Impacts de l'éolien offshore sur la biodiversité et recommandations pour l'évaluation des risques. Synthèse de connaissances

Knowledge synthesis The impacts of offshore wind power on biodiversity and recommendations for assessing the risks 2 REFERENCE Hélène Soubelet, Claire Salomon, Jean-François Silvain, 2023. The Impacts of Offshore Wind Power on Biodiversity and Recommendations for Assessing the Risks . Knowledge Synthesis. French Foundation for Biodiversity Research. AUTHORS AND COORDINATORS Hélène Soubelet, Claire Salomon et Jean-François Silvain This article was written within the framework of the “ Impact of Renewable Energy Sources on Biodiversity ” programme. This research funding programme led by the French Foundation for Biodiversity Research (FRB) and the Mirova Research Center aims to better assess the impact of renewable energy sources on biodiversity and deliver operational recommendations for best practice to those working in the renewable energy sector. 3 INTRODUCTION The impacts of offshore wind power have effects that, by their intensity, duration and/or severity, cause significant changes to biodiversity (Willsteed et al. , 2018). Ever since the first deployment of offshore wind turbines, there has been controversy over the cost and alleged economic and environmental benefit of offshore wind power. Numerous research studies have tried to assess the impacts, whether positive or negative, of these installations on biodiversity and marine ecosystems, generating a high volume of publications. These impacts are very variable and differ depending on the wind turbine’s life stage, location, type, its foundation and anchoring technology, the associated infrastructure, and the species that interact with these installations. Turbines are generally grouped together in offshore wind farms (OWFs), over more or less large areas, and at a variable distance from the coast. Coastlines are themselves highly biodiverse and culturally important areas, where sharing the use of the land, the sea, and their resources is a real issue. It is important to be aware here that the utilization of marine renewable energies leads to globally expanding human activities in marine habitats (Vilela et al. , 2021). In 2019, a rapid review of the scientific literature on the impacts of renewable energy infrastructures on biodiversity, based on nearly 400 articles published between 1974 and 2020 on onshore and offshore wind power, highlighted the following negative impacts, affecting mainly birds and bats (French Foundation for Biodiversity Research ( Fondation pour la recherche sur la biodiversité , FRB), 2019): • mortality from collision or barotrauma due to blade movement; • mortality from habitat loss or habitat modification; • the barrier effect of wind farms inducing avoidance behaviours and the displacement of certain populations; • disturbance caused by noise and electromagnetic fields generated during construction or operation (particularly on sea mammals); • disturbance linked to light pollution (warning lights on turbines), affecting the flight of nocturnal species. As well as positive effects: • a “reef” effect, leading to the colonization of the base of the structure by communities of marine species; • a “reserve” effect due to the exclusion of fishing from OWF areas, creating de facto protected areas. Other risks or impacts are less well documented but nonetheless real, such as an increased risk of the spread of non-indigenous species and the homogenization of habitats, as well as the loss of environmental, socio-cultural, and touristic value. More globally, the midto long term effects of the installation of numerous OWFs on marine ecosystems remain to be established. Offshore wind installations can thus have negative or positive impacts on biodiversity and fisheries resources, but it is difficult to say whether their impacts are globally and unequivocally “positive”, “negative”, or “neutral”. Such conclusions depend on the biological community or species in question, and combine both quantitative (the number of bird collisions, for example) and qualitative (fatalities will not have the same impact on long-lived low reproductive species compared to short-lived high reproductive species) components. Even though there are still important technical obstacles that prevent the precise quantification of the direct and indirect impacts of OWFs ( e.g. counting bird carcasses at sea is nearly impossible), and many uncertainties and knowledge gaps (see Appendix 1), in particular in terms of quantifying the impacts of the cumulative pressures arising from the planned multiplication of OWFs in 4 France and across Europe, the publication rate on this topic has grown, especially over the past eight years, and is still growing, reflecting the development of offshore wind power worldwide (Appendix 1). This paper is an exploratory review of the latest results from scientific papers on offshore wind power (Chapter 1) and associated recommendations (Chapter 2). 5 Table of contents! Introduction!........................................................................................................................................................................................................................!3! CHAPTER!1:!Update!of!the!current!state!of!knowledge!on!the!impacts!of!offshore!wind!installations!on!!biodiversity! ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................5!! 1.1.!Synthesis!of!the!literature!review!by!Galparsoro!et#al.!(2022)!.........................................................................................!6! 1.2.!Impacts!on!species!.............................................................................................................................................................................!11! 1.2.1.!Impacts!on!birds!............................................................................................................................................................................!11! 1.2.2.!Impacts!on!mammals!..................................................................................................................................................................!13! 1.2.3.!Impacts!on!fish!...............................................................................................................................................................................!14! 1.2.4.!Impacts!on!benthic!communities!...........................................................................................................................................!16! 1.2.5.!Impacts!on!rare!species!..............................................................................................................................................................!17! 1.2.6.!Impacts!on!non-indigenous!species!......................................................................................................................................!17! 1.3.! Typology!of!the!potential!pressures!of!OWFs!on!ecosystems!during!construction!and!operation!................!18! 1.3.1.!Construction!phase!......................................................................................................................................................................!18! 1.3.2.!Operational!phase!.........................................................................................................................................................................!19! 1.4.! Impacts!on!ecosystem!services!....................................................................................................................................................!21! 1.4.1.! Provision!of!fisheries!and!pharmaceutical!resources!...................................................................................................!24! 1.4.2.!!!!!!!!!!Regulating!services!......................................................................................................................................................................24! 1.4.3.!!!!!!!!!!Supporting!services!and!creation!of!functional!habitats.............................................................................................24! 1.4.4.!!!!!!!!!!Cultural!services!...........................................................................................................................................................................24! 1.4.5.!!!!!!!!!!Access!to!ecosystem!services!and!trade-offs.....................................................................................................................24! CHAPTER!2:!Recommendations!for!management!and!decision-making!..............................................................................................!26! APPENDIX!1:!Knowledge!gaps!on!the!impacts!of!offshore!wind!installations!...................................................................................!34! APPENDIX!2:!References!............................................................................................................................................................................................!37! 