Scientists and practitioners came together at the 2016 Ocean Sciences Meeting in New Orleans to examine how science can improve its impact on informing management and policy to advance marine conservation outcomes. Protecting ecosystems and the ecological, economic, and cultural benefits they provide from multiple threats—such as development, resource extraction, and climate change—requires comprehensive policy and strong management that is informed by sound science and incorporates the value of ecosystem services. Ecosystem-based management (EBM) has become an important integrative framework for incorporating science into the management of our activities in and interactions with the natural environment. EBM is a place-based, inclusive way of protecting and sustaining the broad spectrum of ecosystem-derived resources and services that people and nature rely on. It is not a catch-all phrase intended to address all societal goals, but a fundamental connection between ecosystem services and management that considers the many interactions between humans and ecosystems. Defining, translating, and embedding the best available science into policy and management decisions is challenging, but it is necessary to effectively influence acceptable and sustainable solutions and outcomes. A special session convened at the 2016 Ocean Sciences meeting—featuring 28 oral and poster presentations—showcased diverse ways that science can be integrated into ocean and coastal policy and EBM. Presentations covered a wide range of critical issues related to national, regional, and local level marine policy. The results that were presented are groundbreaking examples of science being actively incorporated into decision making in ways that will lead to more certain, coordinated, and effective management of our marine ecosystems. This research, including case-based examples from fisheries, energy, transportation, MPAs, water quality and quantity, climate change, and tsunamis, drew attention to how valuable applied science-to-action efforts can be, and demonstrated analytical and decision making tools, processes, and methods to measure management impact that are ripe for uptake by planners and managers in other systems. Presenters emphasized the importance of engagement and communication throughout the EBM process. Stakeholders often don't see how science can be used directly in policy development or decision making, and scientists often do not acknowledge the variety of stakeholders' needs and concerns. Vision and research outcomes must be translated into everyday concerns and embedded into decision making across temporal and spatial scales. The importance of marine ecosystems to humans, and the benefits of good ocean policy and regulation in sustaining their services are underrepresented and should be articulated in simple, respectful, and relevant terms, through success stories. One successful approach has been to link the benefits of science and EBM with stakeholder needs, perceptions, and values of ecosystem services. Providing indicators that represent current ecosystem states and trends, the potential for threshold exceedance, and track the impact of management actions is effective in communicating science. However, unwrapping and tracing the drivers of success in complex systems is not a simple exercise. Building relationships and partnerships and ensuring governance processes that secure and sustain such collaborations were recurring themes. U.S. Federal-Tribal engagement and other inter-jurisdictional partnerships are necessary for successful management on ecosystem scales. Programs such as the U.S. National Ocean Partnership Program and on-the-water processes and pilot projects from Rhode Island, California, the Gulf of Mexico, Baltic Sea, and Sargasso Sea illustrate the value of formal and informal partnerships at all scales. Differing contexts and multiple stressors require case-by-case evaluation of resource conservation needs and tailoring of the appropriate conservation approach. Partnerships and sub-regional dialogs (e.g., U.S. west coast) result in tangible planning. Stakeholders have been instrumental in identifying ecosystem services on regional and local scales, an important step in applying effective EBM. For example, fisher-scientist liaisons have led to collaborative studies and monitoring that fill knowledge gaps and incorporate traditional ecological knowledge into EBM science. Cross-industry engagement fosters understanding and the ability to identify common priorities and goals. While translation and communication are necessary, they are not sufficient for successful EBM; policy and science must be linked. Scientists need to be aware of and understand the policy making process, in particular how choices and preferred outcomes are framed and how decisions are made and implemented. Policy briefs need to have a broader focus than individual research activities and products. Sustaining healthy and productive ecosystems requires political as well as scientific leadership, and it is important to know when to “pass the baton” from science to policy, and vice-versa. Many existing policies, notably the U.S. National Ocean Policy, afford opportunities to connect and align science and policy. Marine ecosystems also must be incorporated into relevant policies (e.g., climate change, the Arctic). What have case studies and operational EBM examples taught us? A successful EBM science process acknowledges and understands stakeholder and management concerns, targets knowledge to management priorities and regions of interest, and evaluates impacts and trade-offs. To be useful, research tools, analyses, and products must meet management needs, and balance ease of application with the ability to deal with complex social-economic-ecological interactions. EBM science builds on existing efforts, learns from earlier successes and failures, and seeks to apply models and tools that are already developed. Research recognizes key temporal and spatial scales, thresholds, and spatial patterns. It provides spatial and non-spatial guidance to decision makers, and results that are scalable for local- to ecosystem-scale planning and actions. EBM science provides the opportunity to connect management within and between ecosystems, and across the land-marine boundary, as is being done successfully in west Maui, for example, to reduce sediment run off. The analytical and deliberative components of EBM must be co-equals in implementation design and practice. Science programs need to develop analytical approaches to measure performance and success, and create frameworks for strategic planning and assessing mitigation options for management; the UK Defra Marine Programme is a good example. Research should be use-inspired and flexible to meet specific agency staff needs. Adaptable and practical tools, such as EcoPrinciples Connect (U.S. west coast), link scientific resources and data sets to statutory and regulatory requirements to help managers access the best-available science, and make and monitor the impacts of decisions that meet their regulatory and policy goals. A platform for analysis and decision support tools is essential, preferably accessible on-line; SeaSketch is being used to evaluate the impacts of marine shipping. A recurring theme across research is the need for more effective linkages between risk assessment approaches and resilience strategies that are applicable in practice and available to decision makers in a changing environment. Tools such as the Comprehensive Assessment of Risk to Ecosystems (U.S. west coast) and Marine Ecosystem Services Assessment (Northeast U.S.) compare and prioritize different threats through ecosystem indicators and metrics, and help managers determine appropriate actions and monitor their impacts. As the body of EBM science grows, comparable examples and case studies provide and test best practices and analyses. Many challenges to successful EBM remain. The transition from single-sector to full ecosystem management is not simple. Because the science to inform EBM is broad, holistic, and a long-term proposition, linking ocean science and management requires long-term investment. As has been clear from numerous adaptive management efforts across the globe, science and resource agencies must support and maintain observations and fill data gaps. Science and EBM must account for dynamic marine conditions; the marine landscape is persistent but fluctuating, and subject to sudden and dramatic shifts. Connecting models across disciplines or natural and political boundaries remains an important research focus. Uncertainty is unavoidable in complex systems and, while risk reduction is critical, the anticipation and management of emergent risks is an ongoing challenge. The arc of ecosystem and policy change will be jolted by dramatic, impactful, and often unexpected events (e.g., superstorm Sandy, Deep Water Horizon, elections), and scientists and managers must be prepared to respond. This is a unique moment, set against the impending change of Administration in the U.S., when policy, planning, and management experts are viewing EBM science as a critical element and a rich collaborative framework between research and management to achieve productive, healthy, diverse, and sustainable ecosystems. EBM that is based on well-crafted science and with the full participation of diverse ocean stakeholders and communities is essential to successfully understand and share knowledge of the linkages and interactions between ecosystem services and economic and cultural values, and to define problems, desired outcomes, and make the wise choices that protect and sustain them. Franklin Schwing, NOAA Fisheries, Office of Science and Technology, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA Ashley Erickson, Center for Ocean Solutions Monterey California USA Michelle McCrackin, Stockholm University, Stockholm, SWEDEN Roger Pulwarty, NOAA, Climate Program Office, Boulder, Colorado, USA Adrienne Sponberg, ASLO, Kensington, Maryland, USA