Scottish Natural Heritage
Commissioned Report 341
Scottish Marine Ecosystem Objectives: Scoping study
COMMISSIONED REPORT
Commissioned Report No. 341
Scottish Marine Ecosystem Objectives:
Scoping study
For further information on this report please contact:
Cathy Tilbrook
Scottish Natural Heritage
Upper Battleby
Redgorton
PERTH
PH1 3EW
Telephone: 01738 444177
E-mail: [email protected]
This report should be quoted as:
Saunders G., Scott M.M. (2010). Scottish marine ecosystem objectives: Scoping study.
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 341.
This report, or any part of it, should not be reproduced without the permission of Scottish Natural Heritage
or the Scottish Government. This permission will not be withheld unreasonably. The views expressed by
the author(s) of this report should not be taken as the views and policies of Scottish Natural Heritage or
the Scottish Government.
© Scottish Natural Heritage 2010.
COMMISSIONED REPORT
Summary
The development of Scottish Marine Ecosystem
Objectives: Scoping study
Commissioned Report No. 341
Contractor: Dr Graham Saunders, Haskoning UK Ltd; Michael M. Scott, OBE
Year of publication: 2010
BACKGROUND
Sustainable Seas for All, the Scottish Government consultation on the Scottish Marine Bill
(Scottish Government, 2008), proposes that there should be a set of Marine Ecosystem
Objectives (MEOs) as “a mechanism for setting out what the management of Scotland’s
coasts and seas is aiming to achieve, outlining strategic goals for the marine environment,
and translating the principles of an ecosystem-based approach into practice”. This scoping
study was commissioned to contribute towards thinking on the general approach and
principles for developing MEOs in Scotland; to consider how these might be used to
underpin marine planning, monitoring and adaptive management for Scotland’s seas; and
contribute to wider commitments at the European level.
MAIN FINDINGS
As summarised on pages 1 to 4, the report proposes a two-tier system of objectives for
marine ecosystems, intended to achieve the agreed Vision for Scotland’s Seas:•
Marine Ecosystem Standards: a set of ‘bottom-line’ targets to ensure that human
activities are not damaging marine ecosystems and the environmental goods and
services they provide; it proposes that these should be designed to assist reporting on
the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (EMSFD), but be tailored to reflect
the special features and uses of Scotland’s seas.
•
National Marine Objectives: a set of environmental, social and economic aspirational
objectives, aimed at improving the management of Scotland’s seas, and achieving the
agreed Vision for Scotland’s Seas.
The report proposes that these National Marine Objectives should be aimed at achieving two
pre-existing sets of agreed outcomes for Scotland’s seas: the High Level Marine Objectives,
proposed by the UK and Scottish Governments, and the Descriptors of Good Environmental
Status in the EMSFD. For convenience, it proposes a new format for combining these highlevel outcomes, for which it coins the term ‘Outcomes for Scotland’s Seas’.
For further information on this project contact:
Cathy Tilbrook, Scottish Natural Heritage, Upper Battleby, Battleby, Redgorton, Perth, PH1 3EW
Tel: 01738 444177
For further information on the SNH Research & Technical Support Programme contact:
DSU (Policy & Advice Directorate), Scottish Natural Heritage, Great Glen House, Inverness, IV3 8NW.
Tel: 01463 725000 or [email protected]
CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................iv
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................iv
1: MARINE ECOSYSTEM OBJECTIVES – OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS ........... 1
2. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 6
3. SCOPING THE CONCEPT AND TERMINOLOGY............................................................. 9
3.1 ‘Marine Ecosystem Objectives’: background to the term ............................................ 9
3.2 ‘Marine Ecosystem Objectives’: published guidance ................................................ 10
3.3 ‘Marine Ecosystem Objectives’: the underlying rationale.......................................... 13
3.4 Scoping a structure to define marine objectives ....................................................... 16
3.5 Scoping the potential range of Outcomes for Scotland’s Seas ................................. 21
4. BUILDING ON EXISTING OBLIGATIONS AND COMMITMENTS................................... 25
4.1 World Summit on Sustainable Development............................................................. 25
4.2 European Marine Strategy Framework Directive ...................................................... 25
4.3 Obligations in other European Directives.................................................................. 26
4.4 The OSPAR Convention ........................................................................................... 28
4.5 Existing Scottish domestic commitments .................................................................. 29
4.6 Work at the UK level by Defra, UKMMAS and Evidence Groups ............................. 30
5. LESSONS FROM INTERNATIONAL EXAMPLES ........................................................... 33
5.1 Lessons from HELCOM ............................................................................................ 33
5.2 Lessons from Canadian Oceans Strategy ................................................................ 34
5.3 Lessons from Australian Oceans Policy.................................................................... 36
6. AN OBJECTIVES STRATEGY FOR SCOTLAND’S SEAS .............................................. 38
6.1 Overview ................................................................................................................... 38
6.2 The concept behind Marine Ecosystem Standards................................................... 39
6.3 Draft proposals for Marine Ecosystem Standards..................................................... 42
6.4 The basis for National Marine Objectives. ................................................................ 45
i
6.5 Draft National Marine Objectives for delivering Clean & Safe Scottish seas ............ 47
6.6 Draft National Marine Objectives for delivering ‘Healthy & Biologically Diverse’
Scottish Seas .................................................................................................................. 48
6.7 Draft National Marine Objectives for delivering ‘Productive’ Scottish Seas, meeting
the needs of people......................................................................................................... 50
6.8 Draft National Marine Objectives for delivering improved governance, contributing to
the sustainable management of our seas ....................................................................... 53
6.9 Mechanisms to take forward National Marine Objectives and Marine Ecosystem
Standards........................................................................................................................ 55
6.10 Overall assessment of proposed system of Objectives and Standards .................. 57
7. AVAILABILITY OF DATA TO INFORM SCOTTISH TARGETS AND OBJECTIVES........ 58
8. ‘SCOTTISH SOLUTIONS TO SCOTTISH PROBLEMS’ .................................................. 63
8.1 Unique, special and distinctive Scottish features relevant to targets and objectives 63
8.2 Natural features of particular Scottish importance .................................................... 64
8.3 Economic and social features of particular Scottish importance............................... 67
8.4 Correspondence with the Proposed Outcomes for Scottish Seas ............................ 72
9. ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSALS AGAINST SCOTTISH POLICY BACKGROUND ...... 74
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 77
GLOSSARY .......................................................................................................................... 80
APPENDIX 1: Inventory of Aims, Objectives, Goals or Descriptors relevant to the UK –
obligations and commitments ............................................................................................... 82
A1.1 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea – resolutions............................ 84
A1.2 Bergen Ministerial Declaration................................................................................ 88
A1.3 EU Habitats Directive.............................................................................................. 91
A1.4 EU Birds Directive................................................................................................... 92
A1.5 EU Water Framework Directive .............................................................................. 93
A1.6 European Marine Strategy Framework Directive.................................................... 95
A1.7 OSPAR Annex V..................................................................................................... 95
A1.8 OSPAR Strategies for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East
Atlantic ............................................................................................................................ 96
A1.9 Safeguarding Our Seas .......................................................................................... 98
ii
A1.10 UK High Level Marine Objectives ......................................................................... 98
A1.11 Review of Marine Nature Conservation Operational Objectives......................... 100
A1.12 UK Biodiversity Action Plan ................................................................................ 105
A1.13 UK Public Service Agreement Framework ......................................................... 113
A1.14 Scottish National Marine Objectives ................................................................... 114
A1.15 Scottish Biodiversity Strategy ............................................................................. 115
A1.16 A Strategic Framework For Scotland's Marine Environment .............................. 116
A1.17 Seas the Opportunity: A Strategy for the Long Term Sustainability of Scotland’s
Coasts and Seas........................................................................................................... 118
A1.18 Renewed Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture ................................... 119
APPENDIX 2: Inventory of Aims, Objectives, Goals or Descriptors relevant to the UK –
initiatives of uncertain status or lapsed ............................................................................... 121
A2.1 North Sea Pilot Ecological Quality Objectives ...................................................... 121
A2.2 Scottish Biodiversity Implementation Plan (Marine and Coastal Ecosystems)..... 122
A2.4 Draft Proposed Contributory Marine Objectives (Version 0.2).............................. 134
A2.5 Irish Sea Conservation Objectives (superseded) ................................................. 135
A2.6 Scottish Biodiversity Strategy (2003 ~ superseded) ............................................. 139
APPENDIX 3: Draft Contributory Marine Objectives (UKMMAS, 2007).............................. 142
APPENDIX 4: Case Study – The Approach of HELCOM ................................................... 157
A4.1 The ecosystem approach in the Baltic Sea .......................................................... 157
A4.2 Establishing targets and indicators for the Baltic Sea........................................... 159
A4.3 The HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan................................................................... 159
APPENDIX 5: Case Study – An Ecosystem Approach in Canadian Waters – The Eastern
Scotian Shelf....................................................................................................................... 164
A5.1 The Development of Ecosystem Objectives in Canadian waters ......................... 164
A5.2 Implementation Progress in Canada .................................................................... 167
APPENDIX 6: Case Study – A Management Approach to Australian Waters .................... 174
A6.1 National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development ............................... 174
A6.2 Australian Oceans Policy...................................................................................... 174
A6.3 Subsequent changes to Australian Oceans Policy ............................................... 178
iii
A6.4 Australian regional planning ................................................................................. 180
LIST OF TABLES
2.1: Actions proposed to meet target 3.1of the marine and coastal biodiversity
implementation plan………………………………………………………
7
3.1: The twelve principles of the ecosystem-based approach, as recommended
by the 2000 Conference of Parties of the Convention of Biological Diversity
14
3.2: Nine Principles of Ecologically Sustainable Ocean Use
15
3.3: Assessment of the High Level Marine Objectives (HLMOs) against the
Strategic Vision for Scotland’s seas……………………………………………………
17
3.4: Assessment of the descriptors for Good Environmental Status of
European seas and oceans against the Strategic Vision for Scotland’s Seas………
20
3.5: The 25 Outcomes for Scotland’s Seas (OSSs) drawn from a synthesis of
11 Descriptors of Good Environmental Status and 19 High Level Marine Objectives
22
4.1: Comparison of the EMSFD Descriptors of Good Environmental Status with
equivalent Contributory Marine Objectives being developed by UKMMAS…………
31
6.1: Assessment of proposed Scottish hierarchy of outcomes and objectives,
compared against Canadian and UK (Defra) terminology………………………………
58
7.1: European, UK and Scottish indicators relevant to marine ecosystem status
reporting…………………………………………………………………………………………
59
7.2: Summary of data collected that could indicate whether Scotland’s seas are
healthy and biologically diverse……………………………………………………………
61
8.1: An assessment of the correspondence between the identified unique, special
and distinctive Scottish features and the proposed Outcomes for Scotland’s Seas
73
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1: The proposed hierarchy of marine outcomes, objectives and standards…………
5
5.1: Outline of the HELCOM ecological objectives………………………………………
33
NOTE: Tables and Figures in the Appendices are not listed above.
iv
1: MARINE ECOSYSTEM OBJECTIVES – OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS
“Scotland’s ocean ecosystems and their marine biological diversity are core
national assets. If our use of them is well managed, they can meet a broad
range of economic, social and cultural aspirations. They also provide a range
of essential environmental services that would be extremely costly or
impossible to restore or replace if ecosystem functioning was impaired.”
Adapted from Australian Oceans Strategy
The Strategic Vision for Scotland’s seas, as stated in the 2005 Scottish Executive
consultation paper Seas the Opportunity, is:“A clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse marine environment, which,
through sustainable management, will continue to support the interests of nature and
people”.
The means proposed for achieving this are elucidated in the 2008 Scottish Government
consultation paper, Sustainable Seas for All. This proposes the establishment of a new
body, called Marine Scotland, to “champion the seas and their use, and provide better
integrated and streamlined delivery in the marine area”1. The paper proposes that “a key
duty of Marine Scotland will be to deliver increased economic growth for the marine area,
and strategic oversight of potential development will be an essential element in generating
further growth”. Marine Scotland will have responsibility for developing a National Marine
Plan, as part of which the Scottish Government proposes to agree a set of National Marine
Objectives, based on the five guiding principles of sustainable development.
Box 2.2 in the consultation paper comments on these National Marine Objectives. Amongst
the details, it states that “Marine Objectives for Scotland will also include Marine Ecosystem
Objectives (MEOs). These will be a mechanism for setting out what the management of
Scotland’s coasts and seas is aiming to achieve; outlining strategic goals for the marine
environment, and translating the principles of an ecosystem-based approach into practice.”
As part of the process of developing a Scottish Marine Bill to enact these proposals, this
paper was commissioned by Scottish Natural Heritage, on behalf of the Scottish
Government. The authors of this report were requested to “review experience, develop the
concept, and recommend possible approaches to drawing up a list of Scottish MEOs,
including key exemplars and a potential list”. Our conclusions are discussed in detail in the
full report, but are summarised here.
The term ‘Marine Ecosystem Objectives’ emerged in the UK in the context of discussions on
Marine Bills for the various administrations. There is therefore no body of international
literature to support the term. Much valuable work has been done on the MEO concept by
various expert working groups in the UK, but their recommendations are not entirely
consistent and risk putting in place a system that is more complex and cumbersome than is
strictly necessary to ensure that the Strategic Vision for Scotland’s Seas is achieved.
1
Richard Lochhead, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, subsequently
announced in February 2009 that this new body would be established by 1st April 2009, with the aim
of “managing Scotland’s seas for prosperity and environmental sustainability” and as “the champion
for our marine environment”.
1
Accordingly, we sought to return to first principles, and consider the reason why the term
‘Marine Ecosystem Objectives’ was first coined in the context of managing the seas around
Britain. We believe the term is intended to indicate that management prescriptions must
operate at a geographical scale appropriate to marine ecosystems, which may vary between
a relatively small, discrete ‘biogenic reef’ to an entire open sea area, such as the North Sea.
We believe it is intended to suggest that these objectives should be based around the
fundamental principles of the ecosystem-based approach (on which a substantive body of
international literature does exist; see table 3.1), and that they should be integrated with the
concept of ‘living within environmental limits’, identified by the UK Government and its
devolved administrations as one of the five guiding principles of sustainable development.
Reading further into the literature on MEOs, as well as considering the aspirations of
Sustainable Seas for All, and the conclusions of the earlier inquiry into the marine
environment by the Scottish Parliament’s Environment and Rural Development Committee
(2007), we concluded that there are two different, but complementary, sets of purposes that
MEOs are expected to deliver:•
a set of high-level, aspirational targets and objectives to improve the state of the marine
environment around Scotland, and our sustainable use of that environment;
•
a set of ‘bottom line’ targets and objectives to ensure that our use of the sea does not
further damage or deplete the ecological resource and environmental services on which
the value of the seas ultimately rests, and to assess progress towards reversing past
damage to the seas around Scotland.
We commend this two-tier approach to targets and objectives, and propose that the two
sets, in combination, should be taken to represent the Marine Ecosystem Objectives
proposed in Sustainable Seas for All. Their overarching aim should be to achieve the
Strategic Vision for Scotland’s Seas, taking into account also the Scottish Government’s
objectives stated in Scotland Performs.
To avoid confusion with existing strategies and targets, we propose new names for these
two different elements. To meet the ‘bottom line’ set of targets and objectives, we propose
the following:Marine Ecosystem Standards (MESs): These will be a ‘bottom line’ set of targets for
Scotland’s seas, which will allow us to ensure that we are managing human activities in a
way that is not damaging marine ecosystems and the environmental goods and services
they provide for Scotland’s people, and are making progress in restoring past damage where
this is necessary. These will be broadly analogous with the standards that the Scottish
Government sets for the education and health services. As with these standards, they will
be partly indicators of performance, but they will also contain an active management
element, prompting action to fine-tune or amend management prescriptions if evidence
shows that these MESs are not being achieved.
The considerable attention that has been paid to the marine environment in recent years
means that many obligations have been placed already upon the Scottish Government for
the management of its marine region, while the Scottish Government itself has made many
further commitments on marine management. The Scottish Government is also partner in a
range of other initiatives that are developing objectives for Scotland’s and the UK’s seas.
Our analysis suggests it will be possible to put in place a set of Marine Ecosystem
Standards that can achieve the purpose outlined above from a range of existing targets and
indicators, without the need for a major new commitment of time and resources.
2
Similarly, when it comes to the high-level, aspirational targets and objectives to achieve the
Strategic Vision for Scotland’s Seas, our analysis suggests that all elements of this Vision
are encompassed within two sets of existing high-level objectives: the High Level Marine
Objectives 2 , proposed by the UK government and on which the Scottish Government
consulted in Sustainable Seas for All, and the Descriptors of Good Environmental Status
stated in the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (EMSFD).
Because there is considerable overlap between these two sets of high-level objectives, we
have rationalised them into a single, integrated set of 25 outcomes or objectives for
Scotland’s seas, shown in Table 3.5 on pages 21-23. For ease of reference, we propose a
new name for these, but we emphasise that these are merely a rewording and rationalisation
of existing objectives. We also believe that these outcomes match the aspirations of
Scotland Performs, and will help to meet other marine commitments, such as the Scottish
commitments to the OSPAR Convention.
Outcomes for Scotland’s Seas (OSSs): These are a set of 25 high-level outcomes and
objectives already agreed for Scotland’s Seas, based on, and integrated from, the High
Level Marine Objectives proposed by the UK and Scottish Governments, and the
Descriptors of Good Environmental Status in the European Marine Strategy Framework
Directive. Together these outcomes will ensure a marine environment which is clean,
healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse, and which, through sustainable
management, will continue to support the interests of nature and people.
Because these Outcomes for Scotland’s Seas incorporate the agreed High Level Marine
Objectives, we believe that they fully encompass the social and economic aspirations of
Sustainable Seas for All, as well as the environmental ones. However this is the subject of a
separate Scoping Study, which may amend, or expand upon, our recommendation.
As already noted, Sustainable Seas for All proposes a set of National Marine Objectives.
We suggest that the key task of these Objectives should be to achieve the Outcomes for
Scotland’s Seas. We further suggest that these National Marine Objectives should
include the aspirational targets and objectives to improve the state of the marine
environment around Scotland, and our sustainable use of that environment:National Marine Objectives (NMOs): These are already proposed in Sustainable Seas for
All. We suggest that these should include a group of objectives relating to improving the
environmental management of Scotland’s seas, to meet the vision of a clean, healthy, safe,
productive and biologically diverse marine environment, which, through sustainable
management, continue to support the interests of nature and people. These environmental
objectives should sit alongside objectives for the social and economic use of Scotland’s
seas, all of which should be required to work in sympathy with each other and in ways which
do not impact negatively on the Marine Ecosystem Standards.
As with Marine Ecosystem Standards, our analysis suggests that the majority of the
National Marine Objectives to meet environmental outcomes already exist in requirements
upon, and commitments by, the Scottish Government (including the OSPAR Convention
strategies for North Sea waters), although some new objectives will need to be agreed, and
2
The UK High Level Marine Objectives were revised following consultation, after the completion of
this report. The final version is available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/marine/pdf/environment/ourseas2009update.pdf.
3
it will be important to ensure that these objectives fully encompass the special features of
Scotland’s sea and of the particular economic and social uses we make of these seas.
Bringing together these commitments within the scope of the National Marine Objectives
would give them a more integrated approach than is possible at present, thus enhancing
delivery, and give Marine Scotland clear priorities in taking forward its integrated remit.
As noted, the National Marine Objectives are likely to be partly aspirational in their nature,
but it is important that they should be formulated in ways that make it possible to assess,
and report on, progress in their achievement. In practice, these objectives would be
‘operationalised’ within the specific corporate or operational plans of Marine Scotland and
the Scottish Government department, agencies and non-departmental bodies (including
Scottish Marine Regions) whose remits relate to the marine environment.
The overall framework we propose can therefore be summarised by Figure 1.1 below.
These various recommendations are expanded upon and explained in the main report,
drawing on the considerable body of work already done in Scotland and the UK, and on
international expertise from various countries. In the report we also present, for
consideration, examples of the kinds of targets we propose as Marine Ecosystem
Standards and some preliminary thoughts on the sort of National Marine Objectives that
we would envisage as a means to achieve the agreed Outcomes for Scotland’s Seas.
4
Marine
Commitments
(OSPAR etc)
Scotland
Performs
High Level
Marine
Objectives
Outcome
for
Scotland’s
Seas 1
National
Marine
Objective
(i)
National
Marine
Objective
(ii)
Good
Environmental
Status
Strategic
Vision for
Scotland’s
Seas
(EMSFD)
Outcome
for
Scotland’s
Seas 2
National
Marine
Objective
(iii)
National
Marine
Objective
(i)
National
Marine
Objective
(ii)
Outcome
for
Scotland’s
Seas 3
National
Marine
Objective
(iii)
National
Marine
Objective
(i)
National
Marine
Objective
(ii)
iterative
Marine Ecosystem Standards
Figure 1.1: The proposed hierarchy of marine outcomes, objectives and standards
5
National
Marine
Objective
(iiii)
2. INTRODUCTION
The statement quoted at the top of Chapter 1 is adapted from documentation relating to the
Australian Oceans Strategy3 (see Appendix 6), but it applies just as strongly to the waters
around Scotland, and reflects one of the primary motivations behind both the Scottish Marine
Bill introduced to the Scottish Parliament in 2009 and the European Marine Strategy
Framework Directive, adopted in 2008. Broadly speaking, the aim of both pieces of
legislation is to ensure that marine ecosystems are maintained at, or restored to, a healthy
status, so that they can support the wide range of economic, social and cultural uses we
make of the seas around Scotland.
This then relates to the Strategic Vision for Scotland’s seas, stated in the 2005 consultation
paper Seas the Opportunity (Scottish Executive, 2005a):“A clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse marine environment, which,
through sustainable management, will continue to support the interests of nature and
people”.
The proposed means of achieving this vision were set out in Sustainable Seas for All: a
consultation on Scotland’s first marine bill (Scottish Government, 2008), which invited
consultees to comment on a range of proposals covering marine planning; licensing and
enforcement; marine nature conservation; science and data; and marine management
mechanisms. On marine management, the consultation paper states that Scottish Ministers
propose to establish a new body, called Marine Scotland, to “champion the seas and their
use, and provide better integrated and streamlined delivery in the marine area” (see also
footnote on page 1). The paper proposes that “a key duty of Marine Scotland will be to
deliver increased economic growth for the marine area, and strategic oversight of potential
development will be an essential element in generating further growth”.
