The research team, led by PhD candidate Diego Bezerra from the university’s School of the Environment, began with a deceptively simple question: which of Australia’s migratory shark and ray species actually depend on waters beyond Australia’s control? To answer it, the researchers shortlisted 29 species that occur within Australian waters and are listed under the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species, an international treaty framework designed to protect animals that ignore political borders. They then developed network models, a statistical approach that treats individual movement records as connections between locations, allowing scientists to visualize how populations link distant marine regions into a single, interconnected migratory web.

The results were striking. Five species emerged as confirmed international travelers: whale sharks, blue sharks, shortfin mako sharks, school sharks and white sharks. Some individuals were recorded as far afield as South Africa, New Zealand, Indonesia and Micronesia, while others moved into offshore areas beyond national jurisdiction, the so-called high seas that cover nearly half the planet’s surface. For a white shark tagged off Australia to appear in New Zealand waters, or for a blue shark to span entire ocean basins, is not an anomaly but a routine feature of these animals’ life histories. Their survival, the study makes clear, depends on conditions in many places at once.

That dependence is precisely the problem. Bezerra notes that these long journeys expose sharks and rays to threats across multiple jurisdictions and political boundaries, each with its own laws, enforcement capacity and conservation priorities. A species may enjoy robust protection in one country’s waters only to face intense fishing pressure the moment it crosses an invisible maritime line. Sharks are threatened by overfishing and by being accidentally captured as bycatch when other species are targeted, and blue sharks and school sharks are particularly susceptible to bycatch because they overlap with commercial fisheries across enormous ranges. For a migratory animal, the weakest link in the chain of protection effectively sets the ceiling on its survival.

The study also exposed a more fundamental problem: ignorance. Of the 29 shark and ray species in Australian waters listed under the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species, 18 species, or 62 percent, had no published movement information at all. Only eight species had sufficient data to build network models, and just five could be confirmed as crossing international borders. In other words, for roughly two-thirds of the migratory sharks and rays that international treaties are meant to safeguard, scientists cannot say where these animals go, which routes they follow or which jurisdictions they depend on. As Associate Professor Daniel Dunn, a co-author of the study, puts it, you cannot manage migratory species by only looking at one part of their migration, and you cannot manage species or create policy when you have zero information.

Why is the data gap so severe for sharks when migratory birds, sea turtles and marine mammals are tracked in ever-greater numbers? The answer lies partly in the biology of the animals themselves. As Dunn explains, sharks do not breathe air and do not regularly come to the surface, which makes them much harder to tag and to detect. A satellite tag on a seabird transmits its position whenever the bird flies beneath orbiting receivers, and a surfacing whale or turtle offers regular opportunities for data collection. Most sharks, by contrast, spend their lives submerged, so researchers must rely on acoustic receivers placed on the seafloor, pop-up archival tags that must physically detach and float to the surface, or the labor-intensive recapture of marked individuals. Each method captures only a fraction of an animal’s true range, and coverage thins dramatically in deep water and remote ocean regions.

The consequences of this asymmetry ripple through international policy. The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species, often called the Bonn Convention, works by listing species across their range and encouraging member states to coordinate protection. But coordination requires evidence, and the new study shows that the evidence base for most migratory sharks and rays is simply too thin to support it. Network models of the kind built by the Queensland team offer a way forward, because they translate scattered tracking records into a quantitative picture of connectivity, identifying which populations link which countries and where conservation investment would deliver the greatest benefit. Yet with only eight of 29 species modeled, the picture remains a sketch rather than a map.

The policy implications are already visible in specific cases. Bezerra points to the whale shark, the world’s largest fish, as a cautionary example. Whale sharks are protected in Australian waters, but they migrate to Indonesia, where fishing could put them in danger. Understanding the different levels of protection between countries, he argues, is essential, because a sanctuary that ends at a maritime boundary offers little comfort to an animal that cannot read one. The same logic applies across the study’s other confirmed migrants: shortfin makos and blue sharks roam into international waters where regional fisheries management organizations, not national laws, govern fishing pressure, and school sharks move between hemispheres along routes that span multiple management regimes.

The researchers argue that wealthy nations with strong domestic protections have a responsibility that extends beyond their own exclusive economic zones. Australia, Bezerra notes, does a relatively good job of protection, but other nations do not always have the same capacity to implement strong measures. His prescription is practical: Australia should support neighboring nations through collaboration and by sharing technology and information. In practice, that could mean joint tagging programs, shared acoustic receiver networks, open data agreements and capacity building for fisheries monitoring in countries that host the same migratory populations but lack the resources to study them. Because the animals themselves are shared, the argument goes, so too should be the science and the tools.

