Impact of human activities on benthic biotopes and species

Executive Summary 1. The Marine Life Information Network (MarLIN) has been developed since 1998. Defra funding has supported a core part of its work, the Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme. This report relates to Biology and Sensitivity work for the period 2001-2004. 2. MarLIN Biology and Sensitivity research takes information on the biology of species to identify the likely effects of changing environmental conditions linked to human activities on those species. In turn, species that are key functional, key structural, dominant, or characteristic in a biotope (the habitat and its associated species) are used to identify biotope sensitivity. Results are displayed over the World Wide Web and can be accessed via a range of search tools that make the information of relevance to environmental management. 3. The first Defra contract enabled the development of criteria and methods of research, database storage methods and the research of a wide range of species. A contract from English Nature and Scottish Natural Heritage enabled biotopes relevant to marine SACs to be researched. 4. Defra funding in 2001-2004 has especially enabled recent developments to be targeted for research. Those developments included the identification of threatened and declining species by the OSPAR Biodiversity Committee, the development of a new approach to defining sensitivity (part of the Review of Marine Nature Conservation), and the opportunity to use Geographical Information Systems (GIS) more effectively to link survey data to MarLIN assessments of sensitivity. 5. The MarLIN database has been developed to provide a resource to 'pick-and-mix' information depending on the questions being asked. Using GIS, survey data that provides locations for species and biotopes has been linked to information researched by MarLIN to map the likely sensitivity of an area to a specified factor. Projects undertaken for the Irish Sea pilot (marine landscapes), in collaboration with CEFAS (fishing impacts) and with the Countryside Council for Wales (oil spill response) have demonstrated the application of MarLIN information linked to survey data in answering, through maps, questions about likely impacts of human activities on seabed ecosystems. 6. GIS applications that use MarLIN sensitivity information give meaningful results when linked to localized and detailed survey information (lists of species and biotopes as point source or mapped extents). However, broad landscape units require further interpretation. 7. A new mapping tool (SEABED map) has been developed to display data on species distributions and survey data according to search terms that might be used by an environmental manager. 8. MarLIN outputs are best viewed on the Web site where the most up-to-date information from live databases is available. The MarLIN Web site receives about 1600 visits a day. 9. The MarLIN approach to assessing sensitivity and its application to environmental management were presented in papers at three international conferences during the current contract and a 'touchstone' paper is to be published in the peer-reviewed journal Hydrobiologia. The utility of MarLIN information for environmental managers, amongst other sorts of information, has been described in an article in Marine Pollution Bulletin. 10. MarLIN information is being used to inform the identification of potential indicator species for implementation of the Water Framework Directive including initiatives by ICES. 11. Non-Defra funding streams are supporting the updating of reviews and increasing the amount of peer review undertaken; both of which are important to the maintenance of the resource. However, whilst MarLIN information is sufficiently wide ranging to be used in an 'operational' way for marine environmental protection and management, new initiatives and the new biotopes classification have introduced additional species and biotopes that will need to be researched in the future. 12. By the end of the contract, the Biology and Sensitivity Key Information database contained full Key Information reviews on 152 priority species and 117 priority biotopes, together with basic information on 412 species; a total of 564 marine benthic species.

Assessing the sensitivity of blue mussel beds to pressures associated with human activities.

