Content uploaded by Chris Williams
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Chris Williams on Sep 23, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Rpep
Valuing the ecosystem service
benefits of kelp bed recovery off
West Sussex
[Insert client logo or multiple
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
2
Title: Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
Date: 9th September 2019
Authors: Chris Williams and Williams Davies
Client: Sussex IFCA
This report is for the named client’s information only. If the client wishes to share it
externally, we will re-format for publication and ensure all diagrams/charts are easy to read.
Please contact us if you would like to publish the report, or extracts from it, on a website
or in any other way. Unless explicitly agreed otherwise, all publishing rights remain with
NEF Consulting.
NEF Consulting Limited
New Economics Foundation
10 Salamanca Place, London SE1 7HB
www.nefconsulting.com
Tel: 020 7820 6300
NEF Consulting is the consultancy service of the leading UK think tank, New Economics
Foundation. We help to put new economic ideas into practice.
New Economics Foundation is the UK’s only people-powered think tank. The
Foundation works to build a new economy where people really take control.
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
3
Contents
1. West Sussex ................................................................................................................................... 4
2. Fishing in West Sussex ................................................................................................................ 5
3. Proposed management by Sussex IFCA ................................................................................. 15
4. Kelp .............................................................................................................................................. 16
5. Threats to kelp / Impacts of fishing on Kelp .......................................................................... 23
6. Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services of kelp ................................................................... 29
7. Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 34
8. Scenarios ...................................................................................................................................... 37
9. Results .......................................................................................................................................... 37
10. Impacts .................................................................................................................................... 41
11. Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………...….43
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
4
1. West Sussex
The English county of West Sussex is a historic county, bordering East Sussex, Hampshire,
and Surrey with a coastline along the English Channel. With a population of more than
800,000 (1.5% of England total) and covering nearly 2000 km2 , the county also contains a
number of settlements from larger cities (Chichester and Crawley) to the smaller coastal
towns (e.g. Selsey, Bognor Regis, Littlehampton and Worthing) as well as the industrial port
town of Shoreham. West Sussex has a range of terrestrial and coastal habitats, mainly
formed from Upper Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous rock layers, which have eroded over
millennia. The two valleys of the River Arun (meeting the sea at Littlehampton) and River
Adur (meeting the sea at Shoreham) are the main rivers, while Chichester Harbour forms
the western border of the County.
1
The marine habitat in Sussex Bay (Selsey to Brighton) is
mainly bedrock with a thin veneer of cobbles, coarse sediment and sand.
2
Figure 1: Map of West Sussex including coastal towns with commercial fishing vessels.
From West to East: Selsey, Bognor Regis, Littlehampton, Worthing, Shoreham-by-Sea
including proposed management zones 1 and 2. Source: Sussex IFCA
3
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
5
2. Fishing in West Sussex
Fishing Ports
As shown in figure 1 above, there are six coastal communities with active fishing fleets in
West Sussex. The most significant commercial fishing port is Shoreham-by-sea, and some
smaller inshore fishing ports and beach landing sites are also found along the coast: heading
west from Shoreham, these are Worthing, Littlehampton, Bognor Regis, Selsey and
Emsworth (Chichester Harbour). Pressures affecting the Sussex coastal include recreational
activities, aggregate extraction, renewable energy and maintenance dredging as well as
commercial fishing, using a variety of fishing methods across a diverse range of seabed
habitats.
4
Figure 2: Chart of West Sussex coastline and inshore depth contours main fishing ports and
coastal towns. Source: Sussex IFCA
Vessels
According to the June 2019 MMO data, there are 65 under 10m vessels registered with home
ports in West Sussex (Shoreham-by-sea, Littlehampton, Selsey, Worthing, Bognor Regis and
Emsworth), with an average length of 6.8m. The majority are based in Shoreham. Of these,
25 have shellfish entitlements. None have scallop licenses. All non-sector (i.e. fish from the
MMO quota pool for under 10m vessels or fish for non-quota species / shellfish).
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
6
According to the June 2019 MMO data, there are nine over 10m vessels registered with home
ports in West Sussex (Shoreham and Selsey), with an average length of 17.8m. Three have
shellfish entitlements. Five have scallop licenses. Six are members of the South West
Producer Organisation and three are non-sector (i.e. fish from the MMO quota pool for
under 10m vessels or fish for non-quota species / shellfish).
In 2016, 53 vessels landed seafood caught using towed gears. From 2012 to 2016, by weight,
otter trawling accounted for 55% of Sussex landings, beam trawling accounted for 34%, and
pair trawls accounted for 9%. In terms of species caught, plaice (29%), sole (15%), dogfish
(7%), bream (7%), lemon sole (4%), and cuttlefish (3.7%) were the highest recorded by
volume. The maximum landed by a single vessel was 170 tonnes.
5
Landings
According to MMO landings data for 2016-2018 Shoreham is by far the largest port in terms
of landings, with over £18 million in first sale landed value in 2018. Selsey at £829,680 is the
second most significant coastal community in terms of landings. Littlehampton is 3rd at
£154K, with Bognor Regis, Emsworth and Worthing all landing very low annual totals in
2017 and 2018. The Emsworth oyster landings had been considerable in 2016, thereby
increasing the total. In terms of the main commercial landings, the species landed in each of
the ports are similar but the focal point for some is shellfish and as a result of the majority of
the fleet for these ports being under 10m in length the focus on shellfish and non-quota
species such as bass and bream is notable.
Table 1: MMO landings for West Sussex ports in terms of value (£, rounded) 2016-2018.
Source: MMO
Port
2016
2017
2018
Bognor Regis
56,717
42,439
22,018
Emsworth
62,449
7,727
5,055
Littlehampton
269,658
268,039
154,895
Selsey
1,106,690
965,193
829,680
Shoreham
9,104,892
12,837,659
18,351,640
Worthing
7,644
4,728
4,220
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
7
Figure 3: MMO landings for West Sussex ports in terms of value (£) 2016-2018. Source:
MMO
In terms of key species, landings in Bognor Regis are dominated by lobsters (99% of 2018
landings in terms of value), with low landings of some other demersal species such as cod
and shellfish such as crabs. Notably the landed value of lobsters has declined by over 50%
between 2016 and 2018. Two tonnes of lobster were landed in Bognor Regis in 2018.
Table 2: MMO landings of lobster in Bognor Regis in terms of value (£, rounded) 2016-2018.
Source: MMO
Bognor Regis
2016
2017
2018
Lobsters
£ 56,046.88
£ 42,438.68
£ 21,840.01
Emsworth has a mixed fishery for finfish and shellfish, and traditionally was a significant
port for native oyster landings from Chichester Harbour. These landings however have
declined since 2016 when £53K worth of native oyster were landed to 0 in 2018 as the fishery
was closed. Other species landed include bass, sole and plaice as well as bream, smooth-
hound and mackerel. 0.8 of a tonne were landed into Emsworth in 2018, making it by any
English standard a tiny port without the oyster fishery.
Table 3: MMO landings for main species in Emsworth in terms of value (£, rounded) 2016-
2018. Source: MMO
Emsworth
2016
2017
2018
Native Oysters
52,386
Bass
2,081
Sole
2,053
Bass
3,486
Native Oysters
1,595
Bass
1,482
Plaice
1,408
Mullet
624
Mackerel
396
Sole
889
Sole
563
Skates and Rays
246
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
18,000,000
20,000,000
Emsworth Littlehampton Selsey Shoreham Worthing
Value (£)
Port
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
8
Littlehampton is also a mixed fishery, where whelk have been the main species landed,
followed by cuttlefish, bass and plaice as well as crabs and lobsters. Both bream and smooth
hounds are also landed in Littlehampton and in total 71 tonnes were landed into
Littlehampton in 2018, 60% of which were whelks.
Table 4: MMO landings for main species in Littlehampton in terms of value (£, rounded)
2016-2018. Source: MMO
Littlehampton
2016
2017
2018
Whelks
77,215
Whelks
112,627
Whelks
56,611
Cuttlefish
72,158
Cuttlefish
25,492
Sole
18,878
Bass
25,636
Crabs
23,062
Bass
15,963
Crabs
18,273
Lobsters
21,404
Plaice
15,895
Lobsters
16,164
Sole
20,040
Crabs
14,151
Sole
13,127
Smooth hound
18,619
Lobsters
10,244
Cod
9,631
Bass
16,309
Skates / Rays
4,958
Smooth hound
9,523
Plaice
9,482
Other Demersal
4,952
Bream
9,274
Bream
6,276
Cuttlefish
4,674
Plaice
9,128
Cod
2,510
Bream
3,932
Selsey landings are mainly focussed on shellfish, with lobster, crab and whelk the main
species landed in terms of value. Cuttlefish are also landed, as are bass and sole. Skates and
rays, bream and smooth hound are also landed at Selsey and 267 tonnes were landed into
Selsey in 2018, 84% of the total comprised landings of lobster, crab and whelk.
Table 5: MMO landings for main species in Selsey in terms of value (£, rounded) 2016-2018.
Source: MMO
Selsey
2016
2017
2018
Lobsters
418,139
Lobsters
384,123
Lobsters
322,457
Whelks
274,777
Crabs
217,312
Crabs
246,289
Crabs
223,390
Whelks
214,802
Whelks
117,029
Cuttlefish
70,629
Bass
76,003
Bass
66,193
Bass
63,394
Cuttlefish
32,372
Cuttlefish
31,483
Sole
28,962
Sole
17,173
Sole
19,929
Smooth hound
5,736
Smooth hound
5,982
Other
Demersal
9,478
Native Oysters
4,336
Thornback Ray
4,484
Skates and
Rays
6,296
Plaice
4,099
Plaice
2,758
Plaice
3,990
Bream
3,254
Bream
1,752
Mullet
1,797
Thornback Ray
3,249
Conger Eels
1,690
Bream
1,544
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
9
Shoreham-by-sea landings are dominated by scallops, caught by visiting and local vessels
who dredge in Scallop grounds along the south coast. Scallop dredging is not permitted
within 3 miles from shore via a Sussex IFCA byelaw. The remaining landings are dominated
by whelks and sole and plaice, as well as cuttlefish, skates and rays, crabs, bass and bream.
8,212 tonnes were landed into Shoreham in 2018. For 2018, 6,374 tonnes of Scallops were
landed, alongside 1,333 tonnes of whelks, 70 tonnes of sole, and 48 tonnes of cuttlefish,
shown in Tables 6, 7 and Figure 4a/b below.
Table 6: MMO landings for main species in Shoreham in terms of value (£, rounded) 2016-
2018. Source: MMO
Shoreham
2016
2017
2018
Scallops
5,387,016
Scallops
9,975,068
Scallops
14,770,161
Whelks
1,467,911
Whelks
1,310,572
Whelks
1,939,983
Sole
735,931
Sole
442,803
Sole
582,029
Cuttlefish
293,591
Plaice
169,200
Plaice
221,457
Plaice
245,820
Cuttlefish
146,976
Cuttlefish
175,752
Bass
154,928
Turbot
126,116
Bream
152,127
Turbot
127,566
Bream
120,148
Turbot
107,882
Bream
125,822
Brill
63,508
Skates and Rays
59,395
Brill
82,450
Red Mullet
56,918
Crabs
58,247
Lemon Sole
75,737
Squid
54,334
Brill
56,636
Table 7: MMO landings for top 15 species in Shoreham in terms of volume (tonnes,
rounded) 2018. Source: MMO
Species
Volume (tonnes)
1
Scallops
6374
2
Whelks
1333
3
Plaice
127
4
Sole
70
5
Bream
61
6
Cuttlefish
48
7
Skates and Rays
31
8
Dogfish
30
9
Other Demersal
25
10
Gurnard
25
11
Crabs
23
12
Turbot
12
13
Mackerel
11
14
Brill
9
15
Whiting
5
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
10
Figure 4a: MMO landings for Shoreham in terms of volume (tonnes) 2018. Source: MMO
Figure 4b: MMO landings for Shoreham in terms of value (£) 2018. Source: MMO
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Volume (t)
Species
£0
£2,000,000
£4,000,000
£6,000,000
£8,000,000
£10,000,000
£12,000,000
£14,000,000
£16,000,000
Value (£)
Species
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
11
Worthing has mixed landings, which include demersal finfish species and no shellfish in the
top five species from any of the years 2016 to 2018. Nearly three tonnes were landed into
Worthing in 2018.
Table 7: MMO landings for main species in Worthing in terms of value (£, rounded) 2016-
2018. Source: MMO
Worthing
2016
2017
2018
Bass
2,2634
Mackerel
1,237
Other Demersal
732
Cod
1,203
Plaice
658
Bass
662
Plaice
843
Whiting
337
Whiting
522
Sole
663
Pouting (Bib)
323
Mackerel
508
Mullet - Other
579
Mullet - Other
295
Mullet
321
Dogfish
501
Sole
258
Plaice
252
Mackerel
374
Dogfish
240
Bream
206
Smooth hound
292
Black Seabream
204
Dogfish
182
Trawling
Beginning in the 1970s, the increase of towed fishing gear used (in particular pair trawling)
off Worthing has been noted, alongside the homogenising effect on the seabed and
associated biodiversity. Most notably, a dense kelp bed close inshore between Shoreham and
Bognor Regis, reduced significantly in terms extent and density.
6
Currently, Sussex IFCA trawlers fall into four categories, which are distinct:
• Under 14m beam trawler, utilising twin 4.5m beam trawls or a single beam trawl of an
overall length that is less than 9m;
• Under 14m demersal otter trawler, utilising a rock hopper ground rope rig and steel otter
boards;
• Under 14m single, twin or triple trawlers, utilising one or more trawls simultaneously.
• Under 14m demersal pair trawlers also utilising a large diameter rubber rock hopper
ground rope.
7
Three trawlers operate from Shoreham and none operate from the other West Sussex ports.
Seafish economic analysis showed trawling vessels which utilise the proposed exclusion
area decreasing between 2014 (12) and 2018 (9), but landings volume increased from 2014
(60.5 tonnes) to 2018 (67.1 tonnes).
8
Pair trawlers
9
target primarily black sea bream (‘Bream’) and bass (bass are now a bycatch
only species)
10
. Possibly, as only a 1% unavoidable bycatch of bass was allowed, fishers have
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
12
decided to increase the total amount landed to increase the amount of bass they could land.
11
MMO landings data showed bream dominated pair trawl landings, followed by smooth-
hound, bass and grey mullet out of a total 57 species recorded and on average, pair trawlers
account for 1% of landings into Sussex ports.
12
Sightings data (Figure 5) shows trawling
occurs throughout the inshore waters of West Sussex, but suggests it is more common from
Littlehampton eastwards past Shoreham. Figures 6a and 6b show the volume and value of
pair trawl landings of bream and main bycatch species between 2009 and 2018.
Figure 5: Trawling activity within the Sussex District between 2001 and 2018, with specified
distances from the coast and management areas indicated. Source: Sussex IFCA
SxIFCA sightings data indicates ~50% of pair trawl activity takes place in the proposed area,
seasonally during the black seabream nesting season from April to June, where bass are also
caught (originally as part of the fishery, and now as a bycatch – a large proportion of which
needs to be discarded under EU regulations) – see table 8 below for landings data. Nine
trawling vessels were sighted in the area in 2018, a decrease from 12 in 2014. In terms of
average value landed, this was £134,196 (2018) with an average net profit of £32,638. The
Impact Assessment undertaken by Sussex IFCA suggests these figures should be treated
with caution as maximum landings and profit values affected by the proposed management
measures, as they are likely to be overestimates (as multiple gears are used by many vessels,
fishing activity takes place both inside and outside of the proposed management area and a
SxIFCA seasonal exclusion of a quarter mile already operates). SXIFCA estimates a cost to
the pair trawling fleet of £93,400
13
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
13
Figure 6a: Pair trawl catches by volume (tonnes, landed weight) and species 2009-2018.
Source: Sussex IFCA
Figure 6b: Pair trawl catches by value (£) and species 2009-2018. Source: Sussex IFCA
Table 8: MMO landings for bass and bream in Shoreham (£, rounded) 2016-2018. Source:
MMO
Shoreham
2016
2017
2018
3-year average
Bass
£154,928
£38,382
£25,280
£72,863
Bream
£125,822
£120,148
£152,127
£132,699
Current management
The current Sussex IFCA Fishing Instruments Byelaw includes a provision for trawls and
cod-end restrictions apply to pair trawls specifically. A trawling exclusion zone is also
included, but has seasonal and spatial limits, with trawling prohibited May-October, out to
0.25nM from shore (and excluding areas to the west of Shoreham Harbour).
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
14
A Vessel Length Byelaw restricts vessels to under 14m, excluding those vessels with historic
fishing rights (4 vessels) and no scallop dredging occurs within 3 miles of shore.
14
In terms of the Sussex Sea Fisheries Committee (‘SFCs’ – which were replaced by IFCAs
following the Marine and Coastal Access Act in 2009) it is useful to understand the Byelaw
history from the 1990’s, as there are two important Byelaws to consider, firstly the Fishing
Instruments Byelaw and the Vessel Length Byelaw. During the 1990’s the extent of the SFC’s
District changed from 3 to 6 miles from territorial baselines.
15
Therefore, any Byelaws that
made prior to 18th March 1996, only apply to that those areas of the District within the 3
nautical mile limit. It is worth noting that virtually all of these regulations have been
subsequently replaced or revoked.
