Oceans and Human Health (OHH): a European Perspective from the Marine Board of the European Science Foundation (Marine Board-ESF)

The oceans and coastal seas provide mankind with many benefits including food for around a third of the global population, the air that we breathe and our climate system which enables habitation of much of the planet. However, the converse is that generation of natural events (such as hurricanes, severe storms and tsunamis) can have devastating impacts on coastal populations, while pollution of the seas by pathogens and toxic waste can cause illness and death in humans and animals. Harmful effects from biogenic toxins produced by algal blooms (HABs) and from the pathogens associated with microbial pollution are also a health hazard in seafood and from direct contact with water. The overall global burden of human disease caused by sewage pollution of coastal waters has been estimated at 4 million lost person-years annually. Finally, the impacts of all of these issues will be exacerbated by climate change. A holistic systems approach is needed. It must consider whole ecosystems, and their sustainability, such as integrated coastal zone management, is necessary to address the highly interconnected scientific challenges of increased human population pressure, pollution and over-exploitation of food (and other) resources as drivers of adverse ecological, social and economic impacts. There is also an urgent and critical requirement for effective and integrated public health solutions to be developed through the formulation of politically and environmentally meaningful policies. The research community required to address "Oceans & Human Health" in Europe is currently very fragmented, and recognition by policy makers of some of the problems, outlined in the list of challenges above, is limited. Nevertheless, relevant key policy issues for governments worldwide include the reduction of the burden of disease (including the early detection of emerging pathogens and other threats) and improving the quality of the global environment. Failure to effectively address these issues will impact adversely on efforts to alleviate poverty, sustain the availability of environmental goods and services and improve health and social and economic stability; and thus, will impinge on many policy decisions, both nationally and internationally. Knowledge exchange (KE) will be a key element of any ensuing research. KE will facilitate the integration of biological, medical, epidemiological, social and economic disciplines, as well as the emergence of synergies between seemingly unconnected areas of science and socio-economic issues, and will help to leverage knowledge transfer across the European Union (EU) and beyond. An integrated interdisciplinary systems approach is an effective way to bring together the appropriate groups of scientists, social scientists, economists, industry and other stakeholders with the policy formulators in order to address the complexities of interfacial problems in the area of environment and human health. The Marine Board of the European Science Foundation Working Group on "Oceans and Human Health" has been charged with developing a position paper on this topic with a view to identifying the scientific, social and economic challenges and making recommendations to the EU on policy-relevant research and development activities in this arena. This paper includes the background to health-related issues linked to the coastal environment and highlights the main arguments for an ecosystem-based whole systems approach.

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.