Developing expert scientific consensus on the environmental and societal effects of marine artificial structures prior to decommissioning.

Thousands of artificial ('human-made') structures are present in the marine environment, many at or approaching end-of-life and requiring urgent decisions regarding their decommissioning. No consensus has been reached on which decommissioning option(s) result in optimal environmental and societal outcomes, in part, owing to a paucity of evidence from real-world decommissioning case studies. To address this significant challenge, we asked a worldwide panel of scientists to provide their expert opinion. They were asked to identify and characterise the ecosystem effects of artificial structures in the sea, their causes and consequences, and to identify which, if any, should be retained following decommissioning. Experts considered that most of the pressures driving ecological and societal effects from marine artificial structures (MAS) were of medium severity, occur frequently, and are dependent on spatial scale with local-scale effects of greater magnitude than regional effects. The duration of many effects following decommissioning were considered to be relatively short, in the order of days. Overall, environmental effects of structures were considered marginally undesirable, while societal effects marginally desirable. Experts therefore indicated that any decision to leave MAS in place at end-of-life to be more beneficial to society than the natural environment. However, some individual environmental effects were considered desirable and worthy of retention, especially in certain geographic locations, where structures can support improved trophic linkages, increases in tourism, habitat provision, and population size, and provide stability in population dynamics. The expert analysis consensus that the effects of MAS are both negative and positive for the environment and society, gives no strong support for policy change whether removal or retention is favoured until further empirical evidence is available to justify change to the status quo. The combination of desirable and undesirable effects associated with MAS present a significant challenge for policy- and decision-makers in their justification to implement decommissioning options. Decisions may need to be decided on a case-by-case basis accounting for the trade-off in costs and benefits at a local level.

To what extent can decommissioning options for marine artificial structures move us toward environmental targets?

Switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy is key to international energy transition efforts and the move toward net zero. For many nations, this requires decommissioning of hundreds of oil and gas infrastructure in the marine environment. Current international, regional and national legislation largely dictates that structures must be completely removed at end-of-life although, increasingly, alternative decommissioning options are being promoted and implemented. Yet, a paucity of real-world case studies describing the impacts of decommissioning on the environment make decision-making with respect to which option(s) might be optimal for meeting international and regional strategic environmental targets challenging. To address this gap, we draw together international expertise and judgment from marine environmental scientists on marine artificial structures as an alternative source of evidence that explores how different decommissioning options might ameliorate pressures that drive environmental status toward (or away) from environmental objectives. Synthesis reveals that for 37 United Nations and Oslo-Paris Commissions (OSPAR) global and regional environmental targets, experts consider repurposing or abandoning individual structures, or abandoning multiple structures across a region, as the options that would most strongly contribute toward targets. This collective view suggests complete removal may not be best for the environment or society. However, different decommissioning options act in different ways and make variable contributions toward environmental targets, such that policy makers and managers would likely need to prioritise some targets over others considering political, social, economic, and ecological contexts. Current policy may not result in optimal outcomes for the environment or society.

Inclusion of condition in natural capital assessments is critical to the implementation of marine nature-based solutions.

Current approaches to measure ecosystem services (ES) within natural capital (NC) and nature-based solutions (NbS) assessments are generally coarse, often using a single figure for ecosystem services (e.g., nutrient remediation or blue carbon sequestration) applied to the local or national habitat stock, which fails to take account of local ecosystem conditions and regional variability. As such, there is a need for improved understanding of the link between habitat condition and ES provision, using comparable indicators in order to take more informed management decisions. Here the UK, Solent Marine Sites (SEMS) is used as a case study system to demonstrate how Water Framework Directive (WFD) 'ecological status' and other indicators of ecosystem condition (state or quality) can be coupled with habitat extent information to deliver a more precise locally-tailored NC approach for active coastal and marine habitat restoration. Habitat extent and condition data are collected for seven NbS relevant coastal habitats (littoral sediment, mat-forming green macroalgae, subtidal sediment, saltmarsh, seagrass, reedbeds and native oyster beds). The workflow includes: 1) biophysical assessment of regulatory ES; 2) monetary valuation; and 3) compilation of future scenarios of habitat restoration and creation. The results indicate that incorporating classifications by condition indices into local NC extent accounts improved ES benefits by 11-67%. This suggests that omitting condition from NC assessments could lead to undervaluation of ES benefits. Future scenarios of restoration in the SEMS also show that the additional regulatory benefits of reaching 'Good' ecological status are £376 million annually, but could be as much as £1.218 billion if 'High'status and all habitat creation targets were met. This evidence of the potential value of restoration and importance of including condition indices in assessments is highly relevant to consider when investing in water ecosystems conservation and restoration as called for by the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021-2030), and more generally in global nutrient neutrality and blue carbon policy strategies.

