Of all the interconnected threats facing the planet, the top two are the climate and the biodiversity crises. Neither problem will be solved if we ignore the ocean. To turn the tide in favour of humanity and a habitable planet, we need to recognize and better value the fundamental role that the ocean plays in the earth system, and prioritize the urgent action needed to heal and protect the ocean at the 'Earthscape' level - the planetary scale at which processes to support life operate. The countries gathering at COP26 have unparalleled political capacity and leadership to make this happen. COP26 could be the turning point, but there must be commitment to united action for the ocean, as well as planning to meet those commitments, based on science-led solutions that address the interconnectivity of the ocean, climate, and biodiversity. Key ways in which the ocean both contributes to and acts as the major buffer for climate change are summarized, focusing on temperature, but not forgetting the role of storing carbon. It is noted with 'high confidence' that the ocean has stored 91% of the excess heat from global warming, with land, melting ice, and the atmosphere only taking up approximately 5, 3, and 1%, respectively. We also highlight the impact of the recent large release of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere during the 2015-2016 El Nino. We then present six science-based policy actions that form a recovery stimulus package for people, climate, nature, and the planet. Our proposals highlight what is needed to view, value, and treat the planet, including the ocean, for the benefit and future of all life.

Over the last 200 years, human activities have released more than 500 billion metric tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, of which 27 per cent have been absorbed by the ocean, promoting a cascade of chemical changes known as ocean acidification. These changes are occurring at an unprecedented rate in the last millions of years, and projections indicate that by 2060, seawater acidity could have increased by 120 per cent representing a major threat for the structure and function of marine ecosystems. When facing ocean acidification challenges, it can be expected that there will be both species winners and losers. Those producing shell skeletons, such as corals and molluscs, are some of the most vulnerable groups. Unless they can tolerate these changes or quickly adapt, they will decline and may in time become extinct. The impacts of ocean acidification on molluscs, for example, are not limited to biological traits. Human consumer preferences and market attributes will also be challenged, expanding the impact to socio-ecological systems such as aquaculture and fisheries, which presents major implications for seafood production. Ocean acidification must therefore be recognized as a global challenge that adds extra weight to calls for urgent action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. In addition, we need to protect, conserve, and enhance both terrestrial and marine natural carbon sinks. Global action on emission reductions must also be coordinated with regional and local measures because of the interaction of ocean acidification with other environmental stressors (e.g., warming, hypoxia, overfishing and pollution). Global and regional scientific collaboration through monitoring and experimentation are essential for improving our knowledge about the impacts of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems. Extensive communication about these findings will be also critical in supporting the development of improved policies and decision-making aimed at establishing adaptation strategies to improve the health of the ocean and marine ecosystems.

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are conservation tools intended to protect biodiversity, promote healthy and resilient marine ecosystems, and provide societal benefits. Despite codification of MPAs in international agreements, MPA effectiveness is currently undermined by confusion about the many MPA types and consequent wildly differing outcomes. We present a clarifying science-driven framework—The MPA Guide—to aid design and evaluation. The guide categorizes MPAs by stage of establishment and level of protection, specifies the resulting direct and indirect outcomes for biodiversity and human well-being, and describes the key conditions necessary for positive outcomes. Use of this MPA Guide by scientists, managers, policy-makers, and communities can improve effective design, implementation, assessment, and tracking of existing and future MPAs to achieve conservation goals by using scientifically grounded practices.

Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater EcosystemsVolume 31, Issue 8 p. 2302-2303 COMMENTARY AND CORRESPONDENCE ARTICLE Response to Ota, Allison and Fabinyi on 'Evolving the narrative for protecting a rapidly changing ocean, post COVID-19' Dan Laffoley, Corresponding Author Dan Laffoley [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0001-6338-6244 IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), Gland, Switzerland Correspondence Dan Laffoley, IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, International Union for Conservation of Nature, 28 rue Mauverney, CH-1196, Gland, Switzerland. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorJohn M. Baxter, John M. Baxter orcid.org/0000-0002-0847-3318 Marine Alliance for Science and Technology for Scotland, School of Biology, East Sands, University of St Andrews, Fife, UKSearch for more papers by this authorDiva J. Amon, Diva J. Amon orcid.org/0000-0003-3044-107X Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, London, UKSearch for more papers by this authorJoachim Claudet, Joachim Claudet orcid.org/0000-0001-6295-1061 National Center for Scientific Research, PSL Université Paris, CRIOBE, USR 3278 CNRS-EPHE-UPVD, Maison des Océans, Paris, FranceSearch for more papers by this authorJason M. Hall-Spencer, Jason M. Hall-Spencer orcid.org/0000-0002-6915-2518 School of Marine and Biological Sciences, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK Shimoda Marine Research Center, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, JapanSearch for more papers by this authorKirsten Grorud-Colvert, Kirsten Grorud-Colvert orcid.org/0000-0002-4234-4499 Department of Integrative Biology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USASearch for more papers by this authorLisa A. Levin, Lisa A. Levin orcid.org/0000-0002-2858-8622 Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, USASearch for more papers by this authorP. Chris Reid, P. Chris Reid orcid.org/0000-0001-7728-6746 School of Marine and Biological Sciences, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK The Continuous Plankton Recorder Survey, Marine Biological Association, The Laboratory, Plymouth, UKSearch for more papers by this authorAlex D. Rogers, Alex D. Rogers Somerville College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK REV Ocean, Lysaker, NorwaySearch for more papers by this authorMichelle L. Taylor, Michelle L. Taylor orcid.org/0000-0001-7271-4385 University of Essex, Colchester, UKSearch for more papers by this authorLucy C. Woodall, Lucy C. Woodall orcid.org/0000-0001-7295-7184 Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Zoology Research and Administration Building, Oxford, UKSearch for more papers by this authorNatalie F. Andersen, Natalie F. Andersen orcid.org/0000-0003-1288-2568 Department of Environment and Geography, University of York, York, UK Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Penryn, UKSearch for more papers by this author Dan Laffoley, Corresponding Author Dan Laffoley [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0001-6338-6244 IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), Gland, Switzerland Correspondence Dan Laffoley, IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, International Union for Conservation of Nature, 28 rue Mauverney, CH-1196, Gland, Switzerland. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorJohn M. Baxter, John M. Baxter orcid.org/0000-0002-0847-3318 Marine Alliance for Science and Technology for Scotland, School of Biology, East Sands, University of St Andrews, Fife, UKSearch for more papers by this authorDiva J. Amon, Diva J. Amon orcid.org/0000-0003-3044-107X Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, London, UKSearch for more papers by this authorJoachim Claudet, Joachim Claudet orcid.org/0000-0001-6295-1061 National Center for Scientific Research, PSL Université Paris, CRIOBE, USR 3278 CNRS-EPHE-UPVD, Maison des Océans, Paris, FranceSearch for more papers by this authorJason M. Hall-Spencer, Jason M. Hall-Spencer orcid.org/0000-0002-6915-2518 School of Marine and Biological Sciences, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK Shimoda Marine Research Center, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, JapanSearch for more papers by this authorKirsten Grorud-Colvert, Kirsten Grorud-Colvert orcid.org/0000-0002-4234-4499 Department of Integrative Biology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USASearch for more papers by this authorLisa A. Levin, Lisa A. Levin orcid.org/0000-0002-2858-8622 Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, USASearch for more papers by this authorP. Chris Reid, P. Chris Reid orcid.org/0000-0001-7728-6746 School of Marine and Biological Sciences, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK The Continuous Plankton Recorder Survey, Marine Biological Association, The Laboratory, Plymouth, UKSearch for more papers by this authorAlex D. Rogers, Alex D. Rogers Somerville College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK REV Ocean, Lysaker, NorwaySearch for more papers by this authorMichelle L. Taylor, Michelle L. Taylor orcid.org/0000-0001-7271-4385 University of Essex, Colchester, UKSearch for more papers by this authorLucy C. Woodall, Lucy C. Woodall orcid.org/0000-0001-7295-7184 Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Zoology Research and Administration Building, Oxford, UKSearch for more papers by this authorNatalie F. Andersen, Natalie F. Andersen orcid.org/0000-0003-1288-2568 Department of Environment and Geography, University of York, York, UK Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Penryn, UKSearch for more papers by this author First published: 09 June 2021 https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3607Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. REFERENCES Bennett, N.J., Blythe, J., White, C.S. & Campero, C. (2021). Blue growth and blue justice: Ten risks and solutions for the ocean economy. Marine Policy, 125, 104387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104387 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104387 Web of Science®Google Scholar Laffoley, D., Baxter, J.M., Amon, D.J., Claudet, J., Hall-Spencer, J.M., Grorud-Colvert, K. et al. (2020). Evolving the narrative for protecting a rapidly changing ocean, post COVID-19. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3512 Web of Science®Google Scholar Ota, Y., Allison, E.H. & Fabinyi, M. (2021). Evolving the narrative for protecting a rapidly changing ocean, post COVID-19. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3568 Web of Science®Google Scholar Rudolph, T.B., Ruckelshaus, M., Swilling, M., Allison, E.H., Österblom, H., Gelcich, S. et al. (2020). A transition to sustainable ocean governance. Nature Communications, 11(1), 3600. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17410-2 10.1038/s41467-020-17410-2 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Sterling, E.J., Pascua, P., Sigouin, A., Gazit, N., Mandle, L., Betley, E. et al. (2020). Creating a space for place and multidimensional well-being: Lessons learned from localizing the SDGs. Sustainability Science, 15(4), 1129–1147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00822-w 10.1007/s11625-020-00822-w Web of Science®Google Scholar Volume31, Issue8August 2021Pages 2302-2303 ReferencesRelatedInformation

