Request > Macroalgae cultivation and ecosystem services

The study highlighted that seaweed cultivation can provide many ecosystem services (ES) to humanity. However, one of the main issues recognized during was the understanding of the definition of ES themselves by the different stakeholders.

• Often no clear evidence of ES provided found in the literature and also some aspects, like cultural impact etc. were missing in the responses to the questionnaires during the Delphi process.
• Uncertainties in definitions, but also a lack in understanding of the potential importance of the defined ES for further development of the seaweed cultivation industry.

Clear definitions of ES are required to be communicated and agreed within and among stakeholders involved in seaweed cultivation to facilitate further valorisation and analysis of the eco logical and economical footprint of large-scale seaweed production.

In this context the presented approach in the report combining CICES v.5 and PESTEL analysis provided a valuable tool to define and categorise ES in the seaweed cultivation sector:

• most studies addressing ES provided by seaweed aquaculture not comprehensive and with a focus on a few services (e.g., biomass provision, nutrient removal, biological regulation or blue carbon) while others (e.g., cultural services) poorly represented.
• Number of studies reporting a certain service (e.g., regulating water quality) not necessarily a direct reflection of the importance or value of that particular service.
• Bias in the literature on studies investigating bioremediation of seaweeds, but very few with valorisation of this service.
• Cultural services, such as improving social welfare or gender equality, poorly represented in the literature.

Relevant knowledge gaps have been identified in most of the PESTEL categories,  particularly in technological, economical/social and environmental issues:

• technological improvements, and the identification of valuable products and species as the main actions suggested by experts during the Delphi process to harness the potential of seaweed aquaculture in Europe.
• lack of a clear regulation about biomass quality standards (e.g., content of heavy metals, contamination by bacteria and other compounds of potential concern for human health) and guidelines to obtain the necessary permits is another problem usually highlighted by seaweed farmers constraining the development of seaweed cultivation.
• limited information about the potential consequences of climate change for macroalgae cultivation and uncertainty about the upscaling of aquaculture facilities.Important to note that climate and environmental conditions, and the viability of seaweed aquaculture and its provision of ES could be interrelated when seaweed aquaculture is developed at a large scale.
• fertilisation of coastal waters to increase or maintain the production of seaweeds and .need to control the nutrient fluxes connected with large-scale seaweed cultivation.
• relevant number of studies dealing with nutrient (including carbon) removal and bioremediation (e.g. 68, 106), but lack of consideration of the entire life cycle and scale of the facilities or cultures necessary for an effective remediation.
• ES delivered only at large scale cultivation (e.g., carbon sequestration, climate regulation), but little evidence to support this (e.g. 258, Aldrige et al.2012, Campbell et al. 2019).
• possible multiple associated unknown side effects, which need to be further investigated (e.g., pumping deep waters to fertilise seaweed, which not only bring to the surface required growth-limiting nutrients, but also already sequestered carbon; e.g. 56, 57).

All the above conclusions are summarized in a conceptual model (Fig. 23), highlighting constraints, knowledge gaps and open questions around seaweed farming, for each PESTEL category. The figure also shows the potential ecosystem services and disservices of seaweed aquaculture identified in the literature review (Fig. 23).

Press releases

• 06.2022: “Aktuelles: stand des Wissens über das Potenzial des Makroalgenanbaus für die Bereitstellung von klimarelevanten und anderen Ökosystemdienstleistungen“, website Leibniz-Institut für Gemüse- und Zierpflanzenbau (IGZ)
  
• 06.2022: “News: f4f-Algenexpertin Dr. A. Fricke an Erstellung des Wissensstandsberichts beteiligt”, website Food4future

The issues related to macroalgae aquaculture touch upon different aspects of the Green Deal initiative:

a) Increasing EU’s climate ambition for 2050 (low emission food and feed production
b) the Farm to Fork strategy (through sustainable protein production)
c) the Zero pollution ambition (through the removal of nutrients and possibly other dangerous substances)
d) Preserving and restoring ecosystems and biodiversity (by enhancing the local biodiversity, but also through protection functions)
e) Supplying clean and possible affordable energy (through the production of biofuels).