But if this economic growth is to be truly sustainable, as the Scottish Government wishes –
and if the vision of a clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse marine
environment is to be realised – a set of environmental checks and balances will also need to
be put in place. Part of the key to these checks and balances will be the National Marine
Plan, proposed in chapter 2 of Sustainable Seas for All, which states that this plan “will set
out policies and priorities for the sustainable use, development, management and protection
of Scotland’s marine and coastal resources”.
Marine Scotland will have responsibility for developing this National Marine Plan, as part of
which the Scottish Government proposes to agree a set of National Marine Objectives. All
of these are to be based on the five guiding principles of sustainable development:•
•
•
•
•
living within environmental limits;
ensuring a strong, healthy and just society;
achieving a sustainable economy;
promoting good governance; and
using science responsibly.
Box 2.2 in the consultation paper comments further on these National Marine Objectives:“Marine Objectives for Scotland will also include Marine Ecosystem Objectives
(MEOs). These will be a mechanism for setting out what the management of
Scotland’s coasts and seas is aiming to achieve; outlining strategic goals for the
3
See www.environment.gov.au/coasts/oceans-policy/publications/policy-v1.html
6
marine environment, and translating the principles of an ecosystem-based approach
into practice. The MEOs will be substantially informed by the River Basin Management
Plan objectives [developed to meet the EU Water Framework Directive] at both local
and national levels.”
In support of the proposed Scottish Marine Bill, MEOs also feature in the Marine and Coastal
Ecosystems element of the 2008-2010 Biodiversity Implementation Plan4 (currently in draft
and undergoing consultation as part of the Strategic Environmental Assessment process).
Target 3.1 in this plan is:“A set of Marine Ecosystem Objectives (MEOs) is proposed for Scotland, integrating
requirements of EU directives within wider objective-setting for the sustainable use of
Scottish seas.”
It is proposed that this target is taken forward initially by four actions, as shown in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Actions proposed to meet target 3.1
of the marine and coastal biodiversity implementation plan
Action
Number
3.1a
3.1b
3.1c
3.1d
Proposed Action
Approach to be adopted for MEOs scoped, and an initial set of objectives proposed
for wider consultation.
Based on these proposals, consultation undertaken on a system of Scottish MEOs, as
a contribution to the development of the Scottish Marine Bill.
Following consultation, advice offered to Ministers on these MEOs and their
implementation at the Scottish level, in cooperation with lead partners and
stakeholders.
Measures taken to ensure that MEOs are reflected in the development of proposals
for Marine Spatial Planning in Scottish waters, including in any proposals on MSP in
the Scottish and UK Marine Bills.
MEOs have also been mentioned in a variety of documents commissioned by Defra, relating
to the development of the proposed UK Marine Bill, but the precise meaning of the term
‘Marine Ecosystem Objective’ is rarely defined, and it would seem that there are somewhat
different expectations as to what these MEOs are intended to achieve.
The contract to produce this Scoping Study was therefore commissioned by Scottish Natural
Heritage, in part to discharge action 3.1a in table 2.1 above. The stated aim is “to review
experience, develop the concept, and recommend possible approaches to drawing up a list
of Scottish MEOs, including key exemplars and a potential list. The output of the project will
be an initial list of MEOs which could then be subject to wider consultation by the Scottish
Government, as part of the development of the Scottish Marine Bill”. The latter process
would then discharge action 3.1b of the marine and coastal biodiversity implementation plan.
The contract requires the final report to set out the following:-
4
See
www.biodiversityscotland.gov.uk/library/Scottish%20Biodiversity%20Strategy%20Implementation%20
Plan%202008-10%20-%20draft%20-%20August%202008.xls
7
•
the proposed principles and approach for developing Scottish MEOs with key
exemplars;
•
a provisional list of elements of ecosystem structure and function that should be
covered by Scottish MEOs;
•
a draft list of Scottish MEOs, with some full worked examples (including options on
associated targets, indicators, etc);
•
recommendations on the way in which MEOs might be used to underpin marine
planning, monitoring and adaptive management and their purpose and role in
achieving wider commitments such as delivering MSFD or OSPAR targets ;
•
options to ensure that MEOs can be reviewed and revised as knowledge and
understanding of marine ecosystems and processes increases;
•
options for the status of MEOs (particularly in relation to other broader marine
objectives covering social, economic and environmental priorities) and whether there
should be a legal obligation for public bodies to take account of these in their
operations;
•
recommendations for any further work considered to be required, including resolving
gaps in understanding and data.
This report is the product of this Scoping Study, and in it we will
•
consider the background and concept behind the term ‘Marine Ecosystem Objectives’
and the presumptions that we believe underpin this term (chapter 3);
•
consider existing targets and objectives that may inform the establishment of a
Scottish set of objectives and standards (chapter 4 and appendices 1-3), and the
availability of data to support these (chapter 7);
•
consider lessons from a number of international examples we investigated in
researching this scoping study (chapter 5 and appendices 4-6);
•
building on this information, recommend a two-tier approach to take forward
management objectives for the marine environment in Scotland (chapter 6); and
•
briefly investigate some particularly Scottish elements of the marine environment
which support the oft-quoted contention that we require ‘Scottish solutions to Scottish
problems (chapter 8), and assess the recommendations we make here against the
current Scottish policy background (chapter 9).
8
3. SCOPING THE CONCEPT AND TERMINOLOGY
3.1 ‘Marine Ecosystem Objectives’: background to the term
A quick ‘Google’ search shows that there is no vast international literature underpinning the
term ‘Marine Ecosystem Objective’. The precise term only occurs in British documents, or in
British contributions to various European symposia, and only in the context of the long
discussions leading up to the present proposals for marine bills by the UK and Scottish
Governments. The first stage for this Scoping Study therefore was to consider a definition
for this term.
‘Marine’ is probably the least contentious part of the term: ‘of, or relating to, the sea or
ocean’. There is an occasional tendency to conflate this with coastal (as the UK
Government did with coastal access in its draft marine bill), but this invariably leads to
confusion, as the pressures and processes acting on the terrestrial environment are quite
different from those on the marine environment. For the purposes of this document,
therefore marine will be defined as ‘from the greatest ocean depths up to the highest reach
of the tides’.
‘Objective’ is a term that is widely used, but with a variety of different levels of rigour in its
precise meaning. The Chambers Dictionary defines it as ‘a goal or aim’, or as ‘the point to
which the operations (esp of an army) are directed’. The Oxford Dictionary of Environment
and Conservation (Park, 2007) offers a definition more pertinent to the current
consideration:“objective A high-level statement of what is desired in any project or activity, often
expressed as a specific statement of the measurable results that are to be achieved
within a stated period of time”
It is, however, a term subject to individual interpretation, to the extent that the authors of this
report did not entirely agree on what an objective should be. It can be either a description of
the distant horizon we wish to reach, or a route planner defining precisely how we plan to
reach that horizon. This range of potential definitions is very evident in the many preexisting statements of objectives that we reviewed in Appendices 1 and 2. The term is used
in a widely different way between the different sources reviewed, and this has become a
source of considerable confusion.
Turning then to the third element, ecosystem is defined in Park (2007) as follows:
“ecosystem: Short for ecological system, meaning the natural interacting biotic and
abiotic system in a given area, which includes all of the organisms (plants, animals,
fungi and micro-organisms) that live in particular habitats, along with their immediate
physical environment… The term was first used by British ecologist Arthur Tansley in
1935, who visualized ecosystems as being composed of two parts, the biome and the
habitat. In Tansley’s view ‘all parts of such an ecosystem – organic and inorganic,
biome and habitat – may be regarded as interacting factors which, in a mature
ecosystem, are in approximate equilibrium; it is through these interactions that the
whole system is maintained…”
The Global Biodiversity Assessment (Heywood, 1995) defines an ecosystem as:“a dynamic complex of plant, animal, fungal, and micro-organism communities and
their associated non-living environment, interacting as an ecological unit; the
organisms living in a given environment, such as a tropical forest or a lake, and the
physical part of the environment that impinges on them.”
9
Both definitions emphasise that the term ecosystem encompasses all the natural ecological
processes, population dynamics and community interactions, as well as the abiotic element
of the environment, such as substrate type, water movement, particle size, salinity, turbidity,
temperature etc – all features which are well beyond our abilities to control, but are retained
in dynamic balance within mature, functioning ecosystems.
Combining the three terms, a number of things become apparent. Firstly, there is clearly no
such thing as ‘the marine ecosystem’, any more than there is one ‘terrestrial ecosystem’: the
marine environment is a complex of many interlinked ecosystems. Secondly, to talk about
objectives for an ecosystem, is, in technical terms, a scientific absurdity. Mature
ecosystems, as Tansley noted, tend towards equilibrium and their natural processes define
“the point to which their operations are directed”. Very few, if any, marine ecosystems today
are fully mature, because of direct and indirect human influences, but the essential
requirement for marine management is to ensure the continuing functioning of ecosystems,
so that they can continue to deliver the various products and services on which so many of
our marine businesses and communities rely, and for the wider benefit of the people of
Scotland.
This analysis suggests that what we are specifically talking about is objectives for ecosystem
management, and the more scientifically rational term would therefore be ‘Marine Ecosystem
Management Objectives’. The definition in Park (2007) is helpful on this term:
“ecosystem management An integrated approach to the management of ecosystems
and natural resources that seeks to balance ecological, economic and social goals in a
sustainable way, by respecting and protecting the natural integrity and processes of
ecosystems, and through deliberate manipulation of ecosystem structure and/or
function, and/or regulation of human uses of ecological systems. Natural resource
management up to the 1960s relied heavily on managing parts of ecosystems as more
or less independent units… One important development since the early 1970s has
been the widespread adoption of an integrated ecosystems framework and perspective
in natural resource management…”
That definition seems to come closer to a rationale that we should consider for Marine
Ecosystem Management Objectives, most particularly with respect to the “regulation of
human uses of ecological systems”. The definition makes clear that the concept is not a
purely scientific one, but is based, at least in part, on societal values and choices which need
to lie at the heart of the system of marine planning proposed in the consultation on the
Scottish Marine Bill.
This is made even clear in the UN General Assembly December 2007 resolution (62/215) on
oceans and the law of the sea (see Appendix 1.1), which:“Notes that ecosystem approaches to ocean management should be focused on
managing human activities in order to maintain and, where needed, restore ecosystem
health to sustain goods and environmental services, provide social and economic
benefits for food security, sustain livelihoods…and conserve marine biodiversity.”
3.2 ‘Marine Ecosystem Objectives’: published guidance
In scoping how to take forward the concept of ‘Marine Ecosystem Objectives’ it is important
to also consider where the term originated. Few, if any, of the published papers help in this
respect. A technical paper to support the development of marine ecosystem objectives for
10
the UK (Rogers et al., 2005) states “it is thought that a management framework centred on
ecosystem objectives will help decision-makers and regulators in their management of
human activity in the marine environment”, again emphasising that these are viewed
essentially as management tools. The paper then goes on to annotate the [UK]
Government’s vision for the “UK Marine Ecosystem (sic)”, and the rest of the paper
discusses what such objectives might look like, without defining what the term means.
It is interesting that by the time of the November 2005 workshop that followed this paper
(Rogers & Tasker, 2005), the focus had shifted to ‘Marine Objectives’. This paper states:“The existing UK Strategic Goals, which underpin the Vision, should be supported by
high-level statements (Ecological Objectives) of what is to be obtained for each
ecological component. These in turn should be made operational by further objectives
that have a direct and practical interpretation and that are specific to regions, uses
and/or sectors (Operational Objectives)… While Ecological Objectives should only be
set for measures of state of the ecosystem, Operational Objectives should relate to the
pressure generated by human activities, as well as the state of ecosystem
components.”
This then might offer a working definition of a Marine Ecosystem Objective, which would
therefore be “a high-level statement of what is to be obtained with respect to the state of
each ecosystem component”. Given the complexities of ecosystems, and the myriad
components making them up, this rather implies a plethora of such objectives. Nor is this
definition applied consistently in the example objectives developed by the workshop.
“Zooplankton should remain within specified limits, taking account of natural population
dynamics and trends” is one example quoted that broadly fits with this definition, whereas
another example quoted, “minimise by-catch of turtles”, is much more of an operational
objective, relating to controlling a pressure generated by a human activity.
Thinking on these matters has advanced by the subsequent paper (Rogers et al., 2005),
which states:
“Marine ecosystem objectives can be used to describe the desired or undesired state
of marine ecosystems, including the part played by humans, consistent with the
government’s vision. They should also guide the management and mitigation of
human activities to deliver the desired state, and assess the effectiveness of
management measures to achieve the vision and strategic goals.”
The desired state of the seas around Scotland has been considered in a paper produced for,
but not adopted by, the Advisory Group on the Marine and Coastal Strategy (AGMACS,
2007), and that paper will therefore be a useful source document in this context. This
‘desired state’ is presumably something equivalent to the “good environmental status”
required by the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, in which case Marine Ecosystem
Objectives would become the measures required to achieve this status.
However, it is questionable whether ‘descriptions of the desired or undesired state of marine
ecosystems’ would qualify, in strict terms, as objectives; they might more properly be
described as ‘targets’. Rogers et al (2007) later states:“Further development of ecological objectives in the UK has taken account of existing
objectives, and the short-term need to provide a pragmatic and practical set of
objectives for further consideration. The approach has made use of current obligations
as a starting point for a complete UK framework, generally focussing on important
structural components of the ecosystem. It has also included objectives for other
attributes, such as species diversity and ecosystem processes that are not direct
biological properties but are functions of the entire ecosystem.”
11
We welcome and support this pragmatic approach, although we will later discuss our doubts
as to whether the need is for a ‘complete framework’ or a more limited approach that is
nevertheless fit-for-purpose in ensuring that our objectives for Scotland’s seas are being
realised.
Paramor & Frid (2006) take a similar approach to Rogers et al (2007), defining ‘ecological
objectives’ as “a statement of what is to be obtained for each ecological component (e.g.
habitats, fish, birds and marine mammals) and whose achievement will ensure productive
and healthy UK marine ecosystems”. They suggest that these will be supplemented by
“operational objectives which provide a direct and practical interpretation of the management
that is necessary to achieve the ecological objectives”. This again would seem to imply the
production of a large number of objectives (or, more properly, targets), each of which has to
be monitored and reported on. While the desire for such scientific rigour is admirable, there
has to be some question as to whether the resourcing required for such extensive monitoring
and reporting is ultimately to the best benefit of the marine environment, or whether this
might be diverting resources that would be better directed at positive marine management.
One of the key groups promoting the concept of Marine Ecosystem Objectives has been the
environmental NGOs. A paper on the topic by Scottish Environment Link (2008) calls for two
levels of objectives. It states:
• “High-level Marine Ecosystem Objectives
Government’s policy on the marine environment;
should
underpin
the
Scottish
• Further SMART Marine Ecosystem Objectives should be used to monitor the health
of Scotland’s seas, and ensure that high-level objectives are delivered.”
The paper continues:
“A Scottish Marine Bill should establish a duty for Scottish Ministers to set, implement
and monitor Marine Ecosystem Objectives in line with recommendation 6.4.2 of the
Advisory Group on the Marine and Coastal Strategy (AGMACS) (Scottish Executive,
2006): that a Scottish set of Marine Ecosystem Objectives should be drawn together
with full stakeholder engagement, during 2007. These should have the ecosystem
approach at their heart, and should be fully integrated with a broad policy approach of
‘living within environmental limits’. They should be nested with a wider set of MEOs for
UK waters and for the Regional Seas around Scotland”. Such MEOs should
encompass a set of high-level objectives, which would underpin marine policy, as well
as a further, more detailed set of MEOs which would allow measurement of the health
of Scotland’s seas”
The LINK paper concludes that “MEOs should form the foundation of the Scottish Marine
Bill, and both the health of Scotland’s seas and effectiveness of new management measures
(including marine planning) should be assessed according to these. The bill should also
establish a mechanism for reporting to Parliament on progress towards achieving these
MEOs”.
They therefore appear to propose two tiers of MEOs, each with significantly different
purposes, and this was confirmed in discussion with a member of the LINK marine task force
(R. Boyd, pers. comm.). This is considered further in our conclusions in Chapter 6.
12
3.3 ‘Marine Ecosystem Objectives’: the underlying rationale
Perhaps, rather than analysing nuances of the meaning of the term ‘Marine Ecosystem
Objectives’, it is more useful to consider why it was coined in the first instance, and why it
has come to be regarded as such an essential plank of marine policy.
It seems probable that it was originally written in lower case as marine ecosystem objectives.
The intention, we believe, was to emphasise that the marine environment is a complex of
ecosystems, and that any decisions on the management of that environment need to be
based on that understanding. So management to achieve outcomes for any one element of
that ecosystem is unlikely to have the desired effect unless the whole ecosystem is
managed to ensure it can continue to function in a healthy way. Such management would
need to be targeted at a geographic scale relevant to that ecosystem, which might vary
between a relatively small, discrete serpulid reef in a Scottish sealoch to an entire open sea
area, such as the North Sea. Before any ecosystem can be managed effectively, it is vital to
understand its dynamics, so ecosystem management needs to be based around the security
of sound science.
The term ‘marine ecosystem objectives’ also neatly encompasses two fundamentals quoted
in the AGMACS report cited by Scottish Environment LINK: “They should have the
ecosystem approach at their heart, and should be fully integrated within the broad policy
approach of ‘living within environmental limits’.” There are many definitions of the
ecosystem approach, or ecosystem-based approach, as it is now more generally referred to.
In Sustainable Seas For All, the consultation on the Scottish Marine Bill (Scottish
Government, 2008a), the Scottish Government defines it thus:“Ecosystem based approach: Integrating and managing the range of demands
placed on the natural environment in such a way that it can indefinitely support
essential services and provide benefits for all.”
A more detailed definition in general acceptance is based on the 12 principles of the
ecosystem-based approach recommended by the 2000 Conference of Parties of the
Convention of Biological Diversity, shown in Table 3.1 on the next page.
‘Living within environmental limits’ is defined in the UK Government’s 2005 sustainable
development strategy, ‘Securing the Future’ (UK Government, 2005), as “respecting the
limits of the planet’s environment, resources and biodiversity – to improve our environment
and ensure that the natural resources needed for life are unimpaired and remain so for
future generations.”
13
Table 3.1: The twelve principles of the ecosystem-based approach, as recommended by the
2000 Conference of Parties of the Convention of Biological Diversity
(from Laffoley et al, 2003)
1.
The objectives of management of land, water and living resources are a matter of
societal choice.
2.
The management should be decentralised to the lowest appropriate level.
3.
The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate spatial and
temporal scales.
4.
Recognising the varying temporal scales and lag-effects that characterise
ecosystem process, objectives for ecosystem management should be set for the
long-term.
5.
Ecosystem managers should consider the effects (actual or potential) of their
activities on adjacent and other ecosystems.
6.
Recognising potential gains from management, there is usually a need to
understand and manage the ecosystem in an economic context. Any such
ecosystem-management programme should: reduce those market distortions that
adversely affect biological diversity; align incentives to promote biodiversity
conservation and sustainable use; and internalise costs and benefits in the given
ecosystem to the extent feasible.
7.
Conservation of ecosystem structure and functioning, in order to maintain
ecosystem services, should be a priority target of the ecosystem approach.
8.
Ecosystems should be managed within the limits of their functioning.
9.
Management must recognise that change is inevitable.
10.
The ecosystem approach should seek the appropriate balance between, and
integration of, conservation and use of biological diversity.
11.
The ecosystem approach should consider all forms of relevant information including
scientific and indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices.
12.
The ecosystem approach should involve all relevant sectors of society and scientific
disciplines.
This approach is consistent with the strategy developed in Canada for the management of
the Eastern Scotian Shelf (see Appendix 5). This proposed two broad overarching goals for
ecosystem-based management (Jamieson et al., 2001):•
•
the sustainability of human usage of environmental resources; and
the conservation of species and habitats, including those other ecosystem components
that may not be utilised by humans
The ‘conservation’ high level goal was then assigned three ‘Conceptual Objectives’, each
defined by ecosystem properties relating to ecosystem structure (biodiversity), ecosystem
function (productivity) or habitat (physical and chemical elements), as follows:
•
•
•
to conserve enough components (ecosystem, species, populations etc.) so as to
maintain the natural resilience of the ecosystem;
to conserve each component of the ecosystem so that it can play its historic role in the
food web (i.e. not cause any component of the ecosystem to be altered to such an extent
that it ceases to play its historic role in the higher order component);
to conserve the physical and chemical properties of the ecosystem.
14
These principles are elucidated further in the principles for ecologically sustainable ocean
use considered in the Australian Oceans Strategy (Appendix 6), shown in Table 3.2 below.
The Strategy states that these principles should be applied to all decisions and actions
affecting access to, and use of, marine waters, and should be considered together,
recognising that ocean ecosystem health and integrity is fundamental to ecologically
sustainable development.
Table 3.2: Nine Principles of Ecologically Sustainable Ocean Use
(from the Australian Oceans Strategy – see Appendix 6)
1. The maintenance of healthy and productive marine ecosystems is fundamental to
the management of both the oceans and of the land.
2. The benefits from the use of Australia’s common ocean resources, and the
responsibilities for their continued health and productivity, should be shared by all
Australians.
3. Internationally competitive and ecologically sustainable marine industries are
essential for wealth generation, employment and continued regional development.
4. Economic, environmental, social and cultural aspirations are to be accommodated
through integrated planning and management of multiple uses of ocean
resources.
5. Management of human activities that affect our oceans will require progressive
improvement in our understanding of living and non-living ocean resources and
processes.
6. Ocean planning and management decisions should be based on the best
available scientific and other information, recognising that information regarding
ocean resources will often be limited.
7. If the potential impact of an action is of concern, priority should be given to
maintaining ecosystem health and integrity.
8. Incomplete information should not be used as a reason for postponing
precautionary measures intended to prevent serious or irreversible environmental
degradation of the oceans.
