WOA3, Section 4, Chapter 6, Subchapter 6C: Marine infrastructure outside of coastal areas

Marine infrastructure outside of coastal areas

Writing team: Constantine Michailides (coordinating author), Kwasi Appeaning Addo (co-lead member), Paulette Bynoe, Alex Faerman, Senia Febrica, Ellinor Forje, Sérgio Jesus, Eva Loukogeorgaki, Ongezwa Mpisana, Jorge Ramos, Arshad Rawat, Rodrigo Rojas, Liliana Rusu, Wei Shi, Vasily Smolyanitsky (lead member) and Stefanos Xenarios.

Key points

  • Marine infrastructure development beyond coastal areas has intensified pressures on marine ecosystems, including marine noise, seawater quality and changes to hydrodynamic circulation.
  • Climate change and adaptation strategies are expected to pose significant risks to marine infrastructure.
  • There has been an increasing focus on developing proactive infrastructure strategies to adapt to hazards, including nature-based solutions, buffer zones, physical barriers and systems for early warning and evacuation.
  • Over the next 10 to 20 years, marine infrastructure development presents major challenges, especially with respect to climate change, but also offers opportunities for innovation, sustainable growth, enhanced security and greater resilience.

1. Introduction

The ocean offers immense potential for clean energy, resource exploitation and food production, which has led to a surge in marine infrastructure development beyond traditional coastal areas, leading to a significant increase.

Marine infrastructure development offers opportunities to meet societal needs but poses challenges and pressures, such as the potential disruption of marine ecosystems and conflicts with existing maritime activities. Marine infrastructure, including offshore wind and subsea structures, cables, platforms and pipelines, aquaculture facilities and floating islands, exerts extensive and widespread pressures throughout its life cycle, encompassing installation, operation, maintenance and decommissioning Ref 14 Ref 12.

Marine infrastructure development beyond coastal areas has intensified, driven by technological advancements and growing demand for offshore resources Ref 29. Marine infrastructure places significant pressure on ocean ecosystems associated with loss or disruption of natural habitats and species, alteration of oceanographic processes and ecological and geomorphic connectivity, noise and vibration generation, decline in marine biodiversity and the introduction of invasive species (Heery and others, 2017; Bishop and others, 2017; Firth and others, 2016; Chapman and Bulleri, 2003; Duarte and others, 2021(a) and (b); Firth and others, 2016; Airoldi and others, 2015).

2. Changes since the publication of the second World Ocean Assessment

Multiple factors have contributed to changes in pressures on the open ocean in recent years. While new pressures have emerged, some align with trends previously described in the second World Ocean Assessment.

Since the publication of the second World Ocean Assessment, offshore wind farms have expanded notably, while oil and gas infrastructure development has accelerated Ref 39. In addition, substantial developments have occurred in submarine cables and pipelines; there are 550 active or planned cables that span over 1.4 million km worldwide (The Economist, 2023). Advancements in robotics, material science and underwater communication have significantly improved the feasibility of deep-sea exploration and resource extraction, which were previously out of reach in some cases.

Meanwhile, climate change impacts have become more pronounced in the past few years. Warming seas and ocean acidification continue to negatively affect marine ecosystems, with cascading effects on human communities that rely on ocean resources (Commission for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Comission), 2024; Short and others, 2021). There is growing recognition that these pressures disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, including marine communities in developing countries and small island nations, especially in polar oceans.

According to Bugnot and others (2021) and global analyses of existing and planned marine construction and its impact on the seascape, the spread of marine infrastructure is among the most significant human alterations to global seascapes. Maps illustrating ocean industrialization at a global scale highlight shifts in some of the largest and most economically significant activities at sea Ref 56. The expansion of marine infrastructure beyond coastal areas represents a dynamic intersection of technological innovation, economic necessity and strategic planning.

