming algae and burying it in the desert.

Entrepreneurs in the space say they welcome the competition, and researchers agree the more solutions that can be safely tested, the better.

"Developing all of these early-stage approaches for marine carbon dioxide removal in parallel is critical,” says Chinmayee Subban of the Pacific Northwest National Lab.

“Hopefully we have enough technologies that we don’t get locked into any one of them too soon,” says Edward Sanders, chief operating officer of Equatic.

The White House recently set up a Fast-Track Action Committee on Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal to encourage more research and development.

But the idea of enlisting the ocean to clean up carbon pollution has a reputation to overcome. In 2012 a scientist dumped 120 tons of iron sulfate dust off the coast of British Columbia to try to spur the growth of carbon-eating algae. Canadian authorities investigated him for illegal dumping, and his experiment spurred a lot of uncomfortable questions about who owns the ocean, and whether “geoengineering” should be on the menu as a solution to the climate crisis.

“I think of that as ocean carbon dioxide removal 1.0,” says Sifang Chen, a physicist and science advisor to the carbon removal think tank Carbon180. “But then now what I think of as ocean carbon dioxide removal 2.0, they’re doing this in a way that’s trying to be a lot more responsible.”

Chen was one of 400 scientists who signed an open letter encouraging “responsible research, development, and field testing” of these ideas because she says “the ocean doesn't have to be just a victim of climate change, it can be a solution.”

But Chen says there are legitimate questions to ask as this new industry scales: What does it mean for other people who make a living off the ocean? What are the long-term ecological risks? And who is responsible for overseeing what could be a global industry affecting the whole planet? Governments should establish legal frameworks for ocean carbon dioxide removal, Chen says, and help develop monitoring tools to verify that these companies have a positive impact.

“From an investor’s vantage point, these are still fairly risky endeavors. There are really hard engineering problems that need to be solved,” Chen says. “What we need is the kind of patient capital that is going to support these types of projects without the companies feeling like they have to rush things.”

Sarah Cooley, director of climate science at the Ocean Conservancy, also supports more research but urges caution too.

“You really have to show the receipts here,” Cooley says. “Otherwise it would just be another kind of greenwash. We have a lot of climate solutions that are shovel-ready. But honestly, electrifying our transit infrastructure is not as exciting to some people as like, ‘I’m gonna put some fairy dust in the ocean and fix everything.’”

‘Fishing for carbon’

Fish Pier in Portland, Maine, has long been a hub for the commercial fishing industry. Today, it’s also home to one of the more audacious companies trying to reel in credits for ocean carbon removal.

Marty Odlin was an engineer for his family’s fishing business, fixing engines and doing electrical work out of a stall on Fish Pier. Today that stall is bustling with employees for the company he founded in 2017, Running Tide. Odlin says now they’re fishing for carbon.

“The same tools we used to fix the boats with, now we’re developing carbon removal systems with them,” says Odlin. The carbon removal system they’re most invested in is moving biomass — or, put more simply, sinking wood to the bottom of the ocean.

“As that wood is growing on land through photosynthesis, it’s trapping CO2 away into its cellulose. But when that tree falls over, dies and rots, all of that carbon goes right back in the atmosphere, and that’s the natural carbon cycle,” says Running Tide’s senior engineer Andrew Thompson. “We’re intervening, grabbing that wood before it rots and sinking it down into the deep ocean where that carbon is sequestered and locked away in the ocean.”

The company is getting its waste wood from Nova Scotia and is accounting for the carbon emissions of shipping it out to sea. In controlled experiments off the coast of Iceland, Running Tide says it has already sequestered at least 17,000 tons of carbon.

The company recently raised more than $50 million and counts Microsoft among its clients.

In Portland, they’re building high-tech buoys to test how they might be able to sink not just wood, but fast-growing algae and even pieces of rock to fight ocean acidification through the same chemical reactions at the heart of Ebb’s system.

It turns out the science of sinking things is surprisingly sophisticated. At Running Tide’s Ocean Hub, they’ve converted a former lumber warehouse into a marine science lab. Chemists in white coats pore over beakers, rows of wave tanks slosh back and forth, testing how different materials break down in the water, and outside a row of shipping containers converted into marine greenhouses are cultivating sugar kelp, sea lettuce and a smorgasbord of different algae.

