Search

The Working Group on Fisheries Benthic Impact and Trade-offs (WGFBIT) develops methods and performs assessments to evaluate benthic impact from fisheries at regional scale, while considering fisheries and seabed impact trade-offs. WGFBIT has attempted to per-form these assessments for as many regions as possible, and for each region indicate, prioritize and execute (if feasible) potential improvements. In order to broadly anchor the assessment methodology, demonstrate its utility and flexibility and identify relevant data gaps and appropriate improvement potentials it was key that each assessment was per-formed and discussed by the regional experts at the meeting. The FBIT assessment framework was successfully applied in 5 ecoregions; the Arctic Sea, the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, the Celtic Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, with variable level of completeness and robustness. Standard structured regional outputs from the WGFBIT assessment workflow, in terms of pressure, sensitivity and impact estimates, were produced and presented for each region. This is a significant step towards the WGFBIT term of reference ‘to produce a framework for MSFD D6/D1 assessment related to bottom abrasion of fishing activity at the regional scale’. An additional outcome from the assessments was an increased consensus and appreciation of the utility of the FBIT assessment framework. Each regional group identified where and how the assessment and methodology could be further improved; e.g. the need for updated and regionwide fishing pressure data and the inclusion of additional region-specific environmental variables in the estimation of habitat sensitivity. Moreover, a strategy was agreed on to further operationalize the current ecoregion assessments as well as bring in additional ecoregions. Four intersessional subgroups (trade-off, deep sea, data-script management, communication and advice) were established to facilitate future advances in the work of WGFBIT. These groups will be seeking to update and increase coverage of fishing pressure data (mainly for the Mediterranean), develop longevity estimation methods for deep-sea species and habitats, refine assessment approaches, integrate additional physical disturbance pressures, in addition to fishing, in the assessment and further develop communication material addressing dissemination of the methodological details, the actual assessment procedures and standardized workflow.

The workshop on scoping of physical pressure layers causing loss of benthic habitats D6C1– methods to operational data products (WKBEDLOSS) is part of a stepwise process to delivering advice on sea-floor integrity for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). In collaboration with its strategic partners, the high level objectives undertaken by ICES within the project were: 1) to identify benthic physical disturbance pressure layers available within ICES and the European and wider marine community across the four EU (MSFD) regions – including the mapping of pertinent data flows and the establishment of criteria needed to ensure the practical use of the data in assessing benthic impact – in the workshop WKBEDPRES1 (ICES HQ 24–26 October 2018); 2) to identify physical pressure layers causing loss of benthic habitats across the four EU regions, including mapping of data flow and establish guidance to ensure the practical use of the data in assessing benthic impact - in the workshop WKBEDLOSS (ICES HQ 11–13 March 2019); 3) to collate physical pressure layer data causing loss or disturbance (October 2018–Aug 2019), using identified sources and targeted data calls; and 4) to evaluate and operationally test the application of compiled physical pressure layer data causing loss or disturbance (WKBEDPRES2, 30 September–2 October 2019). WKBEDLOSS focused on objective 2, the requirement of MSFD GES Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848 criterion D6C1 to assess the spatial extent and distribution of physical pressure layers causing loss of benthic habitats, within each ecoregion and subdivision. Where information on activities was missing, or where the data collected was not suitable for this task, data requirements were highlighted by workshop participants. The process necessitated input from many sources, bringing together research science, marine spatial planning, management experts and indicator developers, all components required for the delivery of MSFD. The resultant collated information needs to be appropriate for the assessment of benthic habitats (D1) and seafloor integrity (D6C3-C5) as set out in the Commission Decision. WKBEDLOSS defined physical loss as any human-induced permanent alteration of the physical habitat from which recovery is impossible without further intervention. Alteration of the physical habitat refers to a change in the EUNIS level 2 habitat type. Loss can be given as extent in square kilometres, or percentage loss per EUNIS level 2 habitat. Human interventions facilitating recovery (e.g. removal of man-made structures from the seabed, restoring the original substrate by depositing materials or re-introducing species in the case of loss of biogenic habitat) refer to actions allowing the physical habitat to return to its original EUNIS level 2 habitat type. WKBEDLOSS distinguished between three types of physical loss: sealed physical loss, un-sealed physical loss and the loss of biogenic habitat. Sealed loss, in general, arises where structures or substrates have been introduced which in and of themselves change the physical habitat. Unsealed loss results from changes in physical habitat due to alterations in physical habitat resulting from an activity or activities and from the indirect effects of placement of man-made structures. This distinction is necessary as data flows recording physical loss differ according to these types. WKBEDLOSS identified and listed the anthropogenic activities (physical pressure layers) causing physical loss by region. Activities were grouped into those resulting in sealed loss (introduction