Taking into consideration the variant areas where macroalgae culture can contribute in the Green Deal, but also the importance of the overall algae sector for the development of a sustainable European Blue Bio-economy, DG MARE is contemplating the development of an EU Algae Strategy. The results of the knowledge assessment will be used in the development of this strategy. Additionally, the identification of possible knowledge gaps or knowledge needs related to the subject will advise, through MARE, the development of relevant research activities under the next EMFF and Horizon Europe programs. The main policy context of this request is the European Green Deal.

Timeline

• Date request received: Apr 2020
• Call for Knowledge (CfK): Sep 2020 to Nov 6th 2020
• Call for Experts: Dec 9th 2020 to Jan 8th 2021
• Experts selection: Feb 12th 2021
• Experts Working Group kick-off meeting: Feb 22nd 2021
• First meeting with the requesters and Eklipse KCB and methods experts: Feb 22nd 2021
• First Version of the method protocol: Jun 15th 2021
• Open review of the method protocol: Jun 21st to July 2nd 2021
• Method protocol – Final version: Aug 10th 2021
• Presentation of Initial findings by EWG to DG-Mare: Dec 14th 2021
• Finalisation:  May 2022

Scoping phase

The Document of Work (DoW) described the results of the scoping activities as well as the background of the request and was the basis for the call for experts.

Answering the request

Selection of an Experts Working Group (see above)

To answer this request, Eklipse sent out a Call for Expertise (CfE) and received 29 applications, from which 14 experts were selected in February 2021. These experts covered a broad range of expertise, gender and geographical representation to form the Eklipse Expert Working Group (EWG). One expert dropped out in the beginning due to unavailability. The EWG was asked if they wanted a replacement, but it was decided not to.

The next step was for the Expert Working Group to develop a methodological protocol based on the Document of Work (DoW), including the scientific aspect of a thorough literature search and possible appraisal. The methods protocol was open for public review until July 1st 2021.

Answering the request

Methods Protocol

During the scoping process, the Eklipse Methods Expert Group (MEG) and Knowledge Coordination Body (KCB) Macroalgae group discussed potential knowledge synthesis methods, which can be applied for this request. Building on the discussions and materials prepared by the MEG, the following methods were suggested for the different steps of the request:

• Quick Scoping Review (QSR)
• Multiple Expert Consultation with Delphi Process.

These methods were conducted in parallel, rather than sequentially. A first round of questions was sent to selected experts as part of the Delphi Process, and then the Expert Working Group proceeded with the QSR. The use of the two methods helped providing a more comprehensive answer to the request than the use of a single one. QSR focuses on peer–reviewed literature, and the Delphi method captures the most recent and up–to–date views of experts from key sectors, including science, business and NGOs. Therefore, while QSR provides a robust view on published literature and evidence, Delphi covers views of not only scientists, but also other societal actors with practical and experience–based knowledge on the key issues in macroalgae cultivation. More information can be found on the final Methods Protocol.

Finalisation

The final peer-reviewed report was delivered to DG-MARE on March 15th 2022.
In order to discuss the science-policy interface regarding seaweed, their ecosystem services & impacts, a workshop was convened by DG MARE, facilitated by Estelle Balian (Facilitation for Environmental Action-Learning-FEAL) and organised by MCI-Brussels with the support of the Eklipse team. The agenda of the event was based on the report on the “State of knowledge regarding the potential of macroalgae cultivation in providing climate related and other ecosystem services” prepared by the Eklipse Expert Working Group (EWG) and aimed to foster cross-sectoral dialogue to:

1. a) further identify and prioritise knowledge gaps regarding macroalgae cultivation and ecosystem services (ES);
2. b) identify structural research needs which can feed into future research initiatives of the European Commission; and
3. c) further support the development of the EU Algae initiative. The event engaged key experts, relevant research projects (GENIALG, Pegasus, GRASS, etc), thematic initiatives or networks (SUBMARINER, European Algae Biomass Association, Knowledge Centre for Bioeconomy, Safe Seaweed coalition), key policy initiatives (EU Algae initiatives), relevant European Commission services and Science-Policy Interface (SPI) initiatives (as Science Service for Biodiversity, the Knowledge Centre for Biodiversity).

The targeted outputs were the development of policy relevant recommendations and potential research questions to feed future research proposal calls. (more information to be found on the workshop´s report)