6 Chapter 1. Update of the current state of knowledge on the impacts of offshore wind installations on biodiversity The chapter is based on a recent literature review by Galparsoro et al. (2022) on the impacts of OWFs, and an article by Baulaz et al. (2022) that surveyed the pressures exerted by these installations and their effects on ecosystem services. These articles were complemented with information, references, and conclusions from the report by the National Council for Nature Protection ( Conseil national de la protection de la nature , CNPN) on the development of offshore wind power in France and its impacts on biodiversity, natural heritage and landscapes. Finally, additional information was provided by the analysis of recent scientific publications on this topic. 1.1. Synthesis of the literature review by Galparsoro et al. (2022) In their recent literature review, Galparsoro et al. (2022) analyzed a total of 867 scientific findings extracted from 158 publications on the pressures from OWFs on biodiversity/ecosystems. The type of study and the characteristics of the installations are presented in Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively. Figure 1: Percentage of studies (out of 158 selected publications). Figure 2: Percentage of studies (out of 158 selected publications). Studies based on empiral evidence Studies based on modelling approaches Studies based on expert judgement Literature reviews 010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Small area < 70 km2 Low production capacity < 160 MW Few turbines < 81 Close to the coast < 20 km offshore Shallow waters < 30 m depth During the operational phase North Sea 7 Among the 867 findings, 72 % reported negative impacts, while 13 % were positive. 54 % of impacts were reported to be high or moderate, while low or negligible impacts accounted for 32 %. Figure 3 shows the proportion of scientific studies that demonstrate an impact on one or more of the three dimensions of ecosystem integrity, namely its composition (including the impact on different taxonomic groups such as fish, birds, etc.), structure (the impact on habitats, biotic homogenization, etc.), and function ( e.g. the impact on species interactions, or their ability to adapt). Figure 3: The number of studies reporting a positive or negative impact on indicators of ecosystem integrity (composition, structure and function, from Galparsoro et al. , 2022 ). The synthesis of the results from these scientific studies shows that offshore wind energy production can have both positive and negative effects on marine ecosystems. We can see that negative impacts are reported more frequently and are better documented (high level of scientific consensus), especially in relation to birds, marine mammals, and ecosystem structure. Positive impacts, usually in relation to fish and invertebrates, are less documented (greater uncertainty). The impacts on ecosystem function can be both positive or negative, but are generally still poorly documented. An additional difficulty for assessing the impact of offshore wind energy is that the ecological risks associated with offshore wind installations can vary depending on local environmental characteristics, the vulnerability of affected species (for instance, the presence of migratory bird species that are particularly sensitive to wind turbines), and the initial state and resilience of the area, which can change substantially for some ecosystem elements. Moreover, the number of publications plays an important role in the interpretation of the robustness of an impact (for instance, if only one article describes an impact or the magnitude of a pressure on an element of the ecosystem, a cautious interpretation is warranted). From the 867 findings, 10 pressures were analyzed, the most frequent of which being biological disturbance and sound (62 % and 18 % of the findings, respectively). The lack of studies on certain 8 pressures or certain elements of ecosystem function represents a gap in the analysis of the impacts of offshore wind energy devices (see Appendix 1). Figure 4 : Types of pressure exerted on marine ecosystems (% of studies, out of 158 selected publications). Physical disturbance Biological disturbance Sound (including noise) Energy (including electromagnetic fields) Hydrological change Non-indigenous species Nutrient input Organic matter input Input of other substances (organic and non-organic) Table 1. Types of pressure that need to be considered. 010 20 30 40 50 60 70 Nutrients Organic matter Non-indigenous species Other substances Physical loss Hydrological change Energy Physical disturbance Sound Biological disturbance 9 Figure 5: What is impacted? (% of studies, out of 158 selected publications). 87 % of publications focused on species (especially birds, and to a lesser extent fish), 11 % on ecosystem structure, functions and processes, and 3 % on habitats (seabed and water column). Figure 6: Types of impact (% of studies, out of 158 selected publications). The most studied indicators in the literature were behaviour (37 %), fecundity, survival and mortality /injury rates (25 %) and distribution, abundance and/or biomass (24%). A description of the impacts by taxonomic group is possible by crossing pressure (Table 1), type of impact (positive or negative) and its magnitude (see Figures 5 and 6 showing the percentage of studies reporting an impact linked to biological disturbance and noise). 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Bird Fish Mammals Invertebrates Seabed Reptiles Water column 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Other Tubidity, transparency Wave and current regimes Seabed substrate and morphology Physical, hydrological and chemical characteristics Species composition, abundance and biomass Distribution, abundance and biomass Fecundity, survival and mortality/injury rates Behaviour Ecosystem function, structure and processes 16 1.2.4. Impacts on benthic communities According to the review by Galparsoro et al. (2022), studies on benthic communities ( i.e. organisms that reside on the sediments of aquatic environments) are still scarce, but most report positive effects. Two perspectives need to be considered here. First, the direct positive impacts from reef and reserve effects: these effects are mainly due to the process of ecological succession following changes in the environment. Species that colonize this new environment modify the local functioning of the ecosystem and allow even more species to colonize the area. Second, offshore wind installations seem to have fewer negative impacts than other types of renewable energy installations: in particular, their higher yield allows for a lower use of natural space, the landscape is less impacted, there is less noise, and production and delivery costs are lower. Ecological successions on and near offshore wind installations ! OWFs and the concentration of marine organisms they attract affect ecosystem structure and functioning, at least on a local scale (Degraer et al. , 2020). During the pioneer stage (0 -2 years) , there is a structural ecological response to the disturbance represented by habitat loss (usually the loss of soft sediments) caused by the installation of offshore wind turbines. This new habitat is colonized by flora and fauna, with an increase in diversity and biomass compared to the surrounding soft sediments. Colonizing species may include non-indigenous species that are extending their spatial distribution and/or reinforcing their population, locally rare species ( e.g. hard substrate-associated fish), and habitat-forming species that further increase habitat complexity. ROLE OF HABITAT-FORMING SPECIES Some species create habitats and induce a “stepping-stone” effect. Over time, these species can create secondary biogenic reefs that are home to many – often rare – species and offer great value with regards to ecosystem functioning. It is important to understand the role of these artificial habitats in maintaining local populations of these rare species, as they are likely to have important implications for the future decommissioning of OWFs (Fowler et al. , 2020). ! The most dominant colonizing species of offshore wind installations is the blue mussel ( Mytilus edulis ), which has profound bio-engineering and reef construction effects on surrounding sediments. Mussels shells form secondary hard substrates at the base of the turbines, or further away by passive transport, providing a habitat for other species. In addition, mussels aggregate with macrofaunal communities on sediments. This was seen on mobile sediments near turbines (< 50 m) in Belgian and American waters (Lefaible et al. , 2019). The range and longevity of these aggregates is poorly known, as is their contribution to the restoration of bivalve reef function, which historically was provided by oyster beds ( Ostrea edulis ) in the North Sea (Bennema et al. , 2020). During the intermediate stage (3 – 5 years) , there is a biological and functional diversification with the appearance of suspension feeding organisms that transform the living pelagic organic matter pool (phytoplankton, zooplankton, and detritus) into partially dissolved and bioavailable nutrients, and produce 17 (pseudo)faeces that are partly deposited on the seafloor (see Table 4). Over 95 % of the biomass on artificial structures can be composed of various species of suspension feeders (Coolen et al. , 2020), several of which are highly resource flexible, switching between suspended food sources, possibly due to interspecific competition or benefiting from food sources available in abundance (Mavraki