Running Tide’s labs are buzzing with activity and a startup vibe that wouldn’t be out of place in Silicon Valley.

“It’s fishing, so by any means necessary to go get the job done,” says Odlin. “We’ll do whatever it takes.”

“Whatever it takes” is the ethos of many entrepreneurs in carbon removal and elsewhere who try to build businesses on early-stage science. To critics who argue carbon removal is a distraction, Odlin says companies like Running Tide are not trying to replace efforts to decarbonize the economy; that work needs to happen simultaneously, he says.

Just as early investments and research into renewable energy took decades to produce huge growth in that industry, Odlin says the world needs to start developing carbon removal solutions now if we want to have them at scale before the end of the century.

“The only thing in my head is we are not moving fast enough,” says Odlin. “We are absolutely worried about the second, third, fourth order effects. We’re doing everything we can, but the idea that we can sit back and wait and try to get it all perfect before we get after it, not gonna happen. Everyone that’s clutching pearls here, drop the pearls and grab a shovel, because there’s work to get done.”

To startups promising climate solutions on a global scale, the Ocean Conservancy’s Sarah Cooley says, “Curb your enthusiasm. There’s still a lot of time to get it right.”

“Buzz is necessary to support innovation, but the reality is that we are very far from a highly scaled-up industry,” Cooley says. “The ocean can take some experimentation, but there’s always a consequence.”

It's not improving education. It's not wiping out poverty and hunger.

It's Goal #14 — which aims to "conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development."

A new survey of 3,500 leaders in developing countries found that marine conservation is almost universally considered the least important of the United Nations' 17 Sustainable Development Goals – essentially a checklist of priorities to help poor countries and aid organizations focus their attention on lifting the world's most vulnerable people to a higher standard of living.

Several of the goals deal explicitly with environmental issues, and the new survey, conducted by the AidData research center at the College of William and Mary, is the latest indication that these may be getting short shrift — despite oceans of evidence that protecting the environment leads to big development gains in the forms of jobs and food.

The survey respondents were asked to pick their top six priorities among the SDGs, as they're known to international development wonks. Goal #14 fared the worst. Only 5.4 percent of the respondents included it in their top six priorities, compared to 65.2 percent for quality education or 60 percent for decent work and economic growth.

The respondents included elected politicians, bureaucrats, nonprofit and humanitarian executives, and business leaders from 126 low- and middle-income countries in South and Central America, Africa, Europe and Asia. Goal #14 ranked as the least important goal in all those professional sectors, and in every region except East Asia and the Pacific, where it came in third from the bottom.

"Leaders are fairly consistent in emphasizing jobs, education and strong institutions as the most important development challenges," says Samantha Custer, AidData's director of policy analysis and the survey's lead author. "But they turn something of a deaf ear to climate change and other environmental goals."

That's not just a shame for the whales, development and marine science experts say: It's a serious missed economic opportunity. A 2015 study from the World Wildlife Fund found that oceans provide at least $2.5 trillion in goods and services every year, from fisheries to shipping to tourism. If the oceans were a country, they'd have the world's seventh-biggest economy, just ahead of Brazil. Tapping that resource, and making sure it's protected, should be a higher priority for developing countries, says Brad Ack, WWF's senior vice president for oceans.

"Oceans are a critical foundation for developing economies," he says. "People aren't drawing the connection between things they take for granted and the role oceans play in providing those services."

The survey results weren't necessarily surprising, Custer says. Last year, she conducted an analysis of development funding — how much money the U.S. government, World Bank and other major donors were spending on projects under each of the goals. Climate and environmental initiatives received significantly less funding than most other categories. Between 2000 and 2013, she found, the three goals that deal explicitly with climate and the environment together received $23.78 billion — just seven percent of what Goal #16, which deals with peace and justice, received.

Those numbers say a lot about the way rich countries and institutions prioritize challenges in developing countries. But Custer wondered if the countries giving aid might be out of step with the countries receiving it. On the contrary, she says, the new survey indicates that to a large extent they are on the same page, and that "everybody has a blind spot when it comes to the environment, apparently."

