Enhancing the Global Ocean Observing System to meet evidence based needs for the ecosystem-based management of coastal ecosystem services

Ecosystem-based approaches (EBAs) to managing anthropogenic pressures on ecosystems, adapting to changes in ecosystem states (indicators of ecosystem health), and mitigating the impacts of state changes on ecosystem services are needed for sustainable development. EBAs are informed by integrated ecosystem assessments (IEAs) that must be compiled and updated frequently for EBAs to be effective. Frequently updated IEAs depend on the sustained provision of data and information on pressures, state changes, and impacts of state changes on services. Nowhere is this truer than in the coastal zone, where people and ecosystem services are concentrated and where anthropogenic pressures converge. This study identifies the essential indicator variables required for the sustained provision of frequently updated IEAs, and offers an approach to establishing a global network of coastal observations within the framework of the Global Ocean Observing System. The need for and challenges of capacity-building are highlighted, and examples are given of current programmes that could contribute to the implementation of a coastal ocean observing system of systems on a global scale. This illustrates the need for new approaches to ocean governance that can achieve coordinated integration of existing programmes and technologies as a first step towards this goal.

Ecosystem services, targets, and indicators for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity

After the collective failure to achieve the Convention on Biological Diversity's (CBD's) 2010 target to substantially reduce biodiversity losses, the CBD adopted a plan composed of five strategic goals and 20 “SMART” (Specific, Measurable, Ambitious, Realistic, and Time-bound) targets, to be achieved by 2020. Here, an interdisciplinary group of scientists from DIVERSITAS – an international program that focuses on biodiversity science – evaluates these targets and considers the implications of an ecosystem-services-based approach for their implementation. We describe the functional differences between the targets corresponding to distinct strategic goals and identify the interdependency between targets. We then discuss the implications for supporting research and target indicators, and make several specific suggestions for target implementation.

Seasonal ITCZ migration dynamically controls the location of the (sub)tropical Atlantic biogeochemical divide

Inorganic nitrogen depletion restricts productivity in much of the low-latitude oceans, generating a selective advantage for diazotrophic organisms capable of fixing atmospheric dinitrogen (N2). However, the abundance and activity of diazotrophs can in turn be controlled by the availability of other potentially limiting nutrients, including phosphorus (P) and iron (Fe). Here we present high-resolution data (∼0.3°) for dissolved iron, aluminum, and inorganic phosphorus that confirm the existence of a sharp north–south biogeochemical boundary in the surface nutrient concentrations of the (sub)tropical Atlantic Ocean. Combining satellite-based precipitation data with results from a previous study, we here demonstrate that wet deposition in the region of the intertropical convergence zone acts as the major dissolved iron source to surface waters. Moreover, corresponding observations of N2 fixation and the distribution of diazotrophic Trichodesmium spp. indicate that movement in the region of elevated dissolved iron as a result of the seasonal migration of the intertropical convergence zone drives a shift in the latitudinal distribution of diazotrophy and corresponding dissolved inorganic phosphorus depletion. These conclusions are consistent with the results of an idealized numerical model of the system. The boundary between the distinct biogeochemical systems of the (sub)tropical Atlantic thus appears to be defined by the diazotrophic response to spatial–temporal variability in external Fe inputs. Consequently, in addition to demonstrating a unique seasonal cycle forced by atmospheric nutrient inputs, we suggest that the underlying biogeochemical mechanisms would likely characterize the response of oligotrophic systems to altered environmental forcing over longer timescales.

Incorporating ecosystem services in marine planning: The role of valuation

This paper scrutinises the use of ecosystem service valuation for marine planning. Lessons are drawn from the development and use of environmental valuation and cost-benefit analysis for policy-making in the US and the UK. Current approaches to marine planning in both countries are presented and the role that ecosystem service valuation could play in this context is outlined. This includes highlighting the steps in the marine planning process where valuation can inform marine planning and policy-making as well as a discussion of methodological challenges to ecosystem service valuation techniques in the context of marine planning. Recommendations to overcome existing barriers are offered based on the synergies and the thinking in the two countries regarding the application of ecosystem service valuation to marine planning.