et al. , 2020). By filtering the water, the organisms remove particles that would have otherwise passed by, resulting in lower turbidity and increased light penetration. This “biofilter” effect has been demonstrated at the local scale and in the laboratory, however, in-depth understanding of this effect under real conditions, in particular in OWFs, is currently lacking (Dannheim et al. , 2020). There can also be local depletion of organic matter from the water column and an increase in organic matter on the seafloor from faecal deposits that alter the surrounding seafloor communities by locally increasing food availability. Higher trophic levels (fish, birds, marine mammals) also profit from locally increased food availability and/or shelter. Species Mode of action Comment Blue mussel Mytilus edulis Actively filters water and ingests particles from it. One of the most abundant species Amphipod Jassa herdmani Grabs particles from the passing water to eat and to build its tube. Plumose anemone Metridium senile Passively extends its tentacles in the water, waits for particles to stick to them, then takes the particles in. Very abundant Table 4: Examples of suspension feeders and their mode of action. The climax stage (6 + years) is co-dominated by plumose anemones ( Metridium senile ) and blue mussels ( Mytilus edulis ) (Kerckhof et al. , 2019) in the older and deeper section (~15 – 50 m) (Coolen et al. , 2020. In the long term, the vertical section of offshore foundations forms a uniform habitat dominated by a few competitive species. In addition, OWFs attract very mobile predatory species. 1.2.5. Impacts on rare species Habitat change and in particular the addition of hard substrates in an environment consisting mostly of mobile sediments may help the establishment and reproduction of locally rare, even endangered, species. This phenomenon should increase with the multiplication of OWFs, and contribute to the size, distribution and connectivity of populations of rare species (examples given in Table 5). Geographic area Rare species (reference) Comment North Sea Barnacle ( Balanus perforatus ) (De Mesel et al. , 2015) Hard substrate species OWF in operation for 5 years Grey triggerfish ( Balistes carolinensis ) and goldsinny wrasse ( Ctenolabrus rupestris ) (Van Hal et al. , 2017) Three times more fish around hard structures that on soft sediments Block Island Wind Farm (USA) and the North Sea Colonization by coral ( Astrangia poculata ), stony coral ( Desmophyllum pertusum ), and the European flat oyster ( Ostrea edulis ) (Kerckhof et al. , 2019). Table 5: Examples of rare species found at OWFs. 1.2.6. Impacts on non-indigenous species 18 The installation of offshore wind turbines creates new habitats in open waters and provides an opportunity for non-indigenous species to occupy an empty ecological niche and extend their distribution or increase their population size. No report has yet been published on the expansion and proliferation of non-indigenous infralittoral species in relation to the installation of wind turbines. Although there are concerns that OWFs could threaten indigenous communities (Glasby et al. , 2007; Adams et al. , 2014), this has not yet been demonstrated. A number of species have been documented (examples given in Table 6). Geographic area Non-indigenous species (reference) Comment Southern North Sea Pacific oyster ( Crassostrea gigas ) and marine splash midge ( Telmatogeton japonicus ) (De Mesel et al. , 2015) Historical OWF site in shallow coastal waters Subtidal samples, Belgium Common slipper limpet ( Crepidula fornicata ) Subtidal samples, the Netherlands Six out of 11 non-indigenous species were found (Coolen et al. , 2020a) Bock Island Wind Farm (USA) Invasive non-indigenous tunicate ( Didemnum vexillum ) Observed on foundations and as an epibiont of mussels Table 6: Examples of non-indigenous species found at OWFs in Europe and the USA. 1.3. Typology of the potential pressures of OWFs on ecosystems during construction and operation The study by Baulaz et al. (2023) suggests that all trophic levels are affected, to varying degrees, by OWFs. 1.3.1. Construction phase Pressures Spatial extent Local: < 100 m from the turbine; buffer zone: 500 m to 4 km from the wind farm; regional: up to 20 km from the wind farm Impacts References Modification of the ecosystem: -rearrangement of the benthos, Local -possible benthic anoxia, -lowered light levels for primary producers, - physical damage to filter and suspension feeders, Dannheim et al. , 2020; Lange et al. , 2010 19 - increased turbidity, - alteration of organic matter and detritus fluxes. - egg smothering for secondary and tertiary consumers. Modification of the ecosystem: - digging and crushing of the substrate during the installation of foundations and connecting cables. Regional - mortality of infauna and sessile species and loss of essential habitats, - stress and avoidance behaviours are to be noted for species able to move away from the construction site, - over 27 % loss of primary producers and groups of primary consumers. Degraer et al. , 2019 Sound and vibrations: from pile driving (installation of foundations in the seduments). Buffer zone - physical damage and stress - avoidance of the construction area and changes in the distribution of the most sensitive groups of species (top predators, particularly marine mammals, and to a lesser extent some species of fish and crustaceans). Dannheim et al. , 2020; Degraer et al. , 2019; Lindeboom et al. , 2011; Petersen and Malm, 2006 Table 7: Nature, spatial extent, and impact of pressures during the construction phase (from Baulaz et al. , 2023). ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1.3.2. Operational phase Pressures Spatial extent Local: < 100 m from the turbine; buffer zone: 500 m to 4 km from the wind farm; regional: up to 20 km from the wind farm Impacts References Collisions with masts and blades Local Bird and bat fatalities Garthe and Hüppop, 2004 Barrier effect: avoidance, exclusion Regional Behavioural: - changes in migration routes, reduction in feeding areas, loss of resting sites, Reviewed in CNPN, 2021; Peschko et al. , 2020; Vilela et al. , 2021; Soudijn et al. , 20 - increased energy expenditure and risk of indirect mortality, - increased energy expenditure of migratory species of fish, birds and marine mammals as they seek to avoid farms by a long distance (up to 3 km). 2022; Garthe et al. , 2023; Schwemmer et al. , 2023 Reef effect: new colonization substrates and new habitats for hard substrate species Local Affects the entire trophic network: - changes in community structure, evolution towards a more complex ecosystem with an increase in the diversity and biomass of filterfeeding bivalves and pelagic fish, the aggregation of top predators and increased predation. - a stepping stone effect for nonnative hard substrate species can also be observed. Lange et al., 2010; Dannheim et al., 2020; Degraer et al., 2019; Petersen and Malm, 2006; Lindeboom et al., 2011; Raoux et al., 2017; Glarou et al., 2020; Mavraki, 2020; Burkhard and Gee, 2012; Mangi, 2013 Reserve effect due to fishing restrictions Buffer zone Species targeted by fisheries will benefit, with, in the long term, an ecological spillover effect and increased fish biomass around the farm. Busch et al., 2011, Glarou et al., 2020, Lange et al., 2010, Lindeboom et al., 2011, Mangi, 2013, Petersen and Malm, 2006 Changes in functional habitats Local and buffer zone Some soft substrate species (infauna and certain primary producers) and some diving and surface birds are impacted. Burkhard and Gee, 2012; Degraer et al., 2019; Lindeboom et al., 2011 Sounds and vibrations from the rotation of wind turbine blades Local and regional Disturb some species of macroinvertebrates (crustaceans), fish, marine mammals, and birds. Dannheim et al., 2020; Lindeboom et al., 2011; Petersen and Malm, 2006 Lights and flickering shadows Local and regional Can affect certain species of fish, birds and bats. Garthe and Hüppop, 2004 Electromagnetic fields Local and regional Can cause changes in behaviour and stress, disrupt migration, and decrease predation efficiency. Dannheim et al., 2020; Öhman et al., 2007; Petersen and Malm, 2006 Hydrodynamic changes: erosion, “sediment sorting” leading to a modification of the substrate particle size, changes in currents, temperature and the resuspension of sediments and nutrients around wind farms Regional Primary producers and consumers can be affected insignificantly. Busch et al., 2010; Dannheim et al., 2020; Degraer et al., 2019; Lindeboom et al., 2011 21 Trace metal emissions , mainly aluminium from anticorrosion devices Regional Would remain below the threshold values of toxicity for species and human health. Golding et al., 2015; Kirchgeorg et al., 2018 Enrichment in organic matter and detritus as an indirect consequence of the increase in bivalve abundance. The decomposition process may release small quantities of hydrogen sulphide (H2S). Local Unspecified Dannheim et al., 2020 Table 8: Nature, spatial extent, and impact of pressures during the operational phase (from Baulaz et al. , 2023). 