It Is a Balancing Act: The Interface of Scientific Evidence and Policy in Support of Effective Marine Environmental Management

Abstract

The marine environment is a complex system, and with growing human demand, the sustainable use of multiple marine resources is continually challenged. The increasing complexity of overlapping marine activities causes pressures on the environment. Here, we review the fundamental aspects for effective marine management, particularly the role of science and scientific evidence to inform marine policy and decision making. The outcomes of internal expert workshops were used to analyse currently applied marine management practices in the UK using four marine sectors in English waters based on the expertise: environmental impact assessments; dredge and disposal operations; marine protected areas; and offshore renewable energy. Strengths, weaknesses, and commonalities between these sectors were assessed in terms of their effectiveness for marine management. Finally, we make recommendations based on the outputs to better inform effective yet sustainable marine management. The importance of increasing accessibility to data, hypothesis-driven environmental monitoring, streamlining funding opportunities and ensuring effective dissemination of data to ensure scientific outcomes and achieve increased robustness of assessments is emphasised. We also recommend that assessment drivers align with the outputs and approaches should be holistic and engage with the public to ensure a shared understanding and vision.

1. Introduction

The marine environment provides a critical set of goods (resources) and services to support human well-being and prosperity, whether for fishing (food), transportation routes (trade), energy, tourism, or waste disposal [1,2]. Increasing human demands means the sustainable use of multiple marine resources is continually challenged by the complexity of overlapping marine activities in time and/or in space, causing growing pressures on the environment [3,4,5]. Hence, complex spatial management considerations arise if the policy of sustainable development is to be achieved. Integral to effective management, including sustainable use, is a clear process supported by environmental, social, and economic evidence [6] through an ecosystem approach.

Effective marine management is defined as “management that changes rapidly in space and time in response to the shifting nature of the ocean and its users based on the integration of new biological, oceanographic, social and/or economic data in near real-time” [7]. There is a clear need for technical advice and assessment to ensure marine planning and decision making are accurate, effective, and based on the latest ‘state of the art’ evidence, helping to underpin policy, regulatory and decision-making processes. However, despite best efforts, in some instances, this is not possible to achieve [8] due to a multitude of reasons such as resourcing and the uncertainty regarding the responses of the marine environment.

It is the prevention of negative consequences that has been the focus of marine management policy and legislative instruments, such as the European Union Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (2014/52/EU) and marine planning regulations (e.g., the EU MSP Directive 2014/89/EU, UK Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009; Planning Act, 2008). However, all countries also have policies for economic growth and social well-being, so there is a clear need to address these goals equitably within any decision-making process, particularly as and when any conflicts arise. Historically, there has been a single-sectoral/project-led approach to managing the marine environment [6,9,10]. This has led to conflicts and poor environmental management potentially due to overlooking multiple interacting (cumulative) pressures as they overlap in time and space. In response, there has been a move towards ‘plan-led decision making’, which puts sustainable development and strategic use of resources at the forefront of marine management, e.g., marine plans [11] and marine spatial planning (MSP). This involves balancing the current and future needs of society with the capacity of marine ecosystems to provide environmental benefits to truly realise ‘sustainable development’. The measures imposed to control the COVID-19 pandemic have had repercussions for national and global economies, and the role of sustainable development principles is a crucial component of the recovery. Sustainable use and development require us to safeguard human and animal health whilst enabling food and energy security. This is essential to support (and allow) the growth of marine economies as well as conserving and enhancing biodiversity. The process of marine management brings together regulations, policies, evidence, actions, and organisations (states and non-government organisations) in the context of sustainable management. This management requires a broad range of focussed activities to work together to reduce conflicts and achieve the strategic goals of a marine area [12]. There is a tendency for science and policy to be reactive but, with growing knowledge and more integrated environmental policies and legislation, there are aspirations to be proactive, for example through the development and implementation of marine plans [13,14,15,16]. Taking a ‘plan-led’ approach to decision making provides a framework to equitably consider environmental, social, and economic evidence through ecosystem-based management.

