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

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

A review of climate change and the implementation of marine biodiversity legislation in the United Kingdom

1. Marine legislation, the key means by which the conservation of marine biodiversity is achieved, has been developing since the 1960s. In recent decades, an increasing focus on ‘holistic’ policy development is evident, compared with earlier ‘piecemeal’ sectoral approaches. Important marine legislative tools being used in the United Kingdom, and internationally, include the designation of marine protected areas and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) with its aim of meeting ‘Good Environmental Status’ (GES) for European seas by 2020. 2. There is growing evidence of climate change impacts on marine biodiversity, which may compromise the effectiveness of any legislation intended to promote sustainable marine resource management. 3. A review of key marine biodiversity legislation relevant to the UK shows climate change was not considered in the drafting of much early legislation. Despite the huge increase in knowledge of climate change impacts in recent decades, legislation is still limited in how it takes these impacts into account. There is scope, however, to account for climate change in implementing much of the legislation through (a) existing references to environmental variability; (b) review cycles; and (c) secondary legislation and complementary policy development. 4. For legislation relating to marine protected areas (e.g. the EC Habitats and Birds Directives), climate change has generally not been considered in the site-designation process, or for ongoing management, with the exception of the Marine (Scotland) Act. Given that changing environmental conditions (e.g. rising temperatures and ocean acidification) directly affect the habitats and species that sites are designated for, how this legislation is used to protect marine biodiversity in a changing climate requires further consideration. 5. Accounting for climate change impacts on marine biodiversity in the development and implementation of legislation is vital to enable timely, adaptive management responses. Marine modelling can play an important role in informing management decisions