The ocean crisis is urgent and central to human wellbeing and life on Earth; past and current activities are damaging the planet's main life support system for future generations. We are witnessing an increase in ocean heat, disturbance, acidification, bio‐invasions and nutrients, and reducing oxygen levels. Several of these act like ratchets: once detrimental or negative changes have occurred, they may lock in place and may not be reversible, especially at gross ecological and ocean process scales. Each change may represent a loss to humanity of resources, ecosystem function, oxygen production and species. The longer we pursue unsuitable actions, the more we close the path to recovery and better ocean health and greater benefits for humanity in the future. We stand at a critical juncture and have identified eight priority issues that need to be addressed in unison to help avert a potential ecological disaster in the global ocean. They form a purposely ambitious agenda for global governance and are aimed at informing decision‐makers at a high level. They should also be of interest to the general public. Of all the themes, the highest priority is to rigorously address global warming and limit surface temperature rise to 1.5°C by 2100, as warming is the pre‐eminent factor driving change in the ocean. The other themes are establishing a robust and comprehensive High Seas Treaty, enforcing existing standards for Marine Protected Areas and expanding their coverage, especially in terms of high levels of protection, adopting a precautionary pause on deep‐sea mining, ending overfishing and destructive fishing practices, radically reducing marine pollution, putting in place a financing mechanism for ocean management and protection, and lastly, scaling up science/data gathering and facilitating data sharing. By implementing all eight measures in unison, as a coordinated strategy, we can build resilience to climate change, help sustain fisheries productivity, particularly for low‐income countries dependent on fisheries, protect coasts (e.g. via soft‐engineering/habitat‐based approaches), promote mitigation (e.g. carbon storage) and enable improved adaptation to rapid global change.

The ocean is the linchpin supporting life on Earth, but it is in declining health due to an increasing footprint of human use and climate change. Despite notable successes in helping to protect the ocean, the scale of actions is simply not now meeting the overriding scale and nature of the ocean's problems that confront us.Moving into a post-COVID-19 world, new policy decisions will need to be made. Some, especially those developed prior to the pandemic, will require changes to their trajectories; others will emerge as a response to this global event. Reconnecting with nature, and specifically with the ocean, will take more than good intent and wishful thinking. Words, and how we express our connection to the ocean, clearly matter now more than ever before.The evolution of the ocean narrative, aimed at preserving and expanding options and opportunities for future generations and a healthier planet, is articulated around six themes: (1) all life is dependent on the ocean; (2) by harming the ocean, we harm ourselves; (3) by protecting the ocean, we protect ourselves; (4) humans, the ocean, biodiversity, and climate are inextricably linked; (5) ocean and climate action must be undertaken together; and (6) reversing ocean change needs action now.This narrative adopts a 'One Health' approach to protecting the ocean, addressing the whole Earth ocean system for better and more equitable social, cultural, economic, and environmental outcomes at its core. Speaking with one voice through a narrative that captures the latest science, concerns, and linkages to humanity is a precondition to action, by elevating humankind's understanding of our relationship with 'planet Ocean' and why it needs to become a central theme to everyone's lives. We have only one ocean, we must protect it, now. There is no 'Ocean B'.

Protected areas are the cornerstones of biodiversity conservation and have never been more relevant than at the present time when the world is facing both a biodiversity and a climate change crisis. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) has been helping to set global standards and best practice guidelines in protected area planning and management for 60 years. Following this guidance, many countries have made significant progress toward their Aichi Target 11 commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The global community will be coming together at the 15th Conference of the Parties of the CBD to set new biodiversity conservation targets for the next decade, as milestones to 2050 and a vision of "a world living in harmony with nature." This paper lays out the WCPA perspective on priorities for supporting effective protected and conserved areas for the post-2020 era.