There are many competing societal resource needs in the marine area, such as food, energy, trade, transport, and tourism, as well as less tangible but no less important needs, like health, well-being and biodiversity and nature conservation [17]. Some sectors fulfilling these needs must be located where the relevant resources are available, such as aggregate extraction sites. Other sectors or activities need permanent structures such as energy installations, whereas others, for example fishing, are spatially and temporally variable. Some sectors will require use of the sea floor (e.g., cabling)—whereas shipping only requires the surface and parts of the water column, fisheries can require the surface, sea floor and the water column. There are also temporal as well as spatial considerations in the potential coexistence of activities in the marine area. Competing demands can be difficult to manage, MSP is an essential tool in effectively managing marine activities and supports the sustainable use of marine resources [18]. The MSP process aims to bring together regulators, scientists, policy makers and stakeholders in an integrated, all-encompassing system to avoid duplication and conflict and reduce complexity in marine management. It should support sustainable development, balancing current and future needs against the long-term protection of marine ecosystems whilst also providing greater certainty to the delivery of societal needs by marine industries. Marine planning processes also need to work across borders and sectors to ensure human activities at sea take place in an efficient, safe, and sustainable way to provide greater certainty for industries as well as delivering improved environmental protection (EU MSP Directive 2014/89/EU).

Figure 1 highlights the role of academic and applied research in understanding human effects on the marine and coastal environment as key to influencing policy and regulations within evidence-based ‘plan-led’ decision making. The schema presented in Figure 1 describes the flows of evidence through a typical ‘plan-led’ regulatory/policy decision-making process. To be truly effective it is important to conduct evidence evaluation and interpretation before it can be applied as advice into the decision-making process. Applied research is often commissioned to address specific regulatory or policy questions and as such is likely to require a lower degree of alignment before it can be utilised in decision making (shown by the wider light blue arrow in Figure 1), whereas academic research is likely to require a lot of aligning (or additional applied research, left-most blue arrow in Figure 1). Advice must be unbiased, based on the best available evidence and accessible to non-scientists; this is where engagement with stakeholders is critical to the evaluation and interpretation. When advising for policy, scientific evidence must be traceable and repeatable to ensure accountability. Applied research also helps to address gaps identified by policy, regulations, and decision makers. Furthermore, it is important that technical expertise is embedded within the decision-making process. This provides transparency in the process to explicitly show if and where evidence (and technical experts) feed into the decision-making process to help manage accountability, perceptions, and confidence in the outcomes.

This paper focuses on how adopting a ‘plan-led’ approach to decision making can be successfully achieved if it is centred on appropriate and robust evidence (as outlined in Figure 1). The aim is to show how understanding the component parts of the process is required to ensure an iterative and effective approach of applying evidence to develop an understanding of the marine environmental, social, and economic system is used (as depicted in Figure 1 arrows). Addressing this aim is important for effective marine management towards the goal of sustainable development and contributes to the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development [19]. The UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development recognises that marine management requires all these stages to progress towards sustainability, but to make progress, the strengths and weaknesses must be assessed.

We use four case studies to review the key components (Research, Assessments, Monitoring, Regulations and Policy) that are required for effective marine management and assess these components through expert knowledge of practitioners, the evidence–policy interface role. Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) expert workshops reviewed four foci (i) environmental impact assessment legislations; (ii) navigational dredging and disposal operations; (iii) marine protected areas; and (iv) offshore renewable energy development, on which the Cefas has extensive expertise and experience of working and advising on issues that are prominent in UK waters. In these four case studies, we review and reflect on the processes of using evidence towards effective marine management and provide analyses of how this is achieved.

2. Materials and Methods

A strong science evidence base is vital for the development of robust strategic planning and delivery of legal governance in the marine environment. In the UK, environmental evidence needs are currently met through the provision of expert scientific advice and the commissioning of targeted, public-funded projects. The need for fluid interfaces between science and policy is recognised as vital for effective environmental governance. Governmental scientific organisations have an important strategic position at the interface between marine science and policy through their role as applied scientific advisors. Comprised of technical and scientific experts, these organisations understand political and international governance, and can act as a translator of the evidence, in addition to assessing and considering technical issues. Such expert advisors are required to access the broad spectrum of evidence, from both academic and stakeholder sources, in order to provide rapid responses to inform changing government priorities and management of risks to the marine environment.