The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) commissioned this project to generate an improved understanding of the sensitivities of blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) beds, found in UK waters, to pressures associated with human activities in the marine environment. The work will provide an evidence base that will facilitate and support management advice for Marine Protected Areas, development of UK marine monitoring and assessment, and conservation advice to offshore marine industries. Blue mussel beds are identified as a Habitat of Principle Importance (HPI) under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, as a Priority Marine Feature (PMF) under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, and included on the OSPAR (Annex V) list of threatened and declining species and habitats. The purpose of this project was to produce sensitivity assessments for the blue mussel biotopes included within the HPI, PMF and OSPAR habitat definitions, and clearly document the supporting evidence behind the assessments and any differences between them. A total of 20 pressures falling in five categories - biological, hydrological, physical damage, physical loss, and pollution and other chemical changes - were assessed in this report. The review examined seven blue mussel bed biotopes found on littoral sediment and sublittoral rock and sediment. The assessments were based on the sensitivity of M. edulis rather than associated species, as M. edulis was considered the most important characteristic species in blue mussel beds. To develop each sensitivity assessment, the resistance and resilience of the key elements are assessed against the pressure benchmark using the available evidence gathered in this review. The benchmarks were designed to provide a ‘standard’ level of pressure against which to assess sensitivity. Blue mussel beds were highly sensitive to a few human activities: • introduction or spread of non-indigenous species (NIS); • habitat structure changes - removal of substratum (extraction); and • physical loss (to land or freshwater habitat). Physical loss of habitat and removal of substratum are particularly damaging pressures, while the sensitivity of blue mussel beds to non-indigenous species depended on the species assessed. Crepidula fornicata and Crassostrea gigas both had the potential to outcompete and replace mussel beds, so resulted in a high sensitivity assessment. Mytilus spp. populations are considered to have a strong ability to recover from environmental disturbance. A good annual recruitment may allow a bed to recovery rapidly, though this cannot always be expected due to the sporadic nature of M. edulis recruitment. Therefore, blue mussel beds were considered to have a 'Medium' resilience (recovery within 2-10 years). As a result, even where the removal or loss of proportion of a mussel bed was expected due to a pressure, a sensitivity of 'Medium' was reported. Hence, most of the sensitivities reported were 'Medium'. It was noted, however, that the recovery rates of blue mussel beds were reported to be anywhere between two years to several decades. In addition, M. edulis is considered very tolerant of a range of physical and chemical conditions. As a result, blue mussel beds were considered to be 'Not sensitive' to changes in temperature, salinity, de-oxygenation, nutrient and organic enrichment, and substratum type, at the benchmark level of pressure. The report found that no distinct differences in overall sensitivity exist between the HPI, PMF and OSPAR definitions. Individual biotopes do however have different sensitivities to pressures, and the OSPAR definition only includes blue mussel beds on sediment. These differences were determined by the position of the habitat on the shore and the sediment type. For example, the infralittoral rock biotope (A3.361) was unlikely to be exposed to pressures that affect sediments. However in the case of increased water flow, mixed sediment biotopes were considered more stable and ‘Not sensitive’ (at the benchmark level) while the remaining biotopes were likely to be affected.

Using a clearly documented, evidence-based approach to create sensitivity assessments allows the assessment basis and any subsequent decision making or management plans to be readily communicated, transparent and justifiable. The assessments can be replicated and updated where new evidence becomes available ensuring the longevity of the sensitivity assessment tool. For every pressure where sensitivity was previously assessed as a range of scores in MB0102, the assessments made by the evidence review have supported one of the MB0102 assessments. The evidence review has reduced the uncertainty around assessments previously undertaken in the MB0102 project (Tillin et al., 2010) by assigning a single sensitivity score to the pressures as opposed to a range. Finally, as blue mussel bed habitats also contribute to ecosystem function and the delivery of ecosystem services, understanding the sensitivity of these biotopes may also support assessment and management in regard to these. Whatever objective measures are applied to data to assess sensitivity, the final sensitivity assessment is indicative. The evidence, the benchmarks, the confidence in the assessments and the limitations of the process, require a sense-check by experienced marine ecologists before the outcome is used in management decisions.

Chapter 11: Human activities and ecosystem service use: impacts and trade-offs

Ecosystem services provided by the marine environment are fundamental to human health and well-being. Despite this, many marine systems are being degraded to an extent that may reduce their capacity to provide these ecosystem services. The ecosystem approach is a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way (UN Convention on Biological Diversity, 2000). Its application to marine management and spatial planning has been proposed as a means of maintaining the economic and social value of the oceans, not only in the present but for generations to come. Characterising the susceptibility of services (and combinations of services) to particular human activities based on knowledge of impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (as described in preceding chapters) is a challenge for future management of the oceans. In this chapter, we highlight the existing, but limited knowledge of how ecosystem services may be impacted by different human activities. We discuss how impacts on one service can impact multiple services and explore how the impacts on services can vary both spatially and temporally and according to context. We focus particularly on the effects on ecosystem services of activities whose impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning have already been considered in previous chapters. Some of these activities are associated with poor management of ecosystem benefits, for example, from provisioning services (aquaculture and fisheries), or with excessive input of wastes, fertilisers and contaminants into the system overburdening the waste treatment and assimilation services. Other impacts are associated with the construction of structures or use of space designed to generate benefits from environmental services such as the presence of water as a carrier for shipping, or sources of wind, wave and tidal power. We discuss the trade-offs that are made, consciously or otherwise, between different ecosystem services, which arise from human activities to optimise or manage specific ecosystem services.