The study lands at a moment when international ocean governance is undergoing its most significant expansion in decades. The recent agreement on biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction, negotiated under the United Nations, aims for the first time to allow the creation of protected areas on the high seas, precisely the offshore regions where the study’s confirmed migrants spend part of their lives. For such instruments to work for sharks and rays, however, they will need the kind of connectivity baseline this research begins to provide. The message from the Queensland team is ultimately one of both warning and opportunity: the ocean’s most endangered migratory predators are already telling scientists where they go, but for most species, the tracking data needed to protect them along the way has yet to be collected. Filling that gap, the researchers say, will require a much larger effort, coordinated across the many nations these remarkable animals call home.

Subject of Research: Migratory connectivity and cross-border conservation of Australian shark and ray species

Article Title: Sharks on the move expose the need for international conservation efforts

Article References: Sharks on the move expose the need for international conservation efforts. (n.d.). Original publication

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: Not provided

Keywords: sharks, rays, migration, conservation biology, satellite tracking, acoustic telemetry, bycatch, high seas, Convention on Migratory Species, Australia, marine policy, University of Queensland

The research arrives at a moment when maritime spatial planning, or MSP, has moved from an abstract academic concept to a binding legal obligation in many coastal states. The European Union’s MSP Directive, the marine spatial plans emerging across Asia, Africa and Latin America, and the target under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity to protect thirty percent of the ocean by 2030 all demand planning processes that can weigh industrial development against ecological integrity. Yet in practice, planners frequently lack a structured way to answer a deceptively simple question: which sectors depend on which ecosystem services, and what happens to human well-being when those services are degraded or displaced?

The framework addresses this gap by treating blue economy sectors not as isolated actors but as components of a coupled social-ecological system. Each sector, whether it is offshore renewable energy, commercial fishing, maritime transport, aquaculture, tourism or emerging industries such as floating infrastructure and deep-sea resource extraction, is mapped against a portfolio of ecosystem services drawn from established classification systems. These include provisioning services such as food and raw materials, regulating services such as climate regulation and coastal protection, and cultural services such as recreation, heritage and identity. By making these dependencies and impacts explicit, the framework turns what has often been an implicit, intuition-driven judgment into a transparent and auditable analytical structure.

What distinguishes the approach from earlier attempts at integration is its insistence on the socio-economic dimension. Maritime spatial planning has historically been dominated by ecological and engineering considerations, with human dimensions added late in the process or treated as constraints on otherwise technical decisions. The new framework elevates socio-economic priorities to a co-equal pillar of the analysis. Employment, food security, income distribution, cultural values, gender equity and regional development objectives are positioned as the evaluative criteria against which the consequences of sector-service interactions are judged. This means that a planning decision is no longer assessed only by its effect on a habitat or a species population, but by its cascading consequences for the livelihoods and priorities that those ecological functions underpin.

Technically, the framework operates as a structured chain of linkage analysis. In the first stage, sectors are characterized by their spatial footprint, resource demands and pressures on the marine environment, including physical disturbance, pollution, noise, greenhouse gas emissions and biological impacts. In the second stage, ecosystem services are identified and located, often using spatially explicit data layers that show where services are generated and who benefits from them. The third stage constructs the dependency and impact matrices, recording for each sector-service pair whether the sector relies on the service, degrades it, enhances it or competes with other sectors for it. The fourth stage connects these interactions to socio-economic priorities through indicators that can be monitored over time, allowing planners to track whether a given allocation of ocean space is delivering on declared policy goals.

This chain-of-linkages logic has significant practical advantages for planning authorities. It enables cumulative impact assessment to move beyond simply summing pressures and instead to trace how combined pressures alter service flows and, ultimately, human welfare. It supports scenario analysis, so that planners can compare, for example, an aggressive offshore wind build-out against a more diversified allocation that reserves space for small-scale fisheries and coastal protection habitats. It also creates a common language for stakeholders who often talk past one another. A fishing cooperative, an energy developer and a conservation agency can each locate their concerns within the same framework, which reduces the translation problems that have historically made marine planning negotiations slow and adversarial.