1.4. Impacts on ecosystem services Ecosystem services are the benefits that humans derive from ecosystems. They have been classified into four main categories: - provisioning services (wood, food, fibers), - cultural services (landscapes, identity, well-being), - regulating services (regulation of air quality, water quality, climate change, extreme events, pathogens), - supporting services (creation of functional habitats, soil formation and fertility, pollination, chemical cycling, etc.). The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services( IPBES) lists 18 ecosystem services (see Table 9) and shows that in general, human activity improves provisioning and cultural services but strongly degrades regulating and supporting services. Service category Service Provisioning services Energy Food and feed Materials (wood, cotton) Medicinal, biochemical and genetic resources Cultural services Learning and inspiration Physical and psychological experiences Supporting identities Regulating services Regulation of air quality 22 Regulation of climate Regulation of ocean acidification Regulation of freshwater and coastal water quality Regulation of freshwater quantity, location and timing Regulation of hazards and extreme events Regulation of detrimental organisms and biological processes Supporting services Habitat creation and maintenance Formation, protection and decontamination of soils and sediments Pollination and dispersal of seeds and other propagules Maintenance of options Table 9: Ecosystem services (IPBES, 2019). The impact of OWFs on ecosystem services can be positive (habitat creation, protected areas, nursery effect, and the provision of resources for fisheries in adjacent areas) or negative, especially for cultural services (altering the landscape). Note that impacts that seem positive may not be recognized as such by stakeholders ( e.g. the nursery effect), and conversely negative impacts that do have any real scientific backing may be used as an argument against OWFs ( e.g. the fact that no-fishing zones have a large impact on fishing activity). The experts consulted estimated that all ecosystem services would be affected by offshore wind farms. These modifications result in major changes in the ecosystem production function (except primary production), showing strong damage to trophic interactions. For example, a change in secondary production or in specific species or genetic diversity can lead to a gain or loss of biomass, triggering beneficiaries like fishermen to adapt their practices. Within the OWF context, this regime shift is mainly caused by the reef effect, which will develop in the long term a richer and more complex ecosystem that the soft substrate ecosystem existing prior to construction. It is known that ecosystem service supply is linked to high biodiversity. As a result, the reef effect will be of benefit to the ecosystem service supply in different ways: o the increase in abundance of some fish species and top predators will benefit the supply of provisioning and cultural ecosystem services; o regulating ecosystem services will be promoted by an improvement in system functionality; o changes in biotic compartments result in numerous indirect “top-down” and “bottom-up” cumulative effects linked to trophic cascades. The result of these processes is the development of a food web dominated by filter-feeding bivalves (Mavraki et al. , 2020), which are keystone organisms playing a major role in the provision of many ecosystem services, e.g. by filtering large volumes of water, by decreasing turbidity, and by accumulating nutrients (Armoškaitė et al., 2020). However, the deployment of OWFs also contributes to a large-scale ecosystem homogenization and to a decrease in the diversity of functional traits in the marine environment (Degraer et al. , 2019), with contrasted effects: ð an increase in the provision of most ecosystem services at the local scale, but at the same time a decline in specialist and often rare species, which is a global issue; ð changes in the access to provisioning and cultural ecosystem services and the ability of the various beneficiaries to adapt their practices. These modifications of practices may result in three types of indirect impact on marine/coastal territories: o an over-exploitation of the services ( e.g. over-fishing or over-use of the coastline) in response to the relocation of the beneficiaries around the OWFs; o conflicts of use resulting from the exploitation of one service at the detriment of another; 23 o pressure on the ecosystems adjacent to the OWFs, which can modify their capacity to provide services at a large scale. In particular, the researchers have shown that fishing, a provisioning ecosystem service, and the maintenance of habitats and thus of cultural ecosystem services are most impacted due to changes in the tropic network and ecosystem functions. These changes are mainly caused by changes in the functional habitat, and reef and reserve effects during the construction and operational phases. Determining how changes in biodiversity impact ecosystem processes and functions is crucial to determine the effect of OWFs on the provision of associated ecosystem services. 1.4.1. Provision of fisheries and pharmaceutical resources Fishing provides animal proteins and is an important food provisioning service in France. Fishing restrictions at OWFs create important tensions with fishermen. A French research team (Halouani et al. , 2020) quantified the effect of spillover, which could mitigate the impact of loss of access on fishing activities, by simulating a fishing closure scenario at an OWF. The model predicted an increase in catches of up to 7 % near the wind farm and a slight increase in the proportion of high trophic level species. However, the influence of spillover effects is limited in space and the expected increase in biomass and catches are highly localized in areas around the OWF installation. At the scale of the Bay of Seine, further analysis of spillover effects revealed a spatial pattern and suggested that the implementation of an exclusion zone inside the OWF could concentrate highly mobile predators. It is with the fishing industry that the strongest disagreements arise, and in particular regarding the existence of a net migration effect from protected areas to adjacent areas, also known as the spillover effect (Di Lorenzo et al. , 2020; Halouani et al. , 2020). This effect is well documented for protected areas, but remains to quantified for the smaller areas around wind turbines where human activity persists and, through the disturbance it causes to wildlife, could see this effect being cancelled out. Another characteristic of the study by Baulaz et al. (2023) is to have considered ecosystem service access ( i.e. the process that allows humans to benefit from ecosystem services) as one of the possible impacts (positive or negative), and to suggest an approach to identify the causal chains identifying the main potential impacts of OWFs on changes in the supply and demand of ecosystem services. They identified the main impacts of the two phases of the life of OWFs, namely construction and operation: - During construction , these changes result mainly from the digging and crushing of the substrate that will lead to a loss accounting for more than 27% of the primary producers and primary consumers groups; - During production , the reef effect, the reserve effect, and change of functional habitat are the most affecting pressures on the ecosystem., resulting in (1) a global increase in the abundance and diversity of pelagic fish within the farm and nearby, despite increased predation by top predators, which increases services to fisheries, aquaculture, and the pharmaceutical industry, and (2) a decrease the abundance and diversity of flatfish due to the loss of soft substrate habitats. The intensity of the impacts on the biomass production service depends on three parameters: 1. the species fished locally; 2. the regulation of activity within the OWF; 3. the intensity of the ecological spillover effect. 24 1.4.2. Regulating services The expected main effects are modifications in water filtration, nutrient production, and recycling . These processes will be reduced during the construction phase, due to the rearrangement of benthos (leading to a resuspension of materials and pollutants and an increased turbidity), and the increased mortality rate of filtering organisms. However, the filtration production and recycling of nutrients will improve afterwards during the operational phase, with an increase in abundance of filtering bivalves, the most affected group. Moreover, this service would be affected by two threats, the introduction of invasive and/or toxic species, facilitated by the reef effect, and the potential transfer into the food web of metal emissions, even though this pressure leads to only 4 % of the modification of the system. 1.4.3. Supporting services and creation of functional habitats There are negative impacts linked to the loss of benthic and pelagic functional habitats for species in mobile substrates (during construction, mainly from digging, crushing of the substrate and rearrangement of the benthos), and positive impacts linked to creation of new functional habitats (during the operation phase). The installation of different hard substrates (pylons, cables, etc.) that have reef effects (providing habitats for nurseries, spawning, feeding and refuge). These new habitats can indirectly promote the establishment of non-native species. The migratory routes of some top predators can also be strongly affected (13 % and 31 % of the impacts are related to top predators during construction and production phase respectively). Avifauna is particularly sensitive to these changes: some species show avoidance behaviours in the North Sea ( e.g. the common eider Somateria mollissima, the northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis ), while others are attracted towards the OWF area ( e.g. the great cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo ). The latter are consequently more exposed to collisions. 