Thünen Institute of Sea Fisheries, Bremerhaven, Germany.
Institute of Marine Science (ICM-CSIC), Passeig Marítim de la Barceloneta, n° 37-49, 08003 Barcelona, Spain.
Sci Total Environ. 2020 Jul 1;724:138118. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138118. Epub 2020 Mar 24.
Ecosystem-based management requires an assessment of the cumulative effects of human pressures and environmental change. The operationalization and integration of cumulative effects assessments (CEA) into decision-making processes often lacks a comprehensive and transparent framework. A risk-based CEA framework that divides a CEA in risk identification, risk analysis and risk evaluation, could structure such complex analyses and facilitate the establishment of direct science-policy links. Here, we examine carefully the operationalization of such a risk-based CEA framework with the help of eleven contrasting case studies located in Europe, French Polynesia, and Canada. We show that the CEA framework used at local, sub-regional, and regional scales allowed for a consistent, coherent, and transparent comparison of complex assessments. From our analysis, we pinpoint four emerging issues that, if accurately addressed, can improve the take up of CEA outcomes by management: 1) framing of the CEA context and defining risk criteria; 2) describing the roles of scientists and decision-makers; 3) reducing and structuring complexity; and 4) communicating uncertainty. Moreover, with a set of customized tools we describe and analyze for each case study the nature and location of uncertainty as well as trade-offs regarding available knowledge and data used for the CEA. Ultimately, these tools aid decision-makers to recognize potential caveats and repercussions of management decisions. One key recommendation is to differentiate CEA processes and their context in relation to governance advice, marine spatial planning or regulatory advice. We conclude that future research needs to evaluate how effective management measures are in reducing the risk of cumulative effects. Changing governance structures takes time and is often difficult, but we postulate that well-framed and structured CEA can function as a strategic tool to integrate ecosystem considerations across multiple sectorial policies.
基于生态系统的管理需要评估人类压力和环境变化的累积影响。累积效应评估（CEA）的实施和整合到决策过程中往往缺乏全面和透明的框架。一种基于风险的 CEA 框架，将 CEA 划分为风险识别、风险分析和风险评估，可以对这种复杂的分析进行结构化，并促进直接的科学政策联系的建立。在这里，我们借助欧洲、法属波利尼西亚和加拿大的十一个对比案例研究，仔细研究了这种基于风险的 CEA 框架的实施。我们表明，在地方、次区域和区域尺度上使用的 CEA 框架允许对复杂的评估进行一致、连贯和透明的比较。从我们的分析中，我们确定了四个新出现的问题，如果能够准确解决，将提高 CEA 结果被管理部门采纳的程度：1）CEA 背景的框架和风险标准的定义；2）描述科学家和决策者的角色；3）减少和结构化复杂性；4）沟通不确定性。此外，我们还为每个案例研究描述和分析了一套定制工具，用于分析不确定性的性质和位置，以及用于 CEA 的现有知识和数据的取舍。最终，这些工具有助于决策者认识到管理决策的潜在风险和影响。一个关键的建议是根据治理建议、海洋空间规划或监管建议来区分 CEA 过程及其背景。我们的结论是，未来的研究需要评估管理措施在减少累积影响风险方面的有效性。改变治理结构需要时间，而且往往很困难，但我们假设，精心设计和结构化的 CEA 可以作为一种战略工具，将生态系统考虑因素整合到多个部门政策中。
