Assessing the poten,al impacts of developments on fish in marine - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Assessing the poten,al impacts of developments on fish in marine protected areas: balancing propor,onality, precau,on and pragma,sm Nicola Teague

IFM Marine and Estuarine Specialist Conference 2018 - Lancaster

Marine plans

• Marine Plans developed for each UK

administra6on

• Scotland
• Wales (Dra;)
• England
• 11 areas
• Includes inshore (0-12 nau6cal

miles) & offshore (12-c200 nau6cal miles) areas

• Cross-border interac6ons
• Common visions:
• Clean, healthy, safe, produc6ve &

biologically diverse oceans & seas

• Sustainable Development and

Sustainable Management of Natural Resources

• Point of reference for planning & licensing

decisions

Developments in the marine environment

• Marine planning sector policies – planning sector

development & growth in a sustainable manner

• Sea fisheries
• Aquaculture
• Oil & Gas
• Energy – Low carbon
• Offshore Wind & Marine Renewable

Energy

• Recreation & Tourism
• Shipping, Ports & Harbours
• Submarine Cables
• Defence
• Aggregates
• Dredging & Disposal
• Surface water & wastewater treatment &

disposal

Risk-based, proportionate & sound science

• Consistent key terms throughout all plans which influence how growth in the sectors

will be managed & assessed:

• Risk-based
• Proportionate to risk of activity, spatial scale & location
• Precautionary
• Sound science
• Relevant evidence of appropriate quality
• Adaptive management – deploy & monitor
• Ecosystem approach
• Evidence of uncertainty
• Multiple & cumulative impacts
• ‘Proportionate, consistent & integrated decision making through implementing

forward-looking policies as part of a plan-lead, precautionary, risk-based & adaptive approach to managing Welsh seas’

• ‘Reliance on precaution should be minimised by best use of evidence. A high level of

precaution may be appropriate….sensitive or vulnerable habitats & species.’

Fisheries impact assessments

• EIA
• HRA
• WFD
• Eels Regula0ons
• Marine Permi8ng & Consen0ng
• MCZ assessment

Sound science, propor.onate to risk of ac.vity

• Qualita've, expert judgement, semi-quan'ta've, quan'ta've
• What species are at risk, are they designated?
• What is the scale & loca'on of the pressure?
• Will the fish encounter the pressure & be impacted?
• What is the risk of the impact e.g. disturbance, mortality, reduced survival, impacts on

reproduc've success etc.?

• Is there sound evidence on which to make an assessment?
• Is the pressure & its impacts well defined or is it based on a novel sector?
• Is there a risk to the stock/popula'on level?

Robust evidence

Encounter probability Interaction probability Impact severity Mortality rate

• No. of individuals lost
• Data/evidence requirements;
• Is there empirical data to inform

modelling?

• Are there standard modelling

techniques?

• Can the models be validated?
• Is there the required knowledge on

fish behaviour & movement

• Are the impact survival rates known?

Understanding uncertainty

• Modelling has inherent uncertainty at

each step

• How can this be assessed & managed?
• Stochas:c modelling
• Empirical data
• Valida:on
• Do you need to understand

cumula:ve uncertainty?

• Can you assess a poten:al impact

without understanding the bounds of the impact due to uncertainty?

Impacts on populations/stocks

• What is the age structure of any losses and how

do these equate to EAV’s?

• How can age structure losses be assessed at an

ecosystem level?

• Is information available on stock & or population

sizes & boundaries?

• Is it possible to assess what is an acceptable

impact?

• What precaution/pragmatism should be applied?

Age structure of lost individuals Equivalent Adult Values Impacts at ecosystem level Stock/populaEon size % impact on stock/populaEon What % impact is significant

Acceptable thresholds of effect

• What is an acceptable threshold of effect? Is a single threshold realistic/defensible?

What can this value be based on?

• 1% vs other %’s
• History of the 1% value?
• Defining a significant part of a population when identifying sites that should be

protected under International legislation

• ‘any site which regularly holds 1% or more of a waterbird population qualifies

as being internationally important under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands’

• “less than 1% of the total annual mortality of the population” has been used by

the European Court when considering the scale of mortality to birds caused by hunting . The Court referred back to an EU scientific committee (ORNIS) that defined that value as being a ‘small number’

• EU guidance - “It was concluded that, as the habitat type was in decline, the

loss of even 1 % of habitat would be significant.”

• The 1% value is used to screen out “insignificant emissions” to air potentially

affecting SACs, SPAs, Ramsar sites and SSSIs in the EA permitting process

• Windfarm bird collision risk modelling - Impacts of above 1% threshold of

baseline mortality triggers further analysis incorporating Potential Biological Removal (PBR)

Acceptable thresholds of effect

• PBR - the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortali9es, that may be

removed from a stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its op9mum sustainable popula9on.

• What impact does the loss have on the stock/popula9on?
• Do all life stage losses effect the stock/popula9on & ecosystem in the same way?
• What loss to the stock/popula9on is a risk in terms of popula9on reduc9on or crash?
• Requires development & use of life cycle modelling

Guidance

• Guidance is needed on the assessment requirements especially for poten5ally

high risk ac5vi5es in sensi5ve loca5ons

• What is defined as sound, robust science & best use of evidence & how can this

be demonstrated to minimise precau5onary applica5on?

• To what level does uncertainty need to be understood & presented?
• Is there a consistent set threshold of effect?
• If not, how should it be determined at an individual sector, development, species

level?

Recruitment plug

Fisheries Ecologist Principal Consultant, Technical Specialist and Senior Scientist Salary: Competitive based on experience + Benefits Package Locations: Manchester, Cardiff, Cambridge, Oxford & Edinburgh Deadline: Monday 18th June 2018