Costs and benefits to European shipping of ballast-water and hull-fouling treatment: Impacts of native and non-indigenous species

Maritime transport and shipping are impacted negatively by biofouling, which can result in increased fuel consumption. Thus, costs for fouling reduction can be considered an investment to reduce fuel consumption. Anti-fouling measures also reduce the rate of introduction of non-indigenous species (NIS). Further mitigation measures to reduce the transport of NIS within ballast water and sediments impose additional costs. The estimated operational cost of NIS mitigation measures may represent between 1.6% and 4% of the annual operational cost for a ship operating on European seas, with the higher proportional costs in small ships. However, fouling by NIS may affect fuel consumption more than fouling by native species due to differences in species’ life-history traits and their resistance to antifouling coatings and pollution. Therefore, it is possible that the cost of NIS mitigation measures could be smaller than the cost from higher fuel consumption arising from fouling by NIS.

Making modelling count - increasing the contribution of shelf-seas community and ecosystem models to policy development and management

Marine legislation is becoming more complex and marine ecosystem-based management is specified in national and regional legislative frameworks. Shelf-seas community and ecosystem models (hereafter termed ecosystem models) are central to the delivery of ecosystem-based management, but there is limited uptake and use of model products by decision makers in Europe and the UK in comparison with other countries. In this study, the challenges to the uptake and use of ecosystem models in support of marine environmental management are assessed using the UK capability as an example. The UK has a broad capability in marine ecosystem modelling, with at least 14 different models that support management, but few examples exist of ecosystem modelling that underpin policy or management decisions. To improve understanding of policy and management issues that can be addressed using ecosystem models, a workshop was convened that brought together advisors, assessors, biologists, social scientists, economists, modellers, statisticians, policy makers, and funders. Some policy requirements were identified that can be addressed without further model development including: attribution of environmental change to underlying drivers, integration of models and observations to develop more efficient monitoring programmes, assessment of indicator performance for different management goals, and the costs and benefit of legislation. Multi-model ensembles are being developed in cases where many models exist, but model structures are very diverse making a standardised approach of combining outputs a significant challenge, and there is a need for new methodologies for describing, analysing, and visualising uncertainties. A stronger link to social and economic systems is needed to increase the range of policy-related questions that can be addressed. It is also important to improve communication between policy and modelling communities so that there is a shared understanding of the strengths and limitations of ecosystem models.