Fishing Instruments Byelaw
The historic Byelaw records reveal that the fishing instruments byelaw underwent a
significant change in on 28th July 1995, when the prior Byelaw was revoked and the new
regulation allowed for pair trawling for both pelagic (anywhere) and demersal species (west
of Shoreham Breakwater). This Byelaw enabled the commencement of the pair trawl fishery
on black bream/bass and the associated expansion of trawling effort West of Shoreham to
Selsey inside the 3 mile limit. In 1997 the fishing instruments Byelaw was amended further
to take into account the extension of the District, including a provision for scallop dredging
between the 3 and 6 mile limit (it is assumed the activity already occurred in this area).
Vessel Length Byelaw
Vessel length was used by all SFCs (and still is by IFCAs) as a proxy for individual vessel
effort management. Originally, it was 12 metres (registered length) prior to the introduction
of a new Byelaw (14th January 1990) which increased the size to 14 metres (overall length –
longer than registered length). It is likely this change resulted in an increase in nearshore
trawling effort. The ability of these larger vessels to come nearshore enabled the
development of pair trawling.
On 17th September 1997 the vessel length Byelaw was revoked and remade to incorporate
vessels operating from 3 miles to the new 6 mile limit, and grandfather rights (via written
authorisation) were written into the Byelaw for those who wished to apply at the time.
These rights have since reduced to a handful of vessels based on the same ownership as the
original authorisation. An original 1982 Byelaw record specified that an otter trawl could not
have a headline exceeding 15 metres. It is unclear whether this byelaw was ever enforced.
A thorough Byelaw review was undertaken following the transition from SFC to IFCA.
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
15
3. Proposed management by Sussex IFCA
Within East and West Sussex inshore waters to six nautical miles, Sussex IFCA manages the
inshore fisheries legislation with a duty of promoting the sustainable use of the inshore
marine environment. Sussex IFCA are proposing management to enhance documented sites
of historic dense kelp forest from Bognor Regis to Brighton (shown in Figure 12 below), which
have declined by over 90% since the 1980s as a result of changes in fishing practices and
gear, water quality and storm damage. Macro-algae such as kelp are considered an
‘ecosystem component critical to ecosystem services delivery’
16
, meaning this habitat should
be given special attention when considering management. Kelp specifically provides a wide
range of associated ecosystem service benefits, which are described in detail below,
including fish breeding, feeding and nursery grounds. Kelp habitat requires special
attention when considering management, due to its role in the marine and coastal
ecosystem. Furthermore, the Government has advised a precautionary approach should be
adopted with fisheries management.
17
An ecosystem approach to fisheries management,
which is promoted by Defra and underpins the current Sussex IFCA proposals, aims for
more sustainable management and accounts for, and seeks to minimise, impacts on non-
commercial species and the marine environment generally.
18
,
19
Management should be evidence based
20
and bottom towed fishing gear (trawls and
dredges) are the most widespread cause of seabed disturbance (causing comparatively
greater damage than netting or potting). According to previous research, rock with seaweed
was the habitat providing the greatest ecosystem services within coastal Sussex waters,
while rock or sediment with seaweed were also the most sensitive habitats.
21
Evidence
requirements become more stringent at the local level (if activities are restricted) compared
to overarching national policy.
22
While it is not possible to determine the attribution of
relative impacts on kelp from fishing, storms, pollution and climate change for example,
fishing is the only variable which SxIFCA can manage (in general and in line with an
ecosystem approach).
Sussex IFCA are reviewing management measures for nearshore trawling, with a view to
consulting on these measures in autumn of 2019, to protect the nearshore Essential Fish
Habitat (EFH) from damage. See Figures 1 and 2 above for management boundaries.
Under these draft proposals, 308 km2 of important nearshore habitat in the Sussex IFCA
district would be protected from mobile fishing gear. This equates to 18% of the total district
area of 1746 km2, when including Chichester Harbour. The proposed nearshore trawling
management will protect a range of sensitive and valuable habitats outside of Marine
Protected Areas (MPAs) and the limited areas of the Sussex IFCA district, which are
currently afforded some seasonal protection from trawling. There are areas of very high
biodiversity throughout the district, in particular south of Selsey, within the nearshore area
between Littlehampton and Shoreham, east of Eastbourne and near Rye.
23
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
16
Ecosystem services benefits are central to rationale of the current management proposals,
with Sussex IFCA adopting a move towards ecosystem-based fisheries management, which
comprises a more holistic approach considering multiple objectives. These include
maintaining sustainable trawling activity and aiming to restore historic kelp beds in the
region by prohibiting damaging activity.
24
For management purposes with regards to the
trawling management byelaw no distinction is made between the different types of mobile
gear, or weight of gear being towed.
25
Sussex IFCA is working with a variety of partners to deliver research, which focusses on
kelp restoration and habitat enhancement and this paper contributes to this work stream.
26
4. Kelp
Global importance of kelp to the marine ecosystem
The brown algae known as kelps (Order Laminariales) are globally important foundation
species that occupy 43% of the world’s marine ecoregions (found globally, except
Antarctica). Kelps support a productivity per unit area
27
,
28
,
29
,
30
rivalling that of intensively
cultivated agricultural fields or tropical rainforests, enhancing diversity and secondary
productivity through the formation of biogenic habitat.
31
Kelps are found in subtidal rocky
regions globally, where nutrients, light levels, temperatures and ocean currents and the
extent of grazing (via urchins
32
, snails or fish species) permits
33
. These forests form where
few other plants can grow because of their holdfast system (see Figure 7 below). The shelter
provided in combination with the habitat complexity, creates suitable habitat making kelp
foundational species.
34
,
35
The effects of kelp forests extend beyond the boundaries including
the formation of floating mats, which become detached after storms (microhabitats
providing shelter in open water to fish and invertebrates).
36
Kelp forests are characterised by high productivity, high biodiversity, habitat provision,
food and shelter provision, the provision of reproduction and nursery areas and modifying
wave action and coastal oceans currents.
37
,
38
,
39
Kelp forests are highly complex, dynamic,
productive ecosystems that form key components of temperate coastal ecosystems globally,
contributing to species richness and biodiversity (including fish, shellfish, mammals, other
seaweeds and epibiota – species living directly on the kelp - e.g. an early UK study found
389 species on 72 holdfasts
40
).
41
Kelp provides habitat and the trophic foundation in complex
food webs, underpinning inshore commercial fisheries.
42
Subtidal kelp forests are
responsible large quantities of (marine) biomass in the northern hemisphere.
43
Kelp
represent critical habitat for inshore fisheries and coastal biodiversity
44
. A multitude of
species have been linked to kelp via trophic and habitat associations, by using kelp forests
for protection from predation as well as feeding and nursery areas and it has been
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
17
documented that changes in the abundance of kelp impact fish abundance directly.
Furthermore, kelp forests reduce wave action (playing a notable coastal defence role),
sequester carbon (directly via grazing or via detritus in food webs) and are therefore crucial
components for healthy coastal ecosystems in rocky, temperate waters. Variations in kelp
abundance have affected fish recruitment and densities of larger ‘super spawners’.
45
Globally, overfishing has contributed to the global decline of kelp forests by removing
predators of urchins.
46
Widespread overgrazing of kelp bed habitat has been documented in
the USA and Australia and has been directly linked to the impact of fishing. This is thought
to reduce the resilience of kelp beds to climate change
47
, which in turn may increase urchin
numbers. Management to reduce the risk of catastrophic ecosystem phase shifts is a global
concern regarding kelp habitat.
48
Direct kelp harvesting, declining water quality in terms of
pollution, eutrophication, and sedimentation), as well as diseases and invasive species have
compounded this loss further. This situation is expected to worsen as a result of climate
change.
49
However, the dynamics of kelp forests in the North-East Atlantic region are likely
to experience changes through ocean warming, as warm-water kelp species increase in
abundance e.g. Laminaria ochroleuca – first detected in the UK in the late 1940s - which has
increased in abundance in the South West of England over recent years and is now common.
However, alterations in overall ecosystem functioning may be less pronounced when
foundation species share similar traits. Some functions e.g. carbon absorption or food
provisioning, for example could be maintained or enhanced
50
and planting kelp to mitigate
against climate change has also been proposed.
51
Ecosystem-based management, as a principle outlined in the Fisheries White Paper
52
must
account for the contribution of kelp to the functioning of coastal habitats and the wider
marine ecosystem
53
. EU directives have highlighted the importance of increased knowledge
concerning the relationship between kelp forests and fisheries to inform fisheries
management measures.
54
Kelp biology and distribution
Kelps are photosynthetic algae that alternate between asexual (via the dispersal of
zoospores) and sexual reproduction. Asexual reproduction allows species to extend their
range over suitable habitats, while the dispersal and subsequent sexual reproduction
promotes genetic diversity. The dispersal range of marine algal spores is generally tens of
metres from the parent plant. Research on kelp (L. hyperborea) from Norway revealed the
range of 200m from the parent plant. Fertilisation among kelps is synchronised by a
combination of environmental factors and subsequently, kelp spores stay in the water
column for a day and are dispersed by ocean currents and wave action. The spores attached
to suitable rocky substrate, where the spores germinate.
55
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
18
Growth in kelps is seasonal, with the highest in early spring to late summer. In autumn
growth rates decrease when carbohydrate reserves are stored for winter, to enable
immediate growth when light conditions are still below optimum for growth.
56
Laminaria
digitata and L. hyperborea form extensive single species kelp beds. Kelp primary production
creates new biomass, detritus, mucus and dissolved inorganic material. Up to 60% of carbon
found in coastal invertebrates has been attributed to kelp productivity.
57
The area of UK
habitat which is suitable for the presence of L. hyperborean, for example, has been estimated
to be 15,984 km2 and kelp has been estimated to account for ~45% of primary production in
UK coastal waters, as well as 12% of marine production for the entire UK EEZ.
58
Figure 7: Kelp characteristics: blades, stipes, and holdfasts. Source: Project Oceanography
59
Three species (described in detail below) have been recorded in Sussex: Laminaria
hyperborea, Laminaria digitata and Saccharina latissimi. Between Newhaven and Eastbourne in
East Sussex, kelp was recorded at a maximum depth of 9m before the water became too
turbid to allow sufficient light penetration for growth.
60
Laminaria digitata (Oarweed) is a large kelp (up to 2m in length), commonly encountered
at low water when exposed during spring tides on rocky shores from the Atlantic coasts of
Europe and found along most coasts of Britain and Ireland, except the East coast of England
and Thames estuary (due to turbidity and lack of suitable substrate - bedrock or other
suitable hard substrata - in the lower intertidal and sublittoral fringe
61
). Found to a
maximum depth from +1m to -20m in clear waters, L. digitata flourishes in moderately
exposed areas with strong currents. The frond is broad, digitate (split into fingers) and dark
brown with a leathery texture. The frond lacks a midrib, while the stipe is oval, smooth and
flexible. The kelp is attached by a shallow dome-shaped holdfast.
62
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
19
Figure 8: West Sussex distribution of L. digitata. Source: MARLin
63
Laminaria hyperborea (‘tangle’) is a large kelp (up to 3.5m in length). Restricted to the
northeast Atlantic Habitat and found on most coasts of Britain, yet scarce along the south
east coast due to a lack of suitable substrata
64
,
65
. L. hyperborea is found on bedrock or other
stable substrata from extreme low water to depths from 8m to 36m in clearer waters and it
grows as dense forests in suitable conditions. The large blade is broad, tough and flat with
no midrib and is digitate (split into 5 - 20 straps or fingers). The blade is glossy and brown,
while the holdfast is large, conical and branched. The stipe is stiff, rough, and thicker at the
base. The stipe stands erect when emergent and is often covered with numerous other
species (e.g. of red algae) due to the rough texture which accommodates epiphytes. L.
digitata may be confused with young L. hyperborea plants, however, the stipe of L. hyperborea
is circular in cross section and stiff.
66
Figure 9: West Sussex distribution of L. hyperborea. Source: MARLin
67
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
20
Saccharina latissima (‘Sugar kelp’ - due to the white sweetish powder which forms on the
fronds when dried) is a large brown kelp (up to 4m long) with a long, undivided and frilly
frond, no midrib and short stipe. Recorded from the Atlantic coasts of Europe to the Eastern
coast of America, Bering Straits and Japan as well as all coasts of Britain & Ireland, sugar
kelp lives for 2 to 4 years and grows quickly from winter to spring. S. latissima is found from
the sublittoral fringe (sometimes in rock pools) to a depth of 30m, usually in sheltered areas
and may attach to substrata such as boulders and cobbles. It has a small branching holdfast
and is yellowish-brown in colour.
68
Figure 10: West Sussex distribution of S. latissima. Source: MARLin
69
Sussex Kelp distribution and abundance from surveys
Historically, kelp forest was documented off West Sussex through coastal and scuba dive
surveys as well as oral history (‘it is impossible to write a history of Worthing without mentioning
seaweed, which has been a periodic problem since 1805’).
70
The area of kelp off Worthing extended
two nautical miles from shore according to local fishers. Following winter storms, kelp was
recorded washed up on the beaches from Lancing to Bognor (even said to covering the entire
beach at Worthing in the 1960s
71
) and local farmers collected it to use as fertiliser on their
fields. Sussex Seasearch
72
divers in the 1980’s recorded the presence of kelp as ‘abundant’ or
‘common’ from Selsey to Eastbourne, in over 50% of dive sites surveyed (see annex 4 for the
list of Seasearch survey forms completed). According to local fishers
73
, the severe storms 1987
caused large amounts of kelp to be washed ashore, decreasing the density of the main kelp
bed, which combined with mobile gear fishing inhibited the recovery of the kelp forest,
alongside eutrophication and poor water quality. Three species were recorded: Laminaria
hyperborea, Laminaria digitata and Saccharina latissimi.
74
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
21
A report by Worthing Borough Council from 1987 indicated that the historic kelp bed was
177km2 in total, equating to 10% of the Sussex IFCA District and within this area, 10km2 was
‘very dense’ (>40 tonnes/hectare with peak densities of 100 tonnes/hectare).
75
Sussex Seasearch divers recorded the presence of kelp as occasional or rare at less than 5% of
their dive sites in the 1990s. By the late 2010’s, only small patches of kelp were still present,
covering an area of 6.28 Km2 (a 96.4% decline in terms of area coverage compared to 1987).
76
In total around 530 species were recorded in conjunction with kelp habitat during these dives
(listed in Annex 3). Crab, whelk, wrasse, Cockle and lobster are all examples of commercially
harvested species, which were also found on Seasearch surveys in kelp habitat.
77
Figure 11 below shows sites dived by the volunteer Seasearch divers where they recorded the
presence of kelp over the last 5 decades. The number of records from the 1990’s is a reflection
of increased survey effort. As mentioned above, the proportion of dive sites that had kelp
present and the abundance of kelp both declined from the 1980’s to 1990’s and beyond.
However, some kelp of several species is still present and there is an ambition to preserve this,
as well as increasing the amount of kelp to historic levels.
Figure 11: West Sussex kelp data collected by Sussex Seasearch (1970-2019)
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
22
Figure 12: West Sussex Historic kelp bed extent (1950-1989) and kelp observations point
data up to 2015 within the Sussex District. 1km and 4km management boundaries are
illustrated
78
Source: Sussex IFCA
Figure 13: Seasearch kelp data points from 2000 onwards. Source: Sussex IFCA
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
23
Offshore from Littlehampton and towards Newhaven, coarse sediment are most common.
Fine sands and fine muddy sands become more common inshore from Newhaven to Beachy
Head, and become the dominant sediment type east of Eastbourne. All areas of West Sussex
inshore waters where kelp is found are described in the recognised EUNIS
79
hierarchy
system as “A3” (infralittoral rock and other hard substrata). The A3 coded areas when
studied at higher EUNIS levels represent “kelp seaweed communities in rock dominated
environments’’. Kelp and seaweeds on infralittoral rock are predicted inshore from Selsey to
Brighton, with areas of kelp and seaweed communities overlying sublittoral sediment.
80
Brown macroalgae such as kelp are important producers and they are considered critical to
coastal ecosystem services, via habitat provision, biodiversity, food provision by supporting
fish and crustacean populations through the food web, alongside shelter and coastal
protection.
81
The West Sussex nearshore marine environment contains the highest
proportion of areas deemed to have the highest ecosystem service provision, with ‘high’ and
‘very high’ priority classes of marine habitats occurring in just 5% of the Sussex inshore
study area (with the highest priority area being between Selsey and Bognor Regis). The
seabed habitat found in the highest priority area is a mixture of low-lying rock and
sediment, mainly seaweed dominated. Rock with attached seaweed is one of the habitats
stated to provide the highest ecosystem service values, while also being one of the most
sensitive habitats.
82
The Marine Aggregate Sustainability Fund (MALSF) Geology and Geophysics Survey Data
which was collected between 2003 and 2010 also contains data on habitat types.
83
The EUNIS
Sussex 2010 survey (a.k.a. the MALSF synthesis study), was undertaken on behalf of the
MALSF and commissioned by the Marine Environment Protection Fund. Details of these
findings and survey results can be found in the Sussex Coastal Inshore Pilot II: Marine
Habitat and Bathymetry Modelling Project Report.
84
5. Threats to kelp / Impacts of fishing on
Kelp
Marine and coastal habitats and biodiversity are impacted through over-exploitation,
pollution
85
, land-use change and invasive species, leading to losses in productivity and
diversity.
86
‘
87
,
88
Climate change
89
,
90
and overfishing are the two most significant challenges to
the structure and functioning of marine ecosystems.
91
,
92
,
93
Global declines of foundation
species (such as seagrasses, corals, kelp and oysters) have been widely documented and
their loss often reduces their beneficial flows (from carbon sequestration
94
to waste
detoxification or recreation
95
) to humans, impacting well-being.
