An exposure-effect approach for evaluating ecosystem-wide risks from human activities

ICES Journal of Marine Science ICES Journal of Marine Science (2015), 72(3), 1105– 1115. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsu245 Contribution to the Themed Section: ‘Risk Assessment’ Original Article An exposure-effect approach for evaluating ecosystem-wide risks from human activities 1 Marine Biology and Ecology Research Centre, School of Marine Science and Engineering, Plymouth University, Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UK Institute for Marine Resources and Ecosystem Studies (IMARES), Haringkade 1, IJmuiden 1976 CP, The Netherlands 3 School of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool, Nicholson Building, Liverpool L69 3GP, UK 4 Instituto Nazionale di Ocenaographie e di Geofisica Sperimentale (OGS), Borgo Grotta Gigante 42/C, Sgonico, Italy 5 National Institute for Marine Research and Development “Grigore Antipa”, Constanta 900581, Romania 6 A.O. Kovalevskiy Institute of Biology and Southern Seas, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine 2, Nakhimov Av., Sevastopol, Crimea 99011, Ukraine 7 Marine Research Centre, Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), PO Box 140, Helsinki FI-00251, Finland 8 National Institute of Oceanography, Israel Oceanographic and Limnological Research (NIO-IOLR), Tel Shikmona, Haifa 21080, Israel 9 Cefas, Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk NR33 0HT, UK 10 Department of Zoology, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69778, Israel 11 Department of Fisheries Oceanography and Marine Ecology, National Marine Fisheries Research Institute, ul. Kollataja 1, Gdynia 81-332, Poland 12 Institute of Oceanology, BAS 9000 Varna, PO Box 152, Bulgaria 13 Institute of Marine Sciences, Middle East Technical University, PO Box 28, Erdemli 33731, Turkey 14 Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, Institute of Marine Biological Resources and Inland Waters, PO Box 2214, Heraklion 71003, Crete 2 *Corresponding author: tel: +44 1752 587889; fax: +441752 586101; e-mail: Knights, A. M., Piet, G. J., Jongbloed, R. H., Tamis, J. E., White, L., Akoglu, E., Boicenco, L., Churilova, T., Kryvenko, O., FlemingLehtinen, V., LeppanenJuha-Markku, Galil, B. S., Goodsir, F., Goren, M., Margonski, P., Moncheva, S., Oguz, T., Papadopoulou, K. N., Setälä, O., Smith, C. J., Stefanova, K., Timofte, F., and Robinson, L. A. An exposure-effect approach for evaluating ecosystemwide risks from human activities. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 72: 1105– 1115. Received 19 August 2014; revised 8 December 2014; accepted 9 December 2014. Ecosystem-based management (EBM) is promoted as the solution for sustainable use. An ecosystem-wide assessment methodology is therefore required. In this paper, we present an approach to assess the risk to ecosystem components from human activities common to marine and coastal ecosystems. We build on: (i) a linkage framework that describes how human activities can impact the ecosystem through pressures, and (ii) a qualitative expert judgement assessment of impact chains describing the exposure and sensitivity of ecological components to those activities. Using case study examples applied at European regional sea scale, we evaluate the risk of an adverse ecological impact from current human activities to a suite of ecological components and, once impacted, the time required for recovery to pre-impact conditions should those activities subside. Grouping impact chains by sectors, pressure type, or ecological components enabled impact risks and recovery times to be identified, supporting resource managers in their efforts to prioritize threats for management, identify most at-risk components, and generate time frames for ecosystem recovery. Keywords: ecosystem-based management, exposure-effect, human activities, impact, marine, risk framework. † These authors wish to be considered as joint first authors. # International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 2015. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: Antony M. Knights1†*, Gerjan J. Piet 2†, Ruud H. Jongbloed 2†, Jacqueline E. Tamis 2†, Lydia White 3, Ekin Akoglu 4, Laura Boicenco 5, Tanya Churilova6, Olga Kryvenko 6, Vivi Fleming-Lehtinen 7, Juha-Markku Leppanen7, Bella S. Galil 8, Freya Goodsir 9, Menachem Goren10, Piotr Margonski 11, Snejana Moncheva 12, Temel Oguz 13, K. Nadia Papadopoulou 14, Outi Setälä 7, Chris J. Smith 14, Kremena Stefanova 6, Florin Timofte 5, and Leonie A. Robinson 3† 1106 Introduction condition) to assess habitat vulnerability (Bax and Williams, 2001). Assessments have tended to focus on a single activity or target species (e.g. fishing, Bax and Williams, 2001; Fletcher, 2005; Hobday et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2011) but have recently been broadened to include a greater number of activities and non-target species and applied at larger management scales (Samhouri and Levin, 2012). Here, we illustrate how the exposure-effect approach can be used to assess the risk to ecosystems from human activities at considerably larger spatial scales than those previously described. Although the definition of “regional” can be broadly interpreted (e.g. Samhouri and Levin, 2012, used regional to describe the Puget Sound, USA); here, we apply the regional definition given in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) (EC, 2008); a recent Europe-wide environmental policy mechanism. Therein, regional seas are defined as the northeast Atlantic, the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, and the Mediterranean Sea (Figure 1). We build on (i) a linkage framework made up of potential pressure mechanisms describing how different sectors can impact ecological components of the ecosystem (Knights et al., 2013), and (ii) a pressure-based expert judgement assessment of the exposure and sensitivity of ecosystems to sector activities and their pressures (Robinson et al., 2013) to show the potential risks to ecological components from a holistic range of sectors in each region and which are integral features of marine ecosystems worldwide. This is the first of a series of steps required when implementing EBM (Knights et al., 2014a). Methods An assessment of the risk to Europe’s regional sea ecosystems from human activities must consider a range of sectors, pressures, and ecological components beyond those included in previous studies (e.g. Bax and Williams, 2001; Samhouri and Levin, 2012). We included (i) up to 17 sectors (the number of sectors included in a regional assessment was dependent on whether it is currently operational in the region), (ii) 23 pressure types, and (iii) 5 broad ecological components (Supplementary Table A1). Two of the ecological components (fish and predominant habitats) were further disaggregated into “sub-components” to give greater resolution and differentiation of the impact of sectors on those components (these sectors were identified as primary drivers of impact in each regional sea; Knights et al., 2013), resulting in a total of 11 ecological components (Supplementary Table A1). Here, we provide an illustration of the approach rather than undertaking an exhaustive assessment and th (...truncated)