A global science–policy partnership for progress towardsustainability of oceanic ecosystems and fisheriesO Maury1,2, K Miller3, L Campling4, H Arrizabalaga5, O Aumont6, O Bodin7,P Guillotreau8, AJ Hobday9, F Marsac1,2, Z Suzuki10 and R Murtugudde11

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Oceanic ecosystems support livelihoods and supply food for

hundreds of millions of people. But these ecosystems are

deteriorating rapidly and many of the world’s oceanic fisheries

are in a precarious condition. In addition to well-known and

pressing fishery management issues, economic globalization is

connecting fisheries beyond the frontiers of the organizations

responsible for their management and climate-associated

changes are deeply modifying ecosystems, pushing them

toward new states and no return situations. The status quo is

not a sustainable option, and improved international

governance is urgently needed to address this situation. Our

proposition consists of an inclusive global science–policy

process combining major improvements to the present

governance systems, including new incentives for international

cooperation and coordination, with an ambitious scientific

program to help anticipate threats and opportunities and

integrate complex information regarding long-term issues. It

would constitute a major step toward sustainability.

Addresses1 IRD (Institut de Recherche pour le Developpement), UMR 212 EME,

Sete, France2 ICEMASA, Department of Oceanography, University of Cape Town,

South Africa3 National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, USA4 School of Business and Management, Queen Mary University of

London, UK5 AZTI Tecnalia, Pasaia, Spain6 IRD (Institut de Recherche pour le Developpement), UMR 197 LPO,

Brest, France7 Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Sweden8 University of Nantes, LEMNA, Nantes, France9 CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Hobart, Australia10 National Research Institute of Far Seas Fisheries, Shimizu, Shizuoka,

Japan11 ESSIC, University of Maryland, USA

Corresponding author: Maury, O (Olivier.Maury@ird.fr)

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:314–319

This review comes from a themed issue on Open issue

Edited by Rik Leemans and William Solecki

For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial

Available online 25th June 2013

1877-3435/$ – see front matter, # 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights

reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.05.008

IntroductionOceanic ecosystems provide major services, support live-

lihoods and supply animal protein for hundreds of

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:314–319

millions of people. But these ecosystems are deteriorating

rapidly, as evidenced by the precarious condition of many

of the world’s open ocean fisheries. Overcapacity, over-

exploited fish stocks, bycatch of endangered species,

illegal unregulated and unreported fishing, inequitable

sharing of economic rent between rich and poor countries

and unknown consequences for ecosystem functioning

are pervasive [1–6]. In addition to these well-known and

pressing issues, several profound and emerging chal-

lenges are not currently addressed: economic globaliza-

tion that is connecting fisheries beyond the frontiers of

the organizations responsible for their management and

climate-associated changes that are modifying ecosys-

tems and pushing them toward no-analogue states with

a risk of dramatic and point of no return situations [7–10].

Our vitally important oceans are threatened. Current inter-

national governance efforts are wanting and major

improvements are urgently needed. To this end, the

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon recently announced

‘The Oceans Compact’ (http://www.un.org/Depts/los/

ocean_compact/oceans_compact.htm), a new strategy for

the UN system to address ocean sustainability and support

the implementation of the UN Convention on the Law Of

the Sea (UNCLOS). The initiative is to be applauded for

the ambitious objectives promising ‘healthy oceans for

prosperity’, however, it is unclear how they will be

achieved. Without rapid progress and clear guidance on

how to support such strategy, the political will needed to

reach solutions may dissipate. Substantial improvements in

ocean governance are within reach, however, and practical

strategies and pathways can be devised. Our proposition

consists of an inclusive global science–policy process com-

bining major improvements to the present governance

systems, including new incentives for international

cooperation and coordination, with an ambitious scientific

program to help anticipate threats and opportunities and

integrate complex information regarding long-term issues.

This approach would constitute a major step toward ensur-

ing sustainability for harvested and non-harvested open

ocean species in a rapidly changing world.