Assessing the sensitivity of seagrass bed biotopes to pressures associated with marine activities.

This project was commissioned to generate an improved understanding of the sensitivities of seagrass habitats to pressures associated with human activities in the marine environment - to provide an evidence base to facilitate and support management advice for Marine Protected Areas; development of UK marine monitoring and assessment, and conservation advice to offshore marine industries. Seagrass bed habitats are identified as a Priority Marine Feature (PMF) under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, they are also included on the OSPAR list of threatened and declining species and habitats, and are a Habitat of Principle Importance (HPI) under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, in England and Wales. The purpose of this project was to produce sensitivity assessments with supporting evidence for the HPI, OSPAR and PMF seagrass/Zostera bed habitat definitions, clearly documenting the evidence behind the assessments and any differences between assessments. Nineteen pressures, falling in five categories - biological, hydrological, physical damage, physical loss, and pollution and other chemical changes - were assessed in this report. Assessments were based on the three British seagrasses Zostera marina, Z. noltei and Ruppia maritima. Z. marina var. angustifolia was considered to be a subspecies of Z. marina but it was specified where studies had considered it as a species in its own rights. Where possible other components of the community were investigated but the basis of the assessment focused on seagrass species. To develop each sensitivity assessment, the resistance and resilience of the key elements were assessed against the pressure benchmark using the available evidence. The benchmarks were designed to provide a ‘standard’ level of pressure against which to assess sensitivity. Overall, seagrass beds were highly sensitive to a number of human activities: • penetration or disturbance of the substratum below the surface; • habitat structure changes – removal of substratum; • physical change to another sediment type; • physical loss of habitat; • siltation rate changes including and smothering; and • changes in suspended solids. High sensitivity was recorded for pressures which directly impacted the factors that limit seagrass growth and health such as light availability. Physical pressures that caused mechanical modification of the sediment, and hence damage to roots and leaves, also resulted in high sensitivity. Seagrass beds were assessed as ‘not sensitive’ to microbial pathogens or ‘removal of target species’. These assessments were based on the benchmarks used. Z. marina is known to be sensitive to Labyrinthula zosterae but this was not included in the benchmark used. Similarly, ‘removal of target species’ addresses only the biological effects of removal and not the physical effects of the process used. For example, seagrass beds are probably not sensitive to the removal of scallops found within the bed but are highly sensitive to the effects of dredging for scallops, as assessed under the pressure penetration or disturbance of the substratum below the surface‘. This is also an example of a synergistic effect Assessing the sensitivity of seagrass bed biotopes to pressures associated with marine activities between pressures. Where possible, synergistic effects were highlighted but synergistic and cumulative effects are outside the scope off this study. The report found that no distinct differences in sensitivity exist between the HPI, PMF and OSPAR definitions. Individual biotopes do however have different sensitivities to pressures. These differences were determined by the species affected, the position of the habitat on the shore and the sediment type. For instance evidence showed that beds growing in soft and muddy sand were more vulnerable to physical damage than beds on harder, more compact substratum. Temporal effects can also influence the sensitivity of seagrass beds. On a seasonal time frame, physical damage to roots and leaves occurring in the reproductive season (summer months) will have a greater impact than damage in winter. On a daily basis, the tidal regime could accentuate or attenuate the effects of pressures depending on high and low tide. A variety of factors must therefore be taken into account in order to assess the sensitivity of a particular seagrass habitat at any location. No clear difference in resilience was established across the three seagrass definitions assessed in this report. The resilience of seagrass beds and the ability to recover from human induced pressures is a combination of the environmental conditions of the site, growth rates of the seagrass, the frequency and the intensity of the disturbance. This highlights the importance of considering the species affected as well as the ecology of the seagrass bed, the environmental conditions and the types and nature of activities giving rise to the pressure and the effects of that pressure. For example, pressures that result in sediment modification (e.g. pitting or erosion), sediment change or removal, prolong recovery. Therefore, the resilience of each biotope and habitat definitions is discussed for each pressure. Using a clearly documented, evidence based approach to create sensitivity assessments allows the assessment and any subsequent decision making or management plans to be readily communicated, transparent and justifiable. The assessments can be replicated and updated where new evidence becomes available ensuring the longevity of the sensitivity assessment tool. The evidence review has reduced the uncertainty around assessments previously undertaken in the MB0102 project (Tillin et al 2010) by assigning a single sensitivity score to the pressures as opposed to a range. Finally, as seagrass habitats may also contribute to ecosystem function and the delivery of ecosystem services, understanding the sensitivity of these biotopes may also support assessment and management in regard to these. Whatever objective measures are applied to data to assess sensitivity, the final sensitivity assessment is indicative. The evidence, the benchmarks, the confidence in the assessments and the limitations of the process, require a sense-check by experienced marine ecologists before the outcome is used in management decisions.