The overall process is summarised in Figure 2, and is further explained here. An initial workshop was attended by 15 advisors at the Cefas whose expertise is in applying science (applied and traditional research) to policy. The workshop attendees identified the components and flows of where evidence can be applied to drive, respond, and inform research, assessment, advice, regulation, and policy for marine management (described in Figure 1):

-

Research to understand the natural environment applied to inform the sustainable use and development of natural resources.

-

Assessments provide either predictive or observed changes. Technical advice takes the outputs of research and assessments and translates these into meaningful outcomes to inform regulation and policy.

-

Monitoring/Evaluation to determine if changes have occurred and, if so, to what extent as well as the causes of such changes (and if attributed to human activities, what additional mitigation or intervention may be required).

-

Regulations which can both drive the need for evidence (e.g., state of the oceans assessments) and also use evidence as the basis for the need for legislation (e.g., microbead ban).

-

Policy which sets out the aims, objectives, and vision of the government, requiring an understanding of the natural environment, its value, and its uses for society.

Figure 2. Summary of how this study was progressed. Boxes with solid lines (and dark grey background) represent separate workshops/steps in the process. Boxes with dashed lines (and light grey background) show what was determined in the preceding workshop box, i.e., the initial workshop defined the case study themes to be taken forward.

Figure 2. Summary of how this study was progressed. Boxes with solid lines (and dark grey background) represent separate workshops/steps in the process. Boxes with dashed lines (and light grey background) show what was determined in the preceding workshop box, i.e., the initial workshop defined the case study themes to be taken forward.

Each of these five components of marine management relies on the input of evidence to ensure uncertainty is reduced for the decision makers, but it is also important to recognise that there are limits to each aspect and no process is devoid of uncertainty or risk.

During the initial workshop, it was agreed that these five components should be tested, and four case study topics were selected based on the advisors’ current research interests and expertise. These steps were taken to show how the science–policy interface works in practice. The broad topic themes (

Table 1. Identifying foci for the case studies.

Foci	Areas of Potential Conflict	Timeliness
Environmental impact assessment legislation	Marine management approach	The EIA legislation is established but is still evolving with new knowledge
Dredge and disposal operations	Human activities from dredge and disposal	Dredge and disposal are considered an historic activity as it has been ongoing for decades
Marine protected areas process	Legislation	Marine protected areas are established for their effectiveness is yet to be quantified
Offshore renewable energy	Offshore infrastructure (renewables)	Offshore renewable energy is a relatively new sector where the technology is still advancing

) were chosen to reflect variation within the different areas required for marine management and activities, and the longevity of these themes.

After the initial workshop, half-day topic-specific workshops were run, where the assessment and advice process, as currently defined (Figure 1), was discussed and scored according to specific elements of the relevant components of the advice and assessment process for each activity. Groups of Cefas science-policy experts of between 5 and 8 experts in each workshop, who regularly apply the process across different themes and sectors, considered the effectiveness of the process, along with a measure of limitations. A facilitator person oversaw all the groups to ensure consistency in the discussions and scoring.

The four foci were scored for each of the five key components of marine management (research, assessment, monitoring, regulation, and policy). The scoring (see Appendix A) was undertaken by the same person using the forms (see Appendix B) shared on a computer screen so people could contribute and review throughout the session. The score for each element of the components was assigned by the expert group using the scale 0 (weaknesses) to 4 (strengths; see Appendix A). Where there was overlap between scoring criteria, a score half-way between the criteria was used (e.g., a score of 2.5 between criteria with scores of 2 and 3). Free-form text was added wherever necessary to explain the rationale for the chosen score. On completion, the scores were shared with the group via email for their review and agreement before being finalised by the facilitator.

We visualised the scoring for each foci through radar plots of the scores to be an effective communication tool as well as to capture the different dimensions and the relative strengths and weaknesses. This follows a similar method as [20] as the different components can be viewed together to give a comparative overview. The relative strength (cf. weakness) of each component identified as key to the advice and assessment process of each focal activity is displayed in the radar plots. The analyses of the focal activity workshops are presented in the following case studies. During discussions within the workshop, there were cases where the components used were combined between each of the four cases—the reasons behind this are noted in each case.