9. The processes for assessing, planning, allocating and managing the ocean
resources should:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
be easily understood and openly justified;
be certain;
have clear lines of accountability;
provide for equity within and between generations;
be designed to deliver outcomes that balance long and short-term
economic, environmental, social and cultural considerations;
involve the minimum effective regulatory burden on ocean users required to
meet economic, environmental, cultural and social objectives;
ensure cooperation and coordination between governments and across the
sectors which use the oceans; and
take into account wider interests and ensure effective community
involvement.
We strongly endorse this Australian approach, and believe it is vital for a similar approach to
be adopted for the management of Scottish seas.
15
The loosely-used term ‘marine ecosystem objectives’ might therefore be seen to neatly, in
three words, encompass all those considerations, essentially by recognising that marine
management needs to be based at the ecosystem level. At some later stage, however, the
term became capitalised as ‘Marine Ecosystem Objectives’, and at this point people began
to struggle to decide exactly what these might look like. Because the concept of ‘ecosystem’
was included in the term, this was viewed as a scientific issue, and a range of scientific
symposia began to debate the scope and likely form of MEOs. Extremely valuable work was
done, which we will return to later, but some confusion may have arisen because none of
these papers began by questioning why we need MEOs; they began from the fact that the
UK Government (and later the Scottish Government) has committed to them, and so
debated them from a scientific perspective without questioning their fundamental purpose.
The Scottish Environment LINK paper comes closest to debating their purpose, by
suggesting two levels of MEOs, as already noted: high-level MEOs to underpin the Scottish
Government’s policy on the marine environment, and ‘SMART’ MEOs to monitor the health
of Scotland’s seas. We propose that this approach should be accepted and adapted as a
two-tier set of objectives for the future management of Scotland’s seas.
In parallel with this, we note that the Sustainable Scotland Marine Environment Initiative
(SSMEI) has proposed drawing up sustainability objectives for the Scottish marine
environment (Scottish Executive, 2003). This suggests that sustainable development
objectives should:•
•
•
•
be sensible and achievable;
build in from the outset a capability to be measured;
promote and protect local economic, environmental and social diversity;
support private and community enterprise, entrepreneurship and investment.
It further suggests that such sustainability objectives need to be broad ranging, but should
also reflect the range of issues relevant to the marine environment in a holistic and
integrated manner.
This paper later suggests that objectives for a sustainable management framework should:•
•
•
be few enough to be achievable;
be enough to keep the support of key stakeholders, whilst maintaining framework
coherence;
have indicators that can be measured against progress.
We accept these recommendations as guidance towards the creation of the high-level
objectives to underpin the Scottish Government’s policy on the marine environment, and this
is considered further in Chapter 6.
3.4 Scoping a structure to define marine objectives
In taking forward this Scoping Study we were specifically instructed to keep our
recommendations as simple and clear as possible, and, as far as possible, to tie them to
work that was already underway. Two high-level sets of objectives already exist relating to
the conditions of the marine environment in Scotland. The first is a set of High Level Marine
Objectives (HLMOs), initially proposed by the UK government, but which the Scottish
Government is currently minded to adopt, following consultation on them in Sustainable
Seas for All. The second is the descriptors of Good Environmental Status contained in
16
Annex 1 of the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (EMSFD) (see Chapter 4.2
and Appendix A1.6).
It therefore seemed sensible to test whether it might be possible to use these two sets of
high-level objectives as the basis for a system of more operational objectives and targets for
Scotland’s marine environment.
The first stage was to test whether the HLMOs can deliver the Strategic Vision for Scotland’s
seas stated in Seas the Opportunity (Scottish Executive, 2005a):“A clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse marine environment, which,
through sustainable management, will continue to support the interests of nature and
people”.
In Table 3.3, therefore, each of the HLMOs is assessed against delivery of each of the
elements of this vision.
Table 3.3: Assessment of the High Level Marine Objectives (HLMOs)
against the Strategic Vision for Scotland’s seas
KEY:
CS = contributing to ‘clean and safe’ marine waters
HBD = contributing to a ‘healthy and biologically diverse marine environment’
P = contributing to a ‘productive marine environment [which], through sustainable
management, will continue to support the interests of people’.
Other = contributing to other objectives for the marine environment.
3 = makes a major contribution to that quality
+ = makes a lesser but still significant contribution.
HIGH LEVEL MARINE OBJECTIVE
CS
HBD
P
Achieving a sustainable marine economy
1. Infrastructure is in place to support and promote safe,
profitable and efficient marine businesses.
3
2. Long-term wealth is generated by the responsible use of the
marine environment and its resources.
+
3. Marine businesses are taking long-term strategic decisions
and managing risks effectively. They are competitive and
operating efficiently.
4. Marine businesses are acting in a way which respects
environmental limits and is socially responsible. This is
rewarded in the marketplace.
3
3
+
3
3
+
3
Ensuring a strong, healthy and just society
5. People appreciate the value of the marine environment, its
natural and cultural heritage and its resources and act
responsibly.
6. The use of the marine environment is benefiting society as a
whole, contributing to resilient and cohesive communities.
7. The coast, seas, oceans and their resources are safe to use.
8. The marine environment plays an important role in mitigating
climate change.
17
3
3
3
3
Other
HIGH LEVEL MARINE OBJECTIVE
CS
HBD
9. There is equitable access for those who want to use the
coast, seas and their wide range of resources and assets.
P
Other
3
10. Use of the marine environment will recognise, and integrate
with, defence priorities, including the strengthening of
international peace and stability and the defence of the United
Kingdom and its interests.
3
Living within environmental limits
11. Biodiversity is protected, conserved and recovered where
appropriate.
12. Healthy marine habitats occur across their natural range
and are able to support strong, biodiverse biological
communities and the functioning of healthy, resilient and
adaptable marine ecosystems.
3
+
3
13. Our oceans support viable populations of rare, vulnerable,
and valued species.
3
14. The loss of biodiversity has been halted.
3
Promoting good governance
15. All those who have a stake in the marine environment have
an input into associated decision-making.
+
+
+
16. Marine and coastal management mechanisms are
responsive and work effectively together, for example through
integrated coastal zone management.
+
+
3
17. Marine management in the UK takes account of different
management systems that are in place because of
administrative or political boundaries.
+
+
3
18. Marine businesses are subject
proportionate and plan-led regulation.
to
clear,
timely,
3
19. The use of the marine environment is spatially planned and
based on an ecosystems approach which takes account of
climate change and recognises the protection needs of
individual historic assets.
3
3
Using sound science responsibly
20. Our understanding of the marine environment continues to
develop through new scientific research and data collection.
3
3
21. Sound evidence and monitoring underpins effective marine
management and policy development.
3
3
3
22. The precautionary principle is applied consistently in
accordance with Government’s sustainable development
policy.
3
3
3
The HLMOs are a valuable statement of intent, but this analysis suggests that they alone
could not achieve the strategic vision for Scotland’s seas. Because they are high level, the
majority of the HLMOs are in fact closer to outcomes than strategic objectives. One of these
(HLMO22) is not even an outcome in itself. The application of the precautionary principle is
vital in ensuring that the criteria of sustainability are met; it is not an end in itself, but an
important means to an end. It is therefore a fundamental operating principle for achieving
the other 21 outcomes.
18
Several of these High Level Marine Objectives are primarily economic, rather than
environmental, in their aims, and therefore strictly beyond the remit of this scoping study on
ecosystem objectives. ‘Competitive and efficient businesses’ (HLMO 3) is a desirable
outcome which will be essential in delivering many environmental outputs, but is essentially
a matter of national civic policy, not a specifically marine ecosystem outcome. Similarly
HLMO 10 on defence priorities is a statement of political intent, rather than any scientific
principle, and therefore not directly relevant to this study. The parallel scoping study on
social and economic objectives is likely to make much more comment on these, and other,
objectives, but we did consider them briefly in the analysis we carried out of intermediate
and operational-level goals, discussed in Chapter 3.5.
We next looked at the eleven ‘Qualitative Descriptors’ for Good Environmental Status (GES)
contained in Annex 1 of the EMSFD (see Appendix 1.6). Again these are not objectives, in
the strict sense, but outcomes. Given the close similarity between the Strategic Vision of the
EU Marine Strategy (“both we and future generations can enjoy and benefit from biologically
diverse and dynamic oceans and seas that are safe, healthy and productive”) and the
Strategic Vision for Scotland’s seas (see page 1), it is not surprising that the GES
descriptors correspond strongly with the elements of the vision for Scotland’s seas, as
shown in Table 3.4.
19
Table 3.4: Assessment of the descriptors for Good Environmental Status of
European sea and oceans against the Strategic Vision for Scotland’s seas
(Annex 1 of the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive)
For key, see Table 3.3 above
GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS DESCRIPTOR
HBD
P
1. Biological diversity is maintained. The quality and occurrence of
habitats and the distribution and abundance of species are in line
with prevailing physiographic, geographic and climatic conditions.
3
+
2. Non-indigenous species introduced by human activities are at
levels that do not adversely alter the ecosystems.
3
3. Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are
within safe biological limits, exhibiting a population age and size
distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock.
+
3
4. All elements of the marine food webs, to the extent that they are
known, occur at normal abundance and diversity and levels capable
of ensuring the long-term abundance of the species and the retention
of their full reproductive capacity.
3
+
5. Human-induced eutrophication is minimised, especially adverse
effects thereof, such as losses in biodiversity, ecosystem
degradation, harmful algal blooms and oxygen deficiency in bottom
waters.
CS
3
6. Sea-floor integrity is at a level that ensures that the structure and
functions of the ecosystem are safeguarded and benthic ecosystems,
in particular, are not adversely affected.
3
7. Permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions does not
adversely affect marine ecosystems.
3
8. Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to
pollution effects.
3
9. Contaminants in fish and other seafood for human consumption do
not exceed levels established by Community legislation or other
relevant standards.
3
10. Properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the
coastal and marine environment.
3
11. Introduction of energy, including underwater noise, is at levels
that do not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment.
3
+
+
Achieving good environmental status (in a general sense) is fundamental to the Strategic
Vision for Scotland’s seas. The particular definition of Good Environmental Status in the
EMSFD appears as useful as any other definition, and, given that this will have legal status
in any case, it would seem sensible to use this as the basis on which to build our proposals,
whilst recognising that differences of approach may be needed at the different geographic
scales of Regional Seas, Scotland’s seas, and Scottish Marine Regions. The eleven
Qualitative Descriptors therefore provide valuable guidance on the outcomes we would wish
to achieve for Scotland’s seas.
Accordingly, based on our conclusions from this analysis, we set out to investigate whether
the National Marine Objectives could be based around – and be expected to deliver – the 19
High Level Marine Objectives and the 11 Good Environmental Status Descriptors. This is
considered in Chapter 3.5 below.
20
3.5 Scoping the potential range of Outcomes for Scotland’s Seas
In order to test the value of a structure for the National Marine Objectives (NMOs) based
around the High Level Marine Objectives and the Descriptors of Good Environmental Status
(GES), we attempted an analysis which involved bringing together all the high-level goals
and objectives extracted from existing Scottish Government commitments and obligations,
and from a range of other initiatives of varying policy status, as summarised in Appendices 1
and 2.
We drew up a spreadsheet covering more than 300 intermediate and operational level goals
from the various obligations on or commitments of the Scottish Government listed in
Appendix 1, or those which have been or are under consideration as part of the response to
the EMSFD, UK Marine Bill or Scottish Marine Bill (listed in Appendix 2). A copy of this
spreadsheet will be lodged with Scottish Natural Heritage for reference. We went through
each of these objectives and attempted to assess them as contributing to one (or more) of
the 11 GES Descriptors. While many of these objectives neatly aligned with the descriptors,
a proportion did not. We found that these did, however, correspond neatly with one or more
of the High Level Marine Objectives, with some very minor modification in the wording.
Accordingly, we propose that our system of objectives for the marine environment should be
structured around a combination of the 11 GES Descriptors and the 22 HLMOs. As already
noted in the Overview in Chapter 1, we propose referring to these in shorthand as
Outcomes for Scotland’s Seas (OSSs), but we re-emphasise that none of these represent
new proposals; they are all derived (or slightly modified) from objectives and outcomes that
have been already agreed for Scotland’s Seas.
As would be expected, several of the HLMOs are intended to achieve the same ends as
certain of the GES Descriptors. We therefore attempted a synthesis between the two to
make this structure clearer. Table 3.5 shows how the HLMOs and GES Descriptors can be
sensibly grouped together (with some minor amendments to the wording shown in italics),
resulting in a total of 25 Outcomes for Scotland’s Seas. We have grouped these under the
three elements of the Strategic Vision, plus a group of outcomes, derived from the HLMOs,
which relate to better governance of the marine environment.
21
Table 3.5: The 25 Outcomes for Scotland’s Seas (OSSs) drawn from a synthesis
of 11 Descriptors of Good Environmental Status and 19 High Level Marine Objectives
For key, see Table 3.3 above
Outcome for
Scotland’s
Seas (OSS)
Overarching
principle
Wording of original GES Descriptor or High Level Marine
Objective
(with amended wording shown in italics)
CS
HBD
P
The Precautionary Principle is applied consistently in accordance
with the Government’s sustainable development policy. (HLMO22)
We state this here because we believe this is not an outcome in
itself, but a means to ensure the sustainability of all the other
outcomes. We do not propose therefore that there should be any
National Marine Objective associated with this concept, but rather
believe that the Precautionary Principle should inform all the resulting
National Marine Objectives.
3
3
3
A: Clean and Safe Seas
The coast, seas, oceans and their resources are safe to use. (HLMO
7)
This High Level Marine Objective will be delivered by objectives
designed to achieve the six GES contributors listed below.
Human-induced eutrophication is minimised, especially adverse
effects thereof, such as losses in biodiversity, ecosystem
degradation, harmful algal blooms and oxygen deficiency in bottom
waters. (GES 5)
3
OSS 2
Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to
pollution effects. (GES 8)
3
OSS 3
Contaminants in fish and other seafood for human consumption do
not exceed levels established by Community legislation or other
relevant standards. (GES 9)
3
OSS 4
Properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the
coastal and marine environment. (GES 10)
3
OSS 5
Introduction of energy, including underwater noise, is at levels that
do not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment. (GES 11)
3
OSS 1
B: Healthy and Biologically Diverse Seas
Biodiversity is protected, conserved and recovered where
appropriate. (HLMO 11)
Healthy marine habitats occur across their natural range and are
able to support strong, biodiverse biological communities and the
functioning of healthy, resilient and adaptable marine ecosystems.
(HLMO 12)
Our oceans support viable populations of rare, vulnerable, and
valued species. (HLMO 13)
The loss of biodiversity has been halted. (HLMO 14)
These four High Level Marine Objectives will be delivered by
objectives designed to achieve the four GES contributors listed
below. To accommodate this, the wording of GES1 has been
amended as shown in italics below.
22
+
+
Other
Outcome for
Scotland’s
Seas (OSS)
Wording of original GES Descriptor or High Level Marine
Objective
(with amended wording shown in italics)
CS
HBD
Biological diversity is maintained and recovered where appropriate.
The quality and occurrence of habitats and the distribution and
abundance of species, including those which have been identified as
rare, vulnerable and valued, are in line with prevailing physiographic,
geographic and climatic conditions. (Amended from GES 1)
3
OSS 7
Non-indigenous species introduced by human activities are at levels
that do not adversely alter the ecosystems. (GES 2)
3
OSS 8
All elements of the marine food webs, to the extent that they are
known, occur at normal abundance and diversity and levels capable
of ensuring the long-term abundance of the species and the retention
of their full reproductive capacity. (GES 4)
3
OSS 9
Permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions
adversely affect marine ecosystems. (GES 7)
not
3
OSS 10
Sea-floor integrity is at a level that ensures that the structure and
functions of the ecosystem are safeguarded and benthic
ecosystems, in particular, are not adversely affected. (GES 6)
3
OSS 6
does
P
+
+
C: Productive Seas, contributing to the needs of people
OSS 11
Marine businesses are acting in a way which respects environmental
limits and is socially responsible. This is rewarded in the
marketplace. (HLMO 4)
OSS 12
3
3
People appreciate the value of the marine environment, its natural
and cultural heritage and its resources and act responsibly. (HLMO
5)
+
3
OSS 13
The marine environment plays an important role in mitigating climate
change. (HLMO 8)
3
3
OSS 14
Infrastructure is in place to support and promote safe, profitable and
efficient marine businesses. (HLMO 1)
OSS 15
Long-term wealth is generated by the responsible use of the marine
environment and its resources. (HLMO 2)
OSS 16
The use of the marine environment is benefiting society as a whole,
contributing to resilient and cohesive communities. (HLMO 6)
OSS 17
Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within
safe biological limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution
that is indicative of a healthy stock. (GES 3)
+
3
+
3
3
+
3
D: Better Governance of the Sea
OSS 18
All those who have a stake in the marine environment have an input
into associated decision-making. (HLMO 15)
+
+
+
OSS 19
Marine and coastal management mechanisms are responsive and
work effectively together, for example through integrated coastal
zone management. (HLMO 16)
+
+
3
OSS 20
Marine businesses are subject to clear, timely, proportionate and
plan-led regulation. (HLMO 18)
23
3
Other
Outcome for
Scotland’s
Seas (OSS)
OSS 21
Wording of original GES Descriptor or High Level Marine
Objective
(with amended wording shown in italics)
CS
The use of the marine environment is spatially planned and based on
an ecosystem approach which takes account of climate change and
recognizes the protection needs of individual historic assets. (HLMO
19)
OSS 22
Our understanding of the marine environment continues to develop
through new scientific research and data collection. (HLMO 20)
OSS 23
Sound evidence and monitoring is made accessible and available
and underpins effective marine management and policy
development. (Amended from HLMO 21)
(The minor rewording proposed above allows a number of additional
objectives to be accommodated which otherwise did not exactly
match the 25 OSSs)
OSS 24
Marine businesses are taking long-term strategic decisions and
managing risks effectively. They are competitive and operating
efficiently. (HLMO 3)
OSS 25
Use of the marine environment will recognise, and integrate with,
defence priorities, including the strengthening of international peace
and stability and the defence of the United Kingdom and its interests.
(HLMO 10)
HBD
P
3
3
3
3
+
3
3
3
As discussed in Chapter 3.4 above, several of these Outcomes are primarily economic or
social in their ambitions, and so somewhat beyond the remit of this scoping study. However,
we did include them in the analysis of intermediate and operational level goals described in
Chapter 3.5, resulting in the draft National Marine Objectives proposed in Chapters 6.5 to
6.8. However, we would emphasise that these Outcomes are likely to be expanded upon
considerably by the parallel scoping study on ‘social’ and ‘economic’ marine objectives.
Because the 25 Outcomes for Scotland’s Seas above incorporate the agreed High Level
Marine Objectives, we believe that they should fully encompass the social and economic
aspirations of Sustainable Seas for All, as well as the environmental ones that are the focus
of this study. However, the parallel Scoping Study on ‘social’ and ‘economic’ marine
objectives may wish to amend, or expand upon, our recommended Outcomes for Scotland’s
Seas in the light of the work they will be undertaking.
24
Other
3
4. BUILDING ON EXISTING OBLIGATIONS AND COMMITMENTS
In taking forward work to achieve the 25 Outcomes for Scotland’s Seas described in Chapter
3.5, it will be important to consider the obligations on, and commitments by, the Scottish
Government with respect to the marine environment, and to build upon, and learn from, the
considerable body of work that is already underway at the Scottish and UK levels to meet
these obligations and commitments. This is considered in this section, so that these lessons
can be integrated into the Objectives Strategy proposed in Chapter 6.
4.1 World Summit on Sustainable Development
The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg in 2002 set out to
find lasting solutions to the world's social and environmental problems. This led to the
Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development (WSSD, 2002a); and the
Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (WSSD, 2002b). This WSSD plan set the following
targets for sustainability in the marine environment:•
Encourage the application by 2010 of the ecosystem approach for the sustainable
development of the oceans;
•
On an urgent basis and where possible by 2015, maintain or restore depleted fish
stocks to levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield;
•
Put into effect the FAO international plans of action by the agreed dates:
– for the management of fishing capacity by 2005; and
– to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing by
2004;
•
Develop and facilitate the use of diverse approaches and tools, including the
ecosystem approach, the elimination of destructive fishing practices, the establishment
of marine protected areas consistent with international law and based on scientific
information, including representative networks by 2012;
•
Establish by 2004 a regular process under the United Nations for global reporting and
assessment of the state of the marine environment; and
•
Eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and to
over-capacity.
4.2 European Marine Strategy Framework Directive
In many ways, the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (EMSFD) (see Appendix
A1.6) would seem to provide the most critical elements in establishing any system of Marine
Ecosystem Standards. This directive was adopted by the European Council in May 2008,
and came into force on 15th July 2008. It requires EU Member States to “take the
necessary measures to achieve or maintain Good Environmental Status (GES) by the year
2020 at the latest”. Although GES is not specifically defined in the directive, Annex 1 lists
the ‘descriptors’ that should be monitored in assessing GES (as shown in Table 3.4).
The Directive sets down a clear timetable towards achieving GES:•
Authority or authorities competent for the implementation of the Directive are to be
designated by 15th July 2010, and notified to the Commission by 15th January 2011;
25
•
An initial assessment of the current environmental status of marine waters must be
completed by 15th July 2012, together with a determination of what GES will mean for
the waters concerned and the establishment of a series of environmental targets and
indicators towards GES.
•
A monitoring programme to assess these targets must be in place by 15th July 2014.
•
A programme of measures designed to achieve or maintain GES should be developed
by 2015, and put into operation by 2016.
The aim of the Marine Ecosystem Standards which we propose in Chapter 6.2 is to provide
an assurance that human activities are not causing deterioration of those marine areas
which are currently in good environmental status, and are not blocking or slowing the
recovery of those marine areas which are not currently in good environmental status.
At present, a number of expert groups are working on means of translating these 11
descriptors into specific operational objectives, environmental targets and indicators around
which action can be based. The directive requires these environmental targets and
indicators to be agreed by no later than July 2012, and for a monitoring programme to
assess these to be in place by July 2014. These will then allow assessment of the
programme of measures to achieve GES, which needs to be put into operation by July 2016.
The Scottish Government will then be required, through the UK Government, to report to the
European Commission on progress towards meeting these targets and indicators.