Tillin, H. & Tyler-Walters, H., 2014. Assessing the sensitivity of subtidal sedimentary habitats to pressures associated with marine activities. Phase 2 Report – Literature review and sensitivity assessments for ecological groups for circalittoral and offshore Level 5 biotopes. JNCC Report No. 512B, 260 pp.

Human activities within the marine environment give rise to a number of pressures on seabed habitats. Improved understanding of the sensitivity of subtidal sedimentary habitats is required to underpin the management advice provided for Marine Protected Areas, as well as supporting other UK marine monitoring and assessment work. The sensitivity of marine sedimentary habitats to a range of pressures induced by human activities has previously been systematically assessed using approaches based on expert judgement for Defra Project MB0102 (Tillin et al. 2010). This previous work assessed sensitivity at the level of the broadscale habitat and therefore the scores were typically expressed as a range due to underlying variation in the sensitivity of the constituent biotopes. The objective of this project was to reduce the uncertainty around identifying the sensitivity of selected subtidal sedimentary habitats by assessing sensitivity, at a finer scale and incorporating information on the biological assemblage, for 33 Level 5 circalittoral and offshore biotopes taken from the Marine Habitat Classification of Britain and Ireland (Connor et al. 2004). Two Level 6 sub-biotopes were also included in this project as these contain distinctive characterising species that differentiate them from the Level 5 parent biotope. Littoral, infralittoral, reduced and variable salinity sedimentary habitats were excluded from this project as the scope was set for assessment of circalittoral and offshore sedimentary communities. This project consisted of three Phases. • Phase 1 - define ecological groups based on similarities in the sensitivity of characterising species from the Level 5 and two Level 6 biotopes described above. • Phase 2 - produce a literature review of information on the resilience and resistance of characterising species of the ecological groups to pressures associated with activities in the marine environment. • Phase 3 - to produce sensitivity assessment ‘proformas’ based on the findings of Phase 2 for each ecological group. This report outlines results of Phase 2. The Tillin et al., (2010) sensitivity assessment methodology was modified to use the best available scientific evidence that could be collated within the project timescale. An extensive literature review was compiled, for peer reviewed and grey literature, to examine current understanding about the effects of pressures from human activities on circalittoral and offshore sedimentary communities in UK continental shelf waters, together with information on factors that contribute to resilience (recovery) of marine species. This review formed the basis of an assessment of the sensitivity of the 16 ecological groups identified in Phase 1 of the project (Tillin & Tyler-Walters 2014). As a result: • the state of knowledge on the effects of each pressure on circalittoral and offshore benthos was reviewed; • the resistance, resilience and, hence, sensitivity of sixteen ecological groups, representing 96 characteristic species, were assessed for eight separate pressures; • each assessment was accompanied by a detailed review of the relevant evidence; Assessing the sensitivity of subtidal sedimentary habitats to pressures associated with human activities • knowledge gaps and sources of uncertainty were identified for each group; • each assessment was accompanied by an assessment of the quality of the evidence, its applicability to the assessment and the degree of concordance (agreement) between the evidence, to highlight sources of uncertainty as an assessment of the overall confidence in the sensitivity assessment, and finally • limitations in the methodology and the application of sensitivity assessments were outlined. This process demonstrated that the ecological groups identified in Phase 1 (Tillin & Tyler-Walters 2014) were viable groups for sensitivity assessment, and could be used to represent the 33 circalittoral and offshore sediments biotopes identified at the beginning of the project. The results of the sensitivity assessments show: • the majority of species and hence ecological groups in sedimentary habitats are sensitive to physical change, especially loss of habitat and sediment extraction, and change in sediment type; • most sedimentary species are sensitive to physical damage, e.g. abrasion and penetration, although deep burrowing species (e.g. the Dublin Bay prawn - Nephrops norvegicus and the sea cucumber - Neopentadactyla mixta) are able to avoid damaging effects to varying degrees, depending on the depth of penetration and time of year; • changes in hydrography (wave climate, tidal streams and currents) can significantly affect sedimentary communities, depending on whether they are dominated by deposit, infaunal feeders or suspension feeders, and dependant on the nature of the sediment, which is itself modified by hydrography and depth; • sedentary species and ecological groups that dominate the top-layer of the sediment (either shallow burrowing or epifaunal) remain the most sensitive to physical damage; • mobile species (e.g. interstitial and burrowing amphipods, and perhaps cumaceans) are the least sensitive to physical change or damage, and hydrological change as they are already adapted to unstable, mobile substrata; • sensitivity to changes in organic enrichment and hence oxygen levels, is variable between species and ecological groups, depending on the exact habitat preferences of the species in question, although most species have at least a medium sensitivity to acute deoxygenation; • there is considerable evidence on the effects of bottom-contact fishing practices and aggregate dredging on sedimentary communities, although not all evidence is directly applicable to every ecological group; • there is lack of detailed information on the physiological tolerances (e.g. to oxygenation, salinity, and temperature), habitat preferences, life history and population dynamics of many species, so that inferences has been made from related species, families, or even the same phylum; • there was inadequate evidence to assess the effects of non-indigenous species on most ecological groups, and Assessing the sensitivity of subtidal sedimentary habitats to pressures associated with human activities • there was inadequate evidence to assess the effects of electromagnetic fields and litter on any ecological group. The resultant report provides an up-to-date review of current knowledge about the effects of pressures resulting from human activities of circalittoral and offshore sedimentary communities. It provides an evidence base to facilitate and support the provision of management advice for Marine Protected Areas, development of UK marine monitoring and assessment, and conservation advice to offshore marine industries. However, such a review will require at least annual updates to take advantage of new evidence and new research as it becomes available. Also further work is required to test how ecological group assessments are best combined in practice to advise on the sensitivity of a range of sedimentary biotopes, including the 33 that were originally examined.