1.4.4. Cultural services More than 21 % of the impacts relate to cultural ecosystem service supply , because they are associated with almost all ecosystem functions. During construction, marine megafauna and avifauna, which are « charismatic species », are expected to avoid the OWF area, which will negatively impact ornithology and observation activities. By contrast, during the operation phase, the greater secondary production and specific species and genetic diversity would promote the aggregation of top predators of heritage interest, and fisheries resources of recreational interest. Also, the increased water filtration (changes in biogeochemical cycles and nutrient production and recycling functions) contributes to a clearer and more attractive seascape. The coupling of these different effects on species will increase the variety of sea spaces with potential recreational uses, even if the landscape functions are among the less impacted functions. 1.4.5. Access to ecosystem services and trade-offs Trade-offs between ecosystem services are partly determined by the access to these services, but also by the quality of regulating services that support ecosystem resilience to pressures. In particular, changes in regulating services will affect the supply of both provisioning and cultural services. In the same way, changes in social values and associated shifts profoundly reconfigure the functioning of marine-coastal territories, potentially leading to conflicts between maritime human activities, economic considerations, and regulatory and socio-cultural changes. These social, economic, and cultural impacts are often neglected in scientific sphere, but they determine the local acceptability and are therefore essential to consider as part of maritime spatial planning. 25 There are four types of changes in ecosystem service access that will lead to either a gain or a loss of benefit (financial or not) for beneficiaries: changes in practices, usage, biomass, and socio-cultural values (see Figure 10). Figure 10: Target diagram of synergistic and antagonistic ecosystem service demands between beneficiaries and OWFs (from Baulaz et al. , 2023). Ecosystem service access mobilizes practices, tools, facilities, and mobility that define the material access, but also legislation, economy, labour force, knowledge, commitment, or cultural investment, for the socio-cultural access to ecosystem services. Access to ecosystem services conditions the nature and intensity of the potential exploitation of these services by beneficiaries and thus most of the pressures on ecosystems and potential conflicts of uses. Changes to ecosystem services occur via : - the appearance of new practices ( e.g. marine and coastal leisure tourism, educational, or museum exhibitions) or conversely, a loss or a limitation of practices for safety reasons ( e.g. navigation restrictions, limitations on boat size, type of fishing gear, restricted access to wrecks and heritage features); - spatial shifts in new or established activities , linked to new uses ( e.g. tourism) or restriction of established uses ( e.g. no-fishing areas), or delayed uses; - changes in biomass and the ability to access this biomass; - changes in the social values of the marine environment , for example the loss of some essential qualities of the sea ( e.g. , the feeling of wilderness, open spaces, or freedom from anthropic 32 - Contribute to scientific knowledge by monitoring biodiversity and making the data open access for research purposes. - Follow the avoid – reduce – compensate sequence, prioritizing “avoid” and “reduce”. - Monitor sites on a regular basis to understand the impacts on biodiversity. - Update processes as new evidence on the impacts and risks becomes available. Communicate regularly on the risks associated with the chosen management options . Be transparent about the trade-offs between different management options, the choices made within the framework of the project (size of the OWF, materials used, waste management, management of the impacts on biodiversity, ecosystem services, and other human activities, and potential compensation). TARGET 16. Ensure that people are encouraged and enabled to make sustainable consumption choices including by establishing supportive policy, legislative or regulatory frameworks, improving education and access to relevant and accurate information and alternatives, and by 2030, reduce the global footprint of consumption in an equitable manner, including through halving global food waste, significantly reducing overconsumption and substantially reducing waste generation, in order for all people to live well in harmony with Mother Earth. It is possible to: - be transparent on the contribution of the project to France’s environmental footprint; - play a role in campaigns to help reduce energy overconsumption; - fund research to better characterize the way in which people depend on biodiversity, and the risks associated with the loss of ecosystem services. - TARGET 17. Establish, strengthen capacity for, and implement in all countries biosafety measures as set out in Article 8(g) of the Convention on Biological Diversity and measures for the handling of biotechnology and distribution of its benefits as set out in Article 19 of the Convention. Not applicable. TARGET 18. Identify by 2025, and eliminate, phase out or reform incentives, including subsidies, harmful for biodiversity, in a proportionate, just, fair, effective and equitable way, while substantially and progressively reducing them by at least 500 billion United States dollars per year by 2030, starting with the most harmful incentives, and scale up positive incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Not applicable. TARGET 19. Substantially and progressively increase the level of financial resources from all sources, in an effective, timely and easily accessible manner, including domestic, international, public and private resources, in accordance with Article 20 of the Convention, to implement national biodiversity strategies and action plans, by 2030 mobilizing at least 200 billion United States dollars per year, including by: (a) Increasing total biodiversity related international financial resources from developed countries, including official development assistance, and from countries that voluntarily assume obligations of developed country Parties, to developing countries, in particular the least developed countries and small island developing States, as well as countries with economies in transition, to at least US$ 20 billion per year by 2025, and to at least US$ 30 billion per year by 2030; (b) Significantly increasing domestic resource mobilization, facilitated by the preparation and implementation of national biodiversity finance plans or similar instruments according to national needs, priorities and circumstances; (c) Leveraging private finance, promoting blended finance, implementing strategies for raising new and additional resources, and encouraging the private sector to invest in biodiversity, including through impact funds and other instruments; (d) Stimulating innovative schemes such as payment for ecosystem services, green bonds, biodiversity offsets and credits, benefit-sharing mechanisms, with environmental and social safeguards; (e) Optimizing co-benefits and synergies of finance targeting the biodiversity and climate crises; (f) Enhancing the role of collective actions, including by indigenous peoples and local communities, Mother Earth centric actions and non-marketbased approaches including community based natural resource management and civil society cooperation and solidarity aimed at the conservation of biodiversity; (g) Enhancing the effectiveness, efficiency and transparency of resource provision and use. Not applicable. 