We suggest it would be sensible for Marine Scotland to begin work on agreeing the Marine
Ecosystem Standards, with the assistance of these GES expert groups, as the highest
priority, so that these can support and inform the work required by the Scottish Marine Act,
as well as the EMSFD. We propose these should be agreed well before 2012, and a
monitoring programme put in place before 2014, so that we can assure ourselves of
progress towards achieving the domestic aspirations of the Scottish Marine Bill. As an
added advantage, this might allow the programme of measures to achieve GES to be in
place before the 2016 requirement, allowing more than four years for this programme to
achieve its objectives before the 2020 deadline.
4.3 Obligations in other European Directives
The EC Habitats and Bird Directives (see Appendices 1.3 and 1.4) establish a network of
European protected sites, referred to jointly as the Natura network, and set in place precise
requirements for their protection and management. This network is now largely in place in
Scotland, and will form the basis for the ecologically coherent network of well-managed
Marine Protected Areas, as required by the OSPAR Convention. With respect to seabirds,
the EU Birds Directive is comprehensive, but the EU Habitats Directive requires action only
for a list of priority species and habitats, which in the marine environment are less than
comprehensive and somewhat problematic. Although there is a requirement for a good
geographical spread in the resulting Natura sites, this does not necessarily represent
ecological cohesion, so further work may be required to meet the OSPAR commitment.
However, the EU Habitats Directive also requires Member States to ensure ‘Favourable
Conservation Status’ for the species and habitats listed in its Annexes. Although the Natura
sites play an important part in achieving this, there might also be a requirement for Member
States to take wider action, beyond the Natura network, for species and habitats for which
Favourable Conservation Status in not achieved, and this should be a consideration in
deriving the National Marine Objectives.
26
The EC Water Framework Directive (see Appendix 1.5) was originally proposed to cover
only freshwaters, but was expanded in its development to include transitional waters, which
are defined as “bodies of surface water in the vicinity of river mouths which are partly saline
in character as a result of their proximity to coastal waters but which are substantially
influenced by freshwater flows”, and also to coastal water, defined as “surface water on the
landward side of a line, every point of which is at a distance of one nautical mile on the
seaward side from the nearest point of the baseline from which the breadth of territorial
waters is measured, extending where appropriate up to the outer limit of transitional waters”.
In Scotland we have chosen to extend this transitional zone out to 3 nautical miles.
For these surface waters bodies, the Directive requires Member States to take measures to
prevent deterioration in their status, and to protect, enhance and restore them with the aim of
achieving good surface water status (i.e. good ecological status or potential and good
chemical status) by 2015. Since the majority of harmful chemical inputs to the marine
environment originate from terrestrial sources, these measures, if implemented successfully,
should go some considerable way towards meeting the aspiration for ‘clean and safe’ seas
and for meeting our Outcomes for Scotland’s Seas 1 to 5, as defined in Table 3.5.
The EU Environmental Liability Directive (Directive 2004/35/CE) will also have relevance
to the marine environment. It sets out requirements that EU member states must enact to
prevent and remedy environmental damage. Its aim is to hold operators whose activities
have caused environmental damage financially liable for remedying the damage they have
caused, through an underlying “polluter pays” principle. Unlike the European Marine
Strategy Framework Directive, the ELD does not set a target state with supporting
descriptors. It does, however, refer directly to the Habitats and Birds Directive Annex I
habitats and Annex II and IV species, defining environmental damage as “…any damage
that has significant adverse effects on reaching or maintaining the favourable conservation
status of such habitats or species.” Other species and habitats may be additionally included
for equivalent status under a Member State’s discretion. The objectives of the Water
Framework Directive are similarly incorporated with water damage being defined as “…any
damage that significantly adversely affects the ecological, chemical and/or quantitative
status and/or ecological potential”.
The ELD does not appear to have a clear relevance or role in the setting of marine
objectives at a higher strategic level. Its application or enforcement may, however, be
significantly influenced by the establishment of limits or targets at the operational or
management level. Developers might be obliged, for example, to deliver compensatory
measures to ensure that a particular local authority or regional biodiversity target is not
compromised.
At the time of writing, the regulations to apply the ELD in Scotland, the Environmental
Damage (Prevention and Remediation) (Scotland) Regulations 2008, are still in preparation,
but are expected to be published shortly.
Also of potential relevance is the EU Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive
(2001/42/EC) (the SEA Directive) “on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and
programmes on the environment”. This requires a formal environmental assessment of
certain plans and programmes which are likely to have significant effects on the
environment. Authorities which prepare and/or adopt such a plan or programme must
prepare a report on its likely significant environmental effects, consult environmental
authorities and the public, and take the report and the results of the consultation into account
during the preparation process and before the plan or programme is adopted. They must
also make information available on the plan or programme as adopted and how the
environmental assessment was taken into account. The SEA Directive is transposed
into Scottish law by the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005. The National
27
Marine Plan, to be developed by Marine Scotland, including the programme of National
Marine Objectives, would therefore be subject to such Strategic Environmental Assessment.
4.4 The OSPAR Convention
OSPAR is the mechanism by which fifteen Governments of the western coasts and
catchments of Europe, together with the European Community, cooperate to protect the
marine environment of the North-East Atlantic. The original Oslo and Paris Conventions of
1972 and 1974 respectively were unified, updated and extended by the 1992 OSPAR
Convention5. A new annex (Annex V) relating to non-polluting human impacts on biodiversity
and ecosystems was adopted in 1998 (see Appendix 1.7 for details).
The Fifth International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea in Bergen in 2002 (see
Appendix 1.2) initiated a commitment to the implementation of the ecosystem approach by
the North Sea States. This was reinforced at the Joint Ministerial Meeting of the HELCOM
and OSPAR Commissions held in 2003 in Bremen, where the Statement on the Ecosystem
Approach to the Management of Human Activities6 was adopted. Under this Statement, the
OSPAR Commission is committed to establishing, by 2010, a full set of management
measures that are consistent with an ecosystem approach.
The delivery mechanism is centred on four specific elements:
a. promoting understanding and acceptance by all stakeholders of the ecosystem approach
to the management of human activities, and collaboration among the various
management authorities in the North East Atlantic and in the Baltic Sea Area in
implementing that approach;
b. monitoring the ecosystems of the marine environment, in order to understand and
assess the interactions between and among the different species and populations of
biota, the non-living environment and humans;
c. setting objectives for environmental quality, underpinned by monitoring, in support both
of the formulation of policy and of assessments;
d. assessing the impact of human activities upon biota and humans, both directly and
indirectly through impacts on the non-living environment, together with the effects on the
non-living environment itself.
Additionally, Annex V of the OSPAR Convention, further articulated by the OSPAR Biological
Diversity and Ecosystems Strategy7, requires measures to be initiated to control activities
that have a damaging impact on species and habitats that need to be protected and
conserved, while making provision to restore, where practicable, marine areas that have
been adversely affected.
5
http://www.ospar.org/html_documents/ospar/html/OSPAR_Convention_e_updated_text_2007.pdf
6
http://www.ospar.org/documents/02-03/JMMC03/SR-E/JMM ANNEX05_Ecosystem Approach
Statement.doc
7
http://www.ospar.org/html_documents/ospar/html/Revised_OSPAR_Strategies_2003.pdf#nameddest
=biodiversity
28
Companion strategies, published alongside the Biological Diversity and Ecosystems
Strategy, specifically address the activities and impacts themselves. Broad objectives
underpin each of the OSPAR strategies for eutrophication, hazardous substances,
radioactive substances, and offshore oil and gas (see Appendix 1.8).
A suite of Ecological Quality Objectives (EcoQOs) have been developed in collaboration with
the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) through a pilot project in the
North Sea (OSPAR Commission, 2007). These are intended as tools to define and monitor
the desired qualities of the marine environment, providing a practical means by which a
“healthy and sustainable marine ecosystem” is established and maintained. Each EcoQO
takes the form of a target or limit (see Appendix 2.1 for a complete list of current pilot
EcoQOs), representative of a healthy North Sea, which, if not satisfied, will require some
form of action to be taken by responsible authorities. In this respect, the format of the
EcoQOs is at the level of, is broadly similar to, or would readily adapt to the most frequently
used definition of an Operational Objective. These are also likely to play a key role in the
development of Marine Ecosystem Standards.
4.5 Existing Scottish domestic commitments
In addition to their international legal obligations, the Scottish Executive and Scottish
Government made a range of commitments towards the better protection and more
sustainable use of Scotland’s seas. These are summarised in Seas the Opportunity
(Scottish Executive, 2005a) and Sustainable Seas for All (Scottish Government, 2008a), and
are discussed in more detail elsewhere in this text, particularly in Chapter 3 and Chapter 9,
and in Appendices A1.14 – A1.19.
The central policy statement by the Scottish Government is Scotland Performs 8 , which
states the purpose of the Scottish Government as follows:“To focus Government and public services on creating a more successful country, with
opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish, through increasing sustainable economic
growth.”
To achieve this, it proposes five Strategic Objectives:“Wealthier and fairer: Enable businesses and people to increase their wealth and
more people to share fairly in that wealth.
Smarter: Expand opportunities for Scots to succeed from nurture through to life long
learning ensuring higher and more widely shared achievements.
Healthier: Help people to sustain and improve their health, especially in
disadvantaged communities, ensuring better, local and faster access to health care.
Safer and stronger: Help local communities to flourish, becoming stronger, safer
place to live, offering improved opportunities and a better quality of life.
Greener: Improve Scotland's natural and built environment and the sustainable use
and enjoyment of it.”
Measures to ensure the sustainable use of the marine environment, as proposed in
Sustainable Seas for All, clearly contribute to the ‘Greener’ objective. They will help to
8
See www.scotland.gov.uk/About/scotPerforms
29
ensure that the people of Scotland can continue to benefit from the products and services
that marine ecosystems offer, and will therefore also contribute to the ‘Wealthier and fairer’
objective, and thus to the Scottish Government’s stated aim of “increasing sustainable
economic growth”. Measures to ensure cleaner and safer seas that result from these
proposals will contribute to both the ‘Safer and Stronger’ and ‘Healthier’ objectives, by
minimising any risk to public health and amenity, while there is also a clear need to engage
with the ‘Smarter’ objective to ensure that marine stakeholders have all the information they
need to manage their businesses, or protect their interests, more effectively in the marine
environment. Scotland Performs is therefore a key document in shaping the proposals in
this Scoping Study, and this is discussed further in Chapter 9, in which we assess the
proposals made here against this Scottish policy background.
4.6 Work at the UK level by Defra, UKMMAS and Evidence Groups
The 2002 Defra document “Safeguarding Our Seas” committed the UK to an ecosystembased approach to the management of the marine environment. The 2005 report “Charting
Progress” concluded that the current monitoring programmes were insufficient to deliver the
level of information required to support the aspirations previously set out, resulting in the
establishment of UK Marine Monitoring and Assessment Strategy (UKMMAS).
The overall aim of UKMMAS is to shape the UK’s capability, within national and international
waters, to:
“provide, and respond, within a changing climate, to the evidence required for
sustainable development within a clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically
diverse marine ecosystem and within one generation to make a real difference.”
The UKMMAS is delivered through a number of groups. A high-level policy committee,
(Marine Assessment Policy Committee or MAPC) defines policy requirements and provides
direction to an implementation body. The Marine Assessment and Reporting Group (MARG)
oversees the work of a number of initiatives and has a sub-group ‘mini-MARG which meets
inter-sessionally to discuss cross-cutting issues and includes groups to investigate and
report on Objectives for the marine environment, the preparation of Integrated Assessments
and monitoring protocols. Data Archiving is achieved through the Marine Environment Data
Information Network (MEDIN). In addition, three Evidence Groups are tasked with collating
data on the themes of "Clean and Safe Seas" (CSSEG), "Healthy and Biologically Diverse
Seas" (HBDSEG) and "Productive Seas" (PSEG) seas.
Throughout 2007 and early 2008 Defra led a cross-government initiative to develop High
Level Objectives for the marine environments, resulting in the consultation document “Our
Seas – a shared resource” in which the objectives (shown in Table 3.3) were stated to
“…articulate the outcomes they (the UK Government and Devolved Administrations) are
seeking for the UK marine area as a whole, while taking account of their distinctive
circumstances and responsibilities.”
In parallel, the Evidence Groups were tasked with developing Contributory Marine
Objectives (CMOs) that would provide the overall policy framework to guide the UKMMAS.
The CMOs needed to be suitable for measuring progress towards the vision of ‘clean,
healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas’.
In September of 2007 a UKMMAS stakeholder workshop was held in which one of the aims
was to agree on a proposed draft suit of CMOs. Following the stakeholder workshop a draft
tabulated list of the CMOs, with various comments from the Evidence Groups, was
30
produced. The revised draft CMOs were tentatively grouped under themes, which were
intended to be eventually replaced by an appropriate High Level Objective.
In their original tabulated form, each objective was associated with examples of possible
indicators which might be used to determine CMO progress and suggestions of existing data
sources from which each indicator could be derived. In addition, a listing of various ‘drivers’
(Directives, Conventions, legislative instruments etc.) which could be aligned with each
objective was provided. The full table, with these elements included, is provided in Appendix
3.
In May of 2008 the minutes of a PSEG Evidence group recorded dissatisfaction with the
CMO stating:
“At the HBDSEG meeting yesterday there was a general feeling that the current
wording of the CMOs is not acceptable - have taken a retrograde step since Marks Tey
workshop last September. It was considered better to reflect MSFD and Water
Framework Directive wording on CMOs wherever possible. The Charting Progress 2
Alignment Group should explain how the CMOs will be used and provide examples to
Charting Progress 2 Steering Group next week”
As of early 2009, the work on CMOs has been eclipsed by the UK efforts to initiate the EU
Marine Strategy Framework Directive, and in particular the need to establish a protocol for
defining ‘Good Environmental Status’ for UK waters. Some initial work to determine
equitability, or common terminology, between the eleven EMSFD descriptors and CMOs was
carried out and is reproduced in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Comparison of the EMSFD Descriptors of Good Environmental Status with
equivalent Contributory Marine Objectives being developed by UKMMAS
(Note: the remaining CMOs with no similarity are not included).
Common or similar language between each is indicated by shading.
EMSFD descriptors of Good Environmental
Status
Equivalent Contributory Marine Objectives
Formulated in UKMMAS
(1) Biological diversity is maintained. The quality
and occurrence of habitats and the distribution
and abundance of species are in line with
prevailing physiographic, geographic and
climatic conditions
Support, and where appropriate restore, the
distribution, extent and character of marine
‘landscapes’ and habitats
(2) Non-indigenous species introduced by
human activities are at levels that do not
adversely alter the ecosystems
(3) Populations of all commercially exploited fish
and shellfish are within safe biological limits,
exhibiting a population age and size distribution
that is indicative of a healthy stock.
Achieve and maintain the sustainable and
productive use of biological resources which
maximise socio-economic benefits whilst
minimising the unsustainable negative
impacts on habitats and species.
(4) All elements of the marine food webs, to the
extent that they are known, occur at normal
abundance and diversity and levels capable of
ensuring the long-term abundance of the
species and the retention of their full
reproductive capacity.
Support, and where appropriate restore,
biodiversity and ecological patterns and
processes.
31
EMSFD descriptors of Good Environmental
Status
Equivalent Contributory Marine Objectives
Formulated in UKMMAS
(5) Human-induced eutrophication is minimised,
especially adverse effects thereof, such as
losses in biodiversity, ecosystem degradation,
harmful algae blooms and oxygen deficiency in
bottom waters.
Minimise ‘undesirable disturbance’ in the
marine
environment
arising
from
eutrophication
(6) Sea floor integrity is at a level that ensures
that the structure and functions of the
ecosystems are safeguarded and benthic
ecosystems, in particular, are not adversely
affected
Prevent those anthropogenic activities which
affect the physical and hydrographical
conditions in the marine environment from
negatively impacting on ecosystem integrity
and viability in an unsustainable manner.
(7) Permanent alteration of hydrographical
conditions does not adversely affect marine
ecosystems.
Prevent those anthropogenic activities which
affect the physical and hydrographical
conditions in the marine environment from
negatively impacting on ecosystem integrity
and viability in an unsustainable manner.
(8) Concentrations of contaminants are at levels
not giving rise to pollution effects
Prevent
anthropogenic
inputs
of
contaminants from reaching concentrations in
the marine environment that present a
significant risk to marine habitats and species
(9) Contaminants in fish and other seafood for
human consumption do not exceed levels
established by Community legislation or other
relevant standards.
Prevent
contaminants,
toxins,
and
microbiological and radioactive contamination
of seafood from reaching concentrations that
present a significant risk to human health
(10) Properties and quantities of marine litter do
not cause harm to the coastal and marine
environment.
Prevent anthropogenic sourced litter from
reaching levels which affect amenity
(aesthetics & safety) value of the marine
environment
(11)
Introduction
of
energy,
including
underwater noise, is at levels that do not
adversely affect the marine environment
Subsequent to the production of Table 4.1 all work on the development of CMOs has ceased
for the foreseeable future, with a transfer of all resources into the UK transposition of the
EMSFD (J. Hawkridge, pers. com.).
32
5. LESSONS FROM INTERNATIONAL EXAMPLES
As part of the Scoping Study, we were requested to consider whether there were any
lessons from a range of international marine strategies which might assist in compiling
objectives for Scotland’s seas. The detailed information we acquired is considered in
Appendices 4 to 6, but our key conclusions from this international experience is outlined
below.
5.1 Lessons from HELCOM
HELCOM is a convention adopted by countries around the Baltic Sea, aimed at improving
the ecological condition of that sea. The approach taken by HELCOM (Appendix 4) broadly
parallels that taken by OSPAR for the north-east Atlantic (see Chapter 4.4), although its
objectives bear more resemblance to those of the EU Water Framework Directive (‘good
ecological status’) than the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (‘good environmental
status’). It therefore offers little guidance for Scotland that is not available elsewhere.
However the neat summary of objectives in HELCOM (2006) is worth reflecting upon as we
develop Marine Ecosystem Standards and National Marine Objectives for Scotland (aspects
of the HELCOM proposal could relate to both proposed Scottish levels):-
Figure 5.1: Outline of the HELCOM ecological objectives.
(for full description and reference, see Appendix 4.1)
In terms of developing the Marine Ecosystem Standards in particular, the work done in the
development of the 2007 HELCOM Indicator Fact Sheets (table A4.1 on page 163) is also
valuable. We would recommend the approach of publishing data on key indicators / targets
on the web in this way for Scotland, as it would allow reports on individual targets to be
updated at timescales dictated by other processes, rather than necessitating a major
exercise to update all targets at 3- or 5-year intervals.
Some (but not all) of the HELCOM indicators would repay consideration to help inform the
development of Marine Ecosystem Standards for Scotland. The fact that they are being
reported on by HELCOM shows that they are practical, and their choice for the Baltic has
been based on local expert advice, building on considerations not dissimilar from those we
propose in this document. This relates to the data availability issues for Scotland mentioned
in Chapter 7 of this report.
33
5.2 Lessons from Canadian Oceans Strategy
Of all of the international examples of applying the ecosystem approach and developing
objective-based management we have investigated for this report, it is Canada that is
probably the most comprehensively documented. Two major integrated management
projects have been initiated; the Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management (ESSIM)
project (see Appendix 5) and the Gulf of Maine area (GOMA) - a later collaborative project
with the U.S.
The ESSIM programme has simultaneously explored both governance frameworks
(Rutherford et al., 2005) and the development of conceptual and operational objectives
(O’Boyle & Worcester, 2006) and, being at the most advanced stage, provides some very
useful lessons for advancing a Scottish programme of objectives development. These are
briefly discussed, in no particular order, below.
5.2.1 Stakeholder Involvement
The ESSIM Plan has endeavoured to encourage and maintain broad stakeholder
participation from an early stage. A collaborative and inclusive planning structure is at the
core of the initiative and is organised around four components9 (DFO, 2003; 2007); a broad
forum for all multi-stakeholder dialogue between all organisations, groups and individuals; a
representative stakeholder working group; an intergovernmental coordination and support
structure; and a ground-level planning group. The last component is comprised of DFO staff
and is tasked with providing leadership and expertise in planning, coordination and support
for the planning process, while liaising directly with stakeholders and external agencies.
5.2.2 Nomenclature and terminology:
Difficulties with the application and interpretation of terminology have been experienced from
the early stages of ecosystem objective development. The concepts involved often appear to
have subtly different meanings depending on the sector or discipline in which they are
applied and a certain amount of fluidity is evident when names are applied to hierarchical
elements.
A variety of terms, all with the same meaning, have been used for operational objectives by
different organizations, even within Canada (DFO, 2004; O’Boyle & Jamieson, 2005). This
has resulted in inconsistent interpretation across regional management initiatives,
particularly at the objective unpacking phase, necessitating the development of clear
guidelines and the production of a standard and non-negotiable terminology (DFO, 2004;
Walmsley, 2004). O’Boyle & Jamieson (2005) point out, for example, that:
“…the term ‘strategy’ has been used synonymously with ‘sub-objective’ without
specifying whether it is at an operational level or not; Canada’s Oceans Strategy refers
to Marine Environmental Quality objectives, which appear to be synonymous with the
meaning of operational objective used here.”
9
See http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/333115.pdf, page 21, for a detailed description of the ESSIM
collaborative planning model.
34
Confusions in terminology, perhaps initially seen as minor irritants, are likely to become
major sources of misinterpretation and confusion, which will only continue to increase unless
a clear, consistent and stable terminology is defined and maintained in parallel with the early
development of objectives-based management strategies.
5.2.3 The ‘unpacking’ process
The Eastern Scotian Shelf example, apart from being at one of the most advanced stages of
implementation, provides, perhaps, some of the most detailed documentation of a ‘real
world’ unpacking process.
O’Boyle & Jamieson (2005) observed that one of the advantages of this systematic
approach is that the ‘unpacking’ created and maintained explicit linkages between the
qualitative conceptual and quantitative operational objectives used to guide management
decision-making. In addition, the relationships within the ‘objective tree’ hierarchy are clearly
defined, providing the ability to evaluate progress against the objectives for each branch of
the tree separately. This should enable the setting of priorities, based on the relative
importance of achieving particular objectives nested within a suite of other objectives.
O’Boyle & Jamieson (2005) further observed that:
“The link between the conceptual and operational objectives is explicitly maintained
and is transparent to all. This communication function is particularly important in
ecosystem-based management, where a common set of objectives is being utilized
across a number of sectors of industry and society.”
