#IESTurningtheTide: Systems thinking for a sustainable ocean – Marine conservation and restoration wrap-up

• An introduction to systems thinking for tackling wicked problems
• Protecting vulnerable communities from climate change-driven coastal change
• Roundtable: Marine conservation and restoration for a sustainable ocean

The marine environment is a climate regulator and provides many ecosystem services. Though this is increasingly understood, many people around the world are disconnected from the ocean and unaware of the myriad benefits it provides: it is important to address this if we are to support and deliver conservation and restoration which can support ocean-based climate mitigation. It’s also key to broaden thinking from focusing on coastal environments that we may be more familiar with to the deeper parts of the marine environment, which are under-researched in comparison. 

From a political perspective, intergovernmental action for our oceans is growing, with increased focus on ocean environments seen at COP28 and the new High Seas Treaty being ratified this year. Integrating climate adaptation strategies into policies about the marine and coastal environment is becoming more popular. However, it still tends to be the countries that are most vulnerable to the coastal effects of climate change that are driving action, and there needs to be a concerted and collaborative approach across all nations to support conservation and restoration efforts. 

There is a risk of inertia among governments, institutions and communities if they do not know how to solve the problems facing marine environments and, as such, lack of knowledge and evidence is a barrier to action. However, it is important that we do not treat this as an excuse: it must be viewed as a learning opportunity. Pilot purgatory should be avoided!  

Since the marine environment affects the whole planet, it is incredibly important that anyone working on conservation and restoration interventions are able, and willing, to communicate with other stakeholders as effectively as possible on their project experience and findings from implementation. Monitoring will be a key aspect of this, in order to measure the effectiveness of actions and build up evidence for different interventions. This is particularly important for nature-based solutions, where there is still a lack of evidence and knowledge sharing on projects, which can lead to a perception of higher risk for stakeholders involved.   

To ensure effective development and implementation of new projects, understanding who the key stakeholders are and communicating with them at an appropriate level is key. For example, when communicating with a local community, it can be useful to consider what concerns they might have before opening communication, so these can be assuaged as soon as possible. Using scientific language sparingly and having a mindset of knowledge exchange rather than top-down implementation can be extremely helpful. 

Linked to this is the need for those who are experts in conservation and restoration being able to reflect on their own roles as powerful actors in marine and coastal environments: it is important to share this power. ‘Science-ism’ can occur when interventions are implemented without consideration of local or indigenous populations who are experts on marine issues in their context. It is important to develop strong relationships – utilising participatory models and co-creation – with these groups to ensure the right strategies are in place for all involved.  

We need to support global communities to understand that the ocean is a significant part of the entire conversation on climate, and that making a positive impact in one location will have impacts elsewhere. However, access to the technology and infrastructure needed to make positive change is a significant barrier. It can be incredibly costly, and licensing processes can be arduous and off-putting. Sharing technology, tools and methods for implementation across nations and sectors is therefore paramount. 

It can be tricky to understand who is responsible for the stewardship of ocean restoration and conservation initiatives, as there is often a blurring of boundaries in the marine environment that doesn’t happen on land, where borders are much clearer. For investors, it is complicated to justify spend on interventions that will inevitably cross ocean borders to some extent, especially if this may mean the efficacy may be lower than hoped in the initial target area. Though there may be wider positive consequences for the ocean system, it could also be perceived that a new intervention had interfered with a different project taking place outside of the funders’ jurisdiction. It is important, however, that those in the marine sector challenge inaction due to these types of concern, and encourage collaborative relationships and communication across borders instead. 

There is also a positive side to the interconectedness of the ocean system. Communities and organisations who are actively trying to protect their locale can, and do, have a wider-reaching collective impact than they may imagine. This is important to communicate, as it can encourage more people to get involved.  

Recognising that the ocean is a complex system also means recognising that it doesn’t respect boundaries: it is incredibly difficult to have targets relating to marine conservation and restoration while destructive practices are taking place elsewhere in the same system. The choices we make as individuals, institutions and nations directly impact all interconnected parts of the system – for better or worse. 

This also stretches beyond marine ecosystems. Land use, freshwater systems and atmospheric systems all have direct impacts on the marine environment, and vice versa. It is essential that professionals working across these areas communicate and collaborate in order to unlock solutions with multiple benefits.  

These ideas do seem to be trickling into political conversations. For example, in Australia there has been work to frame the importance of a blue economy (and the benefits it brings to a wider socio-environmental system) as a way to encourage investment in restoration and conservation. This can be an effective approach when funding is required, as it is possible to present cost-benefit analyses of parts of the marine system.  

However, it is important to remember that attributing a fiscal value to a natural resource is largely a Western approach, which has garnered criticism for implying that the ocean is something transactional, rather than a part of the same natural system we exist in. It is crucial to think critically about defining natural capital, understanding its benefits and applications, but also its limitations.

It is important for those who really understand systems approaches to embed these in their work, encouraging others to reduce siloed thinking and champion systemic approaches, whether this is on a local, national or international level. Institutions who are already cross-sector and/or international can play a key role in supporting these approaches, convening relevant stakeholders and disseminating knowledge and evidence.  

Anecdotally, there appears to be significant interest in advancements that can make monitoring technology cheaper and more accessible. When approaching the ocean as a whole system, it is crucial to monitor in more than one location to understand the wider impacts of any interventions. Advances in autonomous vehicles and machine learning are likely to play a significant role in making this possible and affordable: innovation is just as important as complex technology. 

Considering reporting frameworks is key. If these can be standardised globally, it will be much simpler to get an overall picture of the marine environment, and it will ensure that anyone collecting data understands what broader systems their information is part of. This will allow for interoperability of data. Utilising the knowledge of indigenous communities will be a crucial part of ensuring that the right outcomes are captured in standardised reporting frameworks.

Countries around the world must commit to a ‘global ocean’ for the marine environment to be sustainable and climate resilient. Restoration and conservation cannot happen without collaborative, consistent management across key stakeholders. This will require a thorough understanding of the value of marine ecosystem services, their interaction with the wider environment, economy and societies, as well as sharing of knowledge, evidence and resources across jurisdictional boundaries. Professionals should seek to unlock multiple benefits for nature, people and climate through conservation and restoration efforts, and share what works and what doesn’t.  

This must include all parts of society, and those with power need to be inclusive and open-minded. From multi-national, large-scale projects to local action, impacts can and will be felt thousands of miles away – it is important to remember that interventions have global significance; we must both think and work with a system lens to ensure that these interventions create positive outcomes. We will be sharing four themed reports reflecting on the Turning the Tide project as a whole. In the meantime, you can always refresh your understanding of the previous themes via our other wrap-up articles: Bridging the gap between land and sea, Blue Carbon, and Blue Economy.