3. Results: Case Studies

3.1. Environmental Impact Assessments

Environmental impact assessments (EIAs) are a core assessment process for enabling management of the impacts of proposals and activities before they are approved under licence. EIA is a method used to inform decisions to be made on what activities can occur where and how. Whilst there are other tools and decision-support systems (such as ecological risk assessment, ecosystem-based management, and marine planning), here the EIA process was assessed due to their being a legal requirement, wide use, and application across marine sectors. EIAs can be used to inform other assessments such as the Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) or the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (Directive 2000/60/EC) assessment, as well as a way to identify other relevant parties to consult with (statutory consultees and wider public) during assessment. The scores for EIAs are shown in Figure 3, with the explanation for the scores provided in turn below.

Overall, EIA processes are well established within the UK across the range of marine developments. Research was deemed reasonable for evidence availability and specificity; however, confidence in this evidence was scored low (Figure 3a). The Assessment component is generally good; however, again, confidence in the assessment was a lower score. Monitoring and regulations were scored as strong except for the element of reviewing monitoring within the regulations (i.e., learning from monitoring outputs and adapting). The low score in Figure 3d is a consequence of the regulations only being reviewed on a periodic basis—it does not mean that the regulations are weak. However, regulations are reviewed and updated as and when knowledge advances, such as the most recent update to the EIA Directive introducing the impact of climate change. The Policy was considered as strong, although public understanding could be improved (Figure 2e). So, whilst EIA in general is well established, there were some weaknesses that should be addressed to strengthen EIA as a tool.

What was recognised during the exercise was that with emerging developments (e.g., tidal lagoons) in areas not previously considered for development (e.g., floating wind installations being placed further offshore), or new knowledge (e.g., the effects of increasing ocean acidification), there are a wider range of topics for which we have limited understanding of the impacts, which has knock-on effects on environmental assessments.

3.2. Dredge and Disposal Operations

Dredging for transport and reclamation purposes has been carried out for decades, resulting in a wealth of published evidence on its effects [21,22] (represented by high scores in Figure 4a). To accommodate the growing demands associated with increased offshore development and the use of larger commercial vessels using ports, there is an increasing need for dredging and dredged material disposal as components of construction of new infrastructure. Dredging and the disposal of dredged material to sea (including for beneficial use) are governed by both national regulations and international obligations. Figure 4 shows the scoring outputs for dredge and disposal.

Similar to EIA, dredge and disposal operations are well established, although there have been changes in recent years with the expansion of offshore wind farm array areas and cable corridors being designated as disposal sites to comply with The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention) and London Convention/London Protocol treaties given that sediment is being moved and disposed through sandwave levelling and other sea-bed preparation works.

All aspects of research relating to dredge and disposal were regarded as a strength (Figure 3a), which then fed through to the availability and timeliness for assessment (Figure 3b) and further to policy evidence and proportionality (Figure 3d). Monitoring overall had higher scores but identified a need for data being more available (Figure 3c). There were some areas of apparent weakness. The tools available for assessment include mapping software, international guidelines, and implementation of thresholds to indicate sediment (contaminant) toxicity but these all require expert judgement, especially the thresholds which are not pass/fail and therefore open to subjectivity (Figure 3b). Whilst there is a general understanding across national experts about the use of these tools, there can often be differences in the interpretation of results in respect to these thresholds.

The regulations which regulate dredge and disposal activities were scored low for ‘Monitoring/Review’ (Figure 3d) for similar reasons to the EIA regulations: there is no frequency for review defined in the regulations and is at the discretion of the Competent Authorities. It is recognised that updating legislation is costly and is therefore carried out when there is a major shift in understanding. Therefore, no recommendations are made here because the regulations are updated when the science or policy dictates a change is needed, although it is noted that any new provision will need to be tested once implemented.

That last area of weakness was regarding public understanding of dredge and disposal operation policy (Figure 3e). All policies are subject to public consultation but there is limited understanding of the specific needs and assessments, or how these can be driven by policy and/or social science. The approach taken for dredge and disposal operations is driven by national legislation and international treaties and guidance which the public may not be aware of.