96
Kelp forests are also
threatened by a variety of human impacts, including climate change, overfishing, and direct
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
24
harvest.
97
Kelps are directly exposed to many coastal and marine human activities (e.g.
harvesting, pollution, sedimentation, invasive species, fishing
98
, recreation) and highly
responsive to environmental conditions and kelps are therefore considered an indicator
species. Despite their rapid growth rates, kelp forests face threats from over-grazing (often a
result of the removal of urchin predators.)
99
Negative impacts from grazing of kelp by
temperate sea urchin species creates barren areas as part of trophic cascades have
documented globally.
100
,
101
Commercial harvesting in some regions threatens kelp forests,
and this this is pushed by demand from pharmaceutical, aquaculture, and food companies.
Pollution (sewage, industrial waste, inorganic fertilizers, and pesticides) in runoff present in
rivers affects kelp growth and reproduction, alongside sedimentation leading to smothering.
Kelp requires cold water for ideal growth condition, so climate change and sea temperature
increases are a notable threat to kelp forests globally.
102
Increases in fish herbivory as a result
of climate change potentially pose a significant threat to kelp-dominated ecosystems
globally,
103
as could the impacts from increased storminess.
104
Fishing affects seabed habitats globally but the effects are not uniform, varying with the
habitat type and environment where they take place.
105
Demersal trawl fisheries are
especially problematic regarding their wider environmental impacts.
106
Structurally complex
habitats (e.g. seagrass meadows, biogenic reefs or kelp forests) and those that are relatively
undisturbed (e.g. deep-water mud substrata) are more highly impacted by fishing than
sediment habitats in shallow coastal waters and also have the longest recovery times to
recover from damage. L. hyperborea beds recover well with respect to growth and biomass
after trawling when the pressure is removed, but re-colonisation of the kelp forests by
associated flora and fauna after disturbance is slower.
107
Evidence from Scotland showed
that the pervasive nature of intensive trawling and dredging over the past 150 years in the
Firth of Forth lead to damage that was dramatic and transformed near-shore and estuarine
environments and the associated functioning of the marine ecosystem to a considerable
extent. Fisheries management efforts to promote recovery of these severely degraded areas
is a priority for Scotland regarding the marine environment.
108
Kelp and seaweed
communities on sublittoral sediments are considered at high risk from hydraulic dredging
for bivalves and at medium risk from otter trawling and scallop dredging
109
, but are
accepted as being detrimental to the benthic environment and associated biota.
110
The ‘ecosystem approach’ or ‘ecosystem based management’ (holistic management systems
and decision-making processes that balance ecological well-being with human and societal
well-being in an equitable way)
111
,
112
,
113
to fisheries management needs to consider not only
the target species and bycatches, but also the wider impacts on marine habitats resulting
from fishing activity.
114
,
115
The impacts cover the disturbance of the upper layers of the
seabed (re-suspension of sediments), direct removal, damage, displacement or death of flora
and fauna living in / on the seabed, a short-term attraction of carrion consumers into the
path of the fishing gear and finally the alteration of habitat structure.
116
These negative
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
25
impacts can directly affect Essential Fish Habitats (EFH - habitats that are necessary for fish
breeding, feeding or growth to maturity, such as spawning grounds, nursery grounds,
feeding areas and migration corridors
117
) and therefore the future of the fishery and
associated marine flora and fauna. Fishing also has indirect effects through the removal of
predators (e.g. urchins). Research has documented the phase shifts in kelp forests as a result
of fishing pressure.
118
Management regimes have often focussed on total or partial exclusion
of towed bottom fishing gears, as a result and globally the number of areas closed to benthic
trawling is rising, usually using MPAs with objectives around species and habitat
conservation and restoration.
119
,
120
Bottom Towed fishing gears (trawls, dredges, drags,
hydraulic devices) have for instance been excluded from European Marine Sites in the
Southern IFCA district.
121
Possible conflicts and opportunities between kelp harvesting and
fisheries as well as tourism have also been described in Scotland.
122
Case studies from California show the long term impacts of trawling and kelp restoration
projects (including the creation of artificial reefs, transplanting, adding suitable substrate
and securing plants into sediment) which were successful (although this is a different
species of Kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera).
123
Further studies indicate that macroalgal export takes
place globally beyond coastal habitats, suggesting that macroalgae may be an important
source of allochthonous carbon, and therefore their contribution should be considered in Blue
Carbon assessments.
124
Fishing effort in inshore waters off West Sussex
In terms of fishing effort off West Sussex, Sussex IFCA have collected data on observed
fishing activity whilst on sea patrols. Over 17,500 vessel sightings have been observed, 4,750
of which were between 2013 and 2017. The following figures summarise this data for inshore
netting, potting and trawling.
125
Figures 14-16 below displays the fishing effort for trawling, potting and netting vessels
across the IFCA district between 2013 and 2017. Fishing effort is calculated as the annual
average number of fishing vessels observed per kilometre squared of the sea patrolled by
Sussex IFCA. The greatest fishing effort generally occurred 5km from shore, while the
lowest fishing effort generally occurred 0.5km from the coast. Relatively low trawling effort
takes place in the nearshore area. Seafish economic analysis (covering 2014-2018) noted that
in terms landings by all trawling vessels fishing the potential closure area, plaice comprised
the highest landed weight for a single species.
126
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
26
Figure 14: Inshore fishing effort (netting) observations for West Sussex (2013-17)
Figure 15: Inshore fishing effort (potting) observations for West Sussex (2013-17)
The potential exclusion of may increase the use of static gears such as nets and pots. The
ongoing management proposals for inshore netting
127
as part of the Authority’s historic
byelaw review, and the Sussex IFCA’s Shellfish Permit Scheme
128
(which restricts potting
effort) aim to ensure the levels of static gear use and effort are not excessive.
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
27
Figure 16a: Inshore fishing effort (trawling) observations for West Sussex (2013-17)
All UK commercial fishing vessels above 12m are required to have a UK government-
approved satellite-tracking device, known as a vessel monitoring system (VMS),
transmitting their position.
129
The majority of the inshore fishing fleet comprises vessels
under 12m, creating a data gap regarding their fishing effort so sightings data is used.
130
Figure 16b: Inshore fishing effort (pair trawling) observations for West Sussex (2013-17)
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
28
Figure 17a, Sightings data for towed gear and kelp observations within the Sussex IFCA
district, data from 2014 to 2018. Source: Sussex IFCA
Figure 17b, Sightings data for pair trawling and kelp observations within the Sussex IFCA
district, data from 2014 to 2018. Source: Sussex IFCA
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
29
6. Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services
of kelp
Natural Capital
Natural capital refers to the stock of renewable / non-renewable resources, which combine to
yield flows of benefits to humans.
131
The elements of nature that directly or indirectly
produce benefits for people, which can be material or non-marketed and include a myriad of
examples: ecosystems, biodiversity / species, climate regulation, fresh water, erosion control,
land, minerals, the air and oceans, as well as natural processes and functions are all covered
by the concept of Natural Capital.
132
,
133
The beneficial flows are termed ‘ecosystem services’,
which stem from the Natural Capital stocks supply a public need covering economic, social,
environmental, cultural, or spiritual benefits. How the value of these benefits is described
can be qualitative or quantitative (including monetary).
134
Natural Capital and ecosystem
services are concepts used to communicate society’s dependence on nature and to develop
economic theory and practise to capture the myriad of externalities (causing environmental
degradation), which arise from human activity.
135
,
136
There remain challenges with this
approach,
137
,
138
as it remains a broad concept, with few applied examples of best and the
reality that many of nature's benefits cannot be valued in monetary terms.
139
Research has
shown that in the UK, despite the potential and receptive policy landscape, has not yet fully
realised the approach in policy and management contexts, especially within the marine
environment, where it is especially difficult.
140
Ecosystem services (ES)
The functions and products from nature that can be turned into human benefits with
varying degrees of human input are referred to as ‘ecosystem services’ (ES).
141
This
utilitarian concept was developed with the aspiration of becoming the political lever to
reduce biodiversity and habitat loss, making the benefits we derive from nature visible in
economic decision-making.
142
These beneficial flows are dynamic and interact with each
other. They represent the benefits people derive (including economic goods and services),
directly or indirectly, from ecosystem functions, which sustain and fulfil human life
143
.
Therefore, they evolve in time and space, as do the ecological processes and resources. The
wider processes are value-neutral, but the goods and services are valued in a societal sense
even if they are not mediated through markets.
144
‘
145
Crucially, ecosystem services influence human well-being, amongst many others including:
secure and adequate livelihoods, food, shelter, clothing, health, a healthy physical
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
30
environment, good social relations, security, and protection against natural and human
induced disasters,
146
Humans are part of global ecosystems that drives ecosystem change
both directly and indirectly, impacting human well-being. The impact of economic, cultural
and social factors influence people, who in turn shape ecosystems, together with natural
forces.
147
The links between these flows and well-being were described by the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005)
148
,
149
which first drew global attention to the concept
150
and has helped conceptualise these interactions between ecosystems and people.
151
Figure 18: From Ecosystem Services to human wellbeing. Source: Ellis et al (2019).
152
The MEA raised the question as to how changes in ecosystems impact on human well-being
and how that information can be communicated to decision-makers. Before the MEA, the
economic value of non-marketed services was almost non-existent and the costs of the
depletion of these services was not tracked in national economic accounts
153
(and still do not
feature in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) calculations). Both natural capital and ecosystem
service approaches are aspirational, in that their potential to support decision-making,
especially in the marine environment are yet to be realised for both policy and
management.
154155
Valuation should support decision-making with regards to policy making, regulation and
management.
156
ES valuation is considered widely to be a tool to improve societal choices
through presenting the costs of ecosystem degradation and the benefits of restoration.
Understanding the importance of action (or inaction) is a requirement for improved
management. Valuations have been described in three categories: decisive, technical and
informative. While valuation is considered an important contribution to decision-making,
distributional aspects (who wins and who loses are a result of decisions) are often absent.
These distributional impacts may also be unclear or change over time, but need to be
presented, discussed and acknowledged as part of the process.
157
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
31
Ecosystem Disservices
The converse of ecosystem services are ecosystem disservices, e.g. allergens, invasive
species, pathogens etc which may negatively impact human well-being or increase human
impact via increased consumption of resources to deal with the disservices. Any distinction
between an ecosystem ‘service’ and ‘disservice’ is context dependant and will impact
different human groups differently.
158
Ecosystem Service Classification
The accepted high-level classification of ‘functional grouping’ divides ecosystem services
into four categories: Provisioning services (products obtained from ecosystems), Regulating
services (those benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes), Cultural
services (any nonphysical benefits that humans obtain from ecosystems) and Supporting
services (those necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services.
159
’
160
Kelp forest Ecosystem Services
Kelps forests provide both commercial and wider ecosystem services to people
161
’
162
, e.g.
through harvesting (as a source of potash to make gunpowder in World War I) or today in
Ireland, Scotland or Norway for algin (used as a gelling agent in foods, pharmaceuticals, and
the fabric industry). Kelp is also harvested as a food or food supplement and as a component
in fertilizers and even biofuels. The kelp forest habitat itself provides ecosystem services, by
slowing ocean currents and reducing wave action, creating shelter, reducing erosion and
providing recreational and tourism benefits in locations globally
163
. Kelp also provides a
habitat and contribution to the food chain for commercially and recreationally important
fish and shellfish species.
164
Kelp forests in the UK and Ireland provide habitat for molluscs,
crustaceans, and echinoderms, including ecologically and commercially important species
e.g. European lobster, swimming crabs and seasonal spider crab migrants. Kelp forests also
provide nursery habitat for cod and pollock, feeding grounds for ballan wrasse and
goldsinny wrasse and as a result attract large predators such as sea bass, pollack, and conger
eels as well as seals.
165
Kelp are ‘Keystone Species’ whose presence supports many others in
the marine and coastal ecosystem.
166
Removal therefore has further indirect negative impacts
and can lead to phase shifts in coastal waters.
167
Kelp are the dominant biogenic habitat
provider in many coastal ecosystems and changes in kelp abundance influences the entire
ecosystem.
168
,
169
Globally, vegetated marine habitats and biogenic reefs provide elevated ecosystem services
compared to other habitats.
170
As such, kelp forests provide ecosystem services, from
fisheries to nutrient cycling, and shoreline protection, which in the USA have been valued in
the range of billions of dollars annually, with changes in abundance a concern with far
reaching impacts.
171
As kelps have fast growth rates the potential for recovery and
enhancement of ecosystem service provision is also a key focal point.
172
Regarding kelp,
local impacts and regional variation may have more of an impact when compared to other
biogenic habitats e.g. coral reefs where climate change and sea temperatures resulting in
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
32
bleaching have global causes with local impacts aggravating these.
173
Previous research
valued the ecosystem service benefits of coastal seagrass/algal beds at an annual value of
$19,000 per hectare,
174
,
175
while research from California valued the ecosystem services
provided by kelp forests at $7,600 an acre per year.
176
Globally important carbon stores are found in coastal and marine ecosystems (saltmarshes,
seagrass beds, kelp forests and coral reefs) and kelp forests are critical short-term carbon
sinks which need to be safeguarded. Some of this captured carbon also forms long-term
carbon stores in marine sediments. The impacts of ocean acidification will reduce the
amount of carbon remaining trapped in marine sediments. Both these carbon sinks are
impacted by rising climate change via increasing seawater temperatures and through
disturbance from bottom towed fishing gears. Shifts in species composition from long-lived
shell forming organisms (e.g. oysters) being replaced by short-lived and soft-bodied species
(e.g. worms) have also been predicted.
177
A meta-analysis
178
showed a positive kelp–fishery relationship because of the protection of
kelp habitats and supported the protection of kelp habitats stated by current EU
environmental directives. Data on the importance of European kelp forests for the
functioning of coastal ecosystems are more fragmented and limited in the EU compared to
those from North America or Australia.
179
The majority of studies showed increases in
abundance or the presence of adults of fish species associated with kelp, while some showed
positive responses of kelp‐associated recruits and juveniles and use of kelp beds as preferred
spawning areas. An overall increase in the species diversity of fish assemblages in kelp
habitats was also reported as were positive effects of kelp as a source of food for fish, as well
as commercially valuable crustaceans (market landings).
180
The importance of Laminaria beds
as habitat for the American lobster (Homarus americanus) was explained through the
provision of habitable space and the complex architecture which can positively affect
recruitment and the population size structure of several crustacean species. Benefits with
regard to EFH for European lobster and juvenile cod, which between them yielded about
£30 million in the UK economy in 2011 were also noted.
181
Using ES assessment in management takes place for two reasons: primarily to raise
awareness of the importance of nature to people and, secondly, to provide a transparent and
objective means to reach decisions. Understanding trade-offs between different uses (or
conservation or restoration) of nature is a crucial component of sustainable management.
182
Table 9 on the following page presents the types of ES benefit flows documented from kelp
forest.
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
33
Table 9: Ecosystem services (ES) provided by Kelp forests globally
Type of Ecosystem service
Types of benefit flows
Provisioning services:
products / goods people obtain
Commercial, recreational and subsistence
harvesting183
Primary productivity (very high compared to other
algal communities), including high levels of
nutrient uptake, photosynthesis and growth. 184,185
Aquaculture / food production / food for intertidal
birds 186
Habitat provision for various species of
commercially valuable fish187 and shellfish188 as
shelter.189
Materials (alginates) for pharmaceutical and
industrial use by the cosmetic and agrochemical
industries and for biotech applications. 190
Fertilizer and use in building materials191
Regulating services:
benefits people obtain from the
regulation of ecosystem
processes.
Water quality maintenance / filtration 192
Protection of coastlines from storm surges and
waves193.194
Reduction of shoreline erosion195,196
Carbon sequestration 197,198
Stabilization of submerged land by trapping
sediments 199,200
Supporting services:
while not providing direct
services themselves, supporting
services are necessary for the
production of all other
ecosystem services.
Cycling of nutrients 201
Alteration of energy flows and modifying bottom
currents.202
Kelp beds provide (nursery203 and breeding)
habitat for species of fish (gadoids and salmon),
including protection for juveniles, which are
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
34
harvested in recreational and commercial
fisheries.204
Provide additional substrata for sessile macrofauna
e.g. sponges, anemones, bryozoans and sea squirts,
increasing shelter available, providings habitat for
prey species and a forage base. Contribution to
diversity is more pronounced in otherwise
relatively 2- dimensional environments. 205,206
Kelp is an important food source for a number of
species of echinoderm, mollusc and herbivorous
fish as well as some bird species. 207,208
Kelp forest particles (detritus) provide important
food for filter feeders such as mussels and clams as
well as amphipods, crustaceans and sea
cucumbers. 209
Biodiversity of kelp forests prevent invasions of
non-native species.210
Cultural services:
nonmaterial benefits people
obtain from ecosystems
Tourism and recreation (improving recreational
fisheries and water quality for tourism.)211,212
Foraging habitat for coastal birds and drift kelp in
open water provide a valuable roosting site for
birds. Many bird species directly depend on kelp
detritus, feeding on larvae and invertebrates. Kelp
wrack also benefits birds via its role in providing
organic matter to coastal marine ecosystems. 213
Symbolic of coastal heritage. 214
7. Methodology
ES Valuation is used to support policy development and assess the long-term sustainability
of blue growth and marine management decisions, while also raising awareness of the, often
invisible, benefits provided by healthy marine ecosystem and the wider importance of tour
seas to society and in the economy.
