The marine environment is a complex system formed by interactions between ecological structure and functioning, physico-chemical processes and socio-economic systems. An increase in competing marine uses and users requires a holistic approach to marine management which considers the environmental, economic and societal impacts of all activities. If managed sustainably, the marine environment will deliver a range of ecosystem services which lead to benefits for society. In order to understand the complexity of the system, the DPSIR (Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response) approach has long been a valuable problem-structuring framework used to assess the causes, consequences and responses to change in a holistic way. Despite DPSIR being used for a long time, there is still confusion over the definition of its terms and so to be appropriate for current marine management, we contend that this confusion needs to be addressed. Our viewpoint advocates that DPSIR should be extended to DAPSI(W)R(M) (pronounced dap-see-worm) in which Drivers of basic human needs require Activities which lead to Pressures. The Pressures are the mechanisms of State change on the natural system which then leads to Impacts (on human Welfare). Those then require Responses (as Measures). Furthermore, because of the complexity of any managed sea area in terms of multiple Activities, there is the need for a linked-DAPSI(W)R(M) framework, and then the connectivity between marine ecosystems and ecosystems in the catchment and further at sea, requires an interlinked, nested-DAPSI(W)R(M) framework to reflect the continuum between adjacent ecosystems. Finally, the unifying framework for integrated marine management is completed by encompassing ecosystem structure and functioning, ecosystem services and societal benefits. Hence, DAPSI(W)R(M) links the socio-ecological system of the effects of changes to the natural system on the human uses and benefits of the marine system. However, to deliver these sustainably in the light of human activities requires a Risk Assessment and Risk Management framework; the ISO-compliant Bow-Tie method is used here as an example. Finally, to secure ecosystem health and economic benefits such as Blue Growth, successful, adaptive and sustainable marine management Responses (as Measures) are delivered using the 10-tenets, a set of facets covering all management disciplines and approaches.

The aim of ecosystem-based management (EBM) is to maintain an ecosystem in a healthy, productive and resilient condition through the implementation of policies and management measures. Although cross-sectoral planning may be led by a planning competent authority, it is up to the sector competent authority to implement the necessary management measures within their operations to achieve EBM goals and objectives. We suggest that scientific impediments to EBM are no longer significant to implement EBM operationally. Instead, we consider that approaching EBM within current policy cycle approaches would provide the necessary policymaking process step to operationalize EBM. In addition to enabling and facilitating collaboration, exchange, understanding as promoted by EBM, policymaking processes also require that policy is to be implemented through programs, measures, procedures and controls that have expected outcomes to “carry into effect” the policy objective. We are of the view that moving EBM from planning and objective setting to operational implementation is a management problem solving issues instead of a scientific one.

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.

Marine policy and management has to cope with a plethora of human activities that cause pressures leading to changes to the natural and human systems. Accordingly, it requires many policy and management responses to address traditional, cultural, social, ecological, technical, and economic policy objectives. Because of this, we advocate that a fully-structured approach using the IEC/ISO 31010 Bow-tie analysis will allow all elements to be integrated for a cost-effective system. This industry-standard system, described here with examples for the marine environment, will fulfil many of the demands by the users and uses of the marine system and the regulators of those users and uses. It allows for bridging several aspects: the management and environmental sciences, the management complexity and governance demands, the natural and social sciences and socio-economics and outcomes. Most importantly, the use of the Bow-tie approach bridges systems analysis and ecosystem complexity. At a time when scientific decisions in policy making and implementation are under question, we conclude that it provides a rigorous, transparent and defendable system of decision-making.