There are ongoing efforts to develop comprehensive databases containing information on and maps of marine infrastructure. Existing online maps and databases cover different disciplinary themes, including geology, physics, energy, minerals, biology, seabed habitats, spatial planning and human activities, while also offering data and information on blue economy operations (European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet), 2024; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), 2024; Mid-Atlantic Ocean Data Portal (MARCO), 2024; Open Infrastructure Map, 2024; European Maritime Affairs, 2024)

Marine energy infrastructure

The evolution of the offshore oil and gas sector has been complex, with some regions shifting towards decommissioning while others expand exploration Ref 58. Oil and gas platforms are usually located on the continental shelf, but technological advances have enabled drilling in deeper waters, such as those in the Gulf of Mexico, the North Sea and off the coast of Brazil Ref 75 Ref 16 Ref 73 and other operations in more challenging environments. The oil and gas industry has the potential to play a significant role in the sustainable energy transition.

Offshore wind energy has grown remarkably, as larger turbines have been deployed further offshore. Wind farms are typically located in shallow waters up to 50 m deep, but their installation has been moved further offshore to capture stronger and more consistent wind resources. Floating wind farms are also being developed for deeper waters, including those in the North Sea (Gusatu and others, 2021) and along the Atlantic coast of the United States Ref 4 Ref 59. However, better planning and optimization of locations are required to induce the modification of atmospheric dynamics and, consequently, wind speed reductions (extending as far as more than 40 km downwind from the farm) Ref 2. The countries that have the most consistent environmental and regulatory policies and that have a tendency to use renewable energy technologies have been the fastest to implement these wind turbines Ref 41. The areas with the greatest potential for offshore wind energy production are located mainly in Asia (on the China Sea) and Europe (on the North Sea, western part of the Baltic Sea and East Atlantic) Ref 22.

Wave and tidal energy installations are placed in areas with strong tidal currents and significant wave activity, often near the coast but sometimes further out to harness stronger resources Ref 40. Progress has been made on tidal energy projects, and several commercial-scale installations are now operational. Wave energy converters represent a promising technology for future deployment Ref 48.

Shipping and navigation infrastructure

Deepwater ports are located further offshore to accommodate large vessels that cannot navigate closer due to depth constraints. Transoceanic shipping routes have led to the development of infrastructure supporting shipping lanes that traverse open oceans, including emergency response facilities. Seaports, due to their strategic locations and infrastructure, are emerging as pivotal hubs for the production, storage and distribution of green hydrogen Ref 51.

Subsea cables and pipelines

Subsea communication cables are used to respond to the demand for global connectivity, which leads to extensive networks of submarine cables crossing ocean basins. Subsea cable installations have increased significantly, forming a critical part of global communications infrastructure (Submarine Cable Map, 2023). A systematic review of the current security threats to the European Union subsea data cable network Ref 6 contains several recommendations on how to improve the resilience of the network. Oil and gas pipelines connecting offshore platforms to coastal refineries and distribution networks usually follow the most direct and safest route along the seabed. The development of renewable marine infrastructure requires the development of new routes for power transmission cables to connect offshore renewable energy (ORE) sources to onshore grids Ref 13. Recent incidents involving cable damage and geopolitical tensions have led to a greater emphasis on safeguarding undersea infrastructure. For example, naval exercises have been conducted specifically to protect submarine cables and pipelines (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2024).

Other technologies

With advancements in underwater technology, there is increasing interest in mining the deep seabed for minerals, including polymetallic nodules, cobalt and rare earth elements, particularly in the Clarion- Clipperton Zone in the Pacific Ocean. Offshore aquaculture has also expanded significantly, with larger fish farms deployed further offshore Ref 28. Combining energy production, food systems and resource extraction within shared offshore spaces is a common future pathway globally Ref 15. One growing trend involves the utilization of multi-use platforms combining different industries, such as offshore energy production (wind, solar or tidal) with aquaculture and desalination plants.