215
Valuation generally focuses on “Use values”. In an
economic sense, these refer to ecosystem services, which are instrumental to our economies
and societies, e.g. those that provide us with clean air or water, productive soils for
agriculture and recreational opportunities. Nonetheless, nature cannot only be conceived as
instrumental to human economies, as nature has equally less tangible attributes such as
aesthetic services or intrinsic values, which are not necessarily linked to economic
production or consumption and yet influence our well-being
216
. These are often called “non-
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
35
use values”. The sum of “use values” and “non-use values” makes the total economic value
(TEV) of an ecosystem, species (flora or fauna) or resource.
217
,
218
The economic valuation of ecosystem services is the process of expressing a value for these
services in monetary terms, to bring hidden costs and benefits to view – and more
importantly bring these to the attention of decision makers and incorporated into decision-
making frameworks such as Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA).
219
,
220
All investment decisions and
interventions involve trade-offs and valuation of ecosystem services is a step towards more
inclusive decision making by making these trade-offs explicit, transparent
221
and comparable
in monetary terms. A full valuation of the wide array of services provided by kelp would
enable decision makers to better understand and compare trade-offs.
222
,
223
Economic
valuation of biodiversity is complex and uncertain. Limitations and uncertainty need to be
understood when interpreting the results. These are not the ‘correct’ answer, they are simply
a means to contribute and improve on the decision making process. Valuation can help level
the playing field so that not only extractive used with market values are presented in a CBA,
and that wider environmental, economic and social concerns are presented, alongside
distributional impacts as there are different courses of action where the costs and benefits
are apportioned differently.
224
For this study a model was developed that incorporates the economic valuation for seven
ecosystem services. These ecosystem services are presented in Table 10. In discussion with
SxFICA at a workshop on 27th June 2019, these seven services were decided upon as they
represented the key ecosystem functions
225
of the kelp bed habitat and where it was possible
to obtain secondary data to estimate unit area valuations for these services.
Table 10: Ecosystem services provided by Kelp included in the model
Fishery resources
Harvesting e.g. materials (alginates) for pharmaceutical and industrial use
Water quality maintenance
Protection of coastlines from storm surges waves/ reduction in shoreline erosion
Carbon sequestration
Nursery habitats for commercial fish species
Tourism and recreation (e.g. diving)
Finding values for the kelp bed context of the Sussex coastline was not possible given the
confines of the study. Instead, secondary data was taken both from previous studies
exploring the economic value of kelp ecosystem services and, if this was not available, they
were taken from studies valuing seagrass ecosystem services (see Annex 3). For Provisioning
Services (Fishery resources and Harvesting), economic proxies were taken from a recent
study that explored the economic valuation of kelp forests in northern Chile
226
. For certain
Regulating and Supporting Services (Water quality maintenance; Protection of coastlines
from storm surges waves/ reduction in shoreline erosion; and Nursery habitats for
commercial fish species), there was limited kelp-specific data available. Instead, seagrass
ecosystem proxies were used. Whilst this is not ideal, the characteristics of seagrass habitats
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
36
do share similarities with kelp.
227
As such, while acknowledging the limitations of this
approach, it is believed these values provide indicative values for these ecosystem services
in the economic valuation model. Some studies exploring kelp ecosystem services
valuation, whilst insightful and of interest, were not used in the model as it was not possible
to determine a value for unit area of kelp bed (for example, Blamey and Bolton, 2017
228
). The
sources for each ecosystem service value, the methods used to calculate them, and all
assumptions are presented in Annex 5.
In the model, a percentage of each ecosystem service’s valuation is given depending on kelp
bed density. This is categorised as follows for six of the services: Low density (25%),
Medium density (50%), High Density (75%) and Very High Density (100%). Categorisation
for ‘Harvesting e.g. materials (alginates) for pharmaceutical and industrial use’ is different
to the other six services. Here, 0% is given for Low, Medium and High Density, with 100%
for Very High Density. This is to reflect how kelp harvesting is unlikely to occur to any great
extent unless there is substantial kelp forest present. Table 11 presents the valuation
percentages for kelp bed density assigned to each ecosystem service.
Table 11. Ecosystem service valuation percentages for kelp bed density
Ecosystem service
Low
Medium
High
Very High
Fishery resources
25%
50%
75%
100%
Harvesting e.g.
materials (alginates)
for pharmaceutical
and industrial use
0%
0%
0%
100%
Water quality
maintenance
25%
50%
75%
100%
Protection of coastlines
from storm surges
waves/ reduction in
shoreline erosion
25%
50%
75%
100%
Carbon sequestration
25%
50%
75%
100%
Nursery habitats for
commercial fish
species
25%
50%
75%
100%
Tourism and
recreation (e.g. diving)
25%
50%
75%
100%
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
37
Displacement of fishing as a result of any management measures introduced could mean ecosystem
services are reduced in areas where more fishing effort is displaced into. Any changes in fishing effort
outside 4km have not been valued or modelled in this research.
8. Scenarios
Using the model, we developed various scenarios for kelp bed restoration. After discussions
at a workshop with SxIFCA on June 27th 2019, three different scenarios were chosen for
analysis: the current scenario, the past extent (1987 – as recorded in the Worthing Council
report) and a hypothetical maximum. Data provided by SxIFCA provided estimations for
kelp bed extent (in km2) and its density (in %). These are presented below in Table 12. For
the hypothetical maximum scenario, estimates were determined by bathymetry and
substrate that were possible for the growth of kelp. Note also, that for this scenario is
actually less than the 1987 past extent, which points to potential inaccuracies of past data.
Table 12. Kelp bed extent and densities for each scenario
Kelp bed extent (km2)
Proportion of kelp bed densities (%)
Current scenario
6.28
90% low density
10% medium density
Past extent (1987)
177
60% low density
20% medium density
10% high density
10% very high density
Hypothetical maximum
167
50% low density
40% medium density
5% high density
5% very high density
9. Results
Table 13 presents the ecosystem services valuation for the current kelp habit off the West
Sussex coastline, estimated at £79,170 per annum. According to SxFICA and Seasearch data,
there is only around 6.28 km2 of kelp bed remaining, the majority of which is low density.
The small area of kelp bed coverage ensures that there is only a small value of fishery
resources associated with kelp habitat (£3,569, or 5% of the total) and there is no value in
harvesting kelp as a resource. The highest valued ecosystem service is linked to kelp’s
contribution in protecting coastlines from the impacts of storm surge and coastal erosion
(£30,861, 39% of the total). With little kelp bed extent, the tourism value associated with the
kelp ecosystem is also low (£7,008, 9% of the total).
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
38
Table 13. Ecosystem services valuation for current kelp habitat scenario
Table 14 presents the ecosystem services valuation if the kelp bed returned to 1987 levels.
With kelp bed extent estimated as 2800% greater in 1987 than present day as well as
considerably more kelp bed categorised as high/very high density, there is a significant
difference in value £3,630,605 per annum. In this scenario, fishery resource and nursery
habitats for commercial fish species supported by kelp are estimated as approximately
£700,000 per annum (19% of the total). The proportion of the kelp bed that is very high
density ensures harvesting for materials like alginates could occur if appropriate, with
estimates of £182,095 per annum. Protection of coastlines from storm surges waves/
reduction in shoreline erosion provides the most value, £1,344,264, 37% of the total. Tourism
and recreation associated with kelp bed significantly increases in this scenario, with more
activity such as diving taking place in the restored habitat (£305,273 compared to £7,008 in
the present day scenario).
Value
per km2
(£)
Area by kelp bed density (%)
Value of areas of kelp bed density (£)
Total value
(£)
Low
Medium
High
Very
High
Low
Medium
High
Very
High
Fishery resources
£2,066
90%
10%
0%
0%
£2,920
£649
£-
£-
£3,569
Harvesting e.g.
materials
(alginates) for
pharmaceutical
and industrial use
£10,288
90%
10%
0%
0%
£-
£-
£-
£-
£-
Water quality
maintenance
£5,703
90%
10%
0%
0%
£8,059
£1,791
£-
£-
£9,849
Protection of
coastlines from
storm surges
waves/ reduction
in shoreline
erosion
£17,870
90%
10%
0%
0%
£25,250
£5,611
£-
£-
£30,861
Carbon
sequestration
£9,046
90%
10%
0%
0%
£12,782
£2,840
£-
£-
£15,623
Nursery habitats
for commercial
fish species
£7,099
90%
10%
0%
0%
£10,031
£2,229
£-
£-
£12,260
Tourism and
recreation
£4,058
90%
10%
0%
0%
£5,734
£1,274
£-
£-
£7,008
Total ecosystem services value
£79,170
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
39
Table 14. Ecosystem services valuation for kelp habitat to 1987 past extent scenario
Finally, Table 15 presents the ecosystem services valuation if the kelp bed was restored to
hypothetical maximum. The values are similar to those found in 1987 past event scenario
given the similar area of kelp bed extent (167km2 compared to 177km2) and similar
distribution of densities. A noticeable difference is the value for harvesting materials such as
alginates, where 1987 past extent had an estimated value of £182,095 per annum, the
hypothetical maximum has only £85,904 per annum. This is due to lower extent of very
high-density bed. As mentioned earlier, the difference between 1987 scenario and
hypothetical maximum raise interesting questions about the quality of the data from that
time period as well as how to define the hypothetical maximum kelp bed restoration in this
context.
Value
per
km2 (£)
Area by kelp bed density (%)
Value of areas of kelp bed density (£)
Total value
(£)
Low
Medium
High
Very High
Low
Medium
High
Very High
Fishery
resources
£2,066
60%
20%
10%
10%
£54,864
£36,576
£27,432
£36,576
£155,447
Harvesting e.g.
materials
(alginates) for
pharmaceutical
and industrial
use
£10,288
60%
20%
10%
10%
£-
£-
£-
£182,095
£182,095
Water quality
maintenance
£5,703
60%
20%
10%
10%
151,419
£100,946
£75,709
£100,946
£429,020
Protection of
coastlines from
storm surges
waves/
reduction in
shoreline
erosion
£17,870
60%
20%
10%
10%
474,446
316,297
£237,223
£316,297
£1,344,264
Carbon
sequestration
£9,046
60%
20%
10%
10%
240,176
£160,117
£120,088
£160,117
£680,498
Nursery
habitats for
commercial
fish species
£7,099
60%
20%
10%
10%
188,473
£125,649
£94,237
£125,649
£534,008
Tourism and
recreation
£4,058
60%
20%
10%
10%
£107,743
£71,829
£53,872
£71,829
£305,273
Total ecosystem services value
£3,630,605
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
40
Table 15. Ecosystem services valuation for kelp habitat for hypothetical maximum
scenario
Value
per km2
(£)
Area by kelp bed density
(%)
Value of areas of kelp bed density (£)
Total value
(£)
Low
Med.
High
Very
High
Low
Medium
High
Very
High
Fishery
resources
£2,066
50%
40%
5%
5%
£43,137
£69,019
£12,941
£17,255
£142,351
Harvesting
e.g. materials
(alginates) for
pharmaceutic
al and
industrial use
£10,288
50%
40%
5%
5%
£-
£-
£-
£85,904
£85,904
Water quality
maintenance
£5,703
50%
40%
5%
5%
119,053
£190,486
£35,716
£47,621
£392,877
Protection of
coastlines
from storm
surges waves/
reduction in
shoreline
erosion
£17,870
50%
40%
5%
5%
£373,034
£596,855
£111,910
£149,214
£1,231,013
Carbon
sequestration
£9,046
50%
40%
5%
5%
£188,839
£302,142
£56,652
£75,536
£623,168
Nursery
habitats for
commercial
fish species
£7,099
50%
40%
5%
5%
£148,188
£237,100
£44,456
£59,275
£489,019
Tourism and
recreation
£4,058
50%
40%
5%
5%
£84,714
£135,542
£25,414
£33,885
£279,555
Total ecosystem services value
£3,243,886
Table 16 below summarises the ecosystem service valuations developed by the model for all
three scenarios and categorises value by four ecosystem services types: provisioning,
regulating, supporting and cultural.
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
41
Table 16. Value per annum for kelp ecosystem services by ecosystem service type
Provisioning
services
Regulating
services
Supporting
services
Cultural
services
Total
ecosystem
services
Current scenario
£3,569
£56,333
£12,260
£7,008
£79,170
% total
5%
71%
15%
9%
1987 past extent
£337,542
£2,453,782
£534,008
£305,273
£3,630,605
% total
9%
68%
15%
8%
Hypothetical
maximum
scenario
£276,575
£2,247,058
£489,019
£279,555
£3,243,886
% total
7%
69%
15%
9%
10. Impacts
Stakeholders have diverse interests from commercial gain to recreation or conservation.
Balancing these different interests entails negotiation and dialogue and power relations are
never equal, nor are the value systems. Therefore an acknowledgement of financial interest
of some fishers affected, as well as the inequality in power, the conditions which shape that
dynamic and a transparent presentation of those who are likely to gain or lose from
management decisions need to be presented openly.
229
In this case the costs in the short
term all accrue to the trawling fleet that fish within 4Km from the West Sussex shoreline,
while the medium to long-term beneficiaries are likely to include static gear fishermen,
anglers, divers, coastal tourists and to a notable extent coastal residents - through shoreline
protection and carbon sequestration - but are not limited to those due to the documented
fisheries benefits of kelp forests cited from the available literature and oral history.
230
Balancing short-term economic costs to industry versus long-term gains in biodiversity and
natural habitat restoration is to a large extent incommensurable, but management decisions
need to take account of the full range of costs and benefits and acknowledge they are not
evenly felt.
Examples of the effective use of an ES approach in management are limited both in spatial
extent (as the approach is more effective at a local level) and a sub-set of ES that can be more
accurately valued.
231
High uncertainty defines many aspects of marine management, but
decisions need to be made used best available evidence and expert judgement is an essential
informational component to contribute to decision making.
232
Externalities from market
failure (overfishing or the destruction of EFH through fishing and pollution) mean socially
inefficient and undesirable outcomes, so policies are needed (whether taxes, subsidies,
quotas, permits, regulations or bans / closures) to ensure societal preferences are
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
42
represented.
233
Precautionary management measures to limit the use of fishing gears which
negatively impact marine habitats are necessary and widely advocated in global
literature.
234
,
235
,
236
,
237
,
238
11. Conclusions
From the research undertaken some conclusions can be drawn:
Kelp‐dominated habitats along much of the NE Atlantic coastline have been
chronically understudied and a lack of field‐based research currently impedes the
ability to conserve and manage these crucial marine ecosystems. The structure of
kelp forests in the NE Atlantic region is changing in response to both climate‐ and
non‐climatic stressors, with major implications for the structure and functioning of
coastal ecosystems. Supporting greater understanding of the resistance and resilience
of kelp to stressors, including climate change, is becoming increasingly important
and the sustainable management of kelp systems depends on integrated approaches,
spanning multiple ecosystems.
239
The coastal waters off West Sussex were once kelp dominated for a wide extent of
the platform extending from Selsey through to Bognor Regis, Littlehampton and
Worthing. The extend of kelp coverage has declined by over 96% since the area was
surveyed by Worthing Council and fishing practises (especially pair trawling),
pollution and storm damage
240
have driven this change. If the 1987 report can be
considered a ‘Natural Capital Asset register’
241
(i.e. an inventory of the extent and
health of the Kelp beds) this can be used as a baseline. The Natural Capital
Committee (NCC) also proposed the development of a risk register, where those
activities, which present the greatest threat, are addressed first in the process
242
.
While this is not common practise, this management issue presents an opportunity to
adopt that advice. Starting an asset register now, in the current degraded condition,
while not ideal, presents an opportunity for a baseline which the impact and success
of management can be measured against. This would link the efforts at local scale to
others, e.g. through the North Devon Marine Pioneer project, which has also
developed a marine natural capital asset register. These registers should follow the
EUNIS hierarchy.
243
Spatial aspects of ecosystem valuation need to be mapped and assessed and a natural
capital portfolio approach (which uses existing marine data sets and assessment
results) which also examines ecosystem degradation is needed.
244
It was not possible to find any ecosystem value for kelp forests as a whole in the UK
or Europe in academic or industry publications, nor grey literature. Active research
is on-going in this area in Scotland, particularly in relation to kelp blue carbon
contributions to long-term stores in coastal sediments. More research on kelp’s
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
43
contribution to food webs (including shellfish) is needed. Valuations of kelp detritus
in surface organic matter are also currently ongoing, but as yet unpublished. The
value of kelp as habitat for young stages of commercially harvested finfish is also a
focus of ongoing research. A single number that translates all those vital ecosystem
functions into the monetary value of their service to humans is currently not
available. Therefore, applying a benefits transfer approach from similar studies was
the only option to develop the valuation (e.g. provisioning services values from kelp
valuation study in northern Chile and regulating/supporting services values from
Mediterranean seagrass context). There are numerous caveats with this approach; the
species, region and context are different and the benefits in terms of biodiversity,
productivity and habitat are also not equal – however Posidonia seagrasses forms less
complex ecosystems than laminiarian kelps, and is therefore likely an underestimate
when used as a proxy. To ensure caution, we have used lower values, supported by
feedback from experts in kelp ecosystem services in both England and Scotland.
Developing a good metric for kelp is an urgent priority for those working in the area
and to inform the Impact Assessments supporting kelp habitat protection and
restoration in the UK and EU more widely.
Uncertainty remains a barrier for all decision-making regarding the marine
environment and while this uncertainty needs to be made explicit in decision-
making there is also a clear role for using best available evidence and being clear (in the
assumptions, scenarios and findings) what the limits of that information are. Using
an interdisciplinary approach to bridge between scientific / academic and local
ecological knowledge in the formulation of management strategies is essential.