The reason, says Custer, may be that for the poorest countries, conservation still seems like a luxury that leaders can't afford when their people lack essentials like a regular supply of nutritious food and clean water.

Marine conservation, in particular, is a complex, global issue that leaders may find difficult to wrap their heads around, says Najih Lazar, a fisheries researcher at the University of Rhode Island and former U.S. Agency for International Development official in West Africa.

In fact, Lazar says, when the SDGs were being developed, marine conservation was almost axed as an independent goal and rolled into a more general umbrella environmental goal. It took persistent lobbying from marine and development experts on the potential economic and development benefits oceans can provide to convince the U.N. that the ocean was worthy of its own goal.

"It's not easy to convince a lot of people," he says. "Underwater resources are not visible, and it's not easy to understand the value in terms of economic growth. Very few have jumped on that wagon."

For that reason, he says, many developing countries leave a lot of the ocean's potential value — jobs and food — sitting on the table. But those who do make the connection stand to reap a big payoff, he says. As an example, he points to Morocco. In 2009 the country completely renovated its fishing regulations with an eye toward conservation, cracking down on illegal fishing and implementing new measures to ensure that less seafood was wasted during processing.

Since then, the country has seen employment in the fishery sector increase 30 percent and the value of its exports nearly double to $2 billion — while also seeing a revival in populations of threatened fish and octopus.

Charles Kenny, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, says it's important to remember that although the goals seem separate, they in fact build off each other and that more could be done to help everyone involved with implementing them — including developing country leaders and officials in donor organizations — understand the links between them.

"If you want to fix global hunger," he says, "we need to fix the oceans."

Many plans are currently in place by this governmental organization to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases and stifle the effects of climate change. Long-term efficacy is unknown as this point but the need for change is being shouted by current world leaders.

____________________________________________________________________________

The ocean and climate change are closely intertwined: the ocean and its ecosystems are essential to regulate the climate and are at the same time hugely impacted by climate change. Ocean and climate actions must therefore go hand in hand.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) raised the alarm on the impacts of climate change on the ocean. It emphasised the need to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions and take sustained and robust adaptation action.

The EU has anchored climate neutrality by 2050 into its law, in line with the Paris Agreement, and is committed to reduce its Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions from maritime activities and to make continued progress in climate adaptation. The European Commission proposed a range of measures to ensure that EU maritime transport contributes to reaching this goal.

In a similar vein, the EU will continue to act on decarbonising the fishing sector to reduce also the dependency on fossil (primarily diesel) fuels, including by exploring mitigation measures and fishing strategies and gears that reduce emissions and improve energy use efficiency.

The EU considers that offshore wind and ocean energy is part of the solution for achieving its goal of becoming climate neutral by 2050, in line with the EU strategy on offshore renewable energy.

Nature-based solutions can also provide climate change mitigation and adaptation by increasing carbon uptake and storage.

The EU is committed to stopping pollution of all kinds, notably from land-based sources to sea. Since the adoption of its plastics strategy (2018), the EU has been a driving force in tackling plastic pollution worldwide. It is actively engaged in the global negotiations for an ambitious legally binding Global Plastic Agreement by 2024, as agreed at UNEA5. It is also determined to drastically reduce land-based pollution of nutrients and chemical pesticides, and to take decisive steps outlined in the EU zero pollution action plan.

The EU is scaling up its efforts to tackle problems with flag states acting as ‘open registers’, chosen by some vessel operators to take advantage of certain states’ weak compliance with international obligations or control over the vessels (fishing and maritime transport) registered under their flags.

In line with its blue economy approach, the EU will seek to promote economic growth, improve livelihoods while ensuring sustainable use of marine resources and the well-being of coastal communities.

In addition, seafood brings an important contribution to food and nutrition security. As the world’s largest import market for seafood products, the EU is striding towards safeguarding market entry only for products that are sustainably sourced and produced.

In line with the Farm-to-Fork Strategy, the Commission will make a legislative proposal for a sustainable food systems framework to mainstream sustainability in all food-related policies.

The steadily increasing demand for use of the ocean requires integrated planning of maritime space that takes due account of the interests of all maritime sectors and their impact on the marine environment. The EU has gained significant experience in the maritime spatial planning (MSP) domain and is working together with IOC-UNESCO in promoting it internationally through the MSP global Initiative.  Using MSP promotes transboundary cooperation and helps minimise spatial conflicts and manage cumulative impacts worldwide. 