4. Interactions with and effects on marine ecosystems and human well-being

Marine infrastructure interacts with ecosystems on multiple temporal scales. Short-term construction activities cause immediate disturbances, while long-term interactions involve changes to ecosystem structure and function Ref 14. Infrastructure significantly impacts seabed ecosystems but may also increase habitat heterogeneity Ref 12. Increased underwater noise pollution affects marine life behaviour and physiology Ref 52. Large-scale infrastructure can alter local hydrodynamics, potentially affecting sediment transport and larval dispersal Ref 71. Socioeconomic impacts include job creation and the potential disruption of traditional maritime activities Ref 34. The expansion of marine infrastructure has implications for human health, both positive and potentially negative Ref 8.

Far-field marine noise

Ocean noise perturbs the oceanic environment and impacts marine life to an extent that is still not completely understood (Duarte and others, 2021(a)). Some species are more sensitive to short but powerful impulsive bursts, while others are deeply affected by continuous low power disturbances Ref 42. Depending on the power and frequency of noise and the physical properties of the ocean, acoustic waves can propagate rapidly to long distances (Jensen and others 1994; Nieukirk and others 2004). While the noise generated by offshore infrastructure is only one component of overall anthropogenic noise Ref 63, it is an important one because of its persistence.

The noise generated by offshore infrastructure can be categorized according to three phases of the infrastructure life cycle: installation, operation and decommissioning. Depending on the specific type of infrastructure, installation may involve the bottom fixing or bottom laying of cables or pipes Ref 38. Preparatory work generally encompasses careful sounding of the bottom and sub-bottom, which often requires extensive light seismic surveys at the site and on the route to the site Ref 18. The sound sources used in such surveys can be very harmful for sensitive species at the local or regional level (Duarte and others, 2021(a); Spadoni and others, 2023). During installation, pile driving and dredging are the most common sources of noise Ref 3.

During the operation phase, underwater noise is generated by structural moving parts, turning engines and other specific sound-emitting machinery. Machinery, turbines and other engines above water transmit vibrations through the submerged supporting structure or through the water interface. Although levels are low relative to shipping noise, underwater noise from wind farms can be substantially higher Ref 69. Offshore infrastructure also generates a significant acoustic particle acceleration signature that is highly disturbing for species living near the ocean bottom, the sea surface and the infrastructure that supports wind turbines Ref 62 and marine energy converters Ref 57.

Wave and current circulation patterns

Hydrocarbon extraction platforms and subsea infrastructure can modify local hydrodynamics by creating physical barriers that affect sediment transport and coastal erosion processes Ref 23. 

Offshore aquaculture installations similarly affect local water flow and wave patterns, affecting nutrient distribution and sedimentation in the surrounding areas Ref 72.

Seawater quality and marine mammals

Hydrocarbon extraction can lead to water pollution through oil spills, drilling muds and produced water discharge, which can contain hydrocarbons and heavy metals, affecting seawater quality and impacting the food-chain Ref 23. Marine renewable energy devices generally have less severe impacts, although they can release antifouling agents and other chemicals used to maintain equipment (International Energy Agency (IEA), 2019). Offshore aquaculture can cause nutrient enrichment and organic matter accumulation, potentially leading to eutrophication and harmful algal blooms, thereby degrading water quality Ref 72.

Marine mammals can be affected by offshore activities, primarily through noise pollution, physical barriers and water quality degradation. Noise from hydrocarbons extraction and renewable energy installations can disrupt marine mammal behaviour and communication Ref 23. Offshore aquaculture poses entanglement risks and disrupts natural foraging patterns and habitats Ref 72. Undersea cables, although less impactful, generate electromagnetic fields that can affect marine mammals, especially when high voltages are involved.

Seabed interaction

Deep seabed mining generates negative impacts to human health through three possible pathways, most importantly through its impacts on fish stocks and fisheries. Semi-permanent ships, support platforms and riser pipes transporting mined minerals may interrupt fish migration due to light and noise pollution. The collective impact on global fisheries has repercussions for food security, especially for Indigenous Peoples and local communities that are highly dependent on the marine ecosystem as their main source of nutrition Ref 31. Moreover, increased ambient concentrations of metals, such as copper, lead, zinc, cadmium and rare earth metals, in marine ecosystems may accumulate and enter the human food web Ref 32. There is concern that seabed mining will disturb and resuspend seabed sediments, potentially releasing sequestered carbon Ref 31.