33 TARGET 20. Strengthen capacity-building and development, access to and transfer of technology, and promote development of and access to innovation and technical and scientific cooperation, including through South-South, NorthSouth and triangular cooperation, to meet the needs for effective implementation, particularly in developing countries, fostering joint technology development and joint scientific research programs for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and strengthening scientific research and monitoring capacities, commensurate with the ambition of the goals and targets of the framework. Not applicable. TARGET 21. Ensure that the best available data, information and knowledge, are accessible to decision makers, practitioners and the public to guide effective and equitable governance, integrated and participatory management of biodiversity, and to strengthen communication, awareness-raising, education, monitoring, research and knowledge management and, also in this context, traditional knowledge, innovations, practices and technologies of indigenous peoples and local communities should only be accessed with their free, prior and informed consent, in accordance with national legislation. Scientific research can improve: - knowledge of the impacts of offshore wind energy on biodiversity; - environmental impact assessments; - knowledge of biodiversity: o Is there a net emigration effect from protected to adjacent areas (environmental spillover)? o What potential for a nursery effect and an increase in biomass for commercial species? o What proportion represents the movement of opportunistic species (without an increase in the number of individuals) and the increase in populations favoured by these new habitats and the absence of fishing? o What could prevent conflicts of use, in particular with the fishing industry? TARGET 22. Ensure the full, equitable, inclusive, effective and gender-responsive representation and participation in decision-making, and access to justice and information related to biodiversity by indigenous peoples and local communities, respecting their cultures and their rights over lands, territories, resources, and traditional knowledge, as well as by women and girls, children and youth, and persons with disabilities and ensure the full protection of environmental human rights defenders. TARGET 23. Ensure gender equality in the implementation of the framework through a gender-responsive approach where all women and girls have equal opportunity and capacity to contribute to the three objectives of the Convention, including by recognizing their equal rights and access to land and natural resources and their full, equitable, meaningful and informed participation and leadership at all levels of action, engagement, policy and decision-making related to biodiversity. Concertation with all social groups is important for the acceptability of offshore wind projects. Decisionmakers and developers must take into account the impacts of OWFs, including in terms of loss of ecosystem services, that weigh on society and other human activities, when deciding on the location and size of an OWF (Hastik et al. , 2015). As much as possible, it is important to ensure that these installations are not detrimental to future generations or to biodiversity in their access to marine areas and biological resources. 34 APPENDIX 1: KNOWLEDGE GAPS ON THE IMPACTS OF OFFSHORE WIND INSTALLATIONS Electricity production from wind power has grown exponentially worldwide over the last decade, spurred on by the geopolitical context (climate change, the desire for resilience and less dependency, and the increase in energy prices), technological advances, lower production costs, and high subsidies from the State and private investors. Moreover, the average actual cost of energy (a near 55 % decrease is expected between 2018 and 2030), and a decrease in production costs by 2050 (from 37 % to 49 %) make the offshore wind energy sector increasingly competitive compared to fossil fuels. OWFs already represented 10 % of all new wind power installations in the world in 2019 (nearly 80 % in Europe), and should contribute to more than 20 % of the electricity production capacity by 2025. To achieve this, global capacity must be increased by a factor of 10 by 2030 (to 228 GW) and continue to grow to reach 1000 GW by 2050. To meet these objectives, experts predict that by 2035, 11 to 25 % of all new offshore projects in the world will have floating foundations. Objectives in Europe are even more ambitious. Indeed, the objective of the European Offshore Renewable Energy Strategy (part of the Green Deal) is to make the European Union a world leader in these technologies, so that these will make up at least 50 % of the energy mix by 2050 and cover 30 % of the future energy demands in Europe. To contribute to the European Union’s goal of climate neutrality (between 240 and 450 GW of offshore wind power production), increases in capacity are still needed by 2050. However, this development is taking place even though there are substantial knowledge gaps on the environmental impacts of wind power . We lack precise and quantified information on most of the impacts of OWFs: avoidance by local marine fauna, impact of light pollution, impact of electromagnetic fields, impact of the release of trace metals, impact on the economy, employment, landscapes, and the socio-cultural values associated with the sea. There is also much uncertainty regarding these impacts, which are strongly context-dependent, as a whole. Moreover, scientists disagree regarding the extent of the impacts of OWFs. In addition, most publications contain studies that were carried out on a small localized scale ( e.g. in shallow waters, near the coast, with a small number of turbines, low production capacity, over a small surface area). The acquisition of new data monitoring the development of these installations would help fill these gaps and be of great value for decision-makers, operators and industry. The monitoring process must focus on the pressures and impacts on specific elements of the ecosystem (including protected and vulnerable habitats and species), for which there is less certainty. Impacts on tropical species and habitats Despite the relatively high number of species studied, there is a historical bias towards species with a northern distribution such as the harbour porpoise ( Phocoena phocoena ), the harbour seal ( Phoca vitulina ), the common guillemot ( Uria aalge ), and the Atlantic cod ( Gadus morhua ) (Galparsoro et al. , 2020), and fewer studies of invertebrates and tropical species. Even though this is beginning to change (Lemos et al. , 2023), more research on the latter, and their habitats, is needed, especially in the context of the massive deployment of OWFs worldwide, including in tropical areas. 35 There is a relatively high level of agreement in the scientific literature on the type of impact (positive, negative) that offshore wind power has on biodiversity. However, there are significant knowledge gaps regarding the quantitative ( e.g. mortality) and qualitative extent of these impacts and the interactions between OWF pressures and biodiversity, including species, habitats and ecosystem structure, functions and processes. This quantification is crucial to assess all the environmental risks associated with OWFs. Impacts of large-scale OWFs and extended networks of OWFs Copping et al. (2020) claim that several stressors of the marine environment caused by marine renewable energy are sufficiently well-informed and have a low impact, especially in the context of isolated devices or small networks. These include (1) effects of underwater noise from marine renewable energy devices on marine mammals and fish; (2) electromagnetic fields emitted by export power cables on certain marine species; (3) changes in benthic and pelagic habitats; and (4) changes in the movement of water and sediments. They recommend focusing research efforts on understanding and preventing impacts for which there is still a high level of uncertainty or lack of knowledge, in particular the risk to marine animals from collisions with moving parts of the devices, and on installations that present the highest risk, i.e. large-scale OWFs and networks of OWFs. Impacts of cumulative pressures Human activities generate multiple co-occurring pressures that can have a cumulative (synergistic or antagonistic) impact on the ecosystem. The multiple interactions between human activities and ecosystem elements must be studied urgently, given that future wind power developments will add to the cumulative impacts of existing human activities and climate change. Moreover, because of increasing demand for maritime space, multiple uses of the sea are likely to occur in the same area as wind energy production, and an increase in local cumulative pressures is likely by exacerbating the environmental impacts in an increasingly anthropogenized maritime environment (Vilela et al. , 2021). Impacts of wind variation on biodiversity A research team in Germany (Akhtar et al. , 2021) estimated that energy production from OWFs in the North Sea can be reduced by 20 % or more due to downwind reductions in wind speed caused by the wind farm itself, affecting the farm’s performance as well as that of neighbouring downwind farms, and increasing energy production costs and economic losses. More generally, the impact on biodiversity of local wind variation, especially on seabirds (migratory or not) is not known. According to Akhtar et al. (2021), the annual mean wind speed deficit within a wind farm can reach 2 – 2.5 ms-1 depending on the wind farm geometry. The mean deficit, which decreases with distance, can extend 35 – 40 km downwind during prevailing southwesterly winds. Wind speed deficits are highest during spring (mainly March – April) and lowest during November – December. Impacts on ecosystem services There are only a limited number of studies on the impacts on ecosystem services. More in-depth analyses on the effects of OWFs on the provision of ecosystem services could potentially highlight their impact (positive or negative) on other maritime sectors operating in the area. 36 A research team in France (Baulaz et al. , 2023) have shown that impacts are not well documented for certain trophic levels, such as zooplankton and primary consumers (other than