Please see below for specific edits allowed on this document (so that we can keep track of changes / updates):1. Affiliations (Suggesting mode) 2. Comments only on sections 1-6, 8-14 (unless it is your groups' section, in which case edits using Suggesting mode allowed) 3. Edits and contributions can be made by anyone, using Suggesting mode, to sections 7, 15-18.NB! Suggesting mode-see fig below: pencil icon at top right of toolbar must be selected as Suggesting (not Editing).

Managing the pathways by which non-native species are introduced and spread is considered the most effective way of preventing species invasions. Tourism and outdoor recreation involve the frequent congregation of people, vehicles and vessels from geographically diverse areas. They are therefore perceived to be major pathways for the movement of non-native species, and ones that will become increasingly important with the continued growth of these sectors. However, a global assessment of the relationship between tourism activities and the introduction of non-native species–particularly in freshwater and marine environments–is lacking. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the impact of tourism and outdoor recreation on non-native species in terrestrial, marine and freshwater environments. Our results provide quantitative evidence that the abundance and richness of non-native species are significantly higher in sites where tourist activities take place than in control sites. The pattern was consistent across terrestrial, freshwater and marine environments; across a variety of vectors (e.g. horses, hikers, yachts); and across a range of taxonomic groups. These results highlight the need for widespread biosecurity interventions to prevent the inadvertent introduction of invasive non-native species (INNS) as the tourism and outdoor recreation sectors grow.

In the Western Indian Ocean (WIO), local communities are increasingly assuming responsibility for inshore marine resources either on their own or through collaborative management arrangements with governments or non-state actors. In this paper, we trace the evolution and expansion of community management in the WIO and present the first ever inventory and assessment of the region’s locally managed marine areas (LMMAs). We compare the key attributes of these areas to those under government stewardship and assess their relative contributions to progress towards the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) target of 10% of marine and coastal ecological regions to be effectively conserved by 2020. We also explore the legal frameworks that underpin locally managed marine initiatives in Kenya, Madagascar, Mozambique and Tanzania to assess the potential for future expansion. A principal finding is that whilst LMMAs protect more than 11,000 square kilometres of marine resource in the WIO, they are hampered by underdeveloped local and national legal structures and enforcement mechanisms. In our recommendations to improve local management, we suggest establishing a network of LMMA practitioners in the WIO region to share experiences and best practice.

Marine protected areas (MPAs) and freshwater protected areas (FPAs), collectively aquatic protected areas (APAs), share many commonalities in their design, establishment, and management, suggesting great potential for sharing lessons learned. However, surprisingly little has been exchanged to date, and both realms of inquiry and practice have progressed mostly independent of each other. This paper builds on a session held at the 7th World Fisheries Congress in Busan, South Korea, in May 2016, which explored crossover lessons between marine and freshwater realms, and included case studies of four MPAs and five FPAs (or clusters of FPAs) from nine countries. This review uses the case studies to explore similarities, differences, and transferrable lessons between MPAs and FPAs under five themes: (1) ecological system; (2) establishment approaches; (3) effectiveness monitoring; (4) sustaining APAs; and (5) challenges and external threats. Ecological differences between marine and freshwater environments may necessitate different approaches for collecting species and habitat data to inform APA design, establishment and monitoring, but once collected, similar spatial ecological tools can be applied in both realms. In contrast, many similarities exist in the human dimension of both MPA and FPA establishment and management, highlighting clear opportunities for exchanging lessons related to stakeholder engagement and support, and for using similar socio‐economic and governance assessment methods to address data gaps in both realms. Regions that implement MPAs and FPAs could work together to address shared challenges, such as developing mechanisms for diversified and sustained funding, and employing integrated coastal/watershed management to address system‐level threats. Collaboration across realms could facilitate conservation of diadromous species in both marine and freshwater habitats. Continued exchange and increased collaboration would benefit both realms, and may be facilitated by defining shared terminology, holding cross‐disciplinary conferences or sessions, publishing inclusive papers, and proposing joint projects.

No abstract