Health and well-being

Marine infrastructure is vital to advancing national economic and security interests. Improving marine infrastructure, such as seaports and shipyards, could improve human well-being by reducing consumer prices, creating new jobs and assisting local communities in marketing their seafood and farming products to other areas. However, marine infrastructure planning and development is often marked by a failure to include Indigenous Peoples and local communities in decision-making processes and to consider the environmental impacts on neighbouring coastal communities and ecosystems Ref 44 Ref 45. Environmental impact assessments are undertaken on a project-specific basis, without consideration being given to the dynamic nature of ocean and coastal ecosystems and without an assessment of the cumulative impacts associated with marine infrastructure developments Ref 67.

5. Conclusion

Marine infrastructure development outside coastal areas has intensified, introducing new pressures on marine ecosystems. While offering economic benefits and potential contributions to sustainable energy and food production, such development presents complex challenges for marine ecosystem health and ocean governance. Primarily, climate change, adaptation strategies and resilience reflected by rising sea levels and more frequent extreme weather events are expected to pose significant risks to marine infrastructure (Talukder and others, 2022).

The advantages of deploying environmentally friendly emerging technologies whose benefits are demonstrated by relevant extensive life-cycle analyses across the entire life cycle of marine infrastructure could contribute significantly to the predicted technological and economic benefits and to sustainable energy. Many Governments are adopting more integrated approaches to marine management, considering the interconnections between land and marine use, development, natural hazards and environmental protection Ref 21.

There is an increasing focus on developing proactive infrastructure strategies to adapt to hazards, which may include nature-based solutions, buffer zones, physical barriers like seawalls, retreat and protect approaches, and systems for early warning and evacuations. While developed nations focus on adaptation and resilience, many developing countries may struggle with basic marine infrastructure needs, potentially widening the global infrastructure gap.

Over the next 10 to 20 years, marine infrastructure poses significant challenges, particularly from a climate change perspective, but also presents opportunities for innovation, sustainable development, security and improved resilience. Proactive planning, substantial investment and effective collaboration between government bodies, industries and communities are required to minimize pressures from marine infrastructure.