filter-feeders), and that certain results are contradictory ( e.g. some studies describe both an avoidance and an attraction behaviour for certain bird species within OWFs (Blew et al. , 2008; Skov et al. , 2018)). Impacts on nutrient cycling While studies on the effects of blue mussel ( Mytilus edulis ) aquaculture have provided data on water clarification (Cranford, 2019) and its effect on benthic and pelagic nutrient cycling (Petersen et al. , 2019), similar data for other species in OWFs are lacking. However, such data would allow the estimation of the local biogeochemical footprint of an OWF. Moreover, integrating these data into oceanographic models would allow the assessment of the changes associated with these installations on a larger scale. Knowledge on the way artificial reefs affect the carbon flow in locally modified trophic networks is also lacking. Observations and modelling suggest an increased abundance of fish (Reubens et al. , 2014) and large crustaceans (Kroner et al. , 2017) as well as an increased importance of detritus-based trophic systems. However, the quantification of the carbon flow through OWF-specific trophic network is lacking. Impacts of climate change Finally, artificial reefs, like natural reefs, are subjected to a warmer and more acidic marine environment. The combination of acidification and temperature rise produces substantial, non-additive, and complex changes in community dynamics (Queiró et al. , 2015), affects pelagic and benthic nutrient cycling (Braeckman et al. , 2014), and changes predator/prey interactions (Draper and Weissburg, 2019). Finally, the gap between risk perception and reality, arising from uncertainty or lack of data on the real environmental impacts of marine renewable energy, should not be underestimated. Data on the implications and consequences of offshore wind energy for other maritime sectors ( e.g. fishing, tourism) are also lacking. 37 APPENDIX 2: REFERENCES Adams, T.P., R.G. Miller, D. Aleynik, and M.T. Burrows. 2014. Offshore marine renewable energy devices as stepping stones across biogeographical boundaries. Journal of Applied Ecology 51:330–338, https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12207. Akhtar, N., Geyer, B., Rockel, B. et al. Accelerating deployment of offshore wind energy alter wind climate and reduce future power generation potentials. Sci Rep 11 , 11826 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598021-91283-3 Armoškaitė, A., Puriņa, I., Aigars, J., Strāķe, S., Pakalniete, K., Frederiksen, P., Schrøder, L., & Hansen, H. S. (2020). Establishing the links between marine ecosystem components, functions and services : An ecosystem service assessment tool. Ocean & Coastal Management, 193, 105229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105229 Bailey, H., Brookes, K.L. & Thompson, P.M. Assessing environmental impacts of offshore wind farms: lessons learned and recommendations for the future. Aquat. Biosyst. 10, 8 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-9063-10-8 Baulaz Y., Mouchet M., Niquil N, Ben RaisLasram F., An integrated conceptual model to characterize the effects of offshore wind farms on ecosystem services, Ecosystem Services, Volume 60, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101513. Bennema, F.P., G.H. Engelhard, and H. Lindeboom. 2020. Ostrea edulis beds in the central North Sea: Delineation, ecology, and restoration. ICES Journal of Marine Science , fsaa134, https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsaa134. Bergström, L., F. Sundqvist, and U. Bergström. 2013. Effects of an offshore wind farm on temporal and spatial patterns in the demersal fish community. Marine Ecology Progress Series 485:199–210, https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10344. Brabant, R., Laurent, Y., Poerink, B. J., &Degraer, S. (2021). The relation between migratory activity of pipistrellus bats at sea and weather conditions offers possibilities to reduce offshore wind farm effects. Animals , 11(12), 3457. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11123457 Braeckman, U., C. Van Colen, K. Guilini, D. Van Gansbeke, K. Soetaert, M. Vincx, and J. Vanaverbeke. 2014. Empirical evidence reveals seasonally dependent reduction in nitrification in coastal sediments subjected to near future ocean acidification. PLoS ONE 9(10):e108153, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108153. Brandt, M., A. Dragon, A. Diederichs, M. Bellmann, V. Wahl, W. Piper, J. Nabe-Nielsen, and G. Nehls. 2018. Disturbance of harbour porpoises during construction of the first seven offshore wind farms in Germany. Marine Ecology Progress Series 596:213–232, https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12560. Brignon, J. M., Lejart, M., Nexer, M., Michel, S., Quentric, A., &Thiebaud, L. (2022). A risk-based method to prioritize cumulative impacts assessment on marine biodiversity and research policy for offshore wind farms in France. Environmental Science & Policy , 128 , 264-276. Causon, P.D., Gill, A.B. Linking ecosystem services with epibenthic biodiversity change following installation of offshore wind farms, Environmental Science & Policy, Volume 89, 2018, Pages 340-347, ISSN 1462-9011, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.08.013 Claudet, J., Loiseau, C., & Pebayle, A. (2020). Critical gaps in the protection of the second largest exclusive economic zone in the world. Marine Policy, 124, 104379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104379 Conseil national de la protection de la nature. Autosaisie du CNPN sur le développement de l’énergie offshore en France et ses impacts sur la biodiversité, le patrimoine naturel et les paysages. Séance du 06 juillet 2021 Coppes, J., Braunisch, V., Bollmann, K. et al. The impact of wind energy facilities on grouse: a systematic review. J Ornithol 161 , 1–15 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-019-01696-1 Copping, A.E.; Freeman, M.C.; Gorton, A.M.; Hemery, L.G. Risk Retirement—Decreasing Uncertainty and Informing Consenting Processes for Marine Renewable Energy Development. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020 , 8 , 172. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8030172 Coolen, J.W.P., B. van der Weide, J. Cuperus, M. Blomberg, G.W.N.M. van Moorsel, M.A. Faasse, O.G. Bos, S. Degraer, and H.J. Lindeboom. 2020a. Benthic biodiversity on old platforms, young wind farms and rocky reefs. ICES Journal of Marine Science 77(3):1,250–1,265, https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsy092. 38 Cranford, P.J. 2019. Magnitude and extent of water clarification services provided by bivalve suspension feeding. Pp 119–141 in Goods and Services of Marine Bivalves . A. Smaal, J.G. Ferreira, J. Grant, J.K. Petersen, and Ø. Strand, eds, Springer International Publishing. Dannheim, J., Bergström, L., Birchenough, S.N.R., Brzana, R., Boon, A.R., Coolen, J.W.P., Dauvin, J-C., De Mesel, I., Derweduwen, J., Gill, A.B., Hutchison, Z.L., Jackson, A.C., Janas, U., Martin, G., Raoux, A., Reubens, J., Rostin, L., Vanaverbeke, J., Wilding, T.A., Wilhelmsson, D., Degraer, S., Benthic effects of offshore renewables: identification of knowledge gaps and urgently needed research, ICES Journal of Marine Science , Volume 77, Issue 3, May-June 2020, Pages 1092–1108, https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsz018 Dannheim, J., L. Bergström, S.N.R. Birchenough, R. Brzana, A.R. Boon, J.W.P. Coolen, J.C. Dauvin, I. De Mesel, J. Derweduwen, A.B. Gill, and others. 2020. Benthic effects of offshore renewables: Identification of knowledge gaps and urgently needed research. ICES Journal of Marine Science 77(3):1,092–1,108, https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsz018. Darwish, A. S., & Al-Dabbagh, R. (2020). Wind energy state of the art: present and future technology advancements. Renewable Energy and Environmental Sustainability , 5 , 7. Degraer, S., D.A. Carey, J.W.P. Coolen, Z.L. Hutchison, F. Kerckhof, B. Rumes, and J. Vanaverbeke. 2020. Offshore wind farm artificial reefs affect ecosystem structure and functioning: A synthesis. Oceanography 33(4):48–57, https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2020.405. Degraer S., Kerckhof,F., Reubens,J., Vanermen, N., de Mesel, I., Rumes, B., Stienen, W.M. S., Vandendriessche, E. &. Vincx, M. 2013Not necessarily all gold that shines: appropriate ecological context setting needed! In Degraer,S., Brabant, R. &Rumes, B. (eds), Environmental impacts of offshore wind farms in the Belgian part of the North Sea, Chapter 17: 174-181. De Mesel, I., F. Kerckhof, A. Norro, B. Rumes, and S. Degraer. 2015. Succession and seasonal dynamics of the epifauna community on offshore wind farm foundations and their role as stepping stones for nonindigenous species. Hydrobiologia 756(37):37–50, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-014-2157-1. Desholm, M. Avian sensitivity to mortality: Prioritising migratory bird species for assessment at proposed wind farms, Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 90, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 2672-2679, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.02.005. Díaz, H., & Soares, C. G. (2020). Review of the current status, technology and future trends of offshore wind farms. Ocean Engineering , 209 , 107381. Draper, A.M., and M.J. Weissburg. 