1H NMR metabolomics reveals contrasting response by male and female mussels exposed to reduced seawater pH, increased temperature and a pathogen

Human activities are fundamentally altering the chemistry of the world's oceans. Ocean acidification (OA) is occurring against a background of warming and an increasing occurrence of disease outbreaks, posing a significant threat to marine organisms, communities, and ecosystems. In the current study, (1)H NMR spectroscopy was used to investigate the response of the blue mussel, Mytilus edulis, to a 90-day exposure to reduced seawater pH and increased temperature, followed by a subsequent pathogenic challenge. Analysis of the metabolome revealed significant differences between male and female organisms. Furthermore, males and females are shown to respond differently to environmental stress. While males were significantly affected by reduced seawater pH, increased temperature, and a bacterial challenge, it was only a reduction in seawater pH that impacted females. Despite impacting males and females differently, stressors seem to act via a generalized stress response impacting both energy metabolism and osmotic balance in both sexes. This study therefore has important implications for the interpretation of metabolomic data in mussels, as well as the impact of environmental stress in marine invertebrates in general.

Macroalgal blooms alter community structure and primary productivity in marine ecosystems

Eutrophication, coupled with loss of herbivory due to habitat degradation and overharvesting, has increased the frequency and severity of macroalgal blooms worldwide. Macroalgal blooms interfere with human activities in coastal areas, and sometimes necessitate costly algal removal programs. They also have many detrimental effects on marine and estuarine ecosystems, including induction of hypoxia, release of toxic hydrogen sulfide into the sediments and atmosphere, and the loss of ecologically and economically important species. However, macroalgal blooms can also increase habitat complexity, provide organisms with food and shelter, and reduce other problems associated with eutrophication. These contrasting effects make their overall ecological impacts unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the overall effects of macroalgal blooms on several key measures of ecosystem structure and functioning in marine ecosystems. We also evaluated some of the ecological and methodological factors that might explain the highly variable effects observed in different studies. Averaged across all studies, macroalgal blooms had negative effects on the abundance and species richness of marine organisms, but blooms by different algal taxa had different consequences, ranging from strong negative to strong positive effects. Blooms' effects on species richness also depended on the habitat where they occurred, with the strongest negative effects seen in sandy or muddy subtidal habitats and in the rocky intertidal. Invertebrate communities also appeared to be particularly sensitive to blooms, suffering reductions in their abundance, species richness, and diversity. The total net primary productivity, gross primary productivity, and respiration of benthic ecosystems were higher during macroalgal blooms, but blooms had negative effects on the productivity and respiration of other organisms. These results suggest that, in addition to their direct social and economic costs, macroalgal blooms have ecological effects that may alter their capacity to deliver important ecosystem services.

Channel Catchments Cluster. Recent developments in tools and techniques for water quality management in the France (Channel) England region

The Channel Catchments Cluster (3C) aims to capitalise on outputs from some of the recent projects funded through the INTERREG IVa France (Channel) England programme. The river catchment basins draining into the Channel region drain an area of 137,000km2 and support a human population of over 19M. Throughout history, these catchments, rivers and estuaries have been centres of habitation, developed through commerce and industry, providing transport links to hinterland areas. These catchments also provide drinking water and food through provision of agriculture, fisheries and aquaculture. In addition, many parts of the region are also economically important now for the tourism and leisure industries. Consequently, there is a need to manage the balance of these many and varied human activities within the catchments, rivers, estuaries and marine areas to ensure that they are maintained or restored to good environmental condition . This document highlights some of the recent work carried out by projects within the INTERREG IVa programme that provide tools and techniques to assist in the achievement of these goals.