Current governance issuesThe governance of oceanic ecosystems presently rests on

myriad organizations, treaties and policy process operating

at many scales, with various objectives and levels of per-

ceived legitimacy. At the core of this complex governance

system are intergovernmental advisory Regional Fishery

Bodies (RFBs) providing advice to member governments,

www.sciencedirect.com

Global science and policy for sustainable fisheries Maury et al. 315

and Regional Fishery Management Organizations

(RFMOs) tasked with management of international fish-

eries spanning national and international jurisdictions from

regional to ocean basin scales. Collectively, their purview

covers the entire ocean surface. These organizations have

contributed to reaching the goal of responsible fisheries by

compiling international fisheries data and bringing fishing

nations to the negotiating table. They have generally been

far less effective in assessing all exploited resources, avoid-

ing fleet overcapacity, minimising bycatch and preventing

illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing (e.g.

[11,12], however, see [13,14]). Progress toward implement-

ing ecosystem-based management has been uneven

[15,16], and the larger-scale and longer term impacts of

human activities on oceanic ecosystems, such as pollution,

de-oxygenation, ocean acidification and global warming are

insufficiently appreciated. In addition, there are few ave-

nues for RFMOs to engage in collaborative policy devel-

opment with national and international bodies in the

domains of biodiversity conservation, trade regulation,

climate change or marine pollution.

Many RFBs and RFMOs were created long before the

modern law of the sea was established. Despite notable

progress in this respect, their mandates have not always

been updated to incorporate recent multilateral agree-

ments regarding straddling stocks, biodiversity conserva-

tion, the precautionary approach or ecosystem-based

fisheries management. In spite of on-going efforts to

strengthen their performance, RFMOs have been ham-

pered by these historical and other structural limitations.

The problem extends to the very nature of their mandates

which mostly focus on establishing regional maximum

sustainable yield (MSY) targets by species, despite the

known dangers of this strategy and the global nature of

economic drivers. This is accompanied by institutional

challenges regarding membership, cumbersome decision-

making processes (e.g., consensus-based, veto powers),

lack of compliance [17], and the limited capacity of many

member states to implement management measures.

Furthermore, the attempt to accommodate short term

competing national fishing interests has often led to

political gridlock and neglect of available scientific recom-

mendations [18]. Consistent with their objectives, RFMOs

rely on scientific analyses mostly based on single-species

stock assessments that largely disregard the many interact-

ing social and ecological factors driving oceanic systems

from local to global scales and lack resources to consider

other scientifically relevant information. Some RFMOs are

further hampered by insufficient resources to support

scientific work, data collection, and fishery monitoring,

while others restrict access to data by outside experts,

seriously limiting the possibility for independent, transpar-

ent and peer-reviewed scientific analyses.

Some change is occurring. For example, the initiation in

2007 of the ‘Kobe Process’ has seen the five tuna RFMOs

www.sciencedirect.com

begin collaboration to improve coordination on monitor-

ing, enforcement, research, and development of policy to

support ecosystem-based fisheries management. One

positive outcome has been a more active involvement

of some environmental NGOs, industry groups and scien-

tists. Unfortunately, the rapidly declining state of oceanic

ecosystems and prospects for dramatic change [7–10,19]

require greater action.

To rapidly and efficiently move forward, we would endorse

Elinor Ostrom’s advice to be wary of policy panaceas (e.g.

[20]), which are likely to have unintended consequences

[21,22], and to rapidly implement a series of pragmatic

steps building on existing efforts and producing demon-

strable advances. Here we outline such a series of import-

ant steps that would result in further improvements.

Improved governanceWe propose a science–policy partnership that could con-

stitute an essential element of the UN’s Oceans Compact

regarding oceanic ecosystems and fisheries. While

detailed implementation may require further strategizing,

major progress could be made within a few years. Its

governance component relies on the existing governance

structure, and strengthens and extends it with additional

legal, institutional and functional elements:

1. Improvement, harmonization and strengthening of the

conventions governing the various RFMOs under

UNCLOS and other relevant hard and soft law

instruments such as the UN Fish Stocks Agreement

(UNFSA) and the Convention on Biological Diversity

(CBD). This would allow RFMOs to adopt a broader,

precautionary and more binding system-level

approach beyond their present objectives and enforce

cooperation more effectively in order to meet the new

conservation targets of the CBD for both exploited and

non-targeted species [23]. These improvements are

also fundamental to promote the sustainability of

fundamental marine services and biodiversity, recog-

nize socio-economic objectives such as food security,

support of local communities, maximization of fish-

eries rents and equitable distribution of benefits

among developed and developing countries [24].

