Marine ecosystem-based management: challenges remain, yet solutions exist, and progress is occurring

Marine ecosystems are experiencing unprecedented cumulative anthropogenic pressures that degrade biodiversity, deplete biomass, alter ocean chemistry and temperature, increase pollution and invasives, and intensify spatial conflicts among ocean-use sectors. New industries (e.g., deep-sea mining, offshore wind) add pressures and competition for space and benefits. Addressing these challenges is critical to achieving the UN SDGs. Marine ecosystem-based management (EBM) is a multidisciplinary approach that manages interdependent ecosystem components and human activities, explicitly addressing cross-sector tradeoffs, and is widely recognized as best practice. After decades of business-as-usual, EBM is now imperative. To chart a path forward, the study evaluates the current global progress of EBM, identifies common implementation challenges across scales, and outlines solutions, requiring an interdisciplinary global partnership. The Marine Ecosystem-Based Management Progress Evaluation Group (MEBM-PEG) undertook a global poll and expert workshop to provide an updated assessment of EBM progress, impediments, and actionable solutions.

The study employed a mixed-methods approach comprising a global poll and a structured expert workshop. Poll: MEBM-PEG designed a 23-question instrument (multiple-choice and open-ended) to assess challenges, solutions, and progress of EBM implementation. It was distributed via snowball sampling through the authors’ networks and the OCTO EBM email list. The poll included an ethics statement; participation implied consent; no identifiable information was collected; duplicates were removed. The poll ran June–October 2022 and received 157 responses (including workshop participants). Quantitative analysis summarized key demographics and multiple-choice items, aggregating responses into organizing themes and reporting frequencies. Qualitative analysis of open-ended responses used MAXQDA 2022 to code major impediments and sub-impediments; hierarchical code–subcode structures and frequencies informed theme salience. Workshop: An online workshop (11–14 October 2022) convened 34 invited experts plus 9 MEBM-PEG members from diverse countries and ocean-use sectors. Each day included a plenary, breakout groups (balanced by expertise, geography, career stage, and gender), and plenary summaries. Discussions were recorded and noted. Preliminary poll results guided topics. Breakout outputs were collated by authors to identify global EBM status, top impediments, solutions, and future directions. Figures summarized support levels for EBM (organization/jurisdiction promised vs actual; n≈154–155).

• Six top impediments to EBM implementation (ranked): (1) Governance (largest): limited political will, bureaucratic inertia, institutional silos and overlaps, unclear mandates/authority, fragmented jurisdictions and scales, insufficient or unused policies/legislation, slow pace, corruption. (2) Engaging stakeholders: power imbalances, competing interests, limited incentives to collaborate for well-resourced sectors, under-resourcing of others (e.g., artisanal fishers, Indigenous Peoples), distrust and disinterest, partial engagement leading to unintended consequences. (3) Support: discrepancy between promised and actual support by organizations and jurisdictions; many claim medium–high support but provide little–medium financial/staffing/training resources (poll n=154–155). Short-term research-funded projects (2–5 years) hinder continuity, monitoring, and knowledge retention. (4) Uncertainty/understanding of EBM: multiple overlapping paradigms and terminology create confusion and skepticism; many practice EBM principles under other labels. (5) Technology and data: perceived data scarcity is often a myth; lack of cross-sector access, transparency, and integration is more limiting than absolute data quantity; need more types of data and better sharing policies. (6) Communication and marketing: ineffective, jargon-heavy outreach; messages not reaching decision-makers, stakeholders, or public; disinformation exists. - Cross-cutting solutions identified that can address multiple impediments simultaneously: increase political will (both high-level leadership and bottom-up pressures), change incentives (including certification schemes), build capacity (awareness, engagement, technical skills, training), build a stronger business case for EBM (comparing full costs of BAU vs EBM, including economic, social, cultural, environmental, and opportunity costs), provide sustained resources and support, persist with incremental implementation using existing legislation and processes, expand acceptable knowledge types (including local and Indigenous knowledge), improve data access/integration and policies, and strategically market EBM (leveraging familiar paradigms, social media, infographics, public campaigns). - Evidence of progress: Poll and workshop indicate increasing understanding, interdisciplinary collaboration, stakeholder engagement, legislation, operationalization (vs theory), support for monitoring/research/implementation, and recognition of cumulative impacts (poll examples: reasons EBM works n=192; changes over last 10 years n=123). Many jurisdictions at multiple scales are implementing EBM principles, often under different paradigms (e.g., Marine Spatial Planning, Integrated Ecosystem Assessments). - Illustrative implementations: Cross-sector coordination in the Barents and Norwegian Seas (shipping, oil and gas, fisheries, conservation) to sustain ecosystem function and economy; large-scale marine sanctuaries in the Pacific Islands with collaboration across stakeholders; environmental management frameworks in parts of Africa balancing conservation and development; in the U.S., re-routing shipping lanes to reduce whale strikes through cross-sector cooperation. - Sectoral engagement gaps: Some sectors (oil and gas, tourism, shipping, renewable energy) remain less engaged than fisheries, conservation, aesthetics, biomedical, and aquaculture. - ROI/business case: Holistic assessments show higher total costs and lower benefits of BAU relative to EBM; making the business case is essential to unlock real support beyond verbal commitments. - Data/tools: Priority is integrating and reusing existing datasets and tools, improving transparency and licensing, and capacity building to understand and apply tools; examples include Ocean Reports and Marine Cadastre.

The study underscores a broadening consensus on the urgency of EBM driven by awareness of sectoral tradeoffs and climate change. Implementation should not wait for crises; feasible solutions exist now. High-leverage interventions—strategic marketing, capacity building, changing incentives (including certification), and articulating a rigorous business case—can catalyze political will and formal mandates, creating reinforcing cycles of progress. Traditional calls for more resources and data persist, but underutilized mechanisms like certification schemes and incentive realignment merit expansion. There are tangible social costs to not implementing EBM; communicating these costs effectively can drive stakeholder and public support. EBM’s adaptive, participatory, iterative nature means success is measured in degrees; while a theory–implementation gap remains, it is narrowing as more jurisdictions operationalize EBM principles across scales and under various paradigms.

Marine EBM faces enduring challenges—particularly governance inertia, uneven stakeholder engagement, inadequate support, conceptual uncertainty, data-sharing barriers, and weak communication. Yet, identifiable and achievable solutions exist and are already being enacted: building political will, persisting with incremental integration of EBM into existing processes, capacity building, changing incentives (including certification), developing and communicating a robust business case, improving data access/integration, and launching targeted EBM marketing campaigns. Empirical examples across regions show EBM principles being implemented—often under other labels—indicating more progress than commonly recognized. Future work should prioritize scaling high-leverage solutions (marketing, certification, incentive alignment), expanding training and knowledge exchange, integrating diverse knowledge systems, and establishing more stable, long-term funding and governance arrangements to close the theory–practice gap and accelerate EBM adoption.

• Sampling and generalizability: The poll used snowball sampling and a targeted mailing list (OCTO EBM community), which may not capture the full diversity of EBM practitioners or regions. Authors note results on progress are likely conservative due to nonresponse from parts of the community. - Self-reported data: Perceptions of impediments, support, and progress are self-reported and may be subject to bias. - Temporal and funding constraints: Many EBM implementation efforts are tied to short-term projects (2–5 years), complicating assessment of continuity, outcomes, and knowledge retention. - Heterogeneous definitions: Ongoing ambiguity in EBM terminology complicates precise measurement of implementation status across contexts.