3.3. Marine Protected Areas

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are part of a range of tools used for the protection of UK waters. There are three types of MPA which contribute to the ecologically coherent network of MPAs in English waters: Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs); Special Protection Areas (SPAs); and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs). There are currently 357 MPAs in UK waters, protecting 36% of the UK’s seas and spanning 318,248 km² [23].

MCZs are designated under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to protect nationally representative and rare or threatened species and habitats. SPAs and SACs are currently designated under the EU Wild Birds and EU Habitats Directives, respectively. SPAs protect areas identified as being of international importance for the breeding, feeding, wintering or the migration of rare and vulnerable bird species found within Europe. SACs protect areas of habitat, or areas which are of key importance to species (excluding birds) which have been identified as requiring conservation at a European level.

Scores are provided in Figure 5. The monitoring and assessment components were combined because of their intrinsic nature in the designation and management of these protected areas, i.e., initial monitoring is required for the assessment to be undertaken and the conservation status to be determined, but the assessments undertaken also inform the frequency of subsequent monitoring.

Marine protected areas now cover a large proportion of the UK’s marine area and, whilst research is undertaken to answer specific questions or knowledge gaps, the analysis indicates that the availability of evidence and the quality of the data are variable. This is reflected in the low scores of the ‘Research’, ‘Monitoring/Assessment’ and ‘Policy (Drivers)’ components, Figure 4a,b,d, respectively. A further complication is that often data are known to exist, but they cannot be obtained easily to inform assessments, thereby hindering their effectiveness and efficiency within the process. It is recognised that all research data should be stored on public databases to help with access for user development input to make the process easier.

A key factor for data quality is the data that are collected during monitoring to assess the overall quality of the MPA site and its features. The thematic area for ‘Monitoring/Review’ Figure 4c, was scored low because of how recent some designations are, and the size of the task to monitor all MPAs on a regular basis. Some monitoring is prioritised to help fill some gaps in knowledge which were present at the designation stage; however, this cannot be improved, since MCZs have statutory timelines for designation. Defra and its advisors do, however, have specific guidance for the quality of acceptable data and the minimum level of evidence required [24,25]. Priority monitoring is required to focus efforts on those sites of most concern (not reaching favourable status, or similar) or those with higher uncertainty, but all monitoring should be hypothesis driven and linked to appropriate conservation objectives and/or management measures. Such implementation would strengthen all the components in Figure 5a–d.

3.4. Offshore Renewable Energy Developments

In 2019, the UK became the first major economy to implement climate change legislation for Net Zero CO₂ by 2050 [26]. An important factor to reaching this target is finding alternative sources for energy production from hydrocarbon-based sources. A key resource has been the marine environment. Currently, there are 38 leases with operational offshore wind farms with a generating capacity of 7905 [27]. New phases of development have been announced and, alongside other marine renewable energy developments, it is envisaged that the marine renewable energy sector will continue to be a major contributor to reaching this ambitious target. The scores are provided in Figure 6 and discussed below.

Offshore renewable energy developments are still a relatively new industry, with the UK’s first major offshore wind farm becoming fully operational in 2003 [28]. This is evident when considering the scores. Data availability for research aspects was scored as ‘poor’, as there are many questions that have been posed and not all have received research attention. For those areas that are investigated, the data are not always freely available (Figure 6a). For those aspects that are required to be monitored, the score was relatively high under ‘Monitoring’ (Figure 6c). This was a result of high levels of monitoring when the industry was in its infancy to address uncertainty (hence why ‘proportionality’ was scored relatively low; Figure 6c). Under ‘Research’, data quality scores relatively high because, again, new areas of industry, especially those that set out to tackle a global problem such as climate change, attract funding to address issues despite some progress to address these over the last two decades. Overall, there were certain elements which scored low, and some reasons are stated as being similar to the other case studies. Data scored low in ‘Research’ (Figure 6a) for similar reasons as EIA and MPAs, i.e., the data are being collected, but it is not easy to find unless you are aware of its existence and is not always free to access.