Scientists have long known that critters such as worms, crustaceans and mollusks could make their home on plastic debris. Animals have even crossed the Pacific Ocean on these makeshift rafts after a devastating tsunami struck Japan in 2011. But new research published on April 17 in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution adds two details that could be concerning for existing ecosystems. First, it finds that plastic is providing a home for coastal species to thrive in the open ocean thousands of miles from shore. Second, some of these species are reproducing despite the alien environment.

“It’s probably one of the least-known environments, the sea surface,” says Martin Thiel, a marine biologist at Catholic University of the North in Chile, who was not involved in the new research. “It’s a very, very particular community that we are disturbing now at a massive scale.”

For the new study, researchers identified species living on just more than 100 pieces of plastic that were fished out of the so-called Great Pacific Garbage Patch—a region in the northern Pacific Ocean where currents converge to deposit an estimated 79,000 metric tons of plastic debris. The scientists identified 484 invertebrates from a surprising range of species on the plastic. Many of these animals were species that are more commonly found near coastlines of the western Pacific. These coastal species included “moss animals” or bryozoans, jellyfish, sponges, worms and other organisms.

“I just remember the first time [study co-author] Jim [Carlton of Williams College and Mystic Seaport Museum] and I pulled out a piece of plastic and saw the level of coastal species present, we were just blown away,” says Linsey Haram, lead author of the study. Haram, who was a research associate with the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center during the study, specializes in marine ecology.

Nearly all the debris hosted pelagic, or open-ocean, species—which makes sense considering that weathering on much of the plastic suggested it had spent several years at sea. But all told, about 70 percent of the debris the researchers analyzed carried at least one species usually found in coastal waters—a much higher tally than Haram and her colleagues expected going into the work, she says.

And as they looked closer, the scientists found that some two thirds of the debris pieces were home to coastal and open-ocean species living side by side. Plastic isn’t just carrying coastal species out to sea; it’s also creating unnatural neighborhoods that the researchers call “neopelagic communities.”

“What’s new, the ‘neo’ part of that, is that we now—likely because of plastics—are seeing coastal species and these native pelagic species together, interacting quite frequently on debris,” Haram says. “We’re essentially creating new communities in the open ocean.”

And these unnatural communities may come at a cost for traditional open-ocean residents that are used to living on natural debris, she adds, because coastal creatures could be competing for space and food or could even be eating their neighbors.

Haram and her colleagues found signs that these coastal species were reproducing. For instance, they found insectlike arthropods tending to clutches of eggs and anemones sprouting little clones of themselves—indicators that suggest the relocations aided by plastic aren’t necessarily temporary. And the plastic in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch doesn’t necessarily stay there but can instead wash up on foreign beaches, where transplanted species might take root.

“If you can reproduce, then you can spread. And if you can spread, you can invade,” says Linda Amaral-Zettler, a marine microbiologist at the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, who was not involved in the new study. “You’re not just a dead end; you’re not just hitchhiking and then perishing at the end of it.” She hopes the research serves as a warning that plastic may be facilitating species invasions, particularly between widespread coastal ecosystems.

Because all the study debris came from the northern Pacific Ocean, it’s unclear whether coastal species are making similar journeys in other oceans. Amaral-Zettler particularly wonders what might be happening in the northern Atlantic, where floating Sargassum seaweed offers a natural foothold in the open ocean—one that might be vulnerable to invasion by species traveling on plastic debris. (Haram’s colleagues are working to determine whether the animals found in the study can relocate to additional debris rafts or are trapped on their original piece of plastic, she says.)

The new work highlights a different way that the flood of plastic is interfering with the natural environment, one beyond the well-publicized harm it does to species such as fish, turtles and seabirds. “We know a lot at this point about entanglement and ingestion, the huge negative impacts that result from that,” Haram says. “The research that we’re doing here adds a very different type of effect that plastics have that previously wasn’t really being considered.”