5.2.4 Implementation
Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the Canadian integrated management approach is the
time frame over which the major regional initiatives have progressed. As the most advanced,
the Eastern Scotian Shelf initiative’s work in developing objectives began in 2001 and
although considerable efforts have gone into establishing a strategy framework and
identifying objectives (DFO, 2007), the means by which the ecosystem management
objectives will be assessed, particularly those attributed to ‘state’, still appears to be at an
early stage. This seems to be largely due to the time, cost and technical difficulty of
obtaining and collating appropriate data, particularly baseline data which are required to
underpin the objectives structure.
In instances where “off the shelf” data were accessible, concerns have been raised that this
has promoted a tendency to use data availability to inappropriately define the objective
(O’Boyle & Jamieson, 2005), when the converse is clearly preferable. Similarly, academic
disagreements have arisen when a specialist’s ‘own’ indicator or species has not been
selected for use in support or operational objectives.
At the 2001 inception workshop, it was explicitly recognised that societal and socioeconomic considerations were important elements in an objectives-based strategy, but the
workshop had unfortunately not attracted attendees from a broad enough range of
disciplines. At that point the two overarching goals, one orientated towards human use and
the other the conservation of species and habitats, became, perhaps briefly, but critically
disassociated, because it was recognised that knowledge and expertise to discuss and
develop the ‘human use’ element was absent from the workshop.
35
Subsequently, the two subject areas were developed separately as parallel, complementary
processes under two different organisational framework groups. The ‘human use’ objectives
framework group was also tasked with developing ‘institutional objectives’ in support of a
governance framework or strategy, which is widely viewed as an essential overarching
prerequisite for creating the ‘enabling’ setting within which the others will be developed.
Material progress in the production of ‘human use, objectives initially and perhaps
unsurprisingly seemed to quickly overtake the ‘conservation of species and habitats’
equivalents (Walmsley et al., 2007), and the proposed objectives may have a strong
relevance to Scotland, since the key uses and activities, coupled with the ecological setting
in which they are occur are, in general, extremely similar. The ESSIM sustainable human
use objectives, together with strategies for achieving them, are presented in detail in the
ESSIM Strategic Plan10 (DFO, 2007). More recently, though, there is a strong perception that
a concentration of effort on the ecosystem side has resulted in significantly greater progress,
attracting a degree of criticism over which area should presently receive the greater attention
(G. Herbert, pers. com.).
All of the above suggests that there may be good practical reasons for considering a
Scottish approach that inclines towards addressing ‘pressure’ rather than ‘state’, not least
because this may provide the promise of a more rapid delivery of a suite of objectives,
complete to the operational level.
The overarching ESSIM Ocean Management Plan, after considerable consultation was
released in June 2008 stating that:
“The Plan is strategic in its scope and does not provide a detailed prescription of all
measures required to achieve its goals and objectives. The intent is to coordinate and
enhance existing management processes by linking sector-based plans to an agreed
set of goals and objectives.”
It presently contains 30 strategic objectives under the goals of collaborative governance and
integrated management, sustainable human use, and healthy ecosystems. Implementation
of this strategic level plan is expected to occur primarily through sector led and multi-sector
action plans, with marine spatial planning as a stated key element.
A workshop to identify the way forward and establish an implementation framework was held
in November 2008 and an associated published report is expected in April 2009.
5.3 Lessons from Australian Oceans Policy
In 1998, the Australian government released an Oceans Policy (see Appendix 6), with the
stated vision of “healthy oceans, cared for, understood and used wisely for the benefit of all,
now and in the future”. This has many similarities with what the Scottish Government
proposed for Scotland in Sustainable Seas for All, but purely at the policy level and without
any legislative instrument to underpin what it proposed.
The policy had nine broad goals:(1) to exercise and protect Australia’s rights and jurisdiction over offshore areas, including
offshore resources.
10
See page 48 of http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/333115.pdf
36
(2) to meet Australia’s international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea and other international treaties.
(3) to understand and protect Australia’s marine biological diversity, the ocean environment
and its resources, and ensure ocean uses are ecologically sustainable.
(4) to promote ecologically sustainable economic development and job creation.
(5) to establish integrated oceans planning and management arrangements.
(6) to accommodate community needs and aspirations.
(7) to improve expertise and capabilities in ocean-related management, science, technology
and engineering.
(8) to identify and protect natural and cultural marine heritage.
(9) to promote public awareness and understanding.
In particular, this policy introduced the requirement for regional marine planning, similar to
that proposed for Scottish Marine Regions although at a much larger geographic scale.
There is much in the documentation relating to the Oceans Policy that we could draw upon
in Scotland, including the following statement (which we highlighted on page 1 of this
report):“Australia’s ocean ecosystems and their marine biological diversity are core national
assets. If our use of them is well managed, they can meet a broad range of economic,
social and cultural aspirations. They also provide a range of essential environmental
services that would be extremely costly or impossible to restore or replace if ecosystem
functioning was impaired.”
In the Oceans Policy, the Australian government also identified some principles for
ecologically sustainable ocean use, which we commend adoption in Scotland. The policy
document states that these principles should be applied to all decisions and actions affecting
access to and use of Australia’s marine jurisdictions and adjacent waters, and the
associated resource base. They should be considered together, recognising that ocean
ecosystem health and integrity is fundamental to ecologically sustainable development.
Because they are so relevant to Scottish considerations, these nine principles of ecologically
sustainable ocean use have already been quoted in Table 3.2.
However, as highlighted in Appendix A6.3, it appears that a number of policy mistakes were
made in establishing the Australian Oceans Policy. The situation will be different in
Scotland, since we will have a Scottish Marine Act to deliver policy integration and create a
legislative basis for marine management. However, two other lessons from Australia are
well worth bearing in mind as we take forward the Marine Bill:(1) It will be important to deliver the simplification and integration of existing marine licensing
and regulations if we are to ensure the support of all marine stakeholders in taking
forward the integrate approach proposed in Sustainable Seas for All.
(2) It will be important to retain Marine Scotland at the centre of the Scottish Government, if
it is to deliver the integration that is aspired to in Sustainable Seas for All.
37
6 AN OBJECTIVES STRATEGY FOR SCOTLAND’S SEAS
6.1 Overview
As outlined in Chapter 3.2, amongst the main proponents for the concept of Marine
Ecosystem Objectives (MEOs) were the environmental non-governmental organisations,
represented in Scotland by Scottish Environment LINK. The LINK paper on MEOs (Scottish
Environment LINK, 2008) appears to envisage two levels of MEOs: high-level MEOs to
underpin the Scottish Government’s policy on the marine environment, and ‘SMART’ MEOs
to monitor the health of Scotland’s seas. As noted in Chapter 1, we propose that this
approach should be accepted and adapted as part of our objectives strategy for Scotland’s
marine environment.
It would seem that LINK envisaged the purpose of the ‘SMART’ MEOs to be the
establishment of a set of baseline indicators to show that human activities in the marine
environment are not impacting on healthy and mature ecosystems. Fundamentally, this is
about ensuring that the seas around Scotland are in ‘Good Environmental Status’, and that
ecosystems are being allowed to function and flourish without damaging human
interventions, so that they can continue to provide the products and services that sustain our
uses of the sea.
We therefore propose that the sensible approach would be to develop a set of targets for the
marine environment of Scotland that will meet the requirements of the European Marine
Strategy Framework Directive and other relevant obligations, but that these should be
developed in ways and at a scale which also meet Scottish aspirations and perspectives as
well as European requirement. We propose calling these Marine Ecosystem Standards.
As for the set of high-level MEOs to underpin the Scottish Government’s policy on the
marine environment, as envisaged by LINK, we suggest that these are, in fact, the
environmental elements of the National Marine Objectives proposed in Sustainable Seas
for All, which need to sit alongside objectives for the social and economic aspects of the
human use of the sea. We suggest that these should be organised around, and formulated
to achieve, the Outcomes for Scotland’s Seas summarised in Table 3.5.
Accordingly, we propose that the objective strategy for the management of Scotland’s
marine environment should be based around three tiers. However none of these tiers are
completely new; all of them are derived, primarily or partly, from existing Scottish
Government commitments. In summary these three tiers are:Outcomes for Scotland’s Seas (OSSs) are the 25 goals, derived from a synthesis of the
descriptors of Good Environmental Status, required at the EU level, and the High Level
Marine Objectives proposed by the UK and Scottish Governments, as shown in table 3.5
(these are thus existing commitments).
The National Marine Objectives (NMOs) will be the targets and actions required to achieve
these Outcomes for Scotland’s Seas. We offer some initial thoughts on the form and
wording of a range of possible NMOs in Chapter 6.05 to 6.08, as a stimulus for further
discussion. (The Scottish Government proposed the establishment of National Marine
Objectives in Sustainable Seas for All).
The Marine Ecosystem Standards (MESs) are statements of the conditions that must
prevail if we are to be sure that our use of Scotland’s seas is truly sustainable. They build on,
and use, the concept of Good Environmental Status as described in the European Marine
Strategy Framework Directive (EMSFD), but modified to a scale relevant to the seas around
Scotland and to the different regions that make up these seas. They therefore provide a
38
security check that measures to take forward the National Marine Objectives are not
compromising the sustainability of our uses of the sea and the obligation to achieve Good
Environmental Status for our seas by 2020. (They will thus be developed from measures the
Scottish Government is already committed to taking to fulfil the requirements of the EMSFD).
We note that, in proposing this three tier system, we nowhere use the term Marine
Ecosystem Objectives. There are some benefits to this, as there is a growing and often
self-contradictory body of literature on the philosophy behind, and potential form of, MEOs,
often requiring systems of very considerable complexity in both management and reporting
terms. We believe that the Scoping Study we have undertaken has reverted to first
principles to design a system that is fit for purpose, achievable and realistic. We suggest
that, in combination, the proposed Marine Ecosystem Standards and National Marine
Objectives should be taken to represent the Marine Ecosystem Objectives referred to in
Sustainable Seas for All and in the proposed target in the Scottish Biodiversity
Implementation Plan for Marine and Coastal Ecosystems, thus fulfilling the requirement to
produce guidance on these.
6.2 The concept behind Marine Ecosystem Standards
Sustainable Seas for All makes clear that the Scottish Government wishes its objective of
“increasing sustainable economic growth” to apply also to the seas around Scotland. For
this to be achieved, it will be essential for tests of sustainability to be in place. There are
long-established protocols in place for ensuring that any developments are economically
viable and meet social needs. This section considers the potential for a test of
environmental sustainability in the marine environment.
As noted in Chapters 1 and 6.1, we propose that there should be a set of Marine
Ecosystem Standards (MESs), as baseline indicators to show that human activities in the
marine environment were not impacting on the functioning of healthy ecosystems, so that
these ecosystems can continue to provide the products and services on which our marine
industries and activities rely. Fundamentally, this is about ensuring that the seas around
Scotland are in ‘good environmental status’ (not necessarily identical to, but in parallel with,
the definition of Good Environmental Status in the EMSFD), and that ecosystems are being
allowed to function, flourish and, where appropriate, recover without damaging human
interventions.
The EMSFD requires Member States by July 2012 to “establish a comprehensive set of
environmental targets and associated indicators for their marine waters, so as to guide
progress towards achieving good environmental status in the marine environment, taking
into account the indicative lists of pressures, impacts… and characteristics [set out in
Annexes to the Directive]” (European Union, 2008). Given that a major aim of the Scottish
Marine Act (once enacted) will be to achieve good environmental status for Scotland’s seas,
we propose that it would be sensible to bring forward the development of the required
European targets and indicators, to also meet the timetable of the Scottish Marine Bill,
drawing on the work underway by the EMFSD Task Groups to better define the qualitative
descriptors, and with any conclusions sufficiently flexible to incorporate the outcomes of this
work.
We therefore propose that these MESs should be based primarily around the descriptors of
Good Environmental Status in the EMSFD, since there will already be a binding legal
obligation to take measures to achieve these. However, we suggest that these should be
modified to a scale relevant to Scotland, and applicable also to Scottish Marine Regions, and
that they should be developed in ways which also meet Scottish aspirations and
39
perspectives (for example, Ministers may wish to include a standard for the environmental
footprint of aquaculture, which is not directly covered in the Directive).
In taking this forward, we need to ensure we have enough MESs in place to provide security
that the marine environment is not deteriorating, and is not failing to recover or improve, as a
result of human activities. However, we would urge that there should not be so many that
reporting on them becomes an objective in itself, drawing away resources that would be
better spent on marine management.
In effect these MESs would lie somewhere between indicators of ecosystem health, and
targets for acceptable ecosystem status. But the important thing is that they should serve as
a trigger for action. Marine Scotland, and all Scottish Marine Regions, should be required to
show that none of their activities impact on these Standards. Where a Standard is not being
achieved, Marine Scotland and the relevant Scottish Marine Region should be required to
take action to ensure that the Standard can be achieved within a reasonable time. In effect,
therefore, these would be somewhat similar to the National Care Standards which Scottish
Ministers set for Care Services in Scotland11, the National Care Standards for Independent
Medical Consultant and General Practitioner Services 12 , or the standards for Scottish
education set by the Curriculum for Excellence13.
As is the case with Good Ecological Status standards under the Water Framework Directive,
we recognise that some marine waters are so highly modified by human activities that it
would be unrealistic to expect them to meet the high quality of environment for which we
would aspire in most Scottish waters. We therefore propose that Scottish Marine Regions
should be allowed to designate some waters with a term such as ‘Highly Used Waters’ and
that, for these, a lower level of MESs should be permitted.
There are already in place a very substantial range of de facto marine aims, objectives,
goals, targets and descriptors (not always appropriately named) to which the Scottish
Government is committed. These range from biodiversity targets relevant to the marine
environment under the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy, to the Ecological Quality Objectives
(EcoQOs) proposed under OSPAR (currently only for the North Sea, but likely to be
expanded to the North-east Atlantic), and legally-binding commitments under the European
Water Framework Directive. These are summarised in Appendices 1 and 2. There is even
one specifically marine target in the set of National Indicators and Targets in the Scottish
Government’s Scotland Performs (see Chapter 4.5 and 9). In combination, these already
provide a major set of commitments.
Our initial assessment is that we could draw from these pre-existing targets a set of MESs
that cover most elements of marine ecosystems, without requiring any major commitment of
new resources and effort to this task. However, as already noted, Ministers may wish to add
other Standards to this list to meet the national aspirations for Scotland’s seas.
The Scottish MESs, as proposed, therefore represent a combination of:•
the environmental targets and associated contributory indicators for Scottish marine
waters which the Scottish Government will be required by the EMSFD to draw up by
11
www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Health/care/17652/National-Care-Standards-1-1
12
www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/10/04100130/1
13
www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/11/20178/45862
40
2012 (but which we suggest should be developed by Marine Scotland before this
deadline)
•
plus perhaps other relevant targets to which the Scottish Government has already
committed itself as a result of other legislative instruments and agreements
•
plus possibly a small number of additional targets which may be required to ensure
that appropriate safeguards are in place for particularly Scottish aspects of the marine
environment (as discussed in chapter 8).
We note that the current interpretation is that the EMSFD requires Good Environmental
Status to be achieved for each Regional Sea or Sub-regional Sea as a whole, and that
therefore there is no requirement for all marine areas to be in Good Environmental Status.
The suggestion therefore is that the attainment level for GES in individual Scottish waters
will not be as high as that for the Regional Sea as a whole.
There is logic to this concept. However we believe that, if the target of Good Environmental
Status is to be achieved at the Regional or Sub-regional Seas, then it will be essential for
every marine area within these seas to make their contribution towards achieving this status.
We therefore propose that each Scottish Marine Region (SMR) should be asked to agree its
own targets for achieving Good Environmental Status in its waters, including realistic targets
for those waters recognised as ‘Highly Modified Waters’, and to report against the MESs as
a means of showing progress towards this end.
We suggest that there is an alternative interpretation of scale that needs to be considered.
Damage to the environmental status of localised waters within SMRs might be insignificant
overall to the achievement of Good Environmental Status at the European Regional Sea
level, but might be highly significant to local communities and businesses. For example, a
local causeway or impoundment might not have a significant effect on the hydrographic
conditions at a Regional Sea scale considered by GES7 (our proposed OSS9), but might
have a significant impact on the amenity and functioning of communities and marine
businesses locally. Similarly a localised pollution incident may have infinitesimal impact on
pollution effects within the Regional Sea (GES8; OSS2), but might be a serious concern for
local people living near the incident.
More work is necessary on how the EMSFD requirement for Good Environmental Status can
be translated to deliver at the Scotland-wide or SMR level, but this was beyond the remit of
the present Scoping Study. However, we would recommend that the levels set for each
Marine Ecosystem Standard at the Scottish and SMR levels should be realistic and
achievable, but also ambitious and challenging. It is clear from debates in the Scottish
Parliament, and from responses to the consultation on Sustainable Seas for All, that this is
the clear expectation of the Scottish people for the forthcoming Scottish Marine Bill.
Therefore, as a general principle, we suggest that SMRs should be instructed to work
towards ensuring no overall deterioration in the environmental status of their waters; if a
socially or economically desirable project risks causing deterioration within a limited area,
they should be encouraged to make compensatory improvements elsewhere (as far as this
is measurable), so that there is no net decline in environmental status within the SMR. (We
propose that action for the recovery, where appropriate, of ecosystem health is best
addressed within the National Marine Objectives).
Because we propose building MESs on a range of existing targets and indicators, we believe
that protocols will already be in place for monitoring and surveillance against these indicators
and targets. However, this monitoring and surveillance is likely to be at a geographic scale
that is too wide to give us complete assurance that we are achieving our Standards at the
Scottish or SMR level. It seems probable that more monitoring and surveillance sites will be
41
required to ensure that any variations around the seas of Scotland can be detected with
confidence. We suggest that it should be the responsibility of Marine Scotland and the
SMRs to put this extended monitoring and surveillance in place. Data requirements are
considered further in Chapter 7.
We would expect that Marine Scotland will report on the status of these standards at regular
intervals to show that taking forward the National Marine Objectives is having no negative
impact on the condition of the marine environment, and that positive management instigated
through the environmental National Marine Objectives, together with the system of marine
planning, is helping to encourage progress towards achieving those MESs which have not
yet been met.
There are two potential options for such reporting:•
•
a regularly updated State of Scotland’s Seas report;
regularly updated and online ‘MES factsheets’, in the style used by HELCOM (see
appendix 4)
We would favour the latter approach. If, as we propose, many of the MESs are drawn from
existing Scottish Government commitments, they are likely to have different reporting
requirements and timescales. The online factsheets could therefore be continuously
updated, as reporting requirements are met, and therefore provide a better snapshot of the
state of Scotland’s seas than a published report, parts of which would inevitably be two or
three years out of date before the report could be published.
6.3 Draft proposals for Marine Ecosystem Standards
Our proposal therefore is that many (probably the majority) of the Marine Ecosystem
Standards would be drawn from the descriptors of Good Environmental Status, required for
reporting on the EMSFD, but adapted to a scale relevant to Scotland. Considerable work is
underway on how these reporting requirements might be achieved, and this work should be
incorporated by Marine Scotland when drawing up the set of MESs as one of its first
priorities after establishment.
Our initial thoughts on the form that these standards might take is shown below, although
much further work is required before these can be completed, and the wordings proposed
are not in any way intended to be definitive at this stage. It may be inevitable, given the
state of our current knowledge, that the MESs will be a combination of state, pressure and
process standards, but we would hope that, with further work in the coming years, these
could move to a higher proportion of state indicators. There will therefore be a requirement
to revisit and amend these standards, perhaps at five-yearly intervals, to ensure they remain
relevant and fit-for-purpose.
GES 1: Biological diversity is maintained. The quality and occurrence of habitats and
the distribution and abundance of species are in line with prevailing physiographic,
geographic and climatic conditions. (relates also to OSS 6).
•
A minimum of 95% of Natura sites are in favourable condition for the special features for
which they were declared.
•
The agreed targets for establishing an ecologically-coherent network of Marine Protected
Areas in Scottish waters are being met, including any sites designed to protect features
42
of particular Scottish significance, and management measures are in place, or are being
put in place, to ensure that these sites meet their agreed conservation objectives.
•
A minimum of 95% of non-Natura Marine Protected Areas in Scottish waters are in, or
are moving towards, favourable condition.
•
The number of marine species and habitats listed as threatened in the Scottish
Biodiversity List is not increasing (except as the result of better information on species or
habitats previously listed as ‘data deficient’), and targeted action under the Scottish
Biodiversity Strategy is improving the conservation status of certain of these species and
habitats.
GES2: Non-indigenous species introduced by human activities are at levels that do
not adversely alter the ecosystems. (also OSS 7)
We seriously question the practicality and achievability of this descriptor, especially given the
additional invasive pressures as a result of climate change (there is no sign that this
aspiration is being achieved in the terrestrial environment of Scotland, and it will be
considerably more difficult in the marine environment). We therefore propose that the
standards should be primarily pressure and process standards, recognising that it may
ultimately be impossible to achieve ecosystems undamaged by non-indigenous species.
•
The agreed programme in the Invasive Non-native Species Framework Strategy is being
taken forward effectively in Scottish waters.
•
As a result of agreed measures to minimise the risk of invasive non-native species
becoming established in Scottish waters, the damage to native species and habitats is
shown to be contained within acceptable levels.
GES3: Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe
biological limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of
a healthy stock. (also OSS 17)
•
The percentage of key commercial fish stocks at full reproductive capacity and harvested
sustainably are moving progressively towards achieving the target level of 70% by 2015,
as stated in The Scottish Government’s Scotland Performs national indicators. Beyond
this date, progress can be shown towards progressively increasing the percentage of
commercial fish stocks in this condition.
•
Stock assessment shows that the harvesting of shellfish in Scotland is sustainably
managed.
GES4: All elements of the marine food webs, to the extent that they are known, occur
at normal abundance and diversity and levels capable of ensuring the long-term
abundance of the species and the retention of their full reproductive capacity. (also
OSS 8)
•
No seabird population is declining as a result of food chain and other pressures that
could be controlled effectively by the management of human activities in or on the sea.
•
(We recommend development of a standard based around the long-term data set for
meso-zooplankton and phytoplankton through the Continuous Plankton Recorder,
operated by SAHFOS, but this is beyond our expertise to draft.)