Monitoring data collection should always be hypothesis driven and follow best practice; however, some decisions are driven by cost or legacy. For example, monitoring all environmental aspects every year, or multiple times a year would be disproportionally costly; therefore, often a compromise is reached to inform monitoring assessments (e.g., focusing benthic monitoring to areas of impact from seabed disturbance rather than a grid survey design comprising the entire site [29]). Any such limitations in data collection should be noted at the start of the process to understand what questions the monitoring is likely to be able to answer. There are also outstanding issues regarding understanding potential impacts because for newer industries, there are not enough monitoring data collected to determine long term impacts.

Policy, as a whole, scored relatively low (Figure 6e) because while there are policies in place and steps to increase the resource to support this industry from the government, there is little public understanding regarding the complexities of the environment and development that are required to be assessed and balanced by the regulators. Furthermore, policy development requires stakeholder engagement and public education on the marine environment and sectors as a whole, and there is no single approach or “quick fix” to resolve this.

The policies surrounding reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing renewable energy production have been largely developed based on international goals and targets, but this may not be achievable in the UK due to technological status, regulatory burden, equitability between environmental, social, and economic issues in decision making (e.g., achieving net gain for biodiversity, tackling climate change and sustainable renewable energy) or uncertainty in the underpinning science.

4. Discussion

Science-based evidence is clearly a core aspect of the decision-making system which feeds into marine policy, regulation, and management. Through the assessment of the four different focal activities by those involved in policy assessment and transfer of scientific knowledge, it was shown that overall there is a medium to high confidence (i.e., high scores) in the process(es) leading to marine management in the UK. However, there are important exceptions within each activity and across components of the process, and there are lags in incorporating new evidence into regulatory frameworks. The research that is undertaken in the UK, scored highly across all four activities, although data availability scored lowest under the offshore renewable energy activity. This is due to the wide range of issues that need to be considered for this sector (e.g., benthos, fish, birds, marine mammals, hydrographic conditions, contaminants, and underwater noise) and that our understanding of the impacts (regionally and cumulatively) is still in development. For all four case studies, some of the data are publicly available, either because the activity is driven by the UK government or because of the regulations, i.e., EIAs, must be available for the stakeholders to review and comment on. However, due to the competitive nature of offshore industries, it is unlikely that the raw data will be readily, easily, and freely available without the influence of the regulators and legislation forcing the operators to do so. For example, The Crown Estate lease requirements require data to be in the public domain, although there is often a time lag in their availability.

There was a similar overall trend in the assessment component of the analysis, with all activities scoring above ‘2’ for all elements, except for MPAs. For the other activities, the scores are indicative of the established regulations that underpin these activities and their longevity. In the case of MPAs, monitoring and assessment were combined due to the intrinsic nature of these for the designation and management of these areas. Generally, management related to MPAs in terms of assessment and monitoring is ranked “low” at present owing to the extensive network requiring surveys and evaluations and their effectiveness have yet to be demonstrated, especially in terms of pressures such as climate change.

While it is recognised that the theme of ‘human activities’ is broad, here we have demonstrated the utility of assessing sectors in a consistent manner and communicating clearly the strengths and weaknesses and, as such, this method could be used to assess other activities such as fishing, gas and oil exploitation, and seabed mining.

While the research and assessment component scores were similar, monitoring scores varied within each activity component. For instance, the methods used in monitoring of offshore wind farms scored “low” due to some monitoring not being hypothesis driven, or not being fit for purpose. For example, the effects on some receptors may take decades to manifest and require data to be collected for periods longer than the duration of a licence. This in turn led to lower scores for proportionality and confidence for offshore wind activity. Monitoring for dredge and disposal, and EIA generally scored “high”, and this is indicative of established methods due to the longevity of the activities and trends being available over time. Whilst it is acknowledged that not all areas of uncertainty can be monitored or investigated, and there will be some level of uncertainty remaining, priorities are likely to target the activities which posed highest risks, e.g., those leading to cumulative effects, or on a larger geographic scale.