2. The implementation of a new international partner-

ship, hereafter Partnership for the Sustainability of

Ocean Ecosystem Services (PSOES). This new

partnership, perhaps under the auspices of the Oceans

Compact, would gather the existing RFMOs, relevant

RFBs and other institutions and agencies responsible

for high seas management, including for example,

pollution, aquaculture and the assessment of related

ecosystem services. It would be important to connect

to the relevant UN agencies such as FAO, UNEP and

UNDP (Figure 1). The PSOES would lead participa-

tory forums for science-based policy developments

and management coordination at a global scale. It

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:314–319

316 Open issue

Figure 1

ICSUFuture Earth

SCOR

IOCIndustry

RFMOs

Policy

Science

RFBs

NGOs

UNEPFAO

UNDP

IPBES

IPCC

UNOceans Compact

CITES

WTO

CBD

natio

ns

PSOES ISPSOE

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

Schematic organization of the proposed science–policy partnership including the creation of the Partnership for the Sustainability of Ocean Ecosystem

Services (PSOES) and the International Scientific Program for the Sustainability of Oceanic Ecosystems (ISPSOE), both connecting and coordinating a

constellation of institutions in the governance and scientific realms. See [43] for acronyms.

would ensure consistency and synergy between

regional policies to efficiently address global issues.

This partnership would enhance the flow of infor-

mation across the multiple elements of the polycentric

ocean governance system at various scales, thus

improving the capacity to address the broader issues

and consequences of regional policy recommen-

dations. NGOs and stakeholders would be important

partners in the PSOES framework as the inclusion of

non-state actors is important to push policy processes

forward [13,14].

3. The final element is the systematic establishment and

implementation of binding management strategies

consistent with updated legal mandates for all

RFMOs. These would include firstly, systems of

limited access to fish stocks to avoid the ‘race-to-fish’

[25] which could involve adaptive dynamic zoning of

the oceans supported by secondly, effective satellite-

based fleet monitoring systems and observers on-board

all participating vessels. Ensuring compliance would

necessitate tools such as thirdly, adaptive multi-scale

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:314–319

systems of economic incentives and penalties that

reward complying or penalize non-complying actors,

and fourthly, efficient port controls in line with

existing agreements to identify the origin of landings,

combined with internationally agreed trade control

measures to ban access of non-compliant entities to

markets. Using adaptive trade control as a man-

agement tool would require new synergies to be

developed at the PSOES level with institutions such as

CITES and WTO. Finally, fifthly, improved coordi-

nation capacities and information exchange among

multiple actors would create incentives for collabor-

ation and facilitate avoidance of the tragedy of the

commons [13,21].

Improved scienceThis proposed governance system should be complemen-

ted by focused multidisciplinary analyses to develop

efficient strategies for sustainability and adaptation

[26–28]. It is clear, however, that the scientific community

www.sciencedirect.com

Global science and policy for sustainable fisheries Maury et al. 317

does not yet possess all the basic knowledge and oper-

ational tools required. We thus recommend creating a

science-for-governance program integrating across

multiple issues and scales. For convenience we nominally

term this the International Scientific Program for the Sustain-ability of Oceanic Ecosystems (ISPSOE), and suggest that it

be directly connected to the global change and sustain-

ability international scientific programmes and relevant

UN agencies (Figure 1). Although contributing to the

proposed PSOES goals and designed to inform policy

development, it should remain an independent entity

supported by international and national funding sources

[29]. It would furthermore provide a relevant contribution

in the oceanic domain to the assessments of the Inter-

governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the

Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiver-

sity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

Existing pioneering attempts to provide holistic views of

oceanic socio-eco-systems and better predict their evol-

ution (e.g. http://www.imber.info/index.php/Science/

Regional-Programmes/CLIOTOP) must serve as a start-

ing point and be strongly supported to unite broader

multidisciplinary scientific communities. Seven multidis-

ciplinary avenues are identified here that should be

addressed as priorities by the ISPSOE:

1. In the context of rapid changes and no-analogue

futures, shifting from locally valid descriptive studies torobust process-based knowledge is a priority. To this end,

the development of new observational tools focusing

on basic process (e.g. [30–32]), their use in worldwide

comparative analysis aimed at identifying universal

principles and their articulation to the development of

process-based models is critical.