43
•
(We urge Marine Scotland to consider whether other OSPAR EcoQOs, as agreed, may
be relevant here, possibly in a wider area than that of the North Sea alone.)
GES5: Human-induced eutrophication is minimised, especially adverse effects
thereof, such as losses in biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, harmful algae blooms
and oxygen deficiency in bottom waters. (also OSS 1)
•
An agreed percentage of transitional water bodies (as defined by the EU Water
Framework Directive, see Chapter 4.3) are in, or are moving towards, Good Ecological
Status in each Scottish marine region, so that in total 91% of water bodies across
Scotland meet this target, as specified in the existing Scottish target under EU Water
Framework Directive (also contributes to GES8).
•
The quality of all marine waters (including offshore waters) shows no deterioration, year
on year, with respect to the ‘undesirable disturbance’ caused by eutrophication (also
contributes to GES8).
•
The 10-year rolling mean for the number of marine pollution incidents does not increase,
and response times for such incidents meets agreed standards.
•
Oxygen levels in Scottish marine waters are above the limits agreed with OSPAR
[OSPAR EcoQO, strictly only for North Sea].
•
Maximum and mean phytoplankton chlorophyll A concentrations during the growing
season are below the limits agreed with OSPAR [OSPAR EcoQO, strictly only for North
Sea].
GES6: Sea-floor integrity is at a level that ensures that the structure and functions of
the ecosystems are safeguarded and benthic ecosystems, in particular, are not
adversely affected. (also OSS 10)
Current discussions centre on whether this descriptor is relevant to Scotland, with EC
representatives describing it as a ‘theoretical backstop’ to stop massive infrastructure
projects over a large area (unpublished report on GES conference, held in Brest, France on
9-11 December 2008).
One option might be to use the list of Nationally Important Marine Features being developed
by the UK Government, and have a process standard based on the proportion of these in
Scottish waters that have a plan in place to manage potentially damaging impacts.
GES7: Permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions does not adversely affect
marine ecosystems. (also OSS 9)
(Further work required)
GES8: Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution
effects. (also OSS 2)
(Note that the first two objectives under GES5 would also contribute towards this descriptor).
44
•
Water quality standards under the EU Water Framework Directive (see Appendix 1.5)
are being met, with respect to the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and
losses of priority substances to surface water bodies, and the cessation or phasing-out of
discharges, emissions and losses of priority hazardous substances to surface water
bodies, and any marine sources of these are also being addressed as in the EUWFD
applied in these waters. (This will also contribute to GES9 below).
•
The average level of imposex (development of male characteristics as a result of specific
pollutants) in female dog whelks occurs at levels of less than 2%. [OSPAR EcoQO,
strictly only for North Sea].
GES9: Contaminants in fish and other seafood for human consumption do not exceed
levels established by Community legislation or other relevant standards. (also OSS
3)
•
The level of contaminants, toxins, and microbiological and radioactive contamination in
seafood remains below concentrations that pose a significant risk to human health.
GES10: Properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal and
marine environment. (also OSS 4)
•
There is no increase in the number of turtles, seals and seabirds recorded as being killed
by marine litter (proportionate to the total number of sightings or populations).
•
In samples of between 50 and 100 dead northern fulmars found washed up dead on the
shores of each Scottish Marine Region or agreed combination of Scottish Marine
Regions, less than 2% should have 10 or more plastic particles in their stomach.
(Proposed OSPAR EcoQO)
GES11: Introduction of energy, including underwater noise, is at levels that do not
adversely affect the marine environment. (also OSS 5)
(This could be based on monitoring of noise levels at existing monitoring sites in the course
of these pre-existing monitoring exercise, but further work is needed to define the risks and
parameters to be measured ~ amplitude, frequency etc.)
We recommend further discussion on whether any further Marine Ecosystem Standards are
required to cover issues not included within the Descriptors of Good Environmental Status,
especially perhaps relating to the unique, special and distinctive Scottish features
considered in Chapter 8.
6.4 The basis for National Marine Objectives.
As noted in Chapters 1 and 6.1, we propose that National Marine Objectives (NMOs) will
be the targets and actions required to achieve the 25 proposed Outcomes for Scotland’s
Seas. They will therefore be active management prescriptions that will need to become a
significant focus of the work programme for all bodies with marine responsibilities.
45
We offer some initial thoughts on the form and wording of a range of possible NMOs in
Chapter 6.5 – 6.8 below, as a stimulus for further discussion, noting that the Scottish
Government has committed to establishing National Marine Objectives in Sustainable Seas
for All.
We believe it is important that the National Marine Objectives should be regarded as an
integrated set of objectives, all required to work in sympathy with each other. So, for
example, economic objectives should not work in contradiction with the environmental ones,
and, where an environmental objective might require some constraints on economic or social
activity, it should make clear how these constraints should be overcome. All of these
National Marine Objectives should recognise that damage to the functioning of marine
ecosystems also damage human economic and social outcomes, and so must be avoided at
all costs. They should operate at a scale relevant to marine ecosystems, and all of them
should be based on the principles of the ecosystem-based approach.
The starting point for our scoping of National Marine Objectives was the recognition that very
considerable amounts of work have already been done in defining objectives for European,
UK and Scottish seas. This work has been driven by the implementation requirements of a
range of European directives, international conventions, and UK and Scottish initiatives to
which the Scottish Government is committed (summarised in Appendix 1), as well as a
range of other scoping exercises, established with the agreement and support of the Scottish
Government, but which are not formal commitments (summarised in Appendix 2). We
therefore began from, and wished to test, the hypothesis that all the likely requirements that
might be envisaged for the seas around Scotland would be covered by existing or proposed
objectives within this body of work.
As described in Chapter 3.5, we produced a spreadsheet of all these objectives and aligned
them against the 25 Outcomes for Scotland’s Seas proposed in Table 3.5. As we expected,
there was a substantial overlap between the many objectives we had compiled (since many
of them were drawn up to deliver the same fundamental vision for Scotland’s seas). In these
cases, we tried to select the objectives best suited to achieve the relevant High Level
Outcome, with wording that best summarised what it was intended that public policy should
deliver. In several cases, we combined wording from a number of pre-existing objectives, to
form a single, more comprehensive objective. For uniformity, we reworded many of these
objectives into a standardised format beginning, wherever possible, with an active verb, so
that these clearly defined the action that needed to be taken to achieve the relevant
Outcome for Scotland’s Seas. The rest of this section outlines the preliminary conclusions
that we reached.
In presenting this material, we wish to emphasise that this contract was to complete a
‘Scoping Study’ towards the development of objectives for Scotland’s marine environment.
As authors, we were specifically instructed not to deliver a definitive list of objectives, as this,
quite properly, will be an early task for Marine Scotland, with wide stakeholder involvement.
We wish to further emphasise that none of the objectives listed below have been originated
by the authors; all of them have been derived directly or modified from existing legal
requirements on the Scottish Government, or from initiatives to which it has already
expressed its commitment, or on proposals from work in progress. In each case, we list in
italics the origin of the wording we are proposing (see Appendices 1 and 2 for full details of
these initiatives).
In no sense, therefore, should the examples below be regarded as a definitive set of
objectives for the management of Scotland’s seas: much more work will be required to refine
and complete this work, in full consultation with all marine stakeholders, most particularly for
the objectives relating to the productive use of the marine environment. They are presented
here (a) to illustrate what we believe is an effective structure for the organisation of National
46
Marine Objectives and (b) to show that most elements of the Strategic Vision can be
delivered by a range of Objectives to which the Scottish Government is already committed,
or is considering commitment. The adoption or adaptation of suitable pre-existing objectives
clearly removes the requirement to draft considerable numbers of new Objectives which
would require significant resources both to deliver and to report upon. We believe this should
allow the maximum resourcing to be delivered to where it is most needed: on practical action
‘to modernise and streamline the management of our marine environment to deliver
sustainable economic growth’, as envisaged in Sustainable Seas for All.
We re-emphasise our view that one of the High-Level Marine Objectives proposed by the UK
and Scottish Government should be regarded as an over-arching principle in taking forward
all 25 of the proposed Outcomes for Scotland’s Seas which follow, namely that “the
Precautionary Principle is applied consistently in accordance with the Government’s
sustainable development policy”.
6.5 Draft National Marine Objectives for delivering Clean & Safe Scottish seas
OSS1: Human-induced eutrophication is minimised, especially adverse effects
thereof, such as losses in biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, harmful algal blooms
and oxygen deficiency in bottom waters.
i. Protect, enhance and restore 91% of Scotland’s transitional (inshore) water bodies to good
ecological status [required by 2015, but continuing thereafter], and take measures to
improve the water quality of the remaining 9% of water bodies, categorised as highly
modified, wherever practicable. (Existing Scottish target under EU Water Framework
Directive). (also contributes to OSS2)
ii. Maintain or recover marine water quality to within defined standards which aim to prevent
‘undesirable disturbance’ caused by eutrophication. (Proposed RMNC Operational
Objective).
iii. Continue to improve our capability for responding to marine pollution incidents. (Existing
Scottish Government commitment from ‘Strategic Framework for Scotland’s Marine
Environment’ – we would recommend modifying this to a more outcome-related objective,
but this will require further work). (also contributes to OSS2).
OSS 2: Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution
effects.
i. Comply with European wide measures against priority hazardous substances. (EU Water
Framework Directive obligation). (also contributes to OSS4))
ii. Prevent contaminants, toxins, and microbiological and radioactive contamination of marine
and coastal ecosystems from reaching concentrations that present a significant risk to
human health or of significant disruptions to ecosystems. (Adapted from Draft Contributory
Marine Objectives).
OSS3: Contaminants in fish and other seafood for human consumption do not exceed
levels established by Community legislation or other relevant standards.
47
i. Prevent contaminants, toxins, and microbiological and radioactive contamination of
seafood from reaching concentrations that present a significant risk to human health.
(Draft Contributory Marine Objectives).
OSS 4: Properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal and
marine environment.
i. Reduce input of litter to the marine environment to below levels aimed at protecting
vulnerable marine habitats and species. (Proposed RMNC Operational Objective).
ii. Reduce input of litter to the marine environment to levels that minimise the impact on
public safety, amenity and landscape. (New proposed objective).
OSS 5: Introduction of energy, including underwater noise, is at levels that do not
cause harm to the coastal and marine environment.
i. Maintain noise and vibration levels below precautionary standards aimed at protecting
vulnerable marine species from disturbance. (Proposed RMNC Operational Objective).
6.6 Draft National Marine Objectives for delivering ‘Healthy & Biologically Diverse’
Scottish Seas
We note that this is the section for which the largest number of objectives already exist, or
have been proposed, perhaps reflecting a contention that this is the area which has been
delivered least successfully by the past management of our seas.
OSS 6: Biological diversity is maintained and recovered where appropriate. The
quality and occurrence of habitats and the distribution and abundance of species,
including those which have been identified as rare, vulnerable or valued, are in line
with prevailing physiographic, geographic and climatic conditions.
i.
Maintain or restore, at favourable conservation status, natural marine habitats and
species of wild marine fauna and flora of Community interest, using the mechanisms
required by the EU Habitats Directive. (EU Habitats Directive obligation).
ii.
Take measures to conserve all naturally occurring seabird species across the EU
including the regulation of hunting of bird species mentioned in Annex II of the Birds
Directive. (EU Birds Directive obligations)
iii. Consider measures to improve the ecological coherence of the Natura 2000 network by
maintaining, and where appropriate developing, features of the marine environment
which are of major importance for wild fauna and flora, as referred to in Article 10 of the
EU Habitats Directive. (EU Habitats Directive obligation).
48
iv. Halt the loss of marine biodiversity and continue to reverse previous losses through
targeted action for species and habitats 14 . (Existing Scottish Biodiversity Strategy
objective, although further work is required as to how this might be monitored).
v.
Prevent those anthropogenic activities affecting the chemical and biological
characteristics of the marine environment from negatively impacting ecosystem
processes, and the range, distribution, diversity and health of species and communities
in an unsustainable manner. (Draft Contributory Marine Objectives)
vi. Establish an ‘ecologically coherent network’ of marine protected areas around Scottish
waters, meeting existing obligations under Natura 2000, OSPAR15 and WSSD, and put
mechanisms in place to ensure that these sites can be managed to protect the
biodiversity interest for which they were selected. Consider whether any further sites are
required to include features of particular Scottish significance 16 . (Proposed target in
Scottish Biodiversity Implementation Plan – Marine and Coastal Ecosystems).
OSS 7: Non-indigenous species introduced by human activities are at levels that do
not adversely alter the ecosystems.
This outcome is addressed by two proposed RMNC Operational Objectives, but we do not
believe that the wording of these is realistic in a Scottish context (and we question whether
this outcome is genuinely achievable in the marine environment). We recommend that
further work is done on this Outcome to develop one or more objectives which are realistic
but achievable. This might be worded something along these lines:i.
On the basis of risk assessment, and cost-benefit analysis, put measures in place to
minimise the risk of invasive, non-native marine species becoming established in
Scotland, take action at the earliest possible stage to eradicate any of these species
which do arrive before they become established, and put in place plans as appropriate to
limit the impact of species which do become established, despite these precautions.
14
In taking forward the NMOs (iii) and (iv) here, we recommend that special priority should be
given to biogenic structures, water column features, important areas for aggregations of mobile
species, genetic diversity, features of specific Scottish importance (see chapter 8), and damage
to the habitat complexity of marine ecosystems due to human activity. (Priority features
identified in proposed RMNC Operational Objectives and recommendations from the Irish Sea
Pilot Project).
15
To meet the 2003 OSPAR Commission recommendation on an ecologically-coherent network
of well-managed marine protected areas, these should collectively aim to:
(a) protect, conserve and restore species, habitats and ecological processes which have
been adversely affected by human activities;
(b) prevent degradation of, and damage to, species, habitats and ecological processes,
following the precautionary principle;
(c) protect and conserve areas that best represent the range of species, habitats and
ecological processes in the maritime area.
16
The network of marine protected areas should also include sites of significance for geodiversity
and perhaps sites of cultural importance (marine wrecks etc). These are beyond the scope of this
report, although they could play a role in achieving ecological coherence of the network.
49
OSS 8: All elements of the marine food webs, to the extent that they are known, occur
at normal abundance and diversity and levels capable of ensuring the long-term
abundance of the species and the retention of their full reproductive capacity.
i.
Ensure compliance with precautionary standards which aim to avoid ‘undesirable
disturbance’ of trophic status. (Proposed RMNC Operational Objectives).
ii. Protect the trophic level balance from significant changes due to human activity by
compliance with precautionary standards. (Proposed RMNC Operational Objectives).
OSS 9: Permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions does not adversely affect
marine ecosystems.
i. Prevent those anthropogenic activities which affect the physical and hydrographical
conditions in the marine environment from negatively impacting on ecosystem integrity
and viability in an unsustainable manner. (Draft Contributory Marine Objectives).
There is currently considerable debate about what this outcome (derived from the
descriptors of Good Environmental Status) actually means in practice, and how it therefore
can be delivered. We recommend that Marine Scotland should follow the progress of this
debate, and propose more specific Marine Ecosystem Objective(s) to deliver this outcome in
the light of the outcome of that debate.
OSS 10: Sea-floor integrity is at a level that ensures that the structure and functions
of the ecosystem are safeguarded and benthic ecosystems, in particular, are not
adversely affected.
i.
Protect seabed habitats, including the coastal processes which support them, from
ecologically-significant change due to human activity, and reverse such change where
practicable. (Proposed RMNC Operational Objectives).
Additionally we propose that consideration should be given to an objective along the
following lines:ii. Manage activities which impart physical damage to the seabed in such a way as to
minimise impact on biogenic structures, benthic communities, habitats and species.
(New proposed objective).
6.7 Draft National Marine Objectives for delivering ‘Productive’ Scottish Seas, meeting
the needs of people
Whilst this is strictly beyond the scope of the present Scoping Study, we thought it was
important to record here the objectives which we captured in the course of this exercise.
This will be developed further by a parallel scoping study on the economic and social
elements of the National Marine Objectives.
50
OSS 11: Marine businesses are acting in a way which respects environmental limits
and is socially responsible. This is rewarded in the marketplace.
i.
Take forward, in a balanced way, all components of the Renewed Strategic Framework
for Scottish Aquaculture. (Existing Scottish Government commitment).
ii. The Scottish fishing industry and Scottish Government take forward in partnership,
through the Scottish Fisheries Council, a programme of measures to reduce the impact
of fishing activities on the marine and wider environment. (Adapted from agreed High
Level Outcome of Scottish Fisheries Council)
iii. Working with key Scottish industry fora, develop a targeted range of materials to assist
marine and coastal industries to understand the requirements and benefits of sound
management of marine biodiversity. (Proposed target in Scottish Biodiversity
Implementation Plan – Marine and Coastal Ecosystems).
iv. Maintain and improve the licensing regime for deposits in the sea. (Existing Scottish
Government commitment in Strategic Framework For Scotland's Marine Environment).
v. Improve the co-ordination of offshore renewable energy related development consents.
(Existing Scottish Government commitment in Strategic Framework For Scotland's
Marine Environment).
OSS 12: People appreciate the value of the marine environment, its natural and
cultural heritage and its resources and act responsibly.
i.
Increase awareness, understanding and enjoyment of marine biodiversity, and engage
many more people in conservation and enhancement. (Existing Scottish Biodiversity
Strategy objective).
ii. Increase awareness, understanding and enjoyment of the marine cultural heritage, and
engage many more people in its conservation and enhancement. (New parallel objective
to SBS for cultural heritage).
iii. Make the best available knowledge and information more accessible to policy makers,
practitioners and the general people. (Adapted from an existing Scottish Biodiversity
Strategy objective).
iv. Take measures to safeguard and enhance the scenic quality and diverse character of
coastal seascapes and landscapes. (Adapted from SNH Natural Heritage Futures
objective).
v. Establish an effective management framework which ensures that biodiversity and the
value of ecosystem services is fully reflected in decision-making. (Adapted from an
existing Scottish Biodiversity Strategy objective).
OSS 13: The marine environment plays an important role in mitigating climate change.
i.
Promote adaptive management of the natural environment to respond to changing
pressures, including climate change. (Existing Scottish Government commitment from
‘Safeguarding our Seas’)
51
OSS 14: Infrastructure is in place to support and promote safe, profitable and efficient
marine businesses.
This objective will be considered in more detail in the parallel scoping study on social and
economic objectives.
i.
Promote and support dynamic and sustainable coastal economies and the communities
they support, recognising their traditional, cultural and economic affinities to the sea.
(Adapted from Draft Contributory Marine Objectives.) (with OSS6)
ii. Encourage an investment climate which supports and underpins the long-term future and
competitiveness of the aquaculture sector, with investment in best practice and
technologies to minimise impacts on the environment. (Existing Scottish Government
commitment in Renewed Strategic Framework for Aquaculture)
OSS 15: Long-term wealth is generated by the responsible use of the marine
environment and its resources.
This objective will be considered in more detail in the parallel scoping study on social and
economic objectives.
i.
Achieve and maintain the sustainable and productive use of the marine environment with
respect to the provision of goods & services to meet national needs. (Adapted and
simplified from Draft Contributory Marine Objectives)
OSS 16: The use of the marine environment is benefiting society as a whole,
contributing to resilient and cohesive communities.
This objective will be considered in more detail in the parallel scoping study on social and
economic objectives.
i.
Promote access to the sea and coast for public enjoyment and recreation (this should
include commercial opportunities and wildlife tourism consistent with the other
objectives). (Adapted from SNH Natural Heritage Futures objective)
ii. Promote and support dynamic and sustainable coastal economies and the communities
they support recognising their traditional, cultural and economic affinities to the sea.
(Adapted from Draft Contributory Marine Objectives). (with OSS1)
OSS 17: Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe
biological limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of
a healthy stock.
i.
Maintain the spawning stock biomass above precautionary reference points for
commercial fish stocks agreed by the competent authority for fisheries management.
(Proposed OSPAR North Sea Pilot Ecological Quality Objectives).
ii. Enable the recovery of spawning stock biomass for those fish species not within Safe
Biological Limits. (Proposed RMNC Operational Objective).
iii. Within marine spatial planning strategies, take account of areas of particular importance
for spawning, breeding, feeding and migration bottlenecks of commercially significant
species. (Adapted from Irish Sea Pilot Project Conservation Objectives).
52
iv. Ensure that the harvesting of shellfish is ecologically sustainable.
objective to address important Scottish industry).
6.8 Draft National Marine Objectives for delivering
contributing to the sustainable management of our seas
improved
(New additional
governance,
This range of objectives relates to improving governance of and institutional arrangements
for marine management, to ensure that the Strategic Vision for Scotland’s seas and the
descriptors of Good Environmental Status can be better delivered. Several are primarily
economic or social in their focus, and are likely therefore to be expanded upon by the
parallel scoping study on social and economic objectives.
OSS 18: All those who have a stake in the marine environment have an input into
associated decision-making.
This objective will be considered in more detail in the parallel scoping study on social and
economic objectives.
i.
Provide and maintain adequate opportunities for stakeholder engagement and
participation in the decision making process. (Draft Contributory Marine Objectives).
OSS 19: Marine and coastal management mechanisms are responsive and work
effectively together, for example through integrated coastal zone management.
i.
Take a more holistic approach to policy-making and delivery, with the focus on
maintaining healthy ecosystems and ecosystem services. (Existing commitment in
‘Safeguarding Our Seas’).
ii. Provide accessible guidance and advice to Scottish coastal and marine biodiversity
regulators and practitioners, officeholders of public bodies, and marine stakeholders to
ensure they appreciate the complexities of managing the marine environment and are
able to assist with that management, and reduce their impacts, through their own duties
and activities. (Paraphrased from various targets in Scottish Biodiversity Implementation
Plan – Marine and Coastal Ecosystems).
OSS 20: Marine businesses are subject to clear, timely, proportionate and plan-led
regulation.
This objective will be considered in more detail in the parallel scoping study on social and
economic objectives.
i.
Achieve and maintain fit-for-purpose regulatory regime with demonstrable environmental
benefits whilst reducing administrative and financial burdens. (Draft Contributory Marine
Objectives).