To manage the marine environment, the UK has established regulations, and the majority of marine activities are managed under the same regulations (Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (MCAA), Marine EIA Work Regulations; Planning Act). It is of note that the activities considered here are all managed under one or more of these regulations. As such, the scores were consistent across the activities, generally scoring “high”, but with all activities scoring lower on the monitoring/review elements as they referred to the same regulations.

There are many more policies in place than regulations in order to set the ambitions and targets for the protection and use of the marine environment, hence the scores for policies across the activities varied. As with assessments and monitoring, the more established activities (dredge and disposal operations and EIA) scored higher than newer activities (offshore renewable energy developments and MPAs). Even between offshore renewable energy developments and MPAs, there were differences in that offshore renewable energy developments scored higher for the evidence base, and this tends to be because data are presented more timely (by the developer) and considered more robust in comparison to the evidence available for MPAs. MPAs have a higher level of stakeholder and public understanding due to a ‘bottom up’ approach where citizen science and the requirements for public consultation under the regulations play a larger role.

Overall, whilst there were some similarities across activities, the longevity of the projects occurring under the activities differed, which makes effective and holistic marine management policy challenging. To address this, the weaknesses identified above should be considered further to strengthen them and consequently increase confidence in marine management advice and assessment.

Common themes for improvements in marine management which came from the workshop outputs and analysis, and align with the priorities of the UN Decade of the Ocean Science for Sustainable Development for collaboration and an integrated management approach [19], were:

• Data accessibility: by having academia, industry and government share data platforms, with such platforms being more integrative for the combination of data sources and signposting to allow easier searches beyond the current situation.
• Streamline funding opportunities: using UK Research Council workshops and the Offshore Renewables Joint Industry Programme (ORJIP) as examples to call for scientifically robust policy and applied ideas in order to scope funding calls and then assess proposals.
• Driver and output alignment: to reduce unnecessary effort put into unwieldy reports which do not communicate the project and results effectively, but rather the provision of better/sharper products that allow the outputs to be more widely and consistently used and applied.
• Effective dissemination: by having round table discussions between advisors and regulators for an effective planning dialogue, leading to a more holistic approach to understanding and managing the marine environment.
• Ensure holistic approaches: to science, policy, regulation, and legislation to ensure the ecosystem-based approach to management is applied.
• Ensure Monitoring is hypothesis driven: and continue to monitor and assess new activities such as MPAs or floating offshore wind farms.
• Public engagement: so the public have a clearer understanding of why the government has certain policies and commitments, and how these interlink (i.e., the drive for increased offshore renewable energy production and the need to protect 30% of our seas).

Sustainable governance of the ocean demands a more integral and dynamic role for evidence. There are many examples of how the use and application of a sound evidence base has been essential to governance on regional scales, particularly when there is strong scientific consensus, clear identification of problems and solutions, and a convergence of cultural ideas. Evidence is especially needed to contribute to: understanding intergenerational and interspatial effects, addressing inherent uncertainty about the behaviour of marine ecosystems, and integrated ecological–economic models and assessments needed for adaptive management. However, the full image is not complete as there will be other aspects that will have to be incorporated into this iterative process (e.g., climate change) [8] and other emerging challenges (e.g., decommissioning of human-made structures; see [30]).

5. Conclusions

This paper has provided an overview of what is required for effective advice and assessment associated with marine management and how evidence is required at all stages. A series of focussed workshops were undertaken using Cefas experts on four different marine activities to identify the current strengths and weaknesses of the assessment and advice process and the utility of evidence to that process. It is recognised that this study was driven by experts within one organisation and only on four case study sectors, but the approach used can be applied across the broad spectrum of human activities and by other organisations.

Overall, there was medium to high confidence in the process(es), leading to marine management in the UK; however, the scoring for the components across the sectors varied, with the longer established sectors generally increasing in confidence, although not always. To alleviate this, we have made recommendations based on the review and analyses to better inform effective yet sustainable marine management, including increasing accessibility to data, ensuring monitoring is hypothesis driven, streamlining funding opportunities and ensuring effective dissemination so all can benefit from the scientific results and more robust assessments can be made. Additionally, we recommend that drivers should align with the outputs and any approaches should be holistic and engage with the public to ensure a shared understanding and vision.