2. Scientific analyses of social, economic, legal and politicalaspects of oceanic ecosystems and their interactions are rarely

used for management. Research in this area would

contribute to a better understanding of the role and

motivations of the stakeholders whose decisions drive

human impacts on marine ecosystems. For instance,

analyses of the effects of trade regulation, investment

and markets, the tendency to concentration in the

industrial sector, and the dynamics of competitive and

cooperative behaviour could promote the develop-

ment of more effective policies.

3. The deployment of novel global-scale observing systems (e.g.

[28,33]) to monitor currently under-sampled biological

components of the oceanic system such as mid-trophic

level forage organisms which support top predator

populations [34], or human components such as price

systems that underpin socio-economic dynamics for

fishing company decisions.

4. The development of data sharing tools to facilitate access toglobal data. These tools would synthesize and

standardize worldwide heterogeneous historic data

and gather new critical observations and outputs from

www.sciencedirect.com

simulation models. They would facilitate global

comparative analysis and stimulate international

collaborations. It is fundamental that all RFMOs

engage actively in this process so that all available

information can be easily accessible for scientific

purposes.

5. The development of short to long-term scientific scenarios ofthe evolution of oceanic systems. These are fundamental

for predicting future trajectories according to different

possible trends of driving factors and assessing a priori

the effectiveness of alternative governance strategies

and management options. Progress made in defining

broad-scope world-scale scenarios (e.g. [35–37]) should

serve as a framework for developing refined multi-

disciplinary analysis focusing on oceanic systems.

6. The development of Earth System models for natural-humaninteractions incorporating climate, biogeochemistry, ecosys-tems, fisheries and the world market. These are needed to

account simultaneously for the interactive dynamics of

the multiple, intricate, and multi-scale components of

social-ecological oceanic systems. Recent progress is

encouraging in this respect [38,39] but much more

needs to be done before this approach could support

operational management of the oceans [40]. In

particular, a better consideration of feedbacks that

can lead to whole-system bifurcations is required. In

this perspective, unifying mechanistic biological

theories (e.g. [41]) can facilitate formal linkages among

related disciplines.

7. The development of integrated sustainability indicators.These are necessary to synthesize and translate the

numerous projections and scientific advances into

actionable metrics for judging effective policies. They

are also critical for factoring long-term dynamics into

decision-making. They should be made easily avail-

able to a broad range of users including policy makers,

RFMOs, national fishery authorities, scientists, NGOs,

private companies, and media.

The focus on the oceans during the recent Rio + 20 Earth

Summit and the subsequent launch of the UN ‘Oceans

Compact’ promising healthy marine ecosystems and pro-

ductive fisheries for the future have generated high hopes

and expectations. An international political willingness

to address ocean problems has emerged but lacks a

concrete strategy. We now have a window of opportunity

to identify effective pathways to a sustainable future for

the open sea and for maximizing our ability to avoid the

unmanageable and manage the unavoidable. Our pro-

posed two-element strategy would greatly expand current

efforts to improve oceanic fisheries governance and offers

potential for down-scaling to address coastal issues. By

creating the capacity for achieving effective science-

informed stewardship, a broader and longer term

perspective may emerge which would allow substantial

improvements in sustainable and equitable management

of oceanic ecosystem services. The expected costs of

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:314–319

318 Open issue

pursuing a business as usual approach [42] emphasizes the

importance of new perspectives in delivering an

improved future for the open ocean.

AcknowledgmentsThis paper originated during two CLIOTOP workshops held in 2010 atUNESCO in Paris and in 2012 at the PUP Conference in London. Theauthors wish to thank all the participants at these workshops as well as theUNESCO-IOC, IMBER, GLOBEC and Eur-Oceans programmes forsupporting them. The authors also wish to warmly thank A Larigauderie, LValdes, R Lent, J Field, K Cochrane, W Broadgate, I Perry, Y-J Shin, PCury, G Munro, A Fonteneau, JF Pulvenis de Seligny and N Bondre fortheir comments on the manuscript which led to substantial improvements.OM, OA and PG acknowledge the support of the French ANR, under thegrant CEP MACROES (ANR-09-CEP-003), OB acknowledges supportfrom Mistra.