OSS 21. The use of the marine environment is spatially planned and based on an
ecosystem approach which takes account of climate change and recognizes the
protection needs of individual historic assets.
53
i.
Take decisions at the appropriate spatial scale while recognising the cumulative impacts
of such decisions. (Existing Scottish Government commitment in ‘Safeguarding our
Seas’).
ii. Maintain the ability to identify and respond to current and future pressures of climate
change on the marine environment. (Draft Contributory Marine Objectives).
OSS 22. Our understanding of the marine environment continues to develop through
new scientific research and data collection.
i.
Characterise ocean and atmospheric processes to contribute to the overall UK
understanding of environmental interactions. (Draft Contributory Marine Objectives).
ii. Improve the co-ordination of Government funded marine science in Scottish waters.
(Existing Scottish Government commitment in Strategic Framework For Scotland's
Marine Environment).
iii. Complete and publish a full review on the “State of Scotland’s Seas”, to include
identification of key information gaps. (Proposed target in Scottish Biodiversity
Implementation Plan – Marine and Coastal Ecosystems: preliminary report already
published (Baxter et al, 2008)).
iv. Ensure that the best new and existing knowledge on biodiversity is available to all policy
makers and practitioners. (Scottish Biodiversity Strategy commitment).
OSS 23. Sound evidence and monitoring is made accessible and available and
underpins effective marine management and policy development
The additional wording in this objective (in italics) allows it to include a number of objectives
relating to the better co-ordination and availability of data, which is an essential prerequisite
before these data can be used to underpin effective marine management and policy
development.
i.
Ensure that coastal and marine monitoring in Scotland is coordinated between all
agencies operating in the marine environment, and a pertinent environmental indicator
suite has been developed for application in these environments. (Proposed target in
Scottish Biodiversity Implementation Plan – Marine and Coastal Ecosystems).
[This should include the development of relevant EcoQOs to meet OSPAR
commitments.]
ii. Update the Scottish Biodiversity List and make this available to all officers of public
bodies whose activities impact upon marine biodiversity. This updated list should be
harmonised with the revised UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) List, identifying gaps in
marine coverage, and including supporting information on coastal and marine habitats
and species. (Proposed target in Scottish Biodiversity Implementation Plan – Marine
and Coastal Ecosystems).
[Note that this revision would also meet the requirements of OSPAR annex V for a list of
threatened or declining habitats and species].
iii. Assess critically all new strategies, and reviews of existing strategies, relating to the
marine environment, to ensure that they are consistent with the National Marine
Objectives and Marine Ecosystem Standards. (Adapted from proposed target in Scottish
Biodiversity Implementation Plan – Marine and Coastal Ecosystems).
54
iv. Promote efficient and timely access to, and use of, marine data and information. (Draft
Contributory Marine Objective).
v. Provide and maintain effective communication, education, and knowledge transfer with
respect to marine issues. (Draft Contributory Marine Objective).
OSS 24. Marine businesses are taking long-term strategic decisions and managing
risks effectively. They are competitive and operating efficiently.
OSS 25. Use of the marine environment will recognise, and integrate with, defence
priorities, including the strengthening of international peace and stability and the
defence of the United Kingdom and its interests.
Because our scoping study focussed on intermediate and operational level goals relating to
ecosystems and the marine environment, our analysis did not produce any proposed
objectives relating to the above two Outcomes for Scotland’s Seas. However, we believe
these will be considered in detail by the parallel scoping study on social and economic
objectives for Scotland’s seas.
6.9 Mechanisms to take forward National Marine Objectives and Marine Ecosystem
Standards
We note that as presently formulated, many of the draft National Marine Objectives we
propose in the previous sections are not entirely ‘SMART’ (specific; measurable; achievable;
realistic and timed), although we believe that they are sufficiently specific that it should be
possible for Marine Scotland to report on progress towards them on an annual or threeyearly basis.
To make this system work, we suggest that, in practice, the National Marine Objectives will
need to be taken forward by the relevant government departments, agencies and nondepartmental bodies with marine responsibilities (including Scottish Marine Regions) as
specific objectives within their (typically 3-yearly) Operational Plans, with the lead, and
overall reporting responsibilities, lying with Marine Scotland. Each body should be required
to contribute towards the achievement of the National Marine Objectives (and the Parliament
may wish to consider making this a duty within the Scottish Marine Bill), as instructed by
Ministers in annual departmental briefs, grant-in-aid letters or equivalent.
The development of these Operational Objectives will therefore be initiated from a ‘bottom
up’ approach within the departments, agencies and bodies concerned, and these are
therefore beyond the remit of this Scoping Study. However, we note that, for reporting
purposes, it will be essential for these Operational Objectives to be ‘SMART’
Marine Scotland should be required to advise Ministers that, in combination, the plans of all
these departments, agencies and non-departmental bodies are adequate to ensure progress
in achieving the National Marine Objectives. Ministers may wish to prioritise action on
selected National Marine Objectives over any planning period, but the invariable requirement
should be that none of the actions of these departments, agencies and non-departmental
bodies should hinder the future achievement of any of the National Marine Objectives, or
impact deleteriously on the Marine Ecosystem Standards.
55
It is expected that a key aim of marine planning would be to help achieve the Outcomes for
Scotland’s Seas. The marine planning system should therefore be informed by the relevant
National Marine Objectives and underpinned by the Marine Ecosystem Standards in order to
ensure that planning decisions help achieve our marine priorities and do not cause any
breach of ecosystem standards that would jeopardise the health of the marine environment
and its future use.
Marine Scotland and the Scottish Marine Regions should be expected to show that their
Marine Plans and Management Strategies are contributing to achievement of the National
Marine Objectives and to the maintenance of the Marine Ecosystem Standards. In practice,
some of the National Marine Objectives will be a higher priority in some Scottish Marine
Regions than in others. Similarly, some Marine Ecosystem Standards may prove to be more
challenging to achieve, and so require a higher priority for action towards realistic outcomes,
in particular Scottish Marine Regions, but this should be reflected in their Operational Plans.
Because marine ecosystems do not recognise political boundaries, it will be important to
work with the Marine Management Organisation for England, any similar body for Northern
Ireland and the Welsh Assembly Government to ensure that the National Marine Objectives
set for Scotland operate in sympathy with similar management objectives for these
countries. However, by basing the Scottish objectives around the Outcomes for Scottish
Seas, which are in turn based on the High Level Marine Objectives agreed by all UK
administrations and the requirements of the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive,
we believe that there is likely to be considerable congruence between the objectives set for
each nation.
As already noted, we believe the majority of Marine Ecosystem Standards will be derived
from existing targets and indicators, for which monitoring and/or surveillance protocols are
already in place or are in the process of being developed. However, these protocols are
being developed largely for UK or European reporting levels, and will not necessarily cover a
sufficient geographic range to provide assurance that the standards are being met at the
appropriate target levels throughout Scottish waters. An early task for Marine Scotland
should therefore be to ensure that existing monitoring and surveillance networks are
expanded sufficiently to provide the data needed at the Scottish level.
All relevant departments, agencies and non-departmental bodies should be required to
assist Marine Scotland in reporting on these Standards, and the Scottish Marine Regions
should also be asked to report on Marine Ecosystem Standards at the geographic scale
relevant to their region. Given the different reporting timescales for the targets and
indicators derived from existing commitments, we recommend that a regularly updated
website, along the lines of that for HELCOM (see Chapter 5.1 and Table A4.1 in Appendix
4), may be the appropriate way to report on how the Marine Ecosystem Standards are being
met, perhaps combined with a three-or five-yearly State of Scotland’s Seas report, as
already planned (Baxter el al, 2008).
Should any of the Marine Ecosystem Standards be breached, there will be a requirement for
the relevant departments, agencies or bodies to take action to restore the minimum
requirement set by the Marine Ecosystem Standard. If the breach is localised to a particular
area, then the relevant Scottish Marine Region may be the appropriate body to put
measures in place to address this problem.
We propose that both the Marine Ecosystem Standards and the National Marine Objectives
should be reviewed and revised at approximately five-yearly intervals, in the light of
experience, new scientific information and progress to date. As progress is made, we would
hope that each five-yearly review would set increasingly ambitious targets for the state and
use of Scotland’s seas in the period ahead.
56
6.10 Overall assessment of proposed system of Objectives and Standards
As part of the process to implement the 1997 Canadian Oceans Act (see Appendix 5), the
Dept of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) sponsored a workshop which set out to define
“ecosystem-based management objectives” while simultaneously attempting to identify
indicators and reference points to assess progress in achieving these objectives. The
executive summary of the workshop proceedings (Jamieson et. al., 2001) states:“At the highest level, conceptual objectives are stated in general terms that are
intended to be understandable to a broad audience. At this level, the objectives can be
considered as policy statements by a government or organisation. However, they lack
the specificity to be operational… Therefore, the conceptual objective needs to be
developed further into a more specific, nested objective. If this next objective can be
associated with a management action, then it is considered an operational objective.
The process of refining conceptual objectives to successively more specific levels until
operation objectives are defined is termed ‘unpacking’”.
The summary of the Canadian workshop on “ecosystem-based management objectives”
(Jamieson et. al., 2001) defined the form that an ‘operational objective’ should take:
“An operational objective is one that consists of a verb (e.g. ‘maintain’), a specific
biological property or indicator (e.g. biomass), and a reference point (e.g. 50,000
tonnes), which allows an action statement for management (e.g. “maintain biomass of
a given forage species greater than 50,000 tonnes”).
We propose that the National Marine Objectives should be partly operationalised, as per this
definition, in that they should consist of a verb, a specific target, and where possible a
reference level. The Marine Ecosystem Standards should state a specific biological (or
other) property and reference point, and should be written in such a way that it is clear that,
should this reference level be breached, an operational objective will be triggered to return
this parameter to within the agreed reference level.
The Canadian workshop proposed two broad, overarching general goals for ecosystembased management:•
•
the sustainability of human usage of environmental resources and
the conservation of species and habitats, including those other ecosystem components
that many not be utilised by humans.
We endorse this strongly as part of the approach to National Marine Objectives for Scotland.
In the UK, Rogers et al (2005), proposed a system of Strategic Goals, Ecological Objectives,
Operational Objectives, Targets and Indicators. We believe that the system we propose
broadly meets these requirements, while being somewhat simpler to understand and report
upon. The use of terminology in a hierarchical objective structure is a frequent source of
confusion. In broad terms, however, our proposed structure is sufficiently similar to allow a
comparison of terms as shown in Table 6.1.
57
Table 6.1: Assessment of proposed Scottish hierarchy of outcomes and objectives,
compared against Canadian and UK (Defra) terminology.
Canada
Defra (Rogers et al)
Proposed structure for Scotland
Vision
Vision
HLMO
Overarching Goals
Strategic Goal
Outcomes for Scotland’s Seas
Conceptual objectives
National Marine Objectives
‘nested components’
Ecological Objective
Operational Objectives
Operational Objective
Indicator
Operational Objectives of
departments and agencies
Target/Limit
Marine Ecosystem Standards
The overall hierarchical structure which we propose is summarised graphically in Figure 1.1.
Our conclusions from the work we have done in carrying out this Scoping Study are
summarised on pages 1 to 4. We conclude there that a system of Marine Ecosystem
Standards, as a ‘bottom line’ for ensuring the protection of the marine environment around
Scotland, plus a rolling programme of National Marine Objectives to improve our
management and use of the marine environment, and ensure that this is truly sustainable,
provide a suitable structure to deliver the Strategic Vision for Scotland’s Seas. In
combination, we suggest that the Marine Ecosystem Standards and National Marine
Objectives represent the Marine Ecosystem Objectives referred to in Sustainable Seas for
All and in the proposed target in the Scottish Biodiversity Implementation Plan for Marine
and Coastal Ecosystems.
The remainder of this report covers additional aspects that we were asked to consider in
reaching our conclusions – on the availability of data to support achievement of the NMOs
and MESs; on aspects of especially Scottish importance that should be taken into account in
taking forward the NMOs and MESs; and an assessment of our conclusions against the
broader policy commitments of the Scottish government.
7. AVAILABILITY OF DATA TO INFORM SCOTTISH TARGETS AND OBJECTIVES
An objectives-based management approach ultimately requires a means by which progress
towards achievement of the aims, goals, objectives and targets can be measured. In most
hierarchical outcome-led systems, including that proposed in this paper, the process of
reporting is very dependent on identifying appropriate components that can either be reliably
quantified, or will show a clear direction or trend. The status of these components, whether
undesirable or healthy, will almost always be derived from analyses undertaken following
dedicated data collecting programmes.
In practical terms, many of the measured elements are likely to be those that are already
associated with management strategies or initiatives and are thus at the level of existing
operational objectives. In the approach adopted for this paper, we have attempted to
demonstrate that a comprehensive suite of Scottish marine ecosystem objectives can be
developed from the range of currently existing or upcoming obligations and commitments. As
58
a consequence, it is therefore anticipated that the data collection programmes in support of
these, either currently in place or under development, will also simultaneously satisfy the
reporting requirements for the proposed National Marine Objectives.
Important contributing reporting sources are likely to be:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
OSPAR EcoQOs
OSPAR Initial List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats
EU Water Framework Directive
EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive
EU Habitats Directive
EU Birds Directive
EU Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF)
Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas
(ASCOBANS)
Global Ocean Observing Systems Action Group (GOOSAG)
United Kingdom Marine Monitoring and Assessment Strategy (UKMMAS)
European Environment Agency Streamlining European 2010 Biodiversity Indicators (SEBI
2010)
UK Biodiversity Action Plan list (2007)
Water Framework Directive ‘red list’ of non-native species
•
•
•
•
•
In addition, a considerable amount of effort in recent years has gone into identifying and
developing indicators that (usually in combination with others as part of a package or suite)
are designed to provide a measure against which central or local government strategies are
to be assessed. Relevant European, UK and Scottish indicator suites are presented in Table
7.1.
Table 7.1: European, UK and Scottish indicators relevant to marine ecosystem status
reporting. Indicators forming part of a suite, but relating only to terrestrial issues have been
omitted.
Indicator suite
European
Biodiversity
Indicators17
17
Region
EU
Indicators
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Species of European interest
Ecosystem coverage
Habitats of European interest
Nationally designated protected areas
Sites
Sites designated under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives
Critical load excedence for nitrogen
Invasive alien species in Europe
Occurrence of temperature sensitive species
Marine Trophic Index of European seas
Nutrients in transitional, coastal and marine waters
Fisheries: European commercial fish stocks
Aquaculture: effluent water quality from finfish farms
Financing biodiversity management
http://reports.eea.europa.eu/technical_report_2007_11/en/Tech_report_11_2007_SEBI.pdf
59
Indicator suite
Region
European
Headline
Indicators18
EU & Pan
European
Biological
and
Landscape
Diversity
Strategy
UK Framework
Indicators19
UK
Measurement of
Defra Contribution
to Natural
Environment
Public Service
Agreement
UK
UK Biodiversity
Indicators20
UK
Indicators
• Trends in extent of selected biomes, ecosystems and
habitats
• Trends in abundance and distribution of selected species
• Change in status of threatened and/or protected species
• Coverage of protected areas
• Area of forest, agricultural, fishery and aquaculture
ecosystems under sustainable management
• Numbers and costs of invasive alien species
• Impact of climate change on biodiversity
• Marine trophic index
• Water quality in aquatic ecosystems
• Funding to biodiversity
• Public awareness and participation
• Seabird populations
• Fish stocks
• Active community participation
• Environmental equality
• Riverine and direct inputs of metals from the UK to marine
waters around the UK
• Number of fish stocks around the UK at full reproductive
capacity and harvested sustainability
• Plankton status
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Scottish
Biodiversity
Indicators21
Scotland
•
•
•
•
Trends in populations seabirds
Status of BAP Priority Habitats
Status of BAP Priority Species
Extent and condition of protected areas (a) Extent of SACs,
SPAs and SSSI/ASSIs; (b) Proportion of features of SACs
and SPAs in favourable condition.
Proportion of commercially exploited fish stocks around the
UK harvested sustainably.
Impacts of invasive species (a) Number of invasive alien
species; (b) Costs of invasive alien species (proposed)
Timing of biological events
Marine trophic index (proposed)
Public sector environmental protection expenditure on
biodiversity in the UK
UK Government funding for conservation of global
biodiversity
Volunteer time spent in conservation and number of people
volunteering for conservation activity
BAP Priority Habitats
BAP Priority species
Breeding seabirds
Notified species in favourable condition
18
http://www.peblds.org/files/meetings/malahide_04.pdf
19
http://www.defra.gov.uk/sustainable/government/progress/national/framework.htm
20
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4233
21
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/202855/0054080.pdf
60
Indicator suite
Region
Indicators
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Notified habitats in favourable condition
Otter status
Marine plankton
Estuarine fish diversity
Marine fish stocks within safe limits
Invasive non-native species
Attitudes to biodiversity
Visits to the outdoors
Involvement in biodiversity conservation
Membership of biodiversity NGOs
Moreover, Baxter et al. (2008) identified possible sources of data that might constitute or
contribute to indicating progress towards healthy and diverse Scottish seas (Table 7.2).
Table 7.2: Summary of data collected that could indicate whether Scotland’s seas are
healthy and biologically diverse.
(Reproduced from Baxter et al., 2008)
Indicators of healthy and biologically
diverse seas
Data collectors
Habitat extent and condition
FRS, National Oceanographic Centre (NOC),
SAMS, SNH, University of Plymouth
Litter
Cefas, Local Authorities International
Environmental Organisation (KIMO), Marine
Conservation Society, Plymouth University,
SEPA, Zoological Society of London
Sea temperature
FRS, ICES, Met Office, SAMS, SEPA
Seabed erosion and sediment change
SEPA, SNH
Species abundance and distribution
FRS, SAMS, Sea Mammal Research Unit
(SMRU), SNH
Species as indicators of change
British Trust for Ornithology (BTO), FRS,
JNCC, Marine Biological Association (MBA),
SAMS, SEPA, SMRU, SNH
Species or biological communities as indicators
of pollution
FRS, SEPA, SMRU, SOTEAG, SNH, University
of Aberdeen, Glasgow Caledonian University,
University of Stirling
In general, there are few indicators that are specifically able to indicate change in ecological
elements of the marine environment, reflecting a lack of data sources that are both
amenable to robust statistical treatment and extend over an ecologically meaningful time
period. At present, reliable long-term marine datasets that indicate ecological status are
61
largely limited to economically valuable fish stocks, plankton species distribution, seabird
populations and the status of a few selected protected habitats and species.
Even with the benefit of status reporting derived from existing commitments, the ability to
establish whether objectives, standards or targets have been achieved will present some
difficult challenges, particularly when attempting to demonstrate the maintenance or
restoration of biological diversity. Rogers and Greenaway (2005), in a review of marine
ecosystem indicators, further emphasises this point, commenting:
“The ultimate aim of many of the high level policies is to provide a healthy ecosystem
that can sustain human demands on environmental good and services. Unfortunately
the current level of understanding of the marine ecosystem is insufficient to derive
robust and meaningful measures for the entire ecosystem and it cannot yet develop
management approaches that could deliver this higher level of protection.”
Moreover, recent assessments of the data requirements for addressing the EMSFD
qualitative descriptors, the basis for the majority of the proposed Outcome for Scotland’s
Seas, have concluded that: “Large parts of the ecosystem have no systematic coverage
which allows good management decisions to be made”, and goes on to conclude that
“relatively localised” assessments would be required to achieve the GES descriptor
addressing biological diversity (Eldridge and Kennedy, 2008). In the Scottish context, such
localised reporting would also contribute to the Scottish Marine Regions’ reporting against
Marine Ecosystem Standards. They also indicate that considerable difficulties are similarly
likely to be met attempting to satisfy the GES descriptors for other ecological components,
such as elements of the marine food web and sea floor integrity,
Rogers and Greenaway (2005), amongst many others, have therefore proposed that our
efforts to develop indicators and targets could be more usefully directed towards tools that
measure the pressures of human activity rather than the state of an ecosystem, stating:
“…although it is important to strive for a healthy ecosystem, we can currently only
achieve this by managing specific human activities that adversely affect components of
the environment. The most important task is therefore to develop the tools needed to
contribute to the management of human activities in the marine environment by
providing indicators that measure the extent of impact of an activity on part of the
ecosystem”
Our knowledge of the marine environment is, however, continuously improving and the
increased emphasis on structured and co-ordinated data management, through a range of
UK and European programmes, should promote a greater ability to quickly identify both the
strengths and limitations of our present marine assessment capability. In addition, new
initiatives, such as the establishment of Marine Science Scotland will be instrumental in
coordinating the activities of marine scientists across Scotland and ensuring that research
activities are focused upon policy needs. This should be taken into account, and supported,
in the development of the National Marine Objectives.
62
8. ‘SCOTTISH SOLUTIONS TO SCOTTISH PROBLEMS’
8.1 Unique, special and distinctive Scottish features relevant to targets and objectives
The marine environment which surrounds Scotland is utilised for many purposes and
influences the lives of a high proportion of Scotland’s population. Human use of the sea and
its resources are highly dependant on the maintenance of functioning ecosystems and a
healthy, productive and well-managed Scottish marine environment.
The development of outcome- or objectives-based management will necessarily require
consistency of application and co-operative working where resources, features, activities or
other elements are shared or span across borders. There is also, however, a need to
establish what is unique, different or distinctive about Scotland’s coastal and marine setting
that may initiate additional or alternative considerations in the construction of goals,
objectives and targets for Scottish-orientated ecosystem objectives.
We have identified the following characteristics which suggest a possible distinctive
‘Scottishness’:
Ecosystem related:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Geographic location
Sea loch environments
Presence of inshore cold-water biogenic reefs
Cetacean and seal populations
Close proximity to deep-water biological communities
Islands and skerries
Substantial marine and coastal areas of minimal disturbance
Socio-economic related:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Abundance of natural marine resources (e.g. kelp, maerl, economically valuable fish
and shellfish)
Fisheries
Aquaculture
Potential for wildlife watching and ecotourism
Small communities with traditional, cultural and economic associations or affinities to
the sea
Good potential for renewable resources (wind, tidal, wave)
Economic centre for oil and gas exploration and exploitation
Well-established marine research institutions
High value placed on recreation and amenity
Below is a brief commentary on these elements.