Ecological restoration of agricultural land can improve its contribution to economic development.

Given the negative environmental impacts of intensive agriculture, there is an urgent need to reduce the impact of food production on biodiversity. Ecological restoration of farmland could potentially contribute to this goal. While the positive impacts of ecological restoration on biodiversity are well established, less evidence is available regarding impacts on economic development and employment. Potentially, prospects for economic development could be enhanced by ecological restoration though increased provision of ecosystem services, on which some economic activity depends. Here we examined this issue through the development of contrasting land use scenarios for the county of Dorset, southern England. Two scenarios of future agricultural expansion were compared with two scenarios of landscape-scale ecological restoration and the current situation. Impacts on provision of multiple ecosystem services (ES) were explored using InVEST models and proxy values for different land cover types. Impacts on economic employment were examined using an economic input-output model, which was adjusted for variation in ES flows using empirically determined ES dependency values for different economic sectors. Using the unadjusted input-output model, the scenarios had only a slight economic impact (≤ 0.3% Gross Value Added, GVA). Conversely, when the input-output model was adjusted to take account of ES flows, GVA increased by up to 5.4% in the restoration scenarios, whereas under the scenario with greatest agricultural expansion, GVA was reduced by -4.5%. Similarly, employment increased by up to 6.7% following restoration, compared to declines of up to -5.6% following maximum agricultural expansion. These results show that the economic contribution of rural land is far greater than that attributable to agricultural production alone. Landscape-scale restoration of agricultural land can potentially increase the contribution of farmland to economic development and employment, by increasing flows of multiple ES to the many economic sectors that depend on them.

Assessing the natural capital value of water quality and climate regulation in temperate marine systems using a EUNIS biotope classification approach.

Using a natural capital framework to inform improvements to water quality and mitigation of climate change requires robust and spatially explicit ecosystem service data. Yet, for coastal habitats this approach is often constrained by a) sufficient and relevant habitat extent data and b) significant variability in baseline assessments used to quantify and value regulatory habitat services. Here, the European Nature Information System (EUNIS) habitat classification scheme is used to map seven key temperate coastal biotopes (littoral sediment, mat-forming green macroalgae, subtidal sediment, saltmarsh, seagrass, reedbeds and native oyster reefs) within the UK's Solent European Marine Site (SEMS). We then estimate the capacity of these biotopes to remove nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) and carbon (C), alongside monetary values associated with the resulting benefits. Littoral and sublittoral sediments (including those combined with macroalgae) were the largest contributors to total N, P and C removal, reflecting their large biotope area. However, our results also show considerable differences in relative biotope contributions to nutrient removal depending on how they are analysed and delineated over large spatial scales. When considered at a regional catchment level seagrass meadows, saltmarshes and reedbeds all had considerable N, P and C removal potential. Overall, we estimate that SEMS biotopes provide nutrient reductions and avoided climate damages equivalent to UK £1.1 billion, although this could be nearly £10 billion if water-treatment infrastructure costs and high carbon trading prices are utilised. Despite the variability in the final natural capital evaluations, the substantial regulatory value of N, P and C ecosystem services support a strong rational for restoring temperate coastal biotopes.