Thiel agrees and adds that the research should also remind us that we know more than enough about the damage of plastic pollution to respond seriously. “To me, it’s another warning call for us that we definitely need to take dramatic, drastic steps to reduce the amount of plastic litter that goes into the ocean,” Thiel says. “When it’s in the open ocean, it’s too late.”

Hanging over the side of the boat, Nahi El Bar Jiyed scoops up a jug of sea water, then carefully pours it into a large syringe. While the sample may seem ordinary, to the biologist it’s a trove of secrets: the DNA of every living creature swimming below.

He presses the water sample through a filter about the size of his hand, which captures the DNA fragments, then repeats the process several more times. Meters away, a sea turtle emerges for a breath then retreats to the seagrass meadow below.

“Without disturbing the environment, we can take a sample that tells us exactly what was at this site,” Jiyed says.

Over the past decade, the use of environmental DNA – known as “eDNA” – to monitor biodiversity has surged. As animals move through their environment, they shed fragments of genetic material: skin cells, waste products and other body fluids. By extracting these minute traces of DNA from samples of water, soil or air, scientists can determine the presence and diversity of species with unprecedented accuracy, providing a snapshot of the intricacies of an ecosystem.

“Knowledge is the basis of all management. If you don’t know a place, you can’t protect it,” Jiyed says. “It’s the first step.” His efforts are part of a Unesco initiative to collect eDNA across 22 marine world heritage sites, including Mauritania’s Banc d’Arguin national park, where he works.

The park is nestled along the country’s north coast, where Saharan sand dips into emerald waters. Fishing boats propelled only by sail glide past low-lying islands. The penetrating silence is misleading: this place is home to endangered dolphins and sea turtles and is a vital stopover for millions of migratory birds. Due to its remarkable biodiversity, the park was granted world heritage status by Unesco in 1989.

It’s a “true biogeographic crossroads”, which marks the meeting of tropical and temperate organisms, says the park director, Ebaye Sidina. “We know that we have an enormous number of species, and the DNA analysis will finally lift the veil and show that this diversity is there and must be preserved,” he says.The eDNA technology not only allows scientists to assess biodiversity, but to detect invasive species, track endangered or elusive animals and to monitor wastewater for diseases and pathogens. It has even uncovered the existence of species previously thought to be extinct. At Banc d’Arguin, scientists are eager to see if there’s any indication of the smalltooth sawfish, which Sidina said hasn’t been seen in decades.

Used over time, eDNA can provide insights into how the climate crisis is affecting populations, such as by shifting their geographic range.

“Several fish species are already moving 25km every decade, either to deeper waters or further from the equator,” says Fanny Douvere, the head of the world heritage marine programme at Unesco. “We want to make sure that in another 30 to 40 years, the boundaries of these marine world heritage sites will still be relevant.”

Analysis of eDNA offers several advantages over traditional surveys, particularly when assessing the effects of climate changes on an ecosystem. Whereas traditional surveys can take years to complete, eDNA analysis can yield results within months, says Ward Appeltans, the head of the ocean biodiversity information system at Unesco and science coordinator of the eDNA expeditions initiative.

“The ocean’s status is changing so rapidly,” he says. “We want to know what its status is now, not five years ago.”

The ability to detect immediate changes is also crucial for tracking invasive species, such as lionfish, which can quickly overtake native fish populations. Moreover, eDNA sampling offers a noninvasive alternative to harmful standard survey methods, such as bottom trawling and the capturing, tranquilising and tagging of animals.

“eDNA will also pick up things that you maybe wouldn’t have seen because they were hiding or only show up at certain times of day,” says Luke Thompson, a researcher at Mississippi State University and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Miami, Florida. Traditional marine and aerial surveys also tend to be far more expensive, as they require boats, helicopters, planes and crew.

However, eDNA technology does present its own challenges. Ocean currents can prevent species in the sample region from being detected, or cause others in far-off areas to appear present. Some animals shed more DNA than others, which can paint an inaccurate picture of population ratios.

“But the main limitation is the lack of consensus about standardising methods and markers,” says Louis Bernatchez, the editor-in-chief of the scientific journal Environmental DNA.

In order to match collected DNA to the corresponding species, scientists run the genetic sequences through a reference database. However, a unified global database does not exist, and there’s no consensus regarding which genetic markers to use. As it is, less than 1% of all animals have had their genomes sequenced.