References

  1. Airoldi, L., Turon, X., Perkol-Finkel, S., and Rius, M. (2015). Corridors for aliens but not for natives: effects of marine urban sprawl at a regional scale. Diversity and Distributions, 21(7), 755-768.
  2. Akhtar, Naveed, and others (2021). Accelerating deployment of offshore wind energy alter wind climate and reduce future power generation potentials. Scientific reports, vol. 11, No. 1, art. 11826.
  3. Amaral, Jennifer L., and others (2020). Characterization of impact pile driving signals during installation of offshore wind turbine foundations. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 147, No. 4.
  4. Baker, Alissa, and others (2024). An Action Plan for Offshore Wind Transmission Development in the U.S. Atlantic Region. U.S. Department of Energy and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. https://www.energy.gov/gdo/atlantic-offshore-wind-transmission-action-plan.
  5. Bishop, M.J., Mayer-Pinto, M., Airoldi, L., Firth, L.B., Morris, R.L., Loke, L.H., and Dafforn, K.A. (2017). Effects of ocean sprawl on ecological connectivity: impacts and solutions. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 492, 7-30.
  6. Bueger, Christian, and others (2022). Security threats to undersea communications cables and infrastructure-consequences for the EU. Report for SEDE Committee of the European Parliament, PE702557. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EXPO_IDA(2022)702557.
  7. Bugnot, Ana B., and others (2021). Current and projected global extent of marine built structures. Nature Sustainability, vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 33-41.
  8. Buonocore, Jonathan J., and others (2016). Health and climate benefits of different energy-efficiency and renewable energy choices. Nature Climate Change, vol. 6, pp. 100-105.
  9. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), 2024. https://www.boem.gov/.
  10. Byomkesh Talukder, Nilanjana Ganguli, Richard Matthew, Gary W. vanLoon, Keith W. Hipel, James Orbinski (2022). Climate change-accelerated ocean biodiversity loss & associated planetary health impacts, The Journal of Climate Change and Health, volume 6, 100114.
  11. Chapman, M.G., and Bulleri, F. (2003). Intertidal seawalls - new features of landscape in intertidal environments. Landscape and urban planning, 62(3), 159-172.
  12. Coolen, Joop W., and others (2020. Benthic biodiversity on old platforms, young wind farms, and rocky reefs. ICES Journal of Marine Science, vol. 77, No. 3, pp. 1250-1265, 2020.
  13. Cullinane, Margaret, and others (2022). Subsea superconductors: The future of offshore renewable energy transmission? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 156, art. 111943.
  14. Dannheim, Jennifer, and others (2020). Benthic effects of offshore renewables: identification of knowledge gaps and urgently needed research. ICES Journal of Marine Science, vol. 77, No. 3, pp. 1092- 1108.
  15. Depellegrin, D., Venier, C., Kyriazi, Z., Vassilopoulou, V., Castellani, C., Ramieri, E., and Barbanti, A. (2019). Exploring Multi-Use potentials in the Euro-Mediterranean sea space. Science of the Total Environment, 653, 612-629.
  16. Dou, Lirong, and others (2022). Analysis of the world oil and gas exploration situation in 2021. Petroleum Exploration and Development, vol. 49, No. 5, pp. 1195-1209.
  17. Duarte, Carlos M., and others (2021). The soundscape of the Anthropocene ocean. Science, vol. 371, No. 6529.
  18. Duarte, Henrique, and others (2017). Advanced processing for UHR3D shallow marine seismic surveys. Near Surface Geophysics, vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 347-358.
  19. Duarte, Ricardo J., and others (2021). Anthropogenic noise predictions for light seismic survey off the SW Portuguese coast. IEEE/MTS Global Oceans 2021.
  20. Duarte, C.M., Chapuis, L., Collin, S.P., Costa, D.P., Devassy, R.P., Eguiluz, V.M., and Juanes, F. (2021a). The soundscape of the Anthropocene ocean. Science, 371(6529), eaba4658.
  21. Eger, S.L., De Loë, R.C., Pittman, J., Epstein, G., and Courtenay, S.C. (2021). A systematic review of integrated coastal and marine management progress reveals core governance characteristics for successful implementation. Marine policy, 132, 104688.
  22. Enevoldsen, P., and Jacobson, M.Z. (2021). Data investigation of installed and output power densities of onshore and offshore wind turbines worldwide. Energy for Sustainable Development, 60, 40-51.
  23. Erikson, L.H, Nederhoff, L., Engelstad, A., Kasper, J., Bieniek, P., U.S. Geological Survey (USGS, Pacific Coastal Marine Science Center, Santa Cruz, CA) (2022). Central Beaufort Sea wave and hydrodynamic modeling study. Report 2: Modeled waves, hydrodynamics and sediment transport in
  24. Foggy Island Bay. Anchorage (AK): U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 40 p. plus appendices. Report No .: OCS Study BOEM 2022-079. IAA No .: M17PG00046.