The potential use of mapped extent and distribution of habitats as indicators of Good Environmental Status (GES)

The Healthy and Biologically Diverse Seas Evidence Group (HBDSEG) has been tasked with providing the technical advice for the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) with respect to descriptors linked to biodiversity. A workshop was held in London to address one of the Research and Development (R&D) proposals entitled: ‘Mapping the extent and distribution of habitats using acoustic and remote techniques, relevant to indicators for area/extent/habitat loss.’ The aim of the workshop was to identify, define and assess the feasibility of potential indicators of benthic habitat distribution and extent, and identify the R&D work which could be required to fully develop these indicators. The main points that came out of the workshop were: (i) There are many technical aspects of marine habitat mapping that still need to be resolved if cost-effective spatial indicators are to be developed. Many of the technical aspects that need addressing surround issues of consistency, confidence and repeatability. These areas should be tackled by the JNCC Habitat Mapping and Classification Working Group and the HBDSEG Seabed Mapping Working Group. (ii) There is a need for benthic ecologists (through the HBDSEG Benthic Habitats Subgroup and the JNCC Marine Indicators Group) to finalise the list of habitats for which extent and/or distribution indicators should be considered for development, building upon the recommendations from this report. When reviewing the list of indicators, benthic habitats could also be distinguished into those habitats that are defined/determined primarily by physical parameters (although including biological assemblages) (e.g. subtidal shallow sand) and those defined primarily by their biological assemblage (e.g. seagrass beds). This distinction is important as some anthropogenic pressures may influence the biological component of the ecosystem despite not having a quantifiable effect on the physical habitat distribution/extent. (iii) The scale and variety of UK benthic habitats makes any attempt to undertake comprehensive direct mapping exercises prohibitively expensive (especially where there is a need for repeat surveys for assessment). There is a clear need therefore to develop a risk-based approach that uses indirect indicators (e.g. modelling), such as habitats at risk from pressures caused by current human activities, to develop priorities for information gathering. The next steps that came out of the workshop were: (i) A combined approach should be developed by the JNCC Marine Indicators Group together with the HBDSEG Benthic Habitats Subgroup, which will compile and ultimately synthesise all the criteria used by the three different groups from the workshop. The agreed combined approach will be used to undertake a final review of the habitats considered during the workshop, and to evaluate any remaining habitats in order to produce a list of habitats for indicator development for which extent and/or distribution indicators could be appropriate. (ii) The points of advice raised at this workshop, alongside the combined approach aforementioned, and the final list of habitats for extent and/or distribution indicator development will be used to develop a prioritised list of actions to inform the next round of R&D proposals for benthic habitat indicator development in 2014. This will be done through technical discussions within JNCC and the relevant HBDSEG Subgroups. The preparation of recommendations by these groups should take into account existing work programmes, and consider the limited resources available to undertake any further R&D work.