The framework is also designed with trade-off analysis at its core. The ocean cannot simultaneously maximize every use in every location, and the concept of the blue economy has been criticized, in some quarters, for promising growth without acknowledging the hard choices that growth implies. By forcing explicit recognition of which services are lost, degraded or gained under alternative planning scenarios, and by tying those changes to named socio-economic priorities, the framework makes trade-offs visible rather than hiding them in aggregated cost-benefit figures. This transparency matters for legitimacy. Coastal communities that see how their priorities were weighed, and where their interests were traded against others, are more likely to accept planning outcomes than communities confronted with decisions that appear to have emerged from a black box.

The study speaks directly to several urgent global policy conversations. The sustainable blue economy agenda promoted by international organizations envisions ocean industries as engines of development, but that vision is credible only if the ecological base of the economy is maintained. The framework provides a mechanism for operationalizing this conditionality: sectors can grow, but the analysis shows where growth erodes the service foundation on which other sectors and communities depend. Similarly, ecosystem-based management, long a guiding principle in marine policy, gains a concrete implementation pathway. Rather than remaining an aspiration, ecosystem-based management becomes a set of defined linkages, indicators and decision points that can be embedded in statutory planning processes.

The timing of the publication is notable. Global commitments to offshore renewable energy are accelerating, aquaculture is the fastest-growing food production sector in the world, and shipping volumes continue to rise even as nations pledge to decarbonize maritime transport. Meanwhile, the recently agreed international agreement on biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction, together with expanding networks of marine protected areas, is adding new layers of regulation to ocean space. Planning systems that were built for a quieter ocean now face simultaneous demands for industrial expansion, biodiversity protection and climate adaptation. The framework offers planners a way to integrate these demands systematically, rather than resolving conflicts case by case after they erupt.

For researchers, the framework opens a research agenda as much as it closes one. The authors’ structure invites empirical application in specific seascapes, where data on service distribution, sector pressures and socio-economic indicators can populate the linkage matrices and reveal whether the framework performs as intended under real institutional conditions. It also invites methodological development: the integration of ecosystem service models with ocean observation systems, the use of participatory mapping to capture local and Indigenous knowledge of service flows, and the coupling of the framework with optimization and simulation tools that can search for planning allocations satisfying multiple priorities at once. As more jurisdictions adopt legally binding marine plans, the demand for methods that can demonstrate the consequences of those plans for both ecosystems and people will only grow. This study provides a credible, general-purpose scaffold for meeting that demand, and its true test will be how quickly it moves from the journal page into the planning rooms where the ocean’s future is actually decided.

Subject of Research: A framework linking blue economy sectors to ecosystem services and socio-economic priorities for integrated maritime spatial planning

Article Title: Linking blue economy sectors to ecosystem services and socio-economic priorities: a framework for integrated maritime spatial planning

Article References: Pegorelli, C., Rayo-Luengo, S., Garcia-Onetti, J., de Andrés, M., Stojanovic, I., & Sanabria, J. G. (2026). Linking blue economy sectors to ecosystem services and socio-economic priorities: a framework for integrated maritime spatial planning. npj Ocean Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44183-026-00238-6

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1038/s44183-026-00238-6

Keywords: blue economy, maritime spatial planning, ecosystem services, ocean governance, socio-economic priorities, marine policy, offshore renewable energy, aquaculture, ecosystem-based management, npj Ocean Sustainability, Linking, blue

The research stems from a prominent decline in annual commercial lobster landings, which plummeted by 27% between 2016 and 2022. This alarming statistic propelled the Maine Lobsterman Association to investigate how socioeconomic resilience could be quantified and observed. By extending beyond just biological metrics, the project aimed to provide a holistic view of the lobster industry’s sustainability, accounting for the well-being of fishermen, their families, and the broader communities that depend on lobster fishing.

For two years, researchers collected and analyzed a wealth of data, employing both quantitative and qualitative methods. Through extensive interviews with lobstermen and various stakeholders, the team identified vital themes emerging from the lobster industry. This was not just a simple data collection effort; it was an insight-gathering mission that assessed the social fabric intertwined with the lobster fishery.

The team’s efforts resulted in the development of eight new socioeconomic indicators that allow for more profound monitoring of resilience within the industry. These indicators encompass factors such as coastal accessibility, operational condition, financial health, risk-taking, and personal spending, among others. Each factor is informed by extensive datasets gathered from state and federal agencies, offering a multi-faceted understanding of the economic landscape surrounding Maine’s lobster fishery.