Marine ecosystems and the services they provide contribute greatly to human well-being but are becoming degraded in many areas around the world. The expansion of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) has been advanced as a potential solution to this problem but their economic feasibility has hardly been studied. We conduct an economic assessment of the costs and benefits of six scenarios for the global expansion of MPAs. The analysis is conducted at a high spatial resolution, allowing the estimated costs and benefits to reflect the ecological and economic characteristics and context of each MPA and marine ecosystem. The results show that the global benefits of expanding MPAs exceed their costs by a factor 1.4–2.7 depending on the location and extent of MPA expansion. Targeting protection towards pristine areas with high biodiversity yields higher net returns than focusing on areas with low biodiversity or areas that have experienced high human impact.

n amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

The term Blue Carbon (BC) was first coined a decade ago to describe the disproportionately large contribution of coastal vegetated ecosystems to global carbon sequestration. The role of BC in climate change mitigation and adaptation has now reached international prominence. To help prioritise future research, we assembled leading experts in the field to agree upon the top-ten pending questions in BC science. Understanding how climate change affects carbon accumulation in mature BC ecosystems and during their restoration was a high priority. Controversial questions included the role of carbonate and macroalgae in BC cycling, and the degree to which greenhouse gases are released following disturbance of BC ecosystems. Scientists seek improved precision of the extent of BC ecosystems; techniques to determine BC provenance; understanding of the factors that influence sequestration in BC ecosystems, with the corresponding value of BC; and the management actions that are effective in enhancing this value. Overall this overview provides a comprehensive road map for the coming decades on future research in BC science.

Our review of the scientific evidence for large-scale percentage area conservation targets concluded: 1.The 17 per cent terrestrial and inland waters, and 10 per cent marine and coastal targets from Aichi Target 11 of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 are not adequate to conserve biodiversity.2.Percentage area targets cannot be considered in isolation from the quality considerations.Protected and conserved areas need to be selectively located, well governed, and effectively and equitably managed to conserve biodiversity.3.There is no unequivocal answer for what percentage of the Earth should be protected.Estimates from studies considering a wide set of biodiversity values are very high; well over 50 per cent and up to 80 per cent.Studies that include a narrower subset of biodiversity values are lower, but rarely under 30 per cent, and always with caveats that they are incomplete estimates.Protected area conservation targets should be established based on the desired outcomes (e.g.halting biodiversity loss by 2030).4.The global protection of a minimum of 30 per cent and up to 70 per cent, or even higher, of the land and sea on Earth is well supported in the literature.The call for 50 per cent of the Earth is a mid-point of these values and is supported by a range of studies. 5.Implementation of large global percentage area targets can be achieved through differentiating the kinds of areas that need protection at a national scale, supported by nationally determined contributions in accordance with local conditions.

The Red Sea is a unique body of water, hosting some of the most productive and diverse coral reefs. Human populations along coasts of the Red Sea were initially sparse due to the hot and arid climate surrounding it, but this is changing with improved desalination techniques, accessible energy, and increased economic interest in coastal areas. In addition to increasing pressure on reefs from coastal development, global drivers, primarily ocean acidification and seawater warming, are threatening coral reefs of the region. While reefs in southern sections of the Red Sea live near or above their maximum temperature tolerance and have experienced bleaching events in the recent past, coral reefs in northern sections are considered a coral reef refugia from global warming and acidification, at least for the coming decades. Such differential sensitivities along the latitudinal gradient of the Red Sea require differential solutions and management. In an effort to identify the appropriate solutions to conserve and maintain resilience of these reefs along a latitudinal gradient, we used a SWOT analysis (strengths/weaknesses/opportunities/threats) to frame the present situation and to propose policy solutions as useful planning procedures. We highlight the need for immediate action to secure the northern sections of the Red Sea as a coral reef climate change refuge by management and removal of local stressors. There is a need to strengthen the scientific knowledge base for proper management and to encourage regional collaboration on environmental issues. Based on scientific data, solutions such as marine protected areas, fishing regulation, and reef restoration approaches were ranked for five distinct latitudinal sections in the Red Sea and levels of interventions are recommended.

A hundred research priorities of critical importance to protected area management were identified by a targeted survey of conservation professionals; half researchers and half practitioners.Respondents were selected to represent a range of disciplines, every continent except Antarctica and roughly equal numbers of men and women.The results analysed thematically and grouped as potential research topics as by both practitioners and researchers.Priority research gaps reveal a high interest to demonstrate the role of protected areas within a broader discussion about sustainable futures and if and how protected areas can address a range of conservation and socio-economic challenges effectively.The paper lists the hundred priorities structured under broad headings of management, ecology, governance and social (including political and economic issues) and helps contribute to setting future research agendas.