Vulnerability of coastal ecosystems to changes in harmful algal bloom distribution in response to climate change: projections based on model analysis

Harmful algal blooms (HABs), those proliferations of algae that can cause fish kills, contaminate seafood with toxins, form unsightly scums, or detrimentally alter ecosystem function have been increasing in frequency, magnitude, and duration worldwide. Here, using a global modeling approach, we show, for three regions of the globe, the potential effects of nutrient loading and climate change for two HAB genera, pelagic Prorocentrum and Karenia, each with differing physiological characteristics for growth. The projections (end of century, 2090-2100) are based on climate change resulting from the A1B scenario of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Institut Pierre Simon Laplace Climate Model (IPCC, IPSL-CM4), applied in a coupled oceanographic-biogeochemical model, combined with a suite of assumed physiological 'rules' for genera-specific bloom development. Based on these models, an expansion in area and/or number of months annually conducive to development of these HABs along the NW European Shelf-Baltic Sea system and NE Asia was projected for both HAB genera, but no expansion (Prorocentrum spp.), or actual contraction in area and months conducive for blooms (Karenia spp.), was projected in the SE Asian domain. The implications of these projections, especially for Northern Europe, are shifts in vulnerability of coastal systems to HAB events, increased regional HAB impacts to aquaculture, increased risks to human health and ecosystems, and economic consequences of these events due to losses to fisheries and 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.

Energy production and ecosystem services

Ecosystems provide a range of goods and services that contribute toward human well-being. It is increasingly recognized that factors such as a growing and increasingly affluent world population, coupled with increased globalization of trade, are significantly influencing the delivery of ecosystem goods and services. This chapter argues that future energy policy must be designed based on a broad set of environmental and social considerations that examine the national and international implications of each energy technology. This approach ensures a more holistic overview of the costs and benefits associated with energy production, allowing society to make more informed choices about their futures, including how their energy is sourced, generated, and delivered.

The role of economics in ecosystem based management: The case of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, First lessons learnt and way forward

The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) sets out a plan of action relating to marine environmental policy and in particular to achieving ‘good environmental status’ (GES) in European marine waters by 2020. Article 8.1 (c) of the Directive calls for ‘an economic and social analysis of the use of those waters and of the cost of degradation of the marine environment’. The MSFD is ‘informed’ by the Ecosystem Approach to management, with GES interpreted in terms of ecosystem functioning and services provision. Implementation of the Ecosystem Approach is expected to be by adaptive management policy and practice. The initial socio-economic assessment was made by maritime EU Member States between 2011 and 2012, with future updates to be made on a regular basis. For the majority of Member States, this assessment has led to an exercise combining an analysis of maritime activities both at national and coastal zone scales, and an analysis of the non-market value of marine waters. In this paper we examine the approaches taken in more detail, outline the main challenges facing the Member States in assessing the economic value of achieving GES as outlined in the Directive and make recommendations for the theoretically sound and practically useful completion of the required follow-up economic assessments specified in the MSFD.

The role of economics in ecosystem based management: The case of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, First lessons learnt and way forward

The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) sets out a plan of action relating to marine environmental policy and in particular to achieving ‘good environmental status’ (GES) in European marine waters by 2020. Article 8.1 (c) of the Directive calls for ‘an economic and social analysis of the use of those waters and of the cost of degradation of the marine environment’. The MSFD is ‘informed’ by the Ecosystem Approach to management, with GES interpreted in terms of ecosystem functioning and services provision. Implementation of the Ecosystem Approach is expected to be by adaptive management policy and practice. The initial socio-economic assessment was made by maritime EU Member States between 2011 and 2012, with future updates to be made on a regular basis. For the majority of Member States, this assessment has led to an exercise combining an analysis of maritime activities both at national and coastal zone scales, and an analysis of the non-market value of marine waters. In this paper we examine the approaches taken in more detail, outline the main challenges facing the Member States in assessing the economic value of achieving GES as outlined in the Directive and make recommendations for the theoretically sound and practically useful completion of the required follow-up economic assessments specified in the MSFD.