2019. Impacts of global warming and elevated CO2 on sensory behavior in predator-prey interactions: A review and synthesis. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 7:72, https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00072. Espinosa, V., I. Perez-Arjona, V. Puig, E. Soliveres, P. Ordóñez, P. Poveda Martínez, J. Soriano, and F. de la Gándara. 2014. Effects on bluefin tuna behaviour of offshore wind turbine operational noise. Paper presented at the International Marine Conservation Congress, Glasgow, Scotland, August 14–18, 2014. Firth, L.B., L. Airoldi, F. Bulleri, S. Challinor, S.-Y. Chee, A.J. Evans, M.E. Hanley, A.M. Knights, K. O’Shaughnessy, R.C. Thompson, and S.J. Hawkins. 2020. Greening of grey infrastructure should not be used as a Trojan horse to facilitate coastal development. Journal of Applied Ecology 57(9):1,762–1,768, https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13683. Fowler, A.M., A.M. Jørgensen, J.W.P. Coolen, D.O.B. Jones, J.C. Svendsen, R. Brabant, B. Rumes, and S. Degraer. 2020. The ecology of infrastructure decommissioning in the North Sea: What we need to know and how to achieve it. ICES Journal of Marine Science . 77(3):1,109–1,126, https://doi.org/ 10.1093/icesjms/fsz143. Galparsoro, I., Menchaca, I., Garmendia, J.M. et al. Reviewing the ecological impacts of offshore wind farms. npj Ocean Sustain 1 , 1 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44183-022-00003-5 Garthe, S., Schwemmer, H., Peschko, V., Markones, N., Müller, S., Schwemmer, P., &Mercker, M. (2023). Large-scale effects of offshore wind farms on seabirds of high conservation concern. Scientific Reports , 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-31601-z Glarou, M., M. Zrust, and J.C. Svendsen. 2020. Using artificial-reef knowledge to enhance the ecological function of offshore wind turbine foundations: Implications for fish abundance and diversity. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 8(5):332, https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8050332. Halouani, G., Villanueva, C-M., Raoux, A., Dauvin, J.C., Ben RaisLasram, F., Foucher, E., Le Loc'h, F., Safi, G., Araignous, E., Robin, J.P., Niquil, N. A spatial food web model to investigate potential spillover effects of a 39 fishery closure in an offshore wind farm, Journal of Marine Systems, Volume 212, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2020.103434. Hermans, A., O.G. Bos, and I. Prusina. 2020. Nature-inclusive Design: A Catalogue for Offshore Wind Infrastructure: Technical Report . Technical report no. 114266/20-004.274, Den Haag: Witteveen+Bos, 120 pp. Kerckhof, F., B. Rumes, and S. Degraer. 2019. About “mytilisation” and “slimeification”: A decade of succession of the fouling assemblages on wind turbines off the Belgian coast. Pp. 73–84 in Environmental Impacts of Offshore Wind Farms in the Belgian Part of the North Sea: Marking a Decade of Monitoring, Research and Innovation . S. Degraer, R. Brabant, B. Rumes, and L. Vigin, eds., Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, OD Natural Environment, Marine Ecology and Management, Brussels. Krone, R., G. Dederer, P. Kanstinger, P. Krämer, and C. Schneider. 2017. Mobile demersal megafauna at common offshore wind turbine foundations in the German Bight (North Sea) two years after deployment– Increased production rate of Cancer pagurus . Marine Environmental Research 123:53–61, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2016.11.011. Lefaible, N., L. Colson, U. Braeckman, and T. Moens. 2019. Evaluation of turbine-related impacts on macrobenthic communities within two offshore wind farms during the operational phase. Pp 47–64 in Environmental Impacts of Offshore Wind Farms in the Belgian Part of the North Sea: Marking a Decade of Monitoring, Research and Innovation . S. Degraer, R. Brabant, B. Rumes, and L. Vigin, eds, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, OD Natural Environment, Marine Ecology and Management, Brussels, Belgium. Lemasson, A.J., Somerfield, P.J., Schratzberger, M. et al. Evidence for the effects of decommissioning manmade structures on marine ecosystems globally: a systematic map. Environ Evid 11 , 35 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-022-00285-9 Mavraki, N. (2020). On the food-web ecology of offshore wind farms, the kingdom of suspension feeders (Doctoral dissertation, PhD Dissertation, Ghent University, Belgium). Mavraki, N., I. De Mesel, S. Degraer, T. Moens, and J. Vanaverbeke. 2020a. Resource niches of co-occurring invertebrate species at an offshore wind turbine indicate a substantial degree of trophic plasticity. Frontiers in Marine Science 7:379, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00379. Peschko, V., Mercker, M., &Garthe, S. (2020). Telemetry reveals strong effects of offshore wind farms on behaviour and habitat use of common guillemots (Uria aalge) during the breeding season. Marine Biology , 167(8). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-020-03735-5 Reubens, J.T., S. Degraer, and M. Vincx. 2014. The ecology of benthopelagic fishes at offshore wind farms: A synthesis of 4 years of research. Hydrobiologia 727:121–136, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-013-17931. Russell, D.J.F., S.M.J.M. Brasseur, D. Thompson, G.D. Hastie, V.M. Janik, G. Aarts, B.T. McClintock, J. Matthiopoulos, S.E.W. Moss, and B. McConnell. 2014. Marine mammals trace anthropogenic structures at sea. Current Biology 24(14):R638–R639, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.06.033. Schwemmer, P., Mercker, M., Haecker, K., Kruckenberg, H., Kämpfer, S., Bocher, P., Fort, J., Jiguet, F., Franks, S. E., Elts, J., Marja, R., Piha, M., Rousseau, P., Pederson, R., Düttmann, H., Fartmann, T., &Garthe, S. (2023b). Behavioral responses to offshore windfarms during migration of a declining shorebird species revealed by GPS-telemetry. Journal of Environmental Management , 342, 118131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118131 Soudijn, F. H., van Donk, S., Leopold, M. F., van der Wal, J. T., & Hin, V. (2022). Cumulative population-level effects of habitat loss on seabirds ‘Kader EcologieenCumulatie 4.0’. (Wageningen Marine Research report; No. C007/22). Wageningen Marine Research. https://doi.org/10.18174/565601 Tickell, S.C.Y., A. Sáenz-Arroyo, and E.J. Milner-Gulland. 2019. Sunken worlds: The past and future of human-made reefs in marine conservation. BioScience 69:725–735, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz079. Vanermen, N., W. Courtens, M. VandeWalle, H. Verstraete, and E. Stienen. 2017. Seabird monitoring at the Thornton Bank offshore wind farm: Updated seabird displacement results as an explorative assessment of large gull behaviour inside the wind farm. Pp. 85–114 in Environmental Impacts of Offshore Wind Farms in the Belgian Part of the North Sea: A Continued Move Towards Integration and Quantification. S. Degraer, R. Brabant, B. Rumes, and L. Vigin, eds, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, OD Natural Environment, Brussels. 40 Vanermen, N., W. Courtens, R. Daelemans, L. Lens, W. Müller, M. Van de walle, H. Verstraete, and E. Stienen. 2020. Attracted to the outside: A meso-scale response pattern of lesser black-backed gulls at an offshore wind farm revealed by GPS telemetry. ICES Journal of Marine Science 77(2):701–710, https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsz199. van Hal, R., A.B. Griffioen, and O.A. van Keeken. 2017. Changes in fish communities on a small spatial scale, an effect of increased habitat complexity by an offshore wind farm. Marine Environmental Research 126:26–36, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2017.01.009. Vilela, R., Bürger, C., Diederichs, A., Bachl, F. E., Szostek, L., Freund, A., Braasch, A., Bellebaum, J., Beckers, B., Piper, W., &Nehls, G. (2021). Use of an INLA latent gaussian modeling approach to assess bird population changes due to the development of offshore wind farms. Frontiers in Marine Science , 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.701332 Wilber, D., L. Read, M. Griffin, and D. Carey. 2020. Block Island Wind Farm Demersal Fish Trawl Survey Synthesis Report—Years 1 to 6, October 2012 through September 2018. Technical report prepared for Deepwater Wind, INSPIRE Environmental, Newport, RI, 182 pp. Wilhelmsson, D., and T. Malm. 2008. Fouling assemblages on offshore wind power plants and adjacent substrata. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 79(3):459–466, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2008.04.020. M.L. Zettler, F. Pollehne The impact of wind engine constructions on benthic growth patterns in the western Baltic Offshore Wind Energy, Springer (2006), pp. 201-222 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901118304556?via%3Dihub https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/77/3/1092/5368123?login=true https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/8/3/172 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403211731225X?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969720316314?via%3Dihub https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00625-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-89537-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10336-019-01696-1#citeas https://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13750-022-00285-9#citeas