of structures or substrates) and those potentially resulting in unsealed loss.For some activities, the physical loss may be only a part of the licensed zone for the activity. Unsealed loss-causing activities seldom cover the entire licensed extent of the activity (e.g. aggregate extraction). Likewise, sealed physical loss may cover only a proportion of a li-censed zone (e.g. wind turbines within the entire wind farm area). Physical loss can be mapped based on the actual footprint of an individual structure (i.e. sealed loss). Around these structures, a buffer zone (area of potential impact that extends beyond the footprint) can apply to both loss (e.g. scouring leading to change of EUNIS level 2 habitat type) and disturbance (e.g. scouring not leading to change of EUNIS level 2 habitat type). Hence, mapping unsealed loss requires further qualification following the compilation of activity data to ascertain if loss has occurred. Assessing sealed and unsealed physical loss comprises five generic steps: (1) to identify the MSFD-competent authorities who may hold or have access to suitable physical loss data, (2) to request spatial data and attribute information for each physical loss-causing activity, (3) to assess the surface area of physical loss, (4) to assess and document the level of confidence for each feature in the attribute table, and (5) to manage data according to the FAIR principles. To distinguish unsealed physical loss from physical disturbance, unsealed loss requires further qualification (i.e. in situ observation of habitat change) following the compilation of activity/pressure data to ascertain if loss rather than disturbance has occurred. Data provisioning to determine if loss has occurred may either become part of the operating obligation for the licensed activity or, a targeted monitoring approach may be adopted. In situations where limited monitoring hampers ascertaining changes in EUNIS level 2 habitats, the severity of the activity on the habitat may be modelled and used to infer loss, though such approaches should be supported by clear scientific validation. Data requirements for unsealed loss are similar to those noted in WKBEDPRES1. Assessing the loss of biogenic habitat comprises three steps: (1) to identify the present and historic biogenic habitat-forming species, (2) to assess the natural spatial distribution and extent of the biogenic habitat and (3) to assess the loss of biogenic habitat. Note that in case of historical (poor geographically referenced) loss, the historic extent baseline can be estimated based on e.g. regional reviews or habitat suitability mapping. During the data collection phase, it is important to identify a level of confidence in the positional and spatial accuracy of the data.

Ecosystem Overviews (EOs) are central products in the ICES approach to support Ecosystem Based Management, through providing the ecoregion context, identifying main pressures, asso-ciated human activities and impacts on ecosystem state. The WKEO3 explored and discussed both stakeholder/client and expert views on the development of the EOs, and assessed new prod-ucts to be included in shorter or longer terms.There was general agreement to maintain EOs as brief synthetic products to provide the narra-tive for each ecoregion and thereby setting the broader ecosystem context for other ICES (and usually more focused) advice products (such as fisheries overviews, fishing opportunities and environmental impact assessments). Also, it was suggested that EOs can highlight the broad ex-pertise of ICES and point to the range of our excellent products to support advice and manage-ment.Based on stakeholder views and suggestions by meeting participants on the importance and ma-turity of scientific products, the WKEO3 identified 8 high-priority candidate sections to be in-cluded into the EOs over the next 1–3 years, that have the potential to meet the requirements related to quality, accessibility, transparency and reproducibility. These topics include i) man-agement objectives, ii) fisheries impact on the seabed, iii) climate predictions and projections, iv) productivity changes, v) mapping vulnerable areas, vi) linking pressures to ecosystem functions and processes, vii) a general overview of ecosystem structure, and vii) food web modelling to quantify links and impacts. An EO pipeline process should be established to secure the develop-ment of EOs on the longer term, which should encourage wider engagement, harvesting of new ideas from the expert groups, and provide a more formalized development process and testing ground for new products.The EOs technical guidance document should include a short introduction that clarifies the cur-rent position on a series of questions and debates such as the targeted audience, ICES areas fol-lowing EEZ and some biogeographical features, and guidance on update cycles. In particular, the use of references in the text may be better integrated if web-based formats are developed.The technical guidelines for the EO conceptual figure on human activities, regional pressures and ecosystem state components, together with the associated risk assessment framework, need revision to ensure consistency and transparency of assessments. A dedicated workshop was pro-posed as a high priority action, to review approaches and frameworks assessing and prioritizing among activities, pressures and impacts, and to adapt a simplified set of best guidelines for the EOs.The workshop supported the move of EOs from PDF formats to web-based products, that pro-vide new opportunities for tailoring product presentations to different audiences. Such develop-ment is challenged by limited capacity in the ICES secretariat. To strengthen the science commu-nication of ICES in general, including the EOs, the meeting participants suggested exploring op-portunities for establishing an ICES Strategic Initiative on Science Communication.A record should be kept of where and how EOs are being used by the community including the clients, stakeholders, and the public and communicated to the IEA group as feedback.