References

1. Juan-Jorda MJ, Mosqueira I, Cooperf AB, Freirea J, Dulvy NK:Global population trajectories of tunas and their relatives.PNAS 2011, 108:20650-20655.

2. FAO: Review of the State of World Marine Fisheries Resources.FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 569; Rome:2011.

3. Kaczynki VM, Fluharty DL: European policies in West Africa:who benefits from fisheries agreements? Mar Policy 2002,26:75-93.

4. Clark CW, Munro GR: The problem of overcapacity. Bull Mar Sci2002, 70:473-483.

5. Munro GR: From drain to gain in capture fisheries rents: asynthesis study. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper.No. 538; Rome: 2010.

6. World Bank FAO: The Sunken Billions. The economic justificationfor fisheries reform. Washington/Rome: World Bank/FAO; 2009, .

7. IPCC: In Climate Change: The Physical Science Basis. Report ofthe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (AR4). Edited bySolomon S et al.: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.

8. Hoegh-Guldberg O, Bruno JF: The Impact of Climate Change onthe World’s Marine Ecosystems. Science 2010, 328:1523-1528.

9. Babcock Hollowed A, Barange M, Ito SI, Kim S, Loeng H, Peck MA:Effects of climate change on fish and fisheries: forecastingimpacts, assessing ecosystem responses, and evaluatingmanagement strategies. ICES J Mar Sci 2011, 68:984-985.

10. Stramma L, Prince ED, Schmidtko S, Luo J, Hoolihan JP,Visbeck M, Wallace DWR, Brandt P, Kortzinger A: Expansion ofoxygen minimum zones may reduce available habitat fortropical pelagic fishes. Nat Clim Change 2012, 2:33-37.

11. Cullis-Suzuki S, Pauly D: Failing the high seas: a globalevaluation of regional fisheries management organizations.Mar Policy 2010, 34:1036-1042.

12. Flothmann S, von Kistowski K, Dolan EL, Meere F, Album G:Closing loopholes: getting illegal fishing under control.Science 2010, 328:1235-1236.

13. Osterblom H, Bodin O: Global cooperation among diverseorganizations to reduce illegal fishing in the southern ocean.Conserv Biol 2012, 26:638-648.

14. Osterblom H, Sumaila UR: Toothfish crises, actor diversity andthe emergence of compliance mechanisms in the SouthernOcean. Global Environ Change 2011, 21:972-982.

15. Lodge MW, Anderson D, Løbach T, Munro G, Sainsbury K,Willock A: Recommended best practices for regional fisheriesmanagement organizations. Report of an independent panel todevelop a model for improved governance by Regional FisheriesManagement Organizations; Chatham House: 2007.

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:314–319

16. Mooney-Seus ML, Rosenberg AA: Recommended bestpractices for regional fisheries management organizations.Technical Study No. 1, Progress in Adopting PrecautionaryApproach and Ecosystem-Based Management; Chatham House:2007.

17. Pulvenis de Seligny JF: The marine living resources and theevolving law of the sea. Aegean Rev Law Sea Maritime Law 2010,1:61-94.

18. Longo SB, Clark B: The commodification of Bluefin Tuna: thehistorical transformation of the Mediterranean Fishery. J AgrarChange 2012, 12:2-3.

19. Cheung WL, Lam V, Sarmiento J, Kearney K, Watson R, Zeller D,Pauly D: Large-scale redistribution of maximum fisheriescatch potential in the global ocean under climate change.Global Change Biol 2010, 16:24-35.

20. Rogers AD, Laffoley Dd’A: International earth system expertworkshop on ocean stresses and impacts. Summary report.Oxford: IPSO; 2011, .

21. Ostrom E: Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions forcollective action. Cambridge University Press; 1990.

22. Ostrom E: A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas.PNAS 2007, 104:15181-15187.

23. Perrings C, Naeem S, Ahrestani F, Bunker DE, Burkill P,Canziani G, Elmqvist T, Ferrati R, Fuhrman J, Jaksic F et al.:Ecosystem services for 2020. Science 2010, 330:323-324.

