Priority research questions for the UK food system

The rise of food security up international political, societal and academic agendas has led to increasing interest in novel means of improving primary food production and reducing waste. There are however, also many 'post-farm gate' activities that are critical to food security, including processing, packaging, distributing, retailing, cooking and consuming. These activities all affect a range of important food security elements, notably availability, affordability and other aspects of access, nutrition and safety. Addressing the challenge of universal food security, in the context of a number of other policy goals (e.g. social, economic and environmental sustainability), is of keen interest to a range of UK stakeholders but requires an up-to-date evidence base and continuous innovation. An exercise was therefore conducted, under the auspices of the UK Global Food Security Programme, to identify priority research questions with a focus on the UK food system (though the outcomes may be broadly applicable to other developed nations). Emphasis was placed on incorporating a wide range of perspectives ('world views') from different stakeholder groups: policy, private sector, non-governmental organisations, advocacy groups and academia. A total of 456 individuals submitted 820 questions from which 100 were selected by a process of online voting and a three-stage workshop voting exercise. These 100 final questions were sorted into 10 themes and the 'top' question for each theme identified by a further voting exercise. This step also allowed four different stakeholder groups to select the top 7-8 questions from their perspectives. Results of these voting exercises are presented. It is clear from the wide range of questions prioritised in this exercise that the different stakeholder groups identified specific research needs on a range of post-farm gate activities and food security outcomes. Evidence needs related to food affordability, nutrition and food safety (all key elements of food security) featured highly in the exercise. While there were some questions relating to climate impacts on production, other important topics for food security (e.g. trade, transport, preference and cultural needs) were not viewed as strongly by the participants.

The evaluation of time series: their scientific value and contribution to policy needs. Occasional Publication of the Marine Biological Association 22

In 2000 a Review of Current Marine Observations in relation to present and future needs was undertaken by the Inter-Agency Committee for Marine Science and Technology (IACMST). The Marine Environmental Change Network (MECN) was initiated in 2002 as a direct response to the recommendations of the report. A key part of the current phase of the MECN is to ensure that information from the network is provided to policy makers and other end-users to enable them to produce more accurate assessments of ecosystem state and gain a clearer understanding of factors influencing change in marine ecosystems. The MECN holds workshops on an annual basis, bringing together partners maintaining time-series and long-term datasets as well as end-users interested in outputs from the network. It was decided that the first workshop of the MECN continuation phase should consist of an evaluation of the time series and data sets maintained by partners in the MECN with regard to their ‘fit for purpose’ for answering key science questions and informing policy development. This report is based on the outcomes of the workshop. Section one of the report contains a brief introduction to monitoring, time series and long-term datasets. The various terms are defined and the need for MECN type data to complement compliance monitoring programmes is discussed. Outlines are also given of initiatives such as the United Kingdom Marine Monitoring and Assessment Strategy (UKMMAS) and Oceans 2025. Section two contains detailed information for each of the MECN time series / long-term datasets including information on scientific outputs and current objectives. This information is mainly based on the presentations given at the workshop and therefore follows a format whereby the following headings are addressed: Origin of time series including original objectives; current objectives; policy relevance; products (advice, publications, science and society). Section three consists of comments made by the review panel concerning all the time series and the network. Needs or issues highlighted by the panel with regard to the future of long-term datasets and time-series in the UK are shown along with advice and potential solutions where offered. The recommendations are divided into 4 categories; ‘The MECN and end-user requirements’; ‘Procedures & protocols’; ‘Securing data series’ and ‘Future developments’. Ever since marine environmental protection issues really came to the fore in the 1960s, it has been recognised that there is a requirement for a suitable evidence base on environmental change in order to support policy and management for UK waters. Section four gives a brief summary of the development of marine policy in the UK along with comments on the availability and necessity of long-term marine observations for the implementation of this policy. Policy relating to three main areas is discussed; Marine Conservation (protecting biodiversity and marine ecosystems); Marine Pollution and Fisheries. The conclusion of this section is that there has always been a specific requirement for information on long-term change in marine ecosystems around the UK in order to address concerns over pollution, fishing and general conservation. It is now imperative that this need is addressed in order for the UK to be able to fulfil its policy commitments and manage marine ecosystems in the light of climate change and other factors.

What are the local impacts of energy systems on marine ecosystem services: a systematic map protocol

Background: Increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG) and its impact on the climate has resulted in many international governments committing to reduce their GHG emissions. The UK, for example, has committed to reducing its carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. Suggested ways of reaching such a target are to increase dependency on offshore wind, offshore gas and nuclear. It is not clear, however, how the construction, operation and decommissioning of these energy systems will impact marine ecosystem services, i.e. the services obtained by people from the natural environment such as food provisioning, climate regulation and cultural inspiration. Research on ecosystem service impacts associated with offshore energy technologies is still in its infancy. The objective of this review is to bolster the evidence base by firstly, recording and describing the impacts of energy technologies at the marine ecosystems and human level in a consistent and transparent way; secondly, to translate these ecosystem and human impacts into ecosystem service impacts by using a framework to ensure consistency and comparability. The output of this process will be an objective synthesis of ecosystem service impacts comprehensive enough to cover different types of energy under the same analysis and to assist in informing how the provision of ecosystem services will change under different energy provisioning scenarios. Methods: Relevant studies will be sourced using publication databases and selected using a set of selection criteria including the identification of: (i) relevant subject populations such as marine and coastal species, marine habitat types and the general public; (ii) relevant exposure types including offshore wind farms, offshore oil and gas platforms and offshore structures connected with nuclear; (iii) relevant outcomes including changes in species structure and diversity; changes in benthic, demersal and pelagic habitats; and changes in cultural services. The impacts will be synthesised and described using a systematic map. To translate these findings into ecosystem service impacts, the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) and Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) frameworks are used and a detailed description of the steps taken provided to ensure transparency and replicability.

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.

Assessing the sensitivity of Sabellaria spinulosa to pressures associated with marine activities.

The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) commissioned this project to generate an improved understanding of the sensitivities of Sabellaria spinulosa reefs based on the OSPAR habitat definition. This work aimed 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. The OSPAR list of threatened and declining species and habitats refers to subtidal S. spinulosa reefs on hard or mixed substratum. S. spinulosa may also occur as thin crusts or individual worms but these are not the focus of conservation. The purpose of this project was to produce sensitivity assessments with supporting evidence for S. spinulosa reefs, clearly documenting the evidence behind the assessments and the confidence in these assessments. Sixteen pressures, falling in five categories - biological, hydrological, physical damage, physical loss, and pollution and other chemical changes - were assessed in this report. To develop each sensitivity assessment, the resistance and resilience of the key elements of the habitat 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. The highest sensitivity (‘medium’) was recorded for physical pressures which directly impact the reefs including: • habitat structure changes – removal of substratum; • abrasion and penetration and sub-surface disturbance; • physical loss of habitat and change to habitat; and • siltation rate changes including and smothering. The report found that no evidence for differences in the sensitivity of the three EUNIS S. spinulosa biotopes that comprise the OSPAR definition. However, this evidence review has identified significant information gaps regarding sensitivity, ecological interactions with other species and resilience. No clear difference in resilience was established across the OSPAR S. spinulosa biotopes that were assessed in this report. 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. Finally, as S. spinulosa 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.

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.

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.