245
,
246
,
247
Removing the pressure from mobile fishing gear in the coastal strip, as proposed by
Sussex IFCA provides an opportunity to develop the ecosystem approach (both with
regards to the local coastal environment of Sussex but also to the wider context of
fisheries management and marine planning
248
) to the protection and restoration of
natural capital (kelp forest) and the myriad of ecosystem services / benefits, which
people derive from a healthy, functioning marine environment.
An important factor in using an ecosystem approach to management is to use
valuation as part of a transparent, objective framework to inform management
decisions. There are trade-offs between human uses of the sea and conservation and
these need to be understood, presented to stakeholders, experts and decision-makers
and used in conjunction with deliberation to reach decisions on local level
management to support sustainability.
249
Possibly to concept of ‘natures contribution
to people’ could be used in conjunction with the language of natural capital and
ecosystem services to ensure that a plurality of both values and language are used, as
it has been shown that not all people find the economic framing helpful.
250
There are a range of possible scenarios of the long-term benefits of the restoration of
kelp forest which have been modelled, the results suggest that regulating services
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
44
have the highest likely benefits, followed by supporting services and provisioning
services. The lower contribution of cultural services may change over time, as indeed
could any of the others (e.g. through increases to fish and shellfish stocks as a result
of a larger extent of supporting kelp forest habitat).
The distributional reality is that the costs and benefits will not be allocated evenly
between stakeholders. It has been shown that engagement with stakeholders and
those affected by management decisions in the marine environment is valuable to
better understand the trade-offs, possible feedback loops and wider consequences of
management decisions.
251
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
45
ANNEXES
Annex 1: West Sussex kelp bed (1987). Source: Worthing Council
Annex 2: Seasearch Marine Recorder data snapshot listing all species in
samples biotope as including kelp (either a Seasearch SCT 'biotope' of
KF/KP or a full JNCC biotope). Alphabetical order.
Abietinaria abietina, Acanthodoris pilosa, Acrochaetium rosulatum, Actinia equina, Actinia fragacea,
Actiniaria, Actinothoe sphyrodeta, Adamsia carciniopados, Aeolidia papillosa, Aetea anguina,
Aglaophenia kirchenpaueri, Aglaophenia parvula, Aglaophenia pluma, Aglaozonia (asexual cutleria),
Agonus cataphractus, Ahnfeltia plicata, Alcyonidium, Alcyonidium diaphanum, Alcyonidium
gelatinosum, Alcyonidium hirsutum, Alcyonium digitatum, Algae, Ammodytes, Amphilectus
fucorum, Amphipoda, Ancula gibbosa, Anemonia viridis, Anguilla anguilla, Annelida, Anomia
ephippium, Antho (Antho) dichotoma, Anthopleura ballii, Antithamnion cruciatum,
Antithamnionella spirographidis, Aplidium, Aplidium densum, Aplidium punctum, Aplysia fasciata,
Aplysia punctata, Aplysilla, Apoglossum ruscifolium, Archidistoma aggregatum, Arenicola,
Arenicola marina, Arthrocladia villosa, Ascidia, Ascidia conchilega, Ascidia mentula, Ascidiacea,
Ascidiella, Ascidiella aspersa, Ascidiella scabra, Asparagopsis armata, Asperococcus bullosus,
Asterias rubens, Athanas nitescens, Atherina presbyter, Austrominius modestus, Balanus, Balanus
balanus, Balanus crenatus, Balistes capriscus, Barnea parva, Bispira, Bispira volutacornis, Bittium,
Bivalvia, Blenniidae, Bonnemaisonia asparagoides, Bonnemaisonia hamifera, Botrylloides leachii,
Botryllus schlosseri, Bowerbankia citrina, Brongniartella byssoides, Bryopsis hypnoides, Bryopsis
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
46
plumosa, Bryozoa, Bryozoa indet crusts, Buccinum undatum, Bugula, Bugula flabellata, Bugula
plumosa, Bugula turbinata, Calliblepharis, Calliblepharis ciliata, Callionymus lyra, Callionymus
reticulatus, Calliostoma zizyphinum, Callithamnion corymbosum, Cancer pagurus, Carcinus
maenas, Caridea, Caryophyllia (Caryophyllia) smithii, Cellaria, Cellepora pumicosa, Celleporella
hyalina, Centrolabrus exoletus, Ceramium, Ceramium cimbricum, Ceramium diaphanum, Ceramium
secundatum, Ceramium virgatum, Cerastoderma edule, Cereus pedunculatus, Cerianthus lloydii,
Chartella papyracea, Chelidonichthys cuculus, Chelon labrosus, Chlorophyceae, Chlorophyta,
Chondria dasyphylla, Chondrus crispus, Chorda filum, Chordaria flagelliformis, Chromista,
Chromophycota indet. (crusts), Chrysaora hysoscella, Chylocladia verticillata, Ciliata mustela,
Ciliatocardium ciliatum ciliatum, Ciocalypta penicillus, Ciona intestinalis, Cirripedia, Cladophora,
Cladophora pellucida, Cladophora rupestris, Cladophorales, Cladostephus spongiosus, Clathria
(Microciona), Clathria (Microciona) atrasanguinea, Clathrina coriacea, Clavelina lepadiformis,
Cliona celata, Codium fragile, Colaconema chylocladiae, Colaconema endophyticum, Conger conger,
Conopeum reticulum, Corallina, Corallina officinalis, Corallinaceae, Cordylecladia erecta, Corella
parallelogramma, Crangon crangon, Crepidula fornicata, Crimora papillata, Crisia, Cryptopleura
ramosa, Ctenolabrus rupestris, Cutleria multifida, Cyclopterus lumpus, Cystoclonium purpureum,
Decapoda, Delesseria sanguinea, Dendrodoa grossularia, Derbesia, Derbesia marina, Dercitus
(Dercitus) bucklandi, Desmarestia aculeata, Desmarestia ligulata, Dicentrarchus labrax,
Dictyosiphon, Dictyosiphon foeniculaceus, Dictyota dichotoma, Didemnidae, Didemnum, Didemnum
coriaceum, Dilsea carnosa, Diplosoma listerianum, Diplosoma spongiforme, Dipturus batis, Doris
pseudoargus, Doto, Doto coronata, Drachiella spectabilis, Dudresnaya verticillata, Dynamena
pumila, Dysidea fragilis, Ectocarpus, Electra pilosa, encrusting algae indet., Ensis siliqua,
Erythrotrichia carnea, Escharoides coccinea, Eualus, Eubranchus pallidus, Eulalia viridis,
Eupolymnia nebulosa, Facelina, Facelina auriculata, Filamentous brown algae, Filamentous green
algae, Filograna implexa, Flabellina, Flabellina lineata, Flabellina pedata, Flustra foliacea,
Flustrellidra hispida, Foliose brown algae, Foliose green algae, Foliose red algae, Fucus serratus,
Fucus vesiculosus, Galathea, Galathea intermedia, Galathea squamifera, Galathea strigosa,
Galatheidae, Gastropoda, Gelidium pusillum, Gibbula cineraria, Gibbula umbilicalis, Gobiidae,
Gobius, Gobius niger, Gobius paganellus, Gobiusculus flavescens, Goniodoris nodosa, Gracilaria
bursa-pastoris, Gracilaria gracilis, Gracilariales, Grantia compressa, Grateloupia doryphora,
Grateloupia filicina, Griffithsia, Griffithsia corallinoides, Gymnogongrus crenulatus, Halarachnion
ligulatum, Halcampa chrysanthellum, Halecium halecinum, Halichondria, Halichondria
(Halichondria) bowerbanki, Halichondria (Halichondria) panicea, Haliclona, Haliclona (Haliclona)
oculata, Haliclona (Haliclona) simulans, Haliclona (Reniera) cinerea, Halidrys siliquosa, Halopithys
incurva, Halurus equisetifolius, Halurus flosculosus, Haraldiophyllum bonnemaisonii, Harmothoe,
Hemimycale columella, Henricia oculata, Heterosiphonia plumosa, Hiatella arctica, Hildenbrandia,
Himanthalia elongata, Hippolyte varians, Hippothoa flagellum, Homarus gammarus, Hyas, Hyas
araneus, Hyas coarctatus, Hydrallmania, Hydrallmania falcata, Hydrozoa, Hymeniacidon fallax,
Hymeniacidon perlevis, Hypoglossum hypoglossoides, Idotea, Inachus, Inachus dorsettensis, Inachus
leptochirus, Inachus phalangium, Jania rubens, Janolus cristatus, Jassa, Jassa falcata, Jujubinus
striatus, Kallymenia reniformis, Kirchenpaueria pinnata, Labridae, Labrus bergylta, Labrus mixtus,
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
47
Lacuna vincta, Laminaria, Laminaria digitata, Laminaria hyperborea, Laminariales, Lanice
conchilega, Laomedea flexuosa, Lepadogaster lepadogaster, Leucandra aspera, Leucosolenia,
Leucosolenia botryoides, Leucosolenia variabilis, Limacia clavigera, Lineus longissimus, Lineus ruber,
Liocarcinus, Liocarcinus depurator, Liocarcinus holsatus, Liparis, Liparis montagui, Lipophrys
pholis, Lithophyllum incrustans, Lithothamnion, Littorina littorea, Littorina obtusata, Loligo,
Lomentaria articulata, Lomentaria orcadensis, Lophozozymus incisus, Macropodia, Maja
brachydactyla, Maja squinado, Mastocarpus stellatus, Membranipora membranacea, Membranoptera
alata, Metridium senile, Mimachlamys varia, Molgula, Molgula citrina, Molgula manhattensis,
Mollusca, Monosporus pedicellatus, Morchellium, Morchellium argus, Mullus surmuletus,
Muricoidea, Mustelus asterias, Myoxocephalus scorpius, Myriocladia, Mysida, Mysidae, Mytilus
edulis, Myxicola infundibulum, Myxilla, Myxilla (Myxilla) incrustans, Myxilla (Myxilla) rosacea,
Naccaria wiggii, Nassarius, Nassarius incrassatus, Nassarius reticulatus, Necora puber, Nemertesia,
Nemertesia antennina, Nemertesia ramosa, Neoamphitrite figulus, Nephtys, Nereis, Nerophis
lumbriciformis, Nitophyllum punctatum, Nucella lapillus, Nudibranchia, Obelia, Obelia geniculata,
Ocenebra erinaceus, Okenia aspersa, Onchidoris bilamellata, Ophiothrix fragilis, Ophiura,
Opisthobranchia, Osmundea pinnatifida, Ostrea edulis, Pachymatisma johnstonia, Paguridae,
Pagurus, Pagurus bernhardus, Pagurus prideaux, Palaemon, Palaemon serratus, Palio nothus,
Palmaria palmata, Parablennius gattorugine, Parasmittina, Patella, Patella pellucida, Patella vulgata,
Peachia cylindrica, Pecten maximus, Pentapora foliacea, Perophora, Peyssonnelia, Phaeophyceae,
Pholadidae, Pholas, Pholas dactylus, Pholis gunnellus, Phorbas fictitius, Phorbas plumosus,
Phormidium roseum, Phoronis hippocrepia, Phyllodoce lamelligera, Phyllodoce maculata, Phyllophora
crispa, Phyllophora pseudoceranoides, Phymatolithon laevigatum, Phymatolithon lamii,
Phymatolithon lenormandii, Phymatolithon purpureum, Pilumnus hirtellus, Pisces, Pisidia
longicornis, Platichthys flesus, Pleurobranchus membranaceus, Pleuronectes platessa, Pleuronectidae,
Plocamium cartilagineum, Polinices, Pollachius pollachius, Polycarpa scuba, Polycera faeroensis,
Polycera quadrilineata, Polychaeta, Polydora, Polydora ciliata, Polyides, Polyides rotunda,
Polymastia, Polymastia boletiformis, Polymastia mamillaris, Polymastia penicillus, Polyplacophora,
Polysiphonia, Polysiphonia elongata, Polysiphonia fibrata, Polysiphonia fucoides, Polysiphonia nigra,
Polysiphonia stricta, Pomatoschistus, Pomatoschistus microps, Pomatoschistus minutus,
Pomatoschistus pictus, Porcellana platycheles, Porifera, Porifera indet crusts, Prostheceraeus
vittatus, Psammechinus miliaris, Pseudolithoderma extensum, Pseudopotamilla reniformis,
Pterothamnion plumula, Pycnoclavella aurilucens, Pycnoclavella stolonialis, Pycnogonum litorale,
Pylaiella littoralis, Radicilingua thysanorhizans, Raja clavata, Raspailia (Clathriodendron) hispida,
Raspailia (Raspailia) ramosa, Rhodomela confervoides, Rhodophyceae, Rhodophycota indet. (non-calc.
crusts), Rhodophyllis divaricata, Rhodophyta, Rhodothamniella floridula, Rhodymenia holmesii,
Rhodymenia pseudopalmata, Rissoa parva, Sabella pavonina, Sabellaria, Sabellaria spinulosa,
Sabellidae, Saccharina latissima, Saccorhiza polyschides, Sagartia elegans, Sagartia troglodytes,
Salmacina dysteri, Sarcodictyon roseum, Sargassum muticum, Schizomavella discoidea, Scinaia
furcellata, Scrupocellaria, Scrupocellaria scruposa, Scyliorhinus canicula, Scytosiphon lomentaria,
Securiflustra securifrons, Semibalanus balanoides, Sepia officinalis, Sepiola atlantica, Serpulidae,
Sertularella polyzonias, Sertularella rugosa, Sertularia, Sertularia argentea, Sphacelaria cirrosa,
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
48
Sphaerococcus coronopifolius, Spirobranchus, Spirobranchus lamarcki, Spirobranchus triqueter,
Spirorbinae, Spirorbis (Spirorbis) spirorbis, Spondyliosoma cantharus, Sporochnus pedunculatus,
Spyridia filamentosa, Stelligera rigida, Styela clava, Stypocaulon scoparium, Suberites, Suberites
carnosus, Suberites ficus, Sycon ciliatum, Symphodus melops, Syngnathus acus, Taonia atomaria,
Taurulus bubalis, Terebellidae, Tethya, Tethya aurantium, Tethya citrina, Thorogobius ephippiatus,
Titanoderma pustulatum, Trachinus draco, Trachurus trachurus, Trapania pallida, Tricellaria
inopinata, Triglidae, Trisopterus luscus, Trisopterus minutus, Tritonia lineata, Trivia, Trivia arctica,
Trivia monacha, Trochidae, Tubularia indivisa, Tubulipora lobifera, Tunicata, Turbinidae, Ulva,
Ulva intestinalis, Ulva lactuca, Umbraulva olivascens, Urticina felina, Venerupis, Venerupis
corrugata, Vertebrata lanosa, Vesicularia spinosa, Zeus faber.
Annex 3: Species that may potentially be associated with kelp habitats
(found associated with Laminaria hyperborea and L. digitata at different
times of the year) based on research in Ireland.
Flora
Chlorophyceae: Cladophora rupestris
Rhodophyceae: Phycodrys rubens, Pterosiphonia pennata, Lithophyllum spp., Lithothamnion spp.,
Phyllophora crispa, Polysiphonia spp., Polysiphonia lanosa, Corallina officinalis, Palmaria palmata ,
Lomentaria articulate, Ptilota gunneri, Delesseria sanguinea, Cryptopleura ramose, Membranoptera
alata
Phaeophyceae: Laminaria digitate, Saccorhiza polyschides
Fauna
Porifera: Scypha compressa, Pachymatisma johnstonia, Myxilla spp., Hemimycale columella
Cnidaria: Dynamena pumila, Anemonia viridis
Annelida: Nereis pelagica, Pomatoceros lamarcki, Spirorbis spirorbis , Sabellaria alveolata
Pomatoceros lamarcki, Filograna implexa, Megalomma vesiculosum
Crustacea: Copepods, Leptomycis spp., Juvenile crab , Calliopius laeviusculus , Semibalanus
balanoides , Balanus crenatus , Gammarus spp., Pinnotheres pisum , Verruca stroemia
Mollusca: Aplysia punctata , Patella spp. , Mytilus edulis, Gibbula cineraria , Helcion pellucidum
Acanthochitona crinitus , Calliostoma zizyphinum , Retusa truncatula , Clam sprat
Bryozoa: Conopeum reticulum , Scruparia chelata , Alcyonidium spp. , Callopora lineata , Electra
pilosa , Celleporella hyalina , Cellaria spp., Membranipora membranacea
Echinodermata: Marthasterias glacialis , Asterias rubens , Asterina gibbosa , Ophiotrix fragilis ,
Echinus esculentus
Tunicata: Ascidiella aspersa , Dendrodoa grossularia , Didemnum coriaceum , Botryllus schlosseri
Aplidium spp. , Molgula spp. , Distomus variolosus , Corella parellelogramma , Morchellium argus ,
Distomus variolosus
Chordata: Gobiusculus flavescens , Laminaria digitata
Flora
Rhodophycea: Palmaria palmata , Polysiphonia macrocarpa , Plocamium cartilagineum , Ptilota
gunneri , Brongniartella bysoides , Crustose coralline algae
Phaeophyceae: Fucus spp.
Fauna
Cnidaria: Dynamena pumila , Gonothyraea loveni , Litosiphon spp.