24. Biermann F, Abbott K, Andresen S, Backstrand K, Bernstein S,Betsill MM, Bulkeley H, Cashore B, Clapp J, Folke C et al.:Transforming governance and institutions for globalsustainability: key insights from the Earth System GovernanceProject. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2012, 4:51-60.

25. Hilborn R: Moving to sustainability by learning from successfulfisheries. Ambio 2007, 36:296-303.

26. Mitchell RB, Romero Lankao PR: Institutions, science andtechnology in the transition to sustainability. In Earth SystemAnalysis for Sustainability. Edited by Schellnhuber HJ, Crutzen PJ,Clark WC, Claussen M. Held MIT Press/Dahlem University Press;2003:387-407.

27. ICSU: Grand Challenges in Global Sustainability Research: ASystems Approach to Research Priorities for the Decade. Paris:ICSU; 2010, .

28. Reid WV, Chen D, Goldfarb L, Hackmann H, Lee YT, Mokhele K,Ostrom E, Raivio K, Rockstrom J, Schellnhuber HJ, Whyte A:Earth system science for global sustainability: grandchallenges. Science 2010, 330:916-917.

29. Polacheck T: Politics and independent scientific advice inRFMO processes: a case study of crossing boundaries. MarPolicy 2010, 36:132-141.

30. Cowen RK, Guigand CM: Ichthyoplankton Imaging System(ISIIS): system design and preliminary results. Limnol OceanogrMethods 2008, 6:126-132.

31. Wilson RP, Shepard ELC, Liebsch N: Prying into the intimatedetails of animal lives: use of a daily diary on animals. EndangSpecies Res 2008, 4:123-137.

32. Bograd SJ, Block BA, Costa DP, Godley BJ: Biologgingtechnologies: new tools for conservation. Introduction.Endang Species Res 2010, 10:1-7.

33. Duffy JE, Amaral-Zettller LA, Fautin DG, Paulay G, Rynearson TA,Sosik HM, Stachowiz JJ: Envisioning a marine biodiversityobservation network. Bioscience 2013, 63:350-361.

34. Handegard NO, du Buisson L, Brehmer P, Chalmers SJ, DeRobertis A, Huse G, Kloser R, Macaulay G, Maury O, Ressler PHet al.: Towards an acoustic-based coupled observation andmodelling system for monitoring and predicting ecosystemdynamics of the open ocean. Fish Fish 2012 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2012.00480.x.

35. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity GlobalBiodiversity outlook 3. Montreal: SCBD; 2010, .

www.sciencedirect.com

Global science and policy for sustainable fisheries Maury et al. 319

36. Carpenter SR, Pingali PL, Bennett EM, Zurek MB (Eds):Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Scenarios. MillenniumEcosystem Assessment, vol. 2. Island Press; 2005.

37. UNEP: Global Environment Outlook, GEO4. Environment forDevelopment. UNEP; 2007.

38. Maury O: An overview of APECOSM, a spatialized massbalanced ‘‘Apex Predators ECOSystem Model’’ to studyphysiologically structured tuna population dynamics in theirecosystem. Prog Oceanogr 2010, 84:113-117.

39. Dueri S, Faugeras B, Maury O: Modelling the skipjack tunadynamics in the Indian Ocean with APECOSM-E: Part 1. Modelformulation. Ecol Model 2012, 245:41-54.

40. Murtugudde R: Regional Earth System prediction: a decision-making tool for sustainability? Curr Opin Environ Sust 2009,1:37-45.

www.sciencedirect.com

41. Kooijman SALM: Dynamic Energy and Mass Budgets in BiologicalSystems. edn 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010, .

42. Noone K, Sumaıla R, Diaz RJ (Eds): Valuing the Ocean ExtendedExecutive Summary. SEI; 2012:17.

43. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO),International Council for Science (ICSU), IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change (IPCC), Intergovernmental Panel onBiodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES),Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), UnitedNations Development Program (UNDP), United NationsEnvironment Program (UNEP), Scientific Committee on OceanicResearch (SCOR), World Trade Organization (WTO), Conventionon Biological Diversity (CBD), Convention on International Tradein Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES),International Scientific Programme for the Sustainability ofOceanic Ecosystems (ISPSOE), Partnership for the Sustainabilityof Ocean Ecosystem Services (PSOES).

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5:314–319