Coastal accessibility, one of the highlighted indicators, reflects both the affordability and availability of waterfront housing—a critical aspect affecting the livelihoods of lobstermen. Rising housing prices, coupled with a surge in short-term rentals, have rendered waterfront living increasingly unaffordable for median-income earners. This dynamic has significant implications for the lobster industry, as it may force lobstermen to travel longer distances to access their work sites, ultimately leading to increased expenses and operational challenges.

Moreover, the study revealed regional disparities within Maine’s lobster industry. While eastern regions, such as Washington and Hancock counties, witnessed an improvement in operational conditions, areas in southern Maine, particularly York and Cumberland counties, experienced declines. Such findings underscore the necessity for localized data, as broad averages can obscure the unique challenges faced by different communities.

The socioeconomic indicators established through this research are not just theoretical constructs; they hold practical potential in guiding policy decisions and industry practices. They provide a framework for stakeholders to better understand the socioeconomic factors that influence fishery dynamics. As regulators and managers explore new policies, these indicators can illuminate the social consequences of regulatory changes—an aspect often neglected in traditional fisheries management.

Recognizing the data gaps that currently exist, further collaboration with private businesses and government agencies is essential. Some metrics, including personal spending and physical and mental health, were marked as “data poor,” meaning they lack comprehensive publicly available information. This gap signifies the imperative need for a robust data-sharing ecosystem among stakeholders—one that could enrich the studies and lead to more informed decision-making.

Interestingly, the study also highlighted the role of lobstermen’s understanding and perceptions in shaping socioeconomic conditions. Interviews indicated that fishermen have long noted the challenges facing their industry but have often lacked the empirical support needed to articulate these issues clearly. By quantifying their lived experiences, the new indicators bridge the gap between anecdotal evidence and empirical research.

Future research will not only refine these socioeconomic indicators but may also explore their application to other fishing sectors, such as clams and cod. The methodologies established in this study present an adaptable model for assessing economic and social conditions in various marine resource contexts. Expanding this research could enhance the resilience of not just the lobster fishery but the coastal economies that rely on diverse marine resources.

This effort transcends mere academic inquiry—it represents a collaborative commitment to safeguarding Maine’s coastal communities. By identifying and quantifying indicators that matter to fishermen and their families, researchers provide invaluable tools for regulators and managers. Through this research, fisheries management can evolve to more holistically account for the people behind the statistics, leading to a more sustainable future for both the industry and the communities it sustains.

Furthermore, this initiative exemplifies the broader mission of the University of Maine’s Marine Aligned Research, Innovation, and Nationally Recognized Education (MARINE) Initiative, which seeks to integrate multidisciplinary research with real-world applications. By connecting academics with industry and government, MARINE exemplifies how collaborative partnerships can generate innovative solutions to complex problems—an approach desperately needed in the face of shifting socioeconomic landscapes and environmental uncertainties.

As this research exemplifies, the health of fisheries is inextricably linked to the social fabric of their communities. Whether it’s the unaffordability of coastal housing or the declining number of commercial lobster landings, each facet of the industry contributes to a larger narrative. The indicators developed offer a vital lens through which stakeholders can navigate the complexities of the lobster industry, ensuring that both the resource and the people who depend on it can thrive together.

By shedding light on these critical issues, researchers are not only helping to preserve a staple of Maine’s economy but are also fostering a deeper appreciation for the intricate network of relationships that define the lobster fishery. The outcomes of this study could mark a turning point, providing a pathway for a more sustainable and resilient lobster industry.

The research provides essential insights, but it is merely the beginning. As collaborative efforts to improve data sharing gain momentum, the potential for enhancing the livelihoods of those engaged in the lobster fishery grows exponentially. Ultimately, the aim is clear: to ensure that Maine’s lobster industry can weather the storms ahead, both in terms of market pressures and environmental changes, while continuing to nurture the thriving communities that call the coast home.

Subject of Research: Socioeconomic resilience of Maine’s lobster industry
Article Title: Enhancing the Monitoring of Maine’s Lobster Industry Through Socioeconomic Indicators
News Publication Date: [Insert Date]
Web References: [Insert if available]
References: [Insert if applicable]
Image Credits: Photo courtesy of Theresa Burnham

Keywords: Maine lobster industry, socioeconomic indicators, fisheries management, coastal communities, resilience, marine policy, housing affordability, operational condition, data sharing