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
49
Annelida: Spirorbis spirorbis , Pomatoceros triqueter
Crustacea:Balanus balanus
Mollusca: Helcion pellucidum , Littorina obtusata , Littorina littorea , Mytilus edulis , Anomia
ephippium , Heteranomia squamula
Bryozoa: Membranipora menbranacea
Tunicata: Ascidiella aspersa , Distomus variolosus , Egg capsules
252
Annex 4: Sussex Seasearch survey forms received (1999-2018)
Year
Total no. of forms received
1999
28
2000
48
2001
17
2002
56
2003
19
2004
33
2005
35
2006
28
2007
13
2008
7
2009
60
2010
49
2011
39
2012
50
2013
55
2014
17
2015
38
2016
21
2017
26
2018
23
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
50
Annex 5: Assumptions for economic valuations for ecosystem services associated with kelp forests
Fishery resources
Economic value
per km2 per
year (£)*
*adjusted for
inflation
£2,066.43
REFERENCES
Vásquez et al.
NOTES/ASSUMPTIONS
Annual total estimates for Kelp Harvesting and
Associated Fisheries taken from 10-year estimates
(US$409,527,000 and US$ 8,3297,97 divided by 10,
respectively). Area of kelp bed extent roughly
estimated as 3500km2 for study area (700km coastline
of study area by 5km offshore, based on rough
bathymetry of potential for kelp growth (less than 50m
depth). Value for per km2 calcuated by dividing annual
total with area.
Valuation
Method
Assumed /
Revealed /
Stated
preference
techniques
Year
2012
Country /
Region
Northern
Chile
Habitat type
Kelp
Economic
valuation from
source
2350.22 USD
Conversion (£)
£1880.18
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
51
Harvesting e.g.
materials
(alginates) for
pharmaceutical
and industrial use
Economic value
per km2 per
year (£)*
*adjusted for
inflation
£45,767.20
REFERENCES
Vásquez et al.
NOTES/ASSUMPTIONS
Annual total estimates for Kelp Harvesting and
Associated Fisheries taken from 10-year estimates
(US$409,527,000 and US$ 8,3297,97 divided by 10,
respectively). Area of kelp bed extent roughly
estimated as 3500km2 for study area (700km coastline
of study area by 5km offshore, based on rough
bathymetry of potential for kelp growth (less than 50m
depth). Value for per km2 calcuated by dividing annual
total with area.
Valuation
Method
Assumed /
Revealed /
Stated
preference
techniques
Year
2012
Country /
Region
Northern
Chile
Habitat type
Kelp
Economic
valuation from
source
11700.77 USD
Conversion (£)
£9360.62
Water quality
maintenance
Economic value
per km2 per
year (£)*
*adjusted for
inflation
£5,703.16
REFERENCES
Weatherdon et al (2017)253
Campagne et al (2015)254
NOTES/ASSUMPTIONS
n/a
Valuation
Method
Benefit
transfer
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
52
Year
2015
Country /
Region
Mediterranean
Habitat type
Seagrass
Economic
valuation from
source
60 EUR
Conversion (£)
£54
Protection of
coastlines from
storm surges
waves/ reduction
in shoreline
erosion
Economic value
per km2 per
year (£)*
*adjusted for
inflation
£17,870
REFERENCES
Weatherdon et al (2017)255
Campagne et al (2015)256
NOTES/ASSUMPTIONS
n/a
Valuation
Method
Damage cost
avoided
Year
2015
Country /
Region
Mediterranean
Habitat type
Seagrass
Economic
valuation from
source
188 EUR
Conversion (£)
£169.20
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
53
Carbon
sequestration
Economic value
per km2 per
year (£)*
*adjusted for
inflation
£9,046.17
REFERENCES
Bayley et al (2017)257
NOTES/ASSUMPTIONS
Total area of kelp in Falkland Islands waters calculated
as 644.05 km2. Total carbon sequestration for this area
estimated as 0.239 million tonnes CO2 equivalent. Total
divided by area is multiplied by the cost per tonne of
CO2, estimated as £24.01 (taken from
https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/co2-
european-emission-allowances on 10th July)
Valuation
Method
Calculation
Year
2017/2018
Country /
Region
Falkland
Islands
Habitat type
Kelp
Economic
valuation from
source
8909.85 GBP
Conversion (£)
£8909.85
Nursery habitats
for commercial
fish species
Economic value
per km2 per
year (£)*
*adjusted for
inflation
£7,098.81
REFERENCES
Unsworth (2010)258
NOTES/ASSUMPTIONS
n/a
Valuation
Method
Market price
Year
2010
Country /
Region
Australia
Habitat type
Seagrass
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
54
Economic
valuation from
source
78 USD
Conversion (£)
£62.40
Tourism and
recreation (e.g.
diving)
Economic value
per km2 per
year (£)*
*adjusted for
inflation
£4,058.13
REFERENCES
Expert Knowledge
NOTES/ASSUMPTIONS
Value estimated from roughly 5 diving schools
providing approximately 100 trips a year at
approximately £40 per trip
Valuation
Method
Calculation
Year
2019
Country /
Region
Sussex, UK
Habitat type
Kelp
Economic
valuation from
source
n/a
Conversion (£)
£4,058.13
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
55
Endnotes:
1
Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Sussex
2
Sussex IFCA (2019) summary paper ‘Sussex kelp narrative’.
3
Sussex Inshore Fisheries & Conservation Authority Report to: Principal Committee
1st November 2018 Report: Review of Management Measures Netting & Associated Nearshore
Management of Trawling
4
Nelson, K. and Burnside, G. (2019) Identification of marine management priority areas using a GIS-
based multi-criteria approach. Ocean & Coastal Management. Volume 172, 15 April 2019, Pages 82-92
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.02.002
5
Sussex Inshore Fisheries & Conservation Authority Report to: Principal Committee
1st November 2018 Report: Review of Management Measures Netting & Associated Nearshore
Management of Trawling
6
Sussex IFCA (2019) Centuries of Sussex Seas - A summary of historic fishing activity in Sussex
coastal waters
7
Sussex IFCA (2019) Sussex IFCA District Nearshore Trawling Byelaw 2019 Impact assessment. IA
No: SXIFCA007. DRAFT June 2019.
8
Those vessels which fished the potential trawling exclusion area between 2014-2018 were derived
from Sussex IFCA sightings data. Bespoke economic analyses of these vessels were subsequently
conducted by Seafish. Source: Sussex IFCA.
9
Note that when pair trawling, only one of the pair of vessels retains and lands the catch.
10
Williams et al (2019) Report on the social and economic impacts of the sea bass management
measures. Technical Report
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332878999_REPORT_ON_THE_SOCIAL_AND_ECONOMI
C_IMPACTS_OF_THE_SEA_BASS_MANAGEMENT_MEASURES
11
Sussex IFCA (2019) Sussex IFCA District Nearshore Trawling Byelaw 2019 Impact assessment. IA
No: SXIFCA007. DRAFT June 2019.
12
Sussex IFCA (2019) Sussex IFCA District Nearshore Trawling Byelaw 2019 Impact assessment. IA
No: SXIFCA007. DRAFT June 2019.
13
Sussex IFCA District Nearshore Trawling Byelaw 2019 Impact Assessment IA No: SXIFCA007
https://secure.toolkitfiles.co.uk/clients/34087/sitedata/files/consultations/Nearshore-Trawling-Byelaw-
IA.pdf
14
Sussex IFCA (2019) Sussex IFCA District Nearshore Trawling Byelaw 2019 Impact assessment. IA
No: SXIFCA007. DRAFT June 2019.
15
1996 SI No. 847 The Sussex Sea Fisheries District (Variation) Order 1996 established this in Order
dated 18th March 1996.
16
Sussex IFCA https://www.sussex-ifca.gov.uk/kelp
17
Sussex IFCA (2019) Sussex IFCA District Nearshore Trawling Byelaw 2019 Impact assessment. IA
No: SXIFCA007. DRAFT June 2019.
18
Sussex IFCA (2019) Sussex IFCA District Nearshore Trawling Byelaw 2019 Impact assessment. IA
No: SXIFCA007. DRAFT June 2019.
19
Ruckelshaus, M. et al (2013) Securing ocean benefits for society in the face of climate change. Marine
Policy 40 (2013) 154–159
http://moderncms.ecosystemmarketplace.com/repository/moderncms_documents/ruckelshaus_etal_
marinepolicy2013.1.1.pdf
20
Defra (2011) Guidance to Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities on evidence based marine
management (in accordance with section 153 (3) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009)
http://www.association-ifca.org.uk/Upload/About/2011-ifca-guide-marine%20management.pdf
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
56
21
Nelson and Burnside (2019) Identification of marine management priority areas using a GIS-based
multi-criteria approach. Ocean & Coastal Management. Volume 172, 15 April 2019, Pages 82-92
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.02.002
22
Hooper et al (2019) Applying the natural capital approach to decision making for the marine
environment. Ecosystem Services 38 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100947
23
Sussex IFCA (2019) Sussex IFCA District Nearshore Trawling Byelaw 2019 Impact assessment. IA
No: SXIFCA007. DRAFT June 2019.
24
Sussex Inshore Fisheries & Conservation Authority Report to: Principal Committee
1st November 2018 Report: Review of Management Measures Netting & Associated Nearshore
Management of Trawling
25
Sussex IFCA Quarterly meeting July 25th members pack.
26
Sussex IFCA https://www.sussex-ifca.gov.uk/kelp
27
Kelly (2005) The Role of Kelp in the Marine Environment. Irish Wildlife Manuals No. 17. National
Parks and Wildlife Service Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Galway
https://www.npws.ie/sites/default/files/publications/pdf/IWM17.pdf
28
Tegner and Dayton (2000). Ecosystem effects of fishing in kelp forest communities. – ICES Journal
of Marine Science, 57: 579 - 589.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.577.3088&rep=rep1&type=pdf
29
Pessarrodona, Foggo and Smale (2018) Can ecosystem functioning be maintained despite climate‐
driven shifts in species composition? Insights from novel marine forests. Journal of Ecology. Volume
107, Issue 1. Pages 91-104 https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2745.13053
30
Smale et al (2013) Threats and knowledge gaps for ecosystem services provided by kelp forests: a
northeast Atlantic perspective. Ecology and Evolution. Volume 3, Issue 11. pp 4016-4038.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.774
31
Krumhansl et al (2016) Global patterns of kelp forest change over the past half-century. PNAS, vol.
113, no. 48 https://www.pnas.org/content/113/48/13785
32
Tegner, M. J., and Dayton, P. K. (2000) Ecosystem effects of fishing in kelp forest communities. ICES
Journal of Marine Science, 57: 579–589.
33
Smale et al (2016) Linking environmental variables with regionalscale variability in ecological
structure and standing stock of carbon within UK kelp forests. MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS
SERIES Mar Ecol Prog Ser. Vol. 542: 79-95
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283707936_Linking_environmental_variables_with_regiona
lscale_variability_in_ecological_structure_and_standing_stock_of_carbon_within_kelp_forests_in_the
_United_Kingdom
34
Bertocci, I. et al (2015) Potential effects of kelp species on local fisheries. Journal of Applied Ecology:
52, 1216–1226 https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1365-2664.12483
35
Pessarrodona, Foggo and Smale (2018) Can ecosystem functioning be maintained despite climate‐
driven shifts in species composition? Insights from novel marine forests. Journal of Ecology. Volume
107, Issue 1. Pages 91-104 https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2745.13053
36
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA
https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/habitat/fish_habitat/kelp_forest_habitat_types.html
37
Werner & Kraan (2004) THE POTENTIAL MECHANISATION OF KELP HARVESTING IN
IRELAND Irish Seaweed Centre, Martin Ryan Institute, National University of Ireland, Galway
https://oar.marine.ie/handle/10793/261
38
Smale et al (2016) Linking environmental variables with regionalscale variability in ecological
structure and standing stock of carbon within UK kelp forests. MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS
SERIES Mar Ecol Prog Ser. Vol. 542: 79–95,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283707936_Linking_environmental_variables_with_regiona
lscale_variability_in_ecological_structure_and_standing_stock_of_carbon_within_kelp_forests_in_the
_United_Kingdom
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
57
39
Smale et al (2013) Threats and knowledge gaps for ecosystem services provided by kelp forests: a
northeast Atlantic perspective. Ecology and Evolution. Volume 3, Issue 11. pp 4016-4038.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.774
40
Moore (1973) The kelp fauna of North-east Britain. II Multivariate classification: turbidity as an
ecological factor. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 13, 127-163: in SIFT Protection
for Scotland’s kelp forests, available at: https://www.sift-uk.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/SIFT-
Kelp-Briefing.pdf
41
Araujo et al (2013) What is the impact of kelp forest density and/or area on fisheries? Environmental
Evidence 2013, 2:15 http://www.environmentalevidencejournal.org/content/2/1/15
42
Verges et al (2016) Long-term empirical evidence of ocean warming leading to tropicalization of fish
communities, increased herbivory, and loss of kelp. PNAS. vol. 113, no. 48
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4b5b/4146f4a2895cb19cbb56b7e73a02d6805ea9.pdf
43
Brady-Campbell et al (1984) Productivity of kelp (Laminaria spp.) near the
southern limit in the Northwestern Atlantic Ocean. MARINE ECOLOGY - PROGRESS SERIES Vol.
18: 79-88
44
Smale et al (2016) Linking environmental variables with regionalscale variability in ecological
structure and standing stock of carbon within UK kelp forests. MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS
SERIES Mar Ecol Prog Ser. Vol. 542: 79-95
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283707936_Linking_environmental_variables_with_regiona
lscale_variability_in_ecological_structure_and_standing_stock_of_carbon_within_kelp_forests_in_the
_United_Kingdom
45
Araujo et al (2013) What is the impact of kelp forest density and/or area on fisheries? Environmental
Evidence 2013, 2:15 http://www.environmentalevidencejournal.org/content/2/1/15
46
Ling et al (2009) Overfishing reduces resilience of kelp beds to climate-driven catastrophic phase
shift. PNAS vol. 106, no. 52, https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/106/52/22341.full.pdf
47
Arafeh-Dalmau et al (2019) Extreme Marine Heatwaves Alter Kelp Forest Community Near Its
Equatorward Distribution Limit https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2019.00499/full
48
Ling et al (2009) Overfishing reduces resilience of kelp beds to climate-driven catastrophic phase
shift. PNAS vol. 106, no. 52, https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/106/52/22341.full.pdf
49
Ruckelshaus, M. et al (2013) Securing ocean benefits for society in the face of climate change. Marine
Policy 40 (2013) 154–159
http://moderncms.ecosystemmarketplace.com/repository/moderncms_documents/ruckelshaus_etal_
marinepolicy2013.1.1.pdf
50
Pessarrodona, Foggo and Smale (2018) Can ecosystem functioning be maintained despite climate‐
driven shifts in species composition? Insights from novel marine forests. Journal of Ecology. Volume
107, Issue 1. Pages 91-104 https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2745.13053
51
Duarte et al (2019) Can Seaweed Farming Play a Role in Climate Change Mitigation and
Adaptation? Front. Mar. Sci., 12 April 2017 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00100
52
UK Government (2018) Sustainable fisheries for future generations
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/fisheries-white-paper-sustainable-fisheries-for-future-
generations/sustainable-fisheries-for-future-generations-consultation-document
53
Smale et al (2016) Linking environmental variables with regionalscale variability in ecological
structure and standing stock of carbon within UK kelp forests. MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS
SERIES Mar Ecol Prog Ser. Vol. 542: 79-95
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283707936_Linking_environmental_variables_with_regiona
lscale_variability_in_ecological_structure_and_standing_stock_of_carbon_within_kelp_forests_in_the
_United_Kingdom
54
Araujo et al (2013) What is the impact of kelp forest density and/or area on fisheries? Environmental
Evidence 2013, 2:15 http://www.environmentalevidencejournal.org/content/2/1/15
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
58
55
Werner & Kraan (2004) THE POTENTIAL MECHANISATION OF KELP HARVESTING IN
IRELAND Irish Seaweed Centre, Martin Ryan Institute, National University of Ireland, Galway
https://oar.marine.ie/handle/10793/261
56
Werner & Kraan (2004) THE POTENTIAL MECHANISATION OF KELP HARVESTING IN
IRELAND Irish Seaweed Centre, Martin Ryan Institute, National University of Ireland, Galway
https://oar.marine.ie/handle/10793/261
57
Kelly (2005) The Role of Kelp in the Marine Environment. Irish Wildlife Manuals No. 17. National
Parks and Wildlife Service Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Galway
https://www.npws.ie/sites/default/files/publications/pdf/IWM17.pdf
58
Smale et al (2016) Linking environmental variables with regional-scale variability in ecological
structure and standing stock of carbon within UK kelp forests. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 542:79-95.
https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11544 https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v542/p79-95
59
Project Oceanography (2002) - Kelp Forests, Unit 1 CINMS
https://www.marine.usf.edu/pjocean/packets/sp02/sp02u1p4.pdf
60
Sussex IFCA (2019) summary paper ‘Sussex kelp narrative’.