  25. European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) (2024). https://emodnet.ec.europa.eu/.
  26. European Maritime Affairs (2024). https://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/.
  27. Firth, L.B., Knights, A.M., Bridger, D., Evans, A.J., Mieszkowska, N., Moore, P.J., and Hawkins, S.J. (2016). Ocean sprawl: and opportunities for biodiversity management in a changing world. Oceanography and Marine Biology: an annual review, 54, 189-262.
  28. Gentry, Rebecca R., and others (2017). Mapping the global potential for marine aquaculture. Nature Ecology & Evolution, vol. 1, No. 9, pp. 1317-1324.
  29. Gill, Andrew B., and others (2020). Setting the context for offshore wind development effects on fish and fisheries. Oceanography, vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 118-127.
  30. Gușatu, Laura F., and others (2021). Spatial and temporal analysis of cumulative environmental effects of offshore wind farms in the North Sea basin. Scientific reports, vol. 11, No. 1, art. 10125.
  31. Hamley, Graham J. (2022). The implications of seabed mining in the Area for the human right to health. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law (RECIEL), vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 389-398.
  32. Hauton, Chris, and others (2017). Identifying toxic impacts of metals potentially released during deep-sea mining: a synthesis of the challenges to quantifying risk. Frontiers in Marine Science, vol. 4.
  33. Heery, E.C., Bishop, M.J., Critchley, L.P., Bugnot, A.B., Airoldi, L., Mayer-Pinto, M., and Dafforn, K.A. (2017). Identifying the consequences of ocean sprawl for sedimentary habitats. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 492, 31-48.
  34. Hooper, Tara, and others (2015). Perceptions of fishers and developers on the co-location of offshore wind farms and decapod fisheries in the UK. Marine Policy, vol. 61, pp. 16-22.
  35. International Telecommunication Union (ITU) (2024). International bandwidth usage. https://datahub.itu.int/data/?e=MLI&i=242.
  36. International Energy Agency (2019). Renewables 2019 Analysis and forecast to 2024. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/a846e5cf-ca7d-4a1f-a81b-ba1499f2cc07/Renewables_2019.pdf.
  37. Jensen, Finn B., and others (1994). Computational Ocean Acoustics, AIP Series in Modern Acoustics and Signal Processing. Woodbury, New York: AIP Press.
  38. Jiang, Zhiyu (2021). Installation of offshore wind turbines: a technical review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol.139, art. 110576.
  39. Jouffray, Jean B., and others (2020). The blue acceleration: the trajectory of human expansion into the ocean. One Earth, vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 43-54.
  40. Khojasteh, Danial, and others (2023). A large-scale review of wave and tidal energy research over the last 20 years. Ocean Engineering, vol. 282, art. 114995.
  41. Long, Ronan (2014). Harnessing offshore wind energy: legal challenges and policy conundrums in the European Union. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 690-715.
  42. Merchant, Nathan D., and others (2020). Impulsive noise pollution in the Northeast Atlantic: reported activity during 2015-2017. Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 152, art. 110951.
  43. Mid-Atlantic Ocean Data Portal (MARCO) (2024). https://portal.midatlanticocean.org/visualize/.
  44. Morgera, Elisa (2024). Participation of Indigenous Peoples in Decision Making Over Deep-Seabed Mining. American Journal of International Law (AJIL) Unbound, vol. 118, pp. 93-97.
  45. Morgera, Elisa, and Hannah Lily (2022). Public participation at the International Seabed Authority: An international human rights law analysis. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, vol. 31, No. 33, pp. 374-388.
  46. Morgera, Elisa, and others (2023). Addressing the Ocean-Climate Nexus in the BBNJ Agreement: Strategic Environmental Assessments, Human Rights and Equity in Ocean Science. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 1-33.
  47. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOOA) (2024). Submarine cables - international framework. https://www.noaa.gov/general-counsel/gc-international-section/submarine-cables- international-framework.
  48. Neill, Simon P., and others (2017). The wave and tidal resource of Scotland. Renewable Energy, vol. 114, pp. 3-17.
  49. Niner, Holly, and Kirsty McQuaid (2021). Defining the Environmental Impact Assessment process for deep-sea mining. https://oneoceanhub.org/defining-the-environmental-impact-assessment-process-for- deep-sea-mining/.
  50. Nieukirk, Sharon L., and others (2004). Low-frequency whale and seismic airgun sounds recorded in the mid-Atlantic Ocean. J. Acoust. Soc Am., vol. 115, No. 4.