The importance of independent marine evidence provision in a multi-use environment: MBA information resources and The Marine Life Information Network.

One of the most pressing challenges today is the need to manage our oceans on a sustainable basis, balancing opportunities for exploitation with the need for conservation and protection. A vital tool for informing sustainable management is access to accurate, up-to-date marine environmental data and information, which is also seen as ‘independent’ by industry, conservationists, policy-makers and other Stakeholders. The Marine Biological Association has specialised in providing independent evidence for over a century and hosts a number of programmes dedicated to independent evidence provision. For example, the Marine Life Information Network (MarLIN) is the most comprehensive information resource for the marine environment of the British Isles and also the largest review of the effects of human activities and natural events on marine species and habitats ever undertaken. MarLIN, along with the Data Archive for Seabed Species and Habitats (DASSH and other MBA information resources, is currently being used to support a wide range of UK and European legislation as well as providing vital underpinning information for industry (e.g. through informing EIAs). We provide an overview of MarLIN in particular whilst examining the importance of ‘independent’ scientific information in a multi-use environment.

Identifying species and ecosystem sensitivities.

Executive Summary The programme of work was commissioned in September 1998 to supply information to underpin the UK’s commitments to protection and conservation of the ecosystems and biodiversity of the marine environment under the 1992 OSPAR Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic. The programme also provided support for the implementation of the Biodiversity Convention and the EU Habitats Directive. The MarLIN programme initiated a new approach to assessing sensitivity and recoverability characteristics of seabed species and biotopes based on structures (such as the seabed biotopes classification) and criteria (such as for assessing rarity and defining ‘sensitivity’) developed since 1997. It also developed tools to disseminate the information on the Internet. The species researched were those that were listed in conventions and directives, included in Biodiversity Action Plans, or were nationally rare or scarce. In addition, species were researched if they maintained community composition or structure and/or provided a distinctive habitat or were special to or especially abundant in a particular situation or biotope At its conclusion in August 2001, the work carried out under the contract with DETR/DEFRA had: · Developed protocols, criteria and structures for identifying ‘sensitivity’ and ‘recoverability’, which were tested by a programme management group. · Developed a database to hold research data on biology and sensitivity of species and biotopes. · Defined the link between human activities and the environmental factors likely to be affected by those activities. · Developed a user-friendly Web site to access information from the database, on the sensitivity and recoverability characteristics of over 100 species and basic information on over 200 species. Additionally, the project team have: · Brought together and facilitated discussion between current developers and users of electronic resources for environmental management, protection and education in the conference ‘Using Marine Biological Information in the Electronic Age’ (19-21 July 1999). · Contributed to the development of Ecological Quality Objectives for the North Sea (Scheveningen, 11- 3 September 1999 and subsequent papers). · Provided detailed information on species as a supplement to the National Biodiversity Network Gateway demonstration www.searchnbn.net. · Developed a peer-reviewed approach to electronic publication of updateable information. · Promoted the contract results and the MarLIN approach to the support of marine environmental management and protection at European research fora and, through the web site, internationally. The information available through the Web site is now being used by consultants and Government agencies. The DEFRA contract has been of critical importance in establishing the Marine Life Information Network (MarLIN) programme and has encouraged support from other organisations. Other related work in the MarLIN programme is on-going, especially to identify sensitivity of biotopes to support management of SACs (contract from English Nature in collaboration with Scottish Natural Heritage), to access data sources (in collaboration with the National Biodiversity Network) and to establish volunteer recording schemes for marine life. The results of the programme are best viewed on the Web site (www.marlin.ac.uk). Three reports have been produced during the project. A final report detailing the work undertaken, a brochure ‘Identifying the sensitivity of seabed ecosystems’ and a CD-ROM describing the programme and demonstrating the Web site have been delivered as final products in addition to the Web site.