61
Pessarrodona, Foggo and Smale (2018) Can ecosystem functioning be maintained despite climate‐
driven shifts in species composition? Insights from novel marine forests. Journal of Ecology. Volume
107, Issue 1. Pages 91-104 https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2745.13053
62
MarLIN The Marine Life Information Network. Oarweed (Laminaria digitata)
https://www.marlin.ac.uk/species/detail/1386
63
MarLIN The Marine Life Information Network. Oarweed (Laminaria digitata)
https://www.marlin.ac.uk/species/detail/1386
64
Pessarrodona, Foggo and Smale (2018) Can ecosystem functioning be maintained despite climate‐
driven shifts in species composition? Insights from novel marine forests. Journal of Ecology. Volume
107, Issue 1. Pages 91-104 https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2745.13053
65
Smale et al (2016) Linking environmental variables with regionalscale variability in ecological
structure and standing stock of carbon within UK kelp forests. MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS
SERIES Mar Ecol Prog Ser. Vol. 542: 79-95
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283707936_Linking_environmental_variables_with_regiona
lscale_variability_in_ecological_structure_and_standing_stock_of_carbon_within_kelp_forests_in_the
_United_Kingdom
66
MarLIN The Marine Life Information Network. Tangle or cuvie (Laminaria hyperborea)
https://www.marlin.ac.uk/species/detail/1309
67
MarLIN The Marine Life Information Network. Tangle or cuvie (Laminaria hyperborea)
https://www.marlin.ac.uk/species/detail/1309
68
MarLIN The Marine Life Information Network. Sugar kelp (Saccharina latissima)
https://www.marlin.ac.uk/species/detail/1375
69
MarLIN The Marine Life Information Network. Sugar kelp (Saccharina latissima)
https://www.marlin.ac.uk/species/detail/1375
70
Worthing History http://www.feestspada.com/worthing_history/history_pages/html/Seaweed.html
71
Worthing History http://www.feestspada.com/worthing_history/history_pages/html/Seaweed.html
72
https://sussexwildlifetrust.org.uk/what-we-do/living-seas/sussex-seasearch
73
Sussex IFCA (2019) summary paper ‘Sussex kelp narrative’.
74
Sussex IFCA (2019) Sussex IFCA District Nearshore Trawling Byelaw 2019 Impact assessment. IA
No: SXIFCA007. DRAFT June 2019.
75
Sussex IFCA (2019) Sussex IFCA District Nearshore Trawling Byelaw 2019 Impact assessment. IA
No: SXIFCA007. DRAFT June 2019.
76
Sussex IFCA (2019) summary paper ‘Sussex kelp narrative’.
77
Sussex Seasearch entries in Marine Recorder https://jncc.gov.uk/our-work/marine-recorder/
78
Sussex IFCA (2019) Sussex IFCA District Nearshore Trawling Byelaw 2019 Impact assessment. IA
No: SXIFCA007. DRAFT June 2019.
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
59
79
EUNIS https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/eunis-habitat-classification
80
Tomline & Burnside (2015) Sussex Coastal Inshore Pilot II: Marine Habitat and Bathymetry
Modelling Project Report. University of Brighton.
http://eprints.brighton.ac.uk/18462/1/SCHIP%202%20Full%20Project%20Report%20May%202015.pdf
81
Sussex Inshore Fisheries & Conservation Authority Report to: Principal Committee
1st November 2018 Report: Review of Management Measures Netting & Associated Nearshore
Management of Trawling
82
Sussex IFCA (2019) Sussex IFCA District Nearshore Trawling Byelaw 2019 Impact assessment. IA
No: SXIFCA007. DRAFT June 2019.
83
Marine Aggregate Sustainability Fund (MALSF) Geology and Geophysics Survey Data (2003 to
2010) https://data.gov.uk/dataset/49bfda9b-5403-40b0-b332-4f40374631ce/marine-aggregate-
sustainability-fund-malsf-geology-and-geophysics-survey-data-2003-to-2010
84
Tomline & Burnside (2015) Sussex Coastal Inshore Pilot II: Marine Habitat and Bathymetry
Modelling Project Report. University of Brighton.
http://eprints.brighton.ac.uk/18462/1/SCHIP%202%20Full%20Project%20Report%20May%202015.pdf
85
Laffoley et al (2019) Eight urgent, fundamental and simultaneous steps needed to restore ocean
health, and the consequences for humanity and the planet of inaction or delay. Aquatic Conservation.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/aqc.3182
86
Thurstan et al. (2013) Oyster (Ostrea edulis) extirpation and ecosystem transformation in the Firth of
Forth, Scotland. Journal for Nature Conservation, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2013.01.004
87
Smale et al (2016) Linking environmental variables with regionalscale variability in ecological
structure and standing stock of carbon within UK kelp forests. MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS
SERIES Mar Ecol Prog Ser. Vol. 542: 79-95
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283707936_Linking_environmental_variables_with_regiona
lscale_variability_in_ecological_structure_and_standing_stock_of_carbon_within_kelp_forests_in_the
_United_Kingdom
88
Smale et al (2013) Threats and knowledge gaps for ecosystem services provided by kelp forests: a
northeast Atlantic perspective. Ecology and Evolution. Volume 3, Issue 11. pp 4016-4038.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.774
89
Hollowed, A.B. et al (2019) Recent advances in understanding the effects of climate change on the
world’s oceans. ICES Journal of Marine Science. fsz084. https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/advance-
article/doi/10.1093/icesjms/fsz084/5543601#.XU1aLsuoml8.twitter
90
Smale et al (2013) Threats and knowledge gaps for ecosystem services provided by kelp forests: a
northeast Atlantic perspective. Ecology and Evolution. Volume 3, Issue 11. pp 4016-4038.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.774
91
Ling, S.D. (2009) Overfishing reduces resilience of kelp beds to climate-driven catastrophic phase
shift. PNAS: vol. 106, no. 52, 22341–22345 https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/106/52/22341.full.pdf
92
Nelson, K. and Burnside, G. (2019) Identification of marine management priority areas using a GIS-
based multi-criteria approach. Ocean & Coastal Management. Volume 172, 15 April 2019, Pages 82-92
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.02.002
93
Pessarrodona, Foggo and Smale (2018) Can ecosystem functioning be maintained despite climate‐
driven shifts in species composition? Insights from novel marine forests. Journal of Ecology. Volume
107, Issue 1. Pages 91-104 https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2745.13053
94
Ortega et al (2019) Important contribution of macroalgae to oceanic carbon sequestration. Nature
Geoscience.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334978667_Important_contribution_of_macroalgae_to_ocea
nic_carbon_sequestration
95
Beaumont et al (2019) Global ecological, social and economic impacts of marine plastic. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 142 (2019) 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.03.022
96
Bertocci et al (2015) Potential effects of kelp species on local fisheries. Journal of Applied Ecology:
52, 1216–1226 https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1365-2664.12483
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
60
97
Krumhansl et al (2016) Global patterns of kelp forest change over the past half-century. PNAS, vol.
113, no. 48 https://www.pnas.org/content/113/48/13785
98
Innes and Pascoe (2010) A multi-criteria assessment of fishing gear impacts in demersal fisheries.
Journal of Environmental Management. Volume 91, Issue 4, Pages 932-939
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479709003958
99
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA
https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/habitat/fish_habitat/kelp_forest_habitat_types.html
100
Tegner and Dayton (2000). Ecosystem effects of fishing in kelp forest communities. – ICES Journal
of Marine Science, 57: 579 - 589.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.577.3088&rep=rep1&type=pdf
101
Werner & Kraan (2004) THE POTENTIAL MECHANISATION OF KELP HARVESTING IN
IRELAND Irish Seaweed Centre, Martin Ryan Institute, National University of Ireland, Galway
https://oar.marine.ie/handle/10793/261
102
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA
https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/habitat/fish_habitat/kelp_forest_habitat_types.html
103
Verges et al (2016) Long-term empirical evidence of ocean warming leading to tropicalization of
fish communities, increased herbivory, and loss of kelp. PNAS. vol. 113, no. 48
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4b5b/4146f4a2895cb19cbb56b7e73a02d6805ea9.pdf
104
Lambert (1992) Changes in the structure of a New England (USA) kelp bed:
the effects of an introduced species? MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES Vol. 88: 303307
105
Nelson and Burnside (2019) Identification of marine management priority areas using a GIS-based
multi-criteria approach. Ocean & Coastal Management. Volume 172, 15 April 2019, Pages 82-92
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.02.002
106
Innes and Pascoe (2010) A multi-criteria assessment of fishing gear impacts in demersal fisheries.
Journal of Environmental Management. Volume 91, Issue 4, Pages 932-939
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479709003958
107
Christie et al (1998) Regrowth of kelp and colonization of epiphyte and fauna community after kelp
trawling at the coast of Norway Hydrobiologia 375–376(375/376):49-58
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235766979_Regrowth_of_kelp_and_colonization_of_epiphy
te_and_fauna_community_after_kelp_trawling_at_the_coast_of_Norway
108
Thurstan et al. (2013) Oyster (Ostrea edulis) extirpation and ecosystem transformation in the Firth of
Forth, Scotland. Journal for Nature Conservation, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2013.01.004
109
Scottish MPA Project Assessment against the MPA Selection Guidelines
NORTH-WEST SEA LOCHS AND SUMMER ISLES POSSIBLE NATURE CONSERVATION MPA
https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2017-11/Marine%20Protected%20Area%20-
%20Detailed%20Assessment%20Against%20the%20MPA%20Selection%20Guidelines%20-%20North-
west%20sea%20lochs%20and%20Summer%20Isles_0.pdf
110
Innes and Pascoe (2010) A multi-criteria assessment of fishing gear impacts in demersal fisheries.
Journal of Environmental Management. Volume 91, Issue 4, Pages 932-939
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479709003958
111
UN FAO in Sussex IFCA (2019) Sussex IFCA District Nearshore Trawling Byelaw 2019 Impact
assessment. IA No: SXIFCA007. DRAFT June 2019.
112
Beaumont, Mongruel & Hooper (2017) Practical application of the Ecosystem Service Approach
(ESA): lessons learned and recommendations forbthe future. International Journal of Biodiversity
Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 13:3, 68-78, DOI: 10.1080/21513732.2018.1425222
113
Hornborg et al (2019) Ecosystem-based fisheries management requires broader performance
indicators for the human dimension. Marine Policy Volume 108, October 2019, 103639
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X18309126
114
Kaiser et al (2001) Impacts of fishing gear on marine benthic habitats. Reykjavik Conference on
Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem 3, Iceland, 1-4 October 2001
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
61
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230659975_Impacts_of_fishing_gear_on_marine_benthic_h
abitats
115
Sumaila (2018) How to Make Individual Transferable Quotas Work Economically, Socially, and
Environmentally. Environmental Science. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.475.
https://oxfordre.com/environmentalscience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.001.0001/acrefore -
9780199389414-e-475
116
Kaiser et al (2001) Impacts of fishing gear on marine benthic habitats. Reykjavik Conference on
Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem 3, Iceland, 1-4 October 2001
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230659975_Impacts_of_fishing_gear_on_marine_benthic_h
abitats
117
Sussex IFCA (2019) Sussex IFCA District Nearshore Trawling Byelaw 2019 Impact assessment. IA
No: SXIFCA007. DRAFT June 2019.
118
Kelly (2005) The Role of Kelp in the Marine Environment. Irish Wildlife Manuals No. 17. National
Parks and Wildlife Service Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Galway
https://www.npws.ie/sites/default/files/publications/pdf/IWM17.pdf
119
Innes and Pascoe (2010) A multi-criteria assessment of fishing gear impacts in demersal fisheries.
Journal of Environmental Management. Volume 91, Issue 4, Pages 932-939
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479709003958
120
Jones (1992) Environmental impact of trawling on the seabed:A review, New Zealand Journal of
Marine and Freshwater Research, 26:1, 59-67, DOI:
10.1080/00288330.1992.9516500 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00288330.1992.9516500
121
Southern IFCA BTFG byelaw http://www.southern-ifca.gov.uk/byelaws#BotTowedFishGear
122
Burrows M.T. et al (2018) Wild Seaweed Harvesting as a Diversification Opportunity for
Fishermen. A report by SRSL for HIE, pp. 171 http://www.hie.co.uk/common/handlers/download-
document.ashx?id=0336008d-db41-4b61-a9bd-6bfcbd31c876
123
California Department of Fish and Game (2008) Review of California Halibut Trawl Fishery in the
California Halibut Trawl Grounds Report to the California Fish and Game Commission. California
Department of Fish and Game Marine Region State Fisheries Evaluation Project (06/27/2008)
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11017277.pdf
124
Ortega, A. et al (2019) Important contribution of macroalgae to oceanic carbon sequestration.
Nature Geoscience.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334978667_Important_contribution_of_macroalgae_to_ocea
nic_carbon_sequestration
125
Sussex IFCA (2018) Sussex Inshore Fishing Effort 2013 – 2017.
https://secure.toolkitfiles.co.uk/clients/34087/sitedata/files/Research/SxIFCA-fishing-effort-2013-to-
2017.pd
126
Sussex IFCA (2019) Sussex IFCA District Nearshore Trawling Byelaw 2019 Impact assessment. IA
No: SXIFCA007. DRAFT June 2019.
127
Impact Assessment of Sussex IFCA District Netting Permit Byelaw 2019. IA No: SXIFCA006
https://secure.toolkitfiles.co.uk/clients/34087/sitedata/files/consultations/Netting-Permit-Byelaw-
IA.pdf
128
Sussex Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority MARINE AND COASTAL ACCESS ACT
2009 (c.23) Shellfish Permit Byelaw 2015
https://secure.toolkitfiles.co.uk/clients/34087/sitedata/files/Shellfish-permit-byelaw.pdf
129
Marine Management Organisation (MMO) https://www.gov.uk/guidance/apply-for-and-register-
your-vessel-monitoring-system-device
130
Sussex IFCA (2018) Sussex Inshore Fishing Effort 2013 – 2017.
https://secure.toolkitfiles.co.uk/clients/34087/sitedata/files/Research/SxIFCA-fishing-effort-2013-to-
2017.pd
131
Guerry et al (2015) Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to
practice. PNAS: 112 (24) 7348-7355; https://www.pnas.org/content/112/24/7348
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
62
132
Natural Capital Committee (2017), in Sussex IFCA (2019) Sussex IFCA District Nearshore Trawling
Byelaw 2019 Impact assessment. IA No: SXIFCA007. DRAFT June 2019.
133
Gómez-Baggethun and De Groot (2010) Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services: The Ecological
Foundation of Human Society. Issues in Environmental Science and Technology, 30. Ecosystem
Services. Royal Society of Chemistry.
134
Natural Capital Coalition https://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/natural-capital-2/
135
Gómez-Baggethun and De Groot (2010) Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services: The Ecological
Foundation of Human Society. Issues in Environmental Science and Technology, 30. Ecosystem
Services. Royal Society of Chemistry.
136
Tinch et al (2019) Economic valuation of ecosystem goods and services: a review for decision
makers, Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, DOI: 10.1080/21606544.2019.1623083
137
Guerry et al (2015) Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to
practice. PNAS: 112 (24) 7348-7355; https://www.pnas.org/content/112/24/7348
138
McKinley et al (2019) Ecosystem services: A bridge or barrier for UK marine stakeholders?
Ecosystem Services 37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100922
139
CIEEM (2019) Natural Capital and Biodiversity: A Briefing Note for Policy-Makers. CIEEM
England Policy Group. July 2019 https://cieem.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/CIEEM-Natural-
Capital-Briefing-for-Policy-Makers-July2019.pdf
140
Hooper et al (2019) Applying the natural capital approach to decision making for the marine
environment. Ecosystem Services 38 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100947
141
Natural Capital Committee (2017), in Sussex IFCA (2019) Sussex IFCA District Nearshore Trawling
Byelaw 2019 Impact assessment. IA No: SXIFCA007. DRAFT June 2019.
142
Laurans et al (2013) Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making:
Questioning a literature blindspot. Journal of Environmental Management 119.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.008
143
Guerry et al (2015) Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to
practice. PNAS: 112 (24) 7348-7355; https://www.pnas.org/content/112/24/7348
144
Natural Capital Coalition https://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/natural-capital-2/
145
Gómez-Baggethun and De Groot (2010) Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services: The Ecological
Foundation of Human Society. Issues in Environmental Science and Technology, 30. Ecosystem
Services. Royal Society of Chemistry.
146
Guerry et al (2015) Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to
practice. PNAS: 112 (24) 7348-7355; https://www.pnas.org/content/112/24/7348
147
Natural Capital Coalition https://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/natural-capital-2/
148
Guerry et al (2015) Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to
practice. PNAS: 112 (24) 7348-7355; https://www.pnas.org/content/112/24/7348
149
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005)
http://www.unep.org/maweb/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf
150
Guerry et al (2015) Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to
practice. PNAS: 112 (24) 7348-7355; https://www.pnas.org/content/112/24/7348
151
McKinley et al (2019) Ecosystem services: A bridge or barrier for UK marine stakeholders?
Ecosystem Services 37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100922
152
Ellis, Pascua and Mertz (2019) Ecosystem services and nature’s contribution to people: negotiating
diverse values and trade-offs in land systems. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2019,
38:86–94. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.05.001
153
Speich (2011) The Use of Global Abstractions, Journal of Global History
http://www.academia.edu/5676897/The_Use_of_Global_Abstractions_Journal_of_Global_History_201
1
154
Hooper et al (2019) Applying the natural capital approach to decision making for the marine
environment. Ecosystem Services 38; 100947
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041618306478
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
63
155
Hooper et al (2019) Applying the natural capital approach to decision making for the marine
environment. Ecosystem Services 38 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100947
156
Austen et al (2019) Valuing Marine Ecosystems - Taking into account the value of ecosystem
benefits in the Blue Economy. Future Science Brief 5: Valuing Marine Ecosystems Taking into account
the value of ecosystem benefits in the Blue Economy.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334079242_Valuing_Marine_Ecosystems_-
_Taking_into_account_the_value_of_ecosystem_benefits_in_the_Blue_Economy
157
Laurans et al (2013) Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making:
Questioning a literature blindspot. Journal of Environmental Management 119.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.008
158
Natural Capital Coalition https://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/natural-capital-2/
159
JNCC Ecosystem Services http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=6382
160
Hooper et al (2019) Applying the natural capital approach to decision making for the marine
environment. Ecosystem Services 38 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100947
161
Loomis (2005) Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Colorado State University.