ICES was requested to investigate the main physical disturbance pressure(s) causing benthic impact on habitats per EU ecoregion. The three workshops in this process - WKBEDPRES1, WKBEDLOSS and WKBEDPRES2 – form part of a stepwise process that will deliver advice on seafloor integrity for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). In collaboration with its strategic partners, the high level objectives undertaken by ICES within the advice request process were: 1) to identify benthic physical disturbance pressure layers available within ICES and the European and wider marine community across the four EU (MSFD) regions – including the mapping of pertinent data flows and the establishment of criteria needed to ensure the practical use of the data in assessing benthic impact in the workshop WKBEDPRES1 (ICES HQ 24–26 October 2018); 2) to identify physical pressure layers causing loss of benthic habitats across the four EU regions, including mapping of data flow and establish guidance to ensure the practical use of the data in assessing benthic impact in the workshop WKBEDLOSS (ICES HQ 11–13 March 2019); 3) to collate physical pressure layer data causing loss or disturbance (October 2018–Aug 2019), using identified sources and targeted data calls; and 4) to evaluate and operationally test the application of compiled physical pressure layer data causing loss or disturbance (WKBEDPRES2, 30 September–2 October 2019). WKBEDPRES 2 represents the end of this process prior to submission to an ICES coordinated scientific peer-review. During this ICES review phase the EU’s TG SeaBed group will also be given the opportunity to highlight any issues requiring further clarification, and input on the operational implementation of the suggested approaches. An ICES Advice Drafting Group (ADGD6PRES) will be convened to draft advice in response to the original advice request based on the workshop reports and their review (including TG SeaBed input) to then be approved by the ICES Advisory Committee. The expected release of the ICES advice is 5 December 2019.WKBEDPRES2 focused on objectives 3 and 4 above, developing EU-wide guidance on how to assess and report human activities that cause physical disturbance to the seafloor and loss of benthic habitats and to present relevant methodological flows and demonstration products. Within WKBEDPRES2 suitable data streams relating to activities thought to be the main causes of physical disturbance were identified, as were the links from activity to pressure and then through to impact. To produce an assessment process that allowed an accurate assessment of pressures, whilst at the same time being tractable operationally, key pressures drivers and activities were identified and have been reported herein. Definitions of what constitutes physical disturbance and loss, including further definitions required in their assessment, were also set out. The methodology laid out in WKBEDPRES2 was found to be generally applicable to each ecoregion and pressure type thought to have a main impact upon seabed integrity. The resultant demonstration product confirms the current availability of reliable methods that can implement such an assessment and the data requirements needed to serve such methods. Limitations to this assessment process, in terms of supporting models and data gaps were also identified. The implementation of such methods provides a framework that is able to assess multiple pressures arising from multiple activities and presents the possibility of further activities being included into the assessment framework in a cumulative and biologically relevant manner: appropriate to assessment of adverse effects under D6C3 and D6C5, both for the single pressure and the cumulative of all pressures.