“People aren’t sufficiently working together,” Bernatchez says. “It’s a big problem.” Unesco, for its part, plans to upload all data from its eDNA initiative to its open science marine species database.

Despite the drawbacks, scientists around the globe continue to apply the technology in innovative ways. In the Arctic, DNA from polar bear tracks is being used to monitor population size and movement patterns – information that could inform conservation efforts and help mitigate human-bear interactions.

Across North America and Europe, eDNA samples from flowers have revealed animals and insects previously unknown to be pollinators. And in the field of forensics, scientists have found that DNA extracted from the blood of mosquitoes at crime scenes can accurately identify victims and suspects.

“There’s a countless diversity of molecules that are waiting to tell us what’s going on and what they’re doing out there,” says Thompson. “It’s a great way to think about it.”

Bottled water is one of the world’s most popular beverages, and its industry is making the most of it. Since the millennium, the world has advanced significantly towards the goal of safe water for all. In 2020, 74 per cent of humanity had access to safe water. This is 10 per cent more than two decades ago.

But that still leaves two billion people without access to safe drinking water.

Meanwhile, bottled water corporations exploit surface water and aquifers — typically at very low cost — and sell it for 150 to 1,000 times more than the same unit of municipal tap water.

The price is often justified by offering the product as an absolute safe alternative to tap water. But bottled water is not immune to all contamination, considering that it rarely faces the rigorous public health and environmental regulations that public utility tap water does.

In our recently published study, which studied 109 countries, it was concluded that the highly profitable and fast-growing bottled water industry is masking the failure of public systems to supply reliable drinking water for all.

The industry can undermine progress of safe-water projects, mostly in low- and middle-income countries, by distracting development efforts and redirecting attention to a less reliable, less affordable option. Bottled water industry can disrupt SDGs The fast-growing bottled water industry also impacts the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) in many ways.

The latest UN University report revealed that the annual sales of the global bottled water market is expected to double to US$500 billion worldwide this decade. This can increase stress in water-depleted areas while contributing to plastic pollution on land and in the oceans. Growing faster than any other in the food category worldwide, the bottled water market is biggest in the Global South, with the Asia-Pacific, Africa and Latin American and Caribbean regions accounting for 60 per cent of all sales.

No region is on track to achieve universal access to safe water services, which is one of the SDG 2030 targets. In fact, the industry’s greatest impact seems to be its potential to stunt the progress of nations’ goals to provide its residents with equitable access to affordable drinking water.

Impact on vulnerable nations In the Global North, bottled water is often perceived to be healthier and tastier than tap water. It is, therefore, more a luxury good than a necessity. Meanwhile, in the Global South, it is the lack or absence of reliable public water supply and water management infrastructure that drives bottled water markets.

Therefore, in many low- and middle-income countries, particularly in the Asia Pacific, rising consumption of bottled water can be seen as a proxy indicator of decades of governments’ failure to deliver on commitments to safe public water systems.This further widens the global disparity between the billions of people who lack access to reliable water services and the others that enjoy water as a luxury. In 2016, the annual financing required to achieve a safe drinking water supply throughout the world was estimated to cost US$114 billion, which amounts to less than half of today’s roughly US$270 billion global annual bottled water sales.

Regulating the bottled-water industry Last year, the World Health Organization estimated that the current rate of progress needs to quadruple to meet the SDGs 2030 target. But this is a colossal challenge considering the competing financial priorities and the prevailing business-as-usual attitude in the water sector.

As the bottled water market grows, it is more important than ever to strengthen legislation that regulates the industry and its water quality standards. Such legislation can impact bottled water quality control, groundwater exploitation, land use, plastic waste management, carbon emissions, finance and transparency obligations, to mention a few.

Our report argues that, with global progress toward this target so far off-track, expansion of the bottled water market essentially works against making headway, or at least slows it down, adversely affecting investments and long-term public water infrastructure. Some high-level initiatives, like an alliance of Global Investors for Sustainable Development, aim to scale up finance for the SDGs, including water-related ones. Such initiatives offer the bottled water sector an opportunity to become an active player in this process and help accelerate progress toward reliable water supply, particularly in the Global South.