Economic Benefits of Expanding California’s Southern Sea Otter Population
https://defenders.org/sites/default/files/publications/economic_benefits_of_expanding_californias_so
uthern_sea_otter_population.pdf
162
Loomis (2005) Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Colorado State University.
Economic Benefits of Expanding California’s Southern Sea Otter Population
https://defenders.org/sites/default/files/publications/economic_benefits_of_expanding_californias_so
uthern_sea_otter_population.pdf
163
Smale et al (2013) Threats and knowledge gaps for ecosystem services provided by kelp forests: a
northeast Atlantic perspective. Ecology and Evolution. Volume 3, Issue 11. pp 4016-4038.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.774
164
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA
https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/habitat/fish_habitat/kelp_forest_habitat_types.html
165
Smale et al (2013) Threats and knowledge gaps for ecosystem services provided by kelp forests: a
northeast Atlantic perspective. Ecology and Evolution. Volume 3, Issue 11. pp 4016-4038.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.774
166
Smale et al (2013) Threats and knowledge gaps for ecosystem services provided by kelp forests: a
northeast Atlantic perspective. Ecology and Evolution. Volume 3, Issue 11. pp 4016-4038.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.774
167
Kelly (2005) The Role of Kelp in the Marine Environment. Irish Wildlife Manuals No. 17. National
Parks and Wildlife Service Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Galway
https://www.npws.ie/sites/default/files/publications/pdf/IWM17.pdf
168
Verges et al (2016) Long-term empirical evidence of ocean warming leading to tropicalization of
fish communities, increased herbivory, and loss of kelp. PNAS. vol. 113, no. 48
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4b5b/4146f4a2895cb19cbb56b7e73a02d6805ea9.pdf
169
Smale et al (2013) Threats and knowledge gaps for ecosystem services provided by kelp forests: a
northeast Atlantic perspective. Ecology and Evolution. Volume 3, Issue 11. pp 4016-4038.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.774
170
Hooper et al (2019) Applying the natural capital approach to decision making for the marine
environment. Ecosystem Services 38 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100947
171
Smale et al (2013) Threats and knowledge gaps for ecosystem services provided by kelp forests: a
northeast Atlantic perspective. Ecology and Evolution. Volume 3, Issue 11. pp 4016-4038.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.774
172
Krumhansl et al (2016) Global patterns of kelp forest change over the past half-century. PNAS, vol.
113, no. 48 https://www.pnas.org/content/113/48/13785
173
Krumhansl et al (2016) Global patterns of kelp forest change over the past half-century. PNAS, vol.
113, no. 48 https://www.pnas.org/content/113/48/13785
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
64
174
Loomis (2005) Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Colorado State University.
Economic Benefits of Expanding California’s Southern Sea Otter Population
https://defenders.org/sites/default/files/publications/economic_benefits_of_expanding_californias_so
uthern_sea_otter_population.pdf
175
Smale et al (2013) Threats and knowledge gaps for ecosystem services provided by kelp forests: a
northeast Atlantic perspective. Ecology and Evolution. Volume 3, Issue 11. pp 4016-4038.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.774
176
Loomis (2005) Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Colorado State University.
Economic Benefits of Expanding California’s Southern Sea Otter Population
https://defenders.org/sites/default/files/publications/economic_benefits_of_expanding_californias_so
uthern_sea_otter_population.pdf
177
Scottish Natural Heritage (2016) Climate change and nature in Scotland
https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/Publication%202016%20-
%20Climate%20change%20and%20nature%20of%20Scotland.pdf
178
Bertocci et al (2015) Potential effects of kelp species on local fisheries. Journal of Applied Ecology:
52, 1216–1226 https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1365-2664.12483
179
Smale et al (2013) Threats and knowledge gaps for ecosystem services provided by kelp forests: a
northeast Atlantic perspective. Ecology and Evolution. Volume 3, Issue 11. pp 4016-4038.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.774
180
Bertocci et al (2015) Potential effects of kelp species on local fisheries. Journal of Applied Ecology:
52, 1216–1226 https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1365-2664.12483
181
Bertocci et al (2015) Potential effects of kelp species on local fisheries. Journal of Applied Ecology:
52, 1216–1226 https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1365-2664.12483
182
Beaumont, Mongruel & Hooper (2017) Practical application of the Ecosystem Service Approach
(ESA): lessons learned and recommendations for the future. International Journal of Biodiversity
Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 13:3, 68-78, DOI: 10.1080/21513732.2018.1425222
183
Kelly (2005) The Role of Kelp in the Marine Environment. Irish Wildlife Manuals No. 17. National
Parks and Wildlife Service Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Galway
https://www.npws.ie/sites/default/files/publications/pdf/IWM17.pdf
184
Ibid.
185
Smale et al (2013) Threats and knowledge gaps for ecosystem services provided by kelp forests: a
northeast Atlantic perspective. Ecology and Evolution. Volume 3, Issue 11. pp 4016-4038.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.774
186
Kelly (2005) The Role of Kelp in the Marine Environment. Irish Wildlife Manuals No. 17. National
Parks and Wildlife Service Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Galway
https://www.npws.ie/sites/default/files/publications/pdf/IWM17.pdf
187
Stomach investigations of some economically important fish have shown that cod (Gadus morhua),
pollack (Pollachius pollachius) and saithe (Pollachius virens) in: Kelly (2005)
consume considerable proportions of their food from kelp forests
188
Estes (1996) in Loomis, J. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Colorado State
University (2005) Economic Benefits of Expanding California’s Southern Sea Otter Population
https://defenders.org/sites/default/files/publications/economic_benefits_of_expanding_californias_so
uthern_sea_otter_population.pdf
189
Smale et al (2013) Threats and knowledge gaps for ecosystem services provided by kelp forests: a
northeast Atlantic perspective. Ecology and Evolution. Volume 3, Issue 11. pp 4016-4038.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.774
190
Kelly (2005) The Role of Kelp in the Marine Environment. Irish Wildlife Manuals No. 17. National
Parks and Wildlife Service Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Galway
https://www.npws.ie/sites/default/files/publications/pdf/IWM17.pdf
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
65
191
Kelly (2005) The Role of Kelp in the Marine Environment. Irish Wildlife Manuals No. 17. National
Parks and Wildlife Service Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Galway
https://www.npws.ie/sites/default/files/publications/pdf/IWM17.pdf
192
Belgrano (2018). Biodiversity and ecosystem services in Nordic coastal ecosystems–an IPBES-like
assessment. Vol. 1. General overview. TemaNord 2018:536 Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.
Book.
193
Steneck et al. (2003) in Loomis, J. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Colorado
State University (2005) Economic Benefits of Expanding California’s Southern Sea Otter Population
https://defenders.org/sites/default/files/publications/economic_benefits_of_expanding_californias_so
uthern_sea_otter_population.pdf
194
Smale et al (2013) Threats and knowledge gaps for ecosystem services provided by kelp forests: a
northeast Atlantic perspective. Ecology and Evolution. Volume 3, Issue 11. pp 4016-4038.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.774
195
Estes et al. (2003) in Loomis, J. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Colorado
State University (2005) Economic Benefits of Expanding California’s Southern Sea Otter Population
https://defenders.org/sites/default/files/publications/economic_benefits_of_expanding_californias_so
uthern_sea_otter_population.pdf
196
Smale et al (2013) Threats and knowledge gaps for ecosystem services provided by kelp forests: a
northeast Atlantic perspective. Ecology and Evolution. Volume 3, Issue 11. pp 4016-4038.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.774
197
Loomis (2005) Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Colorado State University.
Economic Benefits of Expanding California’s Southern Sea Otter Population
https://defenders.org/sites/default/files/publications/economic_benefits_of_expanding_californias_so
uthern_sea_otter_population.pdf
198
Smale et al (2013) Threats and knowledge gaps for ecosystem services provided by kelp forests: a
northeast Atlantic perspective. Ecology and Evolution. Volume 3, Issue 11. pp 4016-4038.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.774
199
Kelly (2005) The Role of Kelp in the Marine Environment. Irish Wildlife Manuals No. 17. National
Parks and Wildlife Service Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Galway
https://www.npws.ie/sites/default/files/publications/pdf/IWM17.pdf
200
Smale et al (2013) Threats and knowledge gaps for ecosystem services provided by kelp forests: a
northeast Atlantic perspective. Ecology and Evolution. Volume 3, Issue 11. pp 4016-4038.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.774
201
Belgrano (2018). Biodiversity and ecosystem services in Nordic coastal ecosystems–an IPBES-like
assessment. Vol. 1. General overview. TemaNord 2018:536 Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.
Book.
202
Kelly (2005) The Role of Kelp in the Marine Environment. Irish Wildlife Manuals No. 17. National
Parks and Wildlife Service Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Galway
https://www.npws.ie/sites/default/files/publications/pdf/IWM17.pdf
203
Saithe, for example, use shallow kelp beds as their main nursery grounds, from: Hoeisaeter &
Fossaa, 1993 in Kelly 2005.
204
Estes (1996) in Loomis, J. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Colorado State
University (2005) Economic Benefits of Expanding California’s Southern Sea Otter Population
https://defenders.org/sites/default/files/publications/economic_benefits_of_expanding_californias_so
uthern_sea_otter_population.pdf
205
Kelly (2005) The Role of Kelp in the Marine Environment. Irish Wildlife Manuals No. 17. National
Parks and Wildlife Service Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Galway
https://www.npws.ie/sites/default/files/publications/pdf/IWM17.pdf
206
Smale et al (2013) Threats and knowledge gaps for ecosystem services provided by kelp forests: a
northeast Atlantic perspective. Ecology and Evolution. Volume 3, Issue 11. pp 4016-4038.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.774
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
66
207
Kelly (2005) The Role of Kelp in the Marine Environment. Irish Wildlife Manuals No. 17. National
Parks and Wildlife Service Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Galway
https://www.npws.ie/sites/default/files/publications/pdf/IWM17.pdf
208
Bertocci et al (2015) Potential effects of kelp species on local fisheries. Journal of Applied Ecology:
52, 1216–1226 https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1365-2664.12483
209
Steneck et al. (2003) in Loomis, J. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Colorado
State University (2005) Economic Benefits of Expanding California’s Southern Sea Otter Population
https://defenders.org/sites/default/files/publications/economic_benefits_of_expanding_californias_so
uthern_sea_otter_population.pdf
210
Steneck et al. (2003) in Loomis, J. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. Colorado
State University (2005) Economic Benefits of Expanding California’s Southern Sea Otter Population
https://defenders.org/sites/default/files/publications/economic_benefits_of_expanding_californias_so
uthern_sea_otter_population.pdf
211
Chae, Wattage, and Pascoe, (2012) Recreational benefits from a marine protected area: A travel cost
analysis of Lundy. Tourism Management. Volume 33, Issue 4, August 2012, Pages 971-977
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261517711002081
212
Smale et al (2013) Threats and knowledge gaps for ecosystem services provided by kelp forests: a
northeast Atlantic perspective. Ecology and Evolution. Volume 3, Issue 11. pp 4016-4038.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.774
213
Kelly (2005) The Role of Kelp in the Marine Environment. Irish Wildlife Manuals No. 17. National
Parks and Wildlife Service Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Galway
https://www.npws.ie/sites/default/files/publications/pdf/IWM17.pdf
214
Belgrano (2018). Biodiversity and ecosystem services in Nordic coastal ecosystems–an IPBES-like
assessment. Vol. 1. General overview. TemaNord 2018:536 Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.
Book.
215
Austen et al (2019) Valuing Marine Ecosystems - Taking into account the value of ecosystem
benefits in the Blue Economy. Future Science Brief 5: Valuing Marine Ecosystems Taking into account
the value of ecosystem benefits in the Blue Economy.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334079242_Valuing_Marine_Ecosystems_-
_Taking_into_account_the_value_of_ecosystem_benefits_in_the_Blue_Economy
216
Gómez-Baggethun and De Groot (2010) Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services: The Ecological
Foundation of Human Society. Issues in Environmental Science and Technology, 30. Ecosystem
Services. Royal Society of Chemistry.
217
Williams et al (2018) A valuation of the Chichester Harbour Provisioning Ecosystem Services
provided by shellfish. NEF consulting. London.
218
Tinch et al (2019) Economic valuation of ecosystem goods and services: a review for decision
makers, Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, DOI: 10.1080/21606544.2019.1623083
219
Northern Economics, Inc. Valuation of Ecosystem Services from Shellfish Restoration,
Enhancement and Management: A Review of the Literature. Prepared for Pacific Shellfish Institute.
(2009). http://www.pacshell.org/pdf/ShellfishEcoServices.pdf
220
Börger et al (2014). Incorporating ecosystem services in marine planning: The role of valuation.
Marine Policy, 46, 161-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.01.019
221
McKinley et al (2019) Ecosystem services: A bridge or barrier for UK marine stakeholders?
Ecosystem Services 37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100922
222
Northern Economics, Inc. Valuation of Ecosystem Services from Shellfish Restoration,
Enhancement and Management: A Review of the Literature. Prepared for Pacific Shellfish Institute.
(2009). http://www.pacshell.org/pdf/ShellfishEcoServices.pdf
223
Börger et al (2014). Incorporating ecosystem services in marine planning: The role of valuation.
Marine Policy, 46, 161-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.01.019
Valuing the ecosystem service benefits of kelp bed recovery off West Sussex
67
224
Tinch et al (2019) Economic valuation of ecosystem goods and services: a review for decision
makers, Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, DOI: 10.1080/21606544.2019.1623083
225
Smale et al (2016) Linking environmental variables with regionalscale variability in ecological
structure and standing stock of carbon within UK kelp forests. MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS
SERIES Mar Ecol Prog Ser. Vol. 542: 79-95
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283707936_Linking_environmental_variables_with_regiona
lscale_variability_in_ecological_structure_and_standing_stock_of_carbon_within_kelp_forests_in_the
_United_Kingdom
226
Blamey, Laura & Bolton, J. (2017). The economic value of South African kelp forests and temperate
reefs: Past, present and future. Journal of Marine Systems. 10.1016/j.jmarsys.2017.06.003.
227
Marine Scotland Directorate (2016) Wild seaweed harvesting: strategic environmental assessment -
environmental report. URL: https://www.gov.scot/publications/wild-seaweed-harvesting-strategic-
environmental-assessment-environmental-report/pages/8/
228
Vásquez, Julio & Zuniga-Jara, Sergio & Tala, Fadia & Piaget, Nicole & C. Rodríguez, Deni & Vega, J
M Alonso. (2013). Economic valuation of kelp forests in northern Chile: values of goods and services
of the ecosystem. Journal of Applied Phycology. 26. 10.1007/s10811-013-0173-6
229
Ellis, Pascua and Mertz (2019) Ecosystem services and nature’s contribution to people: negotiating
diverse values and trade-offs in land systems. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2019,
38:86–94. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.05.001
230
Sussex IFCA (2019) Centuries of Sussex Seas - A summary of historic fishing activity in Sussex
coastal waters
231
Beaumont, Mongruel & Hooper (2017) Practical application of the Ecosystem Service Approach
(ESA): lessons learned and recommendations for the future. International Journal of Biodiversity
Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 13:3, 68-78, DOI: 10.1080/21513732.2018.1425222
232
Beaumont, Mongruel & Hooper (2017) Practical application of the Ecosystem Service Approach
(ESA): lessons learned and recommendations for the future. International Journal of Biodiversity
Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 13:3, 68-78, DOI: 10.1080/21513732.2018.1425222
233
Tinch et al (2019) Economic valuation of ecosystem goods and services: a review for decision
makers, Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, DOI: 10.1080/21606544.2019.1623083
234
FAO/UNEP (2010) EXPERT MEETING ON IMPACTS OF DESTRUCTIVE FISHING PRACTICES,
UNSUSTAINABLE FISHING, AND ILLEGAL, UNREPORTED AND UNREGULATED (IUU)
FISHING ON MARINE BIODIVERSITY AND HABITATS. http://www.fao.org/3/i1490e/i1490e00.pdf
235
Laffoley, D. et al (2019) Eight urgent, fundamental and simultaneous steps needed to restore ocean
health, and the consequences for humanity and the planet of inaction or delay. Aquatic Conservation.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/aqc.3182
236
Sumaila, R. (2018) How to Make Individual Transferable Quotas Work Economically, Socially, and
Environmentally. Environmental Science. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.475.
https://oxfordre.com/environmentalscience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.001.0001/acrefore -
9780199389414-e-475
237
Caddell (2018) Precautionary Management and the Development of Future Fishing Opportunities:
The International Regulation of New and Exploratory Fisheries. The International Journal of Marine
and Coastal Law. Volume 33: Issue 1. https://brill.com/view/journals/estu/33/1/article-
p199_199.xml?lang=en
238
Jones (1992) Environmental impact of trawling on the seabed:A review, New Zealand Journal of
Marine and Freshwater Research, 26:1, 59-67, DOI:
10.1080/00288330.1992.9516500 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00288330.1992.9516500
239
Smale et al (2013) Threats and knowledge gaps for ecosystem services provided by kelp forests: a
northeast Atlantic perspective. Ecology and Evolution. Volume 3, Issue 11. pp 4016-4038.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.774
240
Sussex IFCA (2019) Centuries of Sussex Seas - A summary of historic fishing activity in Sussex
coastal waters