  51. Notteboom, T., and Haralambides, H. (2023). Seaports as green hydrogen hubs: advances, opportunities and challenges in Europe. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 25(1), 1-27.
  52. Nowacek, Douglas P., and others (2015). Marine seismic surveys and ocean noise: time for coordinated and prudent planning. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, vol. 13, No. 7, pp. 378-386.
  53. One Ocean Hub (2024). Hub research included in UN special rapporteur's report on right to food, fisheries, and climate change. https://oneoceanhub.org/hub-research-included-in-un-special-rapporteurs- report-on-right-to-food-fisheries-and-climate-change/.
  54. Open Infrastructure Map (2024). https://openinframap.org/.
  55. OSPAR Commission (2024). OSPAR Joint Assessment and Monitoring Programme (JAMP) 2024-2028 OSPAR Agreement 2024-01.
  56. Paolo, Fernando. S., and others (2024). Satellite mapping reveals extensive industrial activity at sea. Nature, vol. 625, pp. 85-91.
  57. Popper, Arthur, and others (2023). Marine energy converters: Potential acoustic effects on fishes and aquatic vertebrates. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 154, No. 1, pp. 518-532.
  58. Shaffer, Brenda (2020). Energy Politics. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  59. Shields, Matt, and others (2023). A Supply Chain Road Map for Offshore Wind Energy in the United States. Golden, CO, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), NREL/TP-5000-84710. https://doi.org/10.2172/1922189.
  60. Short, Rebecca E., and others (2020). Review of the evidence for oceans and human health relationships in Europe: a systematic map. Environment International, vol. 146, art. 106275.
  61. Short, R.E., Cox, D.T., Tan, Y.L., Bethel, A., Eales, J.F., and Garside, R. (2021). Review of the evidence for oceans and human health relationships in Europe: A systematic map. Environment International, 146, 106275.
  62. Sigray, Peter, and Mathias H. Andersson (2011). Particle motion measured at an operational wind turbine in relation to hearing sensitivity in fish. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 130, No. 1, pp. 200-207.
  63. Sirovic, Ana, and others (2021). Trends in inputs of anthropogenic noise into the marine environment. In The Second World Ocean Assessment. New York: United Nations.
  64. Spadoni, Giuliu, and others (2023). Seismic survey risk assessment for the common dolphin population in the south-western coast of Portugal. The Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life, pp. 1923-1937.
  65. TeleGeography (2023). Submarine Cable Map. https://www.submarinecablemap.com.
  66. Sunde, Jackie, and Christian Adams (2023). Inputs for Fisheries Report: The Right to Food and Securing Sustainable Small Scale Fisheries. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/food/cfi- food-fisheries/subm-food-securing-sustainable-csos-othe-sunde-j-from-1-ocean-hub-universi-ative.pdf.
  67. Sunde, Jackie (2022). Participating in seismic shifts in ocean research and advocacy collaboration in South Africa. https://oneoceanhub.org/participating-in-seismic-shifts-in-ocean-research-and-advocacy- collaboration-in-south-africa/.
  68. The Economist (2023). Big tech and geopolitics are reshaping the internet's plumbing. https://www.economist.com/business/2023/12/20/big-tech-and-geopolitics-are-reshaping-the-internets- plumbing.
  69. Tougaard, Jakob, and others (2020). How loud is the underwater noise from operating offshore wind turbines ?. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 148, No. 5, pp. 2885-2893.
  70. United Nations (2024). Fisheries and the right to food in the context of climate change. https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc5549-fisheries-and-right-food-context-climate- change-report-special.
  71. Van Berkel, Joshua, and others (2020). The effects of offshore wind farms on hydrodynamics and implications for fishes. Oceanography, vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 108-117.
  72. Wang, C., Wang, Y., Liu, P., Sun, Y., Song, Z., and Hu, X. (2021). Characteristics of bacterial community structure and function associated with nutrients and heavy metals in coastal aquaculture area. Environmental Pollution, 275, 116639.
  73. Wen, Zhixin, and others (2023). Analysis of the world deepwater oil and gas exploration situation. Petroleum Exploration and Development, vol. 50, No. 5, pp. 1060-1076.
  74. WindEurope (2023). Wind energy in Europe: 2022 statistics and the outlook for 2023-2027. https://windeurope.org/intelligence-platform/product/wind-energy-in-europe-2022-statistics-and-the- outlook-for-2023-2027/.
  75. Zou, X. and others (2021). Advances in exploration and development of deep-water oil and gas. Petroleum Exploration and Development, vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 1-14.