63
8.2 Natural features of particular Scottish importance
8.2.1 Geographical location
Scotland’s spectacular and diverse assemblage of habitats and species are a consequence
of a fortuitous positioning between subpolar and subtropical influences, resulting in a marine
environment that is among the most productive in the world.
The coexistence of warmer and cooler water influences is a major factor in the creation and
maintenance of the variety of biogeographic regions found in Scottish waters. Scotland is at
the northern or southern distributional boundary of many habitats and species and the
resulting biodiversity is both fragile and vulnerable to environment change. Climate
adjustment, in particular, may severely affect the ability of some important species to
maintain populations, inevitably resulting in alteration of ecosystem structure. Scotland’s
habitats and species may therefore act as a sentinel for early detection of the direction and
severity of the effects of climate change.
8.2.2 Sea loch environments
Scotland’s Atlantic coastline is highly distinctive in comparison with both the rest of the UK
and Europe. The complex fjordic and fjardic landscape forming over a hundred sea lochs is
visually iconic and is often used as an image throughout the world to represent the beauty,
remoteness and purity of Scotland’s coastal waters.
Sea lochs support a great range of habitats and over 1,700 species, often in unusually small
areas. These range from exposed or tide-swept communities at the mouth, through tidal
rapids and megafauna-dominated mud in the deep basins, to extremely sheltered shore
communities or brackish lagoons at the head of some lochs.
Sea loch ecosystems are recognised to be rich and often complex, supporting some
biological elements that are either rare or unknown elsewhere, or are found in substantially
degraded situations at other locations but have flourished undisturbed within sea lochs.
Scotland’s sea lochs, for example, sustain internationally important examples of undisturbed
maerl beds, horse mussel beds and the very rare reefs constructed by serpulid worms, all of
which are especially vulnerable to physical damage by human activities. The seaweed
Ascophyllum nodosum ecad mackaii is found almost exclusively on the extremely sheltered
shores of Scottish sea lochs.
The violent transition from a sheltered, often deep sea loch environment into the exposed
Atlantic has promoted a degree of isolation for some of these habitats and species, both
from the open sea and from other sea lochs. There is some evidence to suggest that some
species may constitute relict populations, isolated over geological time, such as the bivalve
mollusc Thyasira gouldi, or have become genetically isolated through lack of contact with
other populations. These species with little or no ability to disperse to new locations may be
particularly sensitive to climate change.
The enclosed nature of sea lochs makes them vulnerable to a number of other pressures
and impacts. Many of the seabed communities are of limited distribution and are highly
sensitive to physical damage or disturbance. Nevertheless, some targeted fisheries take
place in the lochs, including those for scallop and prawns (Nephrops or langoustine), while
the sheltered areas may also be used as a bad weather or speculative option for fishing
vessels normally operating in open sea. Other vessels, both commercial and recreational
use the lochs for a range of activities, raising concerns over issues of increasing disturbance
64
associated with increasing boat traffic and damage caused by unsympathetically deployed
anchors and moorings.
Limited water exchange in many sealochs, particularly those with lagoonal conditions, or
incorporating basins confined by narrow constricted channels, render them vulnerable to a
rapid accumulation of anthropogenic contaminants. These contaminants may originate from
adjacent land use or directly from the increasing use of the sealochs as a commercial
resource, aquaculture being a particularly prominent example (see below).
The appealing visual setting of Scottish sealochs inevitably makes loch-side land an
attractive location for property development. Pressure for such development, with the
associated impacts of services and infrastructure, may increase in future as more people are
able to work from home.
8.2.3 Presence of inshore cold-water biogenic reefs
Scotland’s inshore waters are particularly rich in reef- and bed-forming species which, in
turn, promote increased diversity by providing greater habitat complexity and an associated
enhancement in food resources. Some of the finest documented examples of, for example,
maerl, horse mussel and flame shell beds are known to occur in Scotland’s sea lochs and
constitute habitats of international importance for their density, associated species diversity,
extent and apparent undisturbed condition.
Scotland is home to two isolated occurrences of biogenic reefs formed by the tubeworm
Serpula vermicularis, among only four known examples throughout the rest of the world, the
others being in Southern Ireland and Italy. One of the Scottish reefs, found on the shallow
sublittoral slopes of Loch Creran, is by far the most extensive of all and, as a feature of a
Natura site, is almost certainly the most intensively studied and documented.
Cold-water coral reefs formed by Lophelia pertusa have recently been discovered to the east
of Mingulay, in the Western Isles. This is the only known example within 12 nm of UK
territorial waters and initial studies suggest that they form unusual mound structures,
probably of considerable age and in relatively shallow depths. The presence of both the live
coral and the associated coral rubble, distributed over a substantial area has promoted the
development of a remarkably rich associated faunal community.
Biogenic reefs are highly vulnerable to direct physical damage and are therefore very
susceptible to fishing activities that involve dredging or trawling. Indiscriminate vessel
anchoring or inappropriately placed moorings can also cause substantial damage, In
addition, activities which increase sedimentation, such as maintenance or capital dredging,
or result in the deposition of organic or other particulate material, such as fish farming, may
impair the feeding ability of the reef-building species and in extreme cases will smother and
destroy the reef.
8.2.4 Cetacean and seal populations
Scotland’s coastal and offshore areas hold considerable significance for marine mammals,
with dolphins, porpoises, whales and seals all present in considerable numbers.
Of the 23 cetacean species observed in UK waters in the last 25 years, 22 have been seen
alive and more than once in Scottish waters, making Scotland possibly one of the most
important areas in north-west Europe. Western Scotland, perhaps because of its
topographically uneven seabed and rocky, protruding headlands, is particularly favoured by
65
cetaceans, with 21 species recorded within 60 km of the coast since 1980 (source:
Seawatch Foundation). Of these, eleven species are known to be either present throughout
the year, or are regular seasonal visitors.
To the east, the Moray Firth is host to the world’s most northerly population of bottlenose
dolphins and the only known ‘resident’ population of the species in the North Sea. Recent
findings suggest, however, that there may, in fact, be two loosely associated groups, one of
which tends to be more adventurous in its southerly range, although still remaining within
Scottish waters.
Seals feed, haul out and breed in internationally important numbers all around the Scottish
coast. Two species of seal, the grey and the harbour or common seal are present in Scottish
waters, with 90% of all UK populations present in Scotland. About 40% of the world
population of grey seals is present in Scottish waters and about 28% of the European
population of common (harbour) seals (Baxter et al, 2008).
Marine mammals may be directly affected by reduced water quality and moderate
concentrations of toxic contaminants can sometimes be found in their body tissues. This is
thought to be linked to reduced reproductive performance and an elevated susceptibility to
disease. Marine litter also constitutes a significant hazard, and injury or death may occur
either from ingestion or by entanglement.
The naturally high numbers of marine mammals in Scottish waters has resulted in a degree
of conflict with some sectors of marine industry. Entanglement in fishing gear presents a
substantial threat to marine mammals in general and porpoises and dolphins in particular.
From a different perspective, the Scottish fishing industry regularly voices concerns over the
population levels of seals which they argue is excessively high and is a contributor to
declining fish stocks. Similar concerns also come from the fish farming industry where seal
attacks can result in damaged or lost stock. The shooting of seals by fish farmers has
resulted in localised disputes with wildlife watching businesses.
8.2.5 Close proximity to deep-water biological communities
The relative accessibility of deep water around Scotland was a key factor in the birth of deep
sea research. Wyville-Thompson’s pioneering work with deep water dredges between the
Faroes and Shetland and his subsequent discovery of deep converging water masses is still
stimulating valuable research today. As a result of these ongoing efforts, the Faroe-Shetland
Channel is probably the most extensively and systematically studied deep water area in
Europe. In some places this deep water lies very close inshore and Inner Sound, between
Raasay and the mainland, at 300m is the deepest trench on the British continental shelf.
8.2.6 Islands and skerries
Scotland’s complex western and northern coastline is characterised by archipelagos and
groups of small islands and skerries. These islands and skerries, in turn, form sounds,
channels, races and reefs, of varying levels of exposure, where the wide range of conditions
have encouraged the establishment of, often intricate, patchworks of community
assemblages and habitats. The variety and abundance of species and biological
communities within such small areas is notable for both their complexity and their academic
interest.
66
The wide range of exposure conditions and variety of hydrological regimes places these
locations firmly at the forefront of possible sites for renewable energy developments,
specifically tidal, wave and both onshore and offshore wind turbines. These developments
are likely to require careful consideration in the light of nature conservation interests and
additional public concerns over visual and navigational effects.
Transport connections between island communities is a ongoing issue, notably in the
Western Isles, where there has been a history of causeway construction as a means of
providing road links between islands. The constriction or obstruction of channels and other
changes in the hydrological character of these locations can have serious and far-reaching
consequences on the ecological integrity of the area and may have effects for some distance
beyond the development itself.
8.2.7 Substantial marine and coastal areas of minimal disturbance
Scotland’s low population density, extensive coastline and frequency of locations
inaccessible to small seagoing vessels or land vehicles has provided these locations with an
unintentional, but valuable degree of protection unusual in the rest of Europe.
Coastal habitats throughout the world are under intense pressure from human encroachment
and as a result ecosystems unaffected by human disturbance – chemical or physical – are
very rare. Substantial areas of Scotland’s marine natural heritage, particularly remote coastal
locations, such as may be found in the Northern or Western Isles, are largely free of human
influences and may therefore rate as among the most “pristine” of the UK’s, and indeed,
Europe’s marine ecosystems.
These areas, by their nature, are unlikely to have been explored and scientifically studied
and so the character, vulnerability and ecological value of the biological communities remain
unknown. As the possibility of human development increases in these areas, so too does the
prospect of the inadvertent loss of previously unreported, but important rare or vulnerable
species and habitats.
8.3 Economic and social features of particular Scottish importance
The features of particularly Scottish significance briefly discussed in this section are those
which are dependent on the marine environment as a resource and will consequently have a
direct link to ecosystem quality alongside the socio-economic dimension.
8.3.1 Abundance of natural marine resources
Scotland’s coastal and adjacent waters are rich in economically valuable fish and shellfish
and have supported some of the most intensive fishing effort in the world (see below). Apart
from commercial finfish and shellfish resources, Scotland’s productive seas support an
exceptional abundance of both plants and animals. Many of these resources have
undergone intermittent historical exploitation, e.g. kelp harvesting for alginate and maerl
rubble for mortar production, but have largely been superseded by the discovery of
alternatives.
67
It seems likely, however, that the wealth of natural productivity, coupled with continuing
discoveries of new species, habitats and communities will produce more, as yet, unidentified
goods and services.
Clearly, the danger of over-exploitation and subsequent resource loss exists for any
emerging natural product if the harvesting activity remains unrecognised and unregulated for
too long. A mechanism for a comprehensive process of scientific assessment and evaluation
of sustainability is likely to be required to rapidly identify the effects of previously unknown
marine exploitation activities.
8.3.2 Fisheries
The Scottish fishing industry holds an important place in the country’s maritime history and
culture. At the end of 2006, there were 2,224 active fishing vessels based in Scotland, and
the industry provided 4,109 full-time and 999 irregular jobs and supported the activities of 97
crofters (all statistics from Baxter et al, 2008). The combined value of landings was £369
million, with a £481 million income from processing wild-caught and farmed fish.
There are four broad sectors in the Scottish fishing fleet. The pelagic fleet and demersal or
whitefish fleet are part of an international industry. There is nothing uniquely Scottish in their
nature, and their management is best addressed at a Regional Sea level through the
European Union, although they do have a strong economic and cultural significance to ports,
particularly on the east coast. The mixed demersal and shellfish fleet, and the pure shellfish
fleet, are characteristic of more peripheral regions within the EU, but again are not uniquely
Scottish. However, despite its fragility, the inshore fishing fleet makes a proportionately
great contribution to the pluralistic, crofting economy of the remotest regions of Scotland,
particularly the north-west Highlands and Islands, and that is likely to require special
attention by the relevant Scottish Marine Regions.
The impact of fisheries on the marine environment is considered in detail by Baxter et al
(2008). Potential impacts include the interaction with other species, including by-catch and
the impact of discards of unwanted commercial and non-commercial fish and shellfish.
Towed fishing gear has a physical impact on seabed features and communities, and the
impact may be long-lived in ‘low energy’ environments, such as sheltered sealochs.
Sensitive spatial planning should allow many of these impacts to be addressed, and has the
potential also to support the industry by helping to protect areas that are especially important
for key life stages of commercial species, as well as wider biodiversity.
8.3.3 Aquaculture
Aquaculture is a very important industry for rural Scotland, in particular for the west coast
and the islands where many communities depend on the employment and revenue it
provides. Some 1,500 people are directly employed by the industry and around a further
4,700 work in associated sectors. Scotland is the biggest producer of farmed Atlantic salmon
in the European Union (although the industry is now predominantly Norwegian owned) and
the third largest in the world, supplying a product valued in excess of £400 million in 2006
(source: Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation), comprising 60% by value of all
Scotland’s food exports.
Although Atlantic salmon dominates the industry, other fish such as rainbow trout and brown
trout are also produced for market. In addition, the UK, and Scotland in particular, has
68
become a world leader in pioneering the culture and farming of fish species that have
become commercially scarce in the wild. Farmed Halibut, Arctic charr and cod are now
produced for supermarket sale, with steadily increasing production and a possible further
addition of haddock in the near future.
Scottish salmon farming is presently considered to be the most regulated in the world, but
there are continued concerns over the visual impacts on landscape, seabed impacts, the
sustainability of salmon feed fish stocks, disease introductions, non-native species
introductions, disease transfer to, and the genetic corruption of, wild stocks.
Scotland also has a successful and expanding shellfish farming sector producing over 5,000
tonnes a year, mainly mussels and the non-native Pacific oyster, but smaller quantities of
native oyster, queen and king scallops are also produced. Shellfish farming is generally
considered to be less environmentally damaging than finfish farming, but nevertheless still
raises some of the concerns associated with salmon farming.
8.3.4 Wildlife watching and ecotourism
Tourism has become one of the world’s fastest growing ‘industries’ and marine tourism now
carries a considerable economic value, exceeding that of international fisheries production22.
Scotland has one of the longest, most unspoilt and wildlife rich coastlines in Europe,
providing a major attraction for UK and international recreational visitors. Tourism, in
particular wildlife tourism, has begun to significantly strengthen local economies where
declines in traditional industries, such as fisheries and agriculture have occurred. Significant
local employment can be generated, both directly in the tourism sector, and in various
support and resource management sectors.
Scotland can provide a very attractive wildlife watching experience with regular and reliable
sightings of various whale, dolphin and porpoise species alongside seals, seabirds, and
basking sharks.
Wild Scotland estimates the value of the sector has trebled since 2001, with the number of
new boat operators increasing by 80% between 2001 and 2004. Recent figures indicate that
land and boat-based whale and dolphin watching in the Moray Firth generated £477,000 in
direct expenditure and £2.34 million in total per year. In the Highlands, total expenditure
associated with marine wildlife was £57.2 million, with £9.3 million as direct spending.
A well-managed strategy for sustainable tourism development is likely to result in long-term
economic benefits, increasing community involvement, with support for, and preservation of,
the environmental resources, i.e. the wildlife itself.
Wildlife-dependent businesses may, however, find themselves in conflict with other marine
activities. As indicated previously, disputes have already occurred between marine mammal
watching operations and fish farm installations. Additional expressions of concern may also
be directed towards the offshore wind, wave and tidal generation industry, where issues of
visual intrusion, seabed damage and noise pollution will have to be addressed.
Poorly managed and inadequately policed wildlife watching and ecotourism operations may
themselves lead to excessive disturbance to marine flora and fauna and the promotion of
22
http://www.grida.no/graphic.aspx?f=series/vg-water2/0317-benefits-EN.jpg
69
responsible actions in combination with a sensible and coordinated approach to visitor
numbers is a clear ongoing requirement. The provision of expert-led advice and the
establishment of best-practice guidance, such as the Scottish “Marine Wildlife Watching
Code” and the associated “Guide to Best Practice for Watching Marine Wildlife” are, and will
continue to be, essential tools in the development of this industry.
8.3.5 Small communities with traditional, cultural and economic affinities to the sea
Small coastal communities, often centred around small sheltered harbours, sea lochs or
protected inlets, are a common feature of the Scottish land- and seascape These
communities, although less isolated than they were, often still maintain a strong association
with a maritime heritage, either through the necessity of boat travel, fish-farming activities,
local fisheries or through heritage displays and tourism.
These locations can provide focal points for the development and maintenance of
community-based initiatives though a strong cultural investment in the desire for a healthy,
productive and sustainably managed marine environment. Community-based management,
with the appropriate specialist support can, for example, develop a profitable, well-managed
and environmentally benign local fishery, such as the Torridon Nephrops creel fishery which
is accredited by the Marine Stewardship Council.
Pressures to remain competitive, together with aspirations for continued business growth
may at times, however, provide strong incentives to depart from accepted environmentallybenign practices and an infrastructure for continued assessment and support may be
necessary over the longer term.
8.3.6 Renewable resources
As traditional fossil fuels begin to run out or become harder and more expensive to obtain,
there is a global rush to develop ways of harnessing renewable sources of energy. Scotland
is geographically well-placed to exploit several forms of energy available from the sea and is
at the forefront of developing the technology to do so.
The extensive Atlantic and North Sea fetch provide good and relatively reliable source of
wind and wave power, while an abundance of sounds, channels and tidal narrows, such as
those running between islands or at mouths of sea lochs, signal the potential for tidal energy.
The close proximity of land provides an additional advantage for the cost effectiveness of
installation, maintenance and grid connection.
As previously indicated, the placing of renewable energy devices in a marine setting is
raising inevitable concerns over the possible effects on marine ecosystems. These concerns
include removal or damage of habitats or species by direct physical interaction, effects on
tidal flows and exchanges, impacts on visual amenity, the effects of underwater noise,
vibration and electromagnetic fields, together with the wider cumulative impacts of the
infrastructure required for construction and operation of the devices.
70
8.3.7 Oil and Gas Exploration and Extraction
The discovery of oil and gas in UK’s North Sea waters in 1965 has had a considerable
impact, with Scotland becoming established as a major power in the industry. An estimated
6% of the total Scottish workforce is presently employed by around 2,000 oil and gas
companies. The great majority of the UK's oil production and around half of its gas
production, come from fields based in the continental shelf around Scotland. Associated with
this is a strong maritime service and technology industry, which is mainly based in, or
around, Aberdeen.
The requirement for environmental monitoring under both domestic legislation and
international agreements has additionally stimulated the establishment of a support industry,
with technical capabilities and data collections that have found uses beyond the oil and gas
sector.
Oil and gas exploration and extraction is necessarily physically destructive to seabed
habitats and species and also carries associated risks of environmental contamination. In
general, though, this is a mature sector with long-established environmental guidelines and a
wealth of supporting research on the effects of the extraction process.
8.3.8 Marine Research Institutions
Scotland’s historic association with the sea has inevitably provided a platform from which a
strong international reputation in marine research and education has developed and two of
the oldest marine research laboratories in the world are in Scotland. The long coastline with
variable oceanic influence and relatively easy access to a vast range of different types of
bathymetric topography, exposure conditions, habitats, biological communities and species
has provided, and continues to provide, academic institutions with endless teaching and
research opportunities.
Scottish based centres of excellence include the Scottish Association for Marine Science
located at Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory on the shores of the Firth of Lorn; the University
Marine Biological Station at Millport, Isle of Cumbrae; the Sea Mammal Research Unit and
the Gatty Marine Laboratory at St. Andrews University; Aberdeen University and the
Lighthouse Field Station; Glasgow University; Heriot-Watt University; and the Fisheries
Research Services. Some of these operate state-of-the art survey vessels and the majority
are active in providing commercial consultancy and survey services throughout the world.
Between them, these establishments hold, and continue to gather, a wealth of knowledge on
the distribution, character and status of Scotland’s natural marine resources. To a large
extent the direction of research efforts are dictated by purely academic interests supported
by rigid funding schedules. There is, perhaps, an argument for encouraging a range of
research activities that specifically support Scotland’s marine objectives and directly benefit
the community over both the medium and longer term.
8.3.9 Recreation and Amenity
Scotland’s open spaces, varied land- or seascapes, iconic coastal scenery and largely
unrestricted access to coastal shores are a considerable socioeconomic resource. Public
use and enjoyment of the marine environment, both by the resident population and tourist
visitors, are increasing, with a coincident rise in its perceived social value.
71
Participation in marine-related recreational activities continues to grow. Water sports such as
scuba diving, angling, surfing, sea kayaking and sailing are extremely popular, partly
because of the relatively short travel distances required to arrive at coastal locations suitable
for each respective activity. Many areas, particularly the shores and islands of the west and
north coasts, offer the possibility of multiple activities, providing opportunities for the
development of small businesses.
Encouraging greater recreational use and increasing public access promotes increased
appreciation of the marine environment, but also brings a greater responsibility to manage
and preserve important and vulnerable environmental features. This would clearly require an
integrated system for environment-led spatial planning in which the protection of natural
heritage assets is balanced against the broader principles of social well-being.
8.4 Correspondence with the Proposed Outcomes for Scottish Seas
The identified distinctive Scottish features discussed above were examined in the context of
the proposed twenty-five Outcomes for Scottish Seas (OSS) presented in Table 3.5. To
achieve this, a tabulated mapping of each of the features was attempted against each of the
individual proposed OSSs (Table 8.1), concentrating on the issues briefly discussed in
Chapters 8.2.1 – 8.3.9. This process quickly identified a degree of uncertainty and a
consequent potential for subjectivity when determining whether an OSS was directly
applicable to a specifically Scottish issue or feature. For example, when examining wildlife
watching and tourism, it is clear that important elements of this activity must include the
educational dimension of “…appreciating the value of the marine environment” (OSS 12)
and the business-orientated “Infrastructure is in place to support and promote safe, profitable
and efficient marine businesses” (OSS 14). The success of such businesses is also,
however, more broadly dependent on other aspirations articulated by several other OSSs,
for example the absence of marine litter (OSS 5), uncontaminated seas (OSS 1 and 3,) and
perhaps a requirement for integrated coastal zone management (OSS19) combined with
plan-led regulation (OSS 20). To reflect this, a two-tier scoring system has been adopted in
which the primary applicable OSSs are identified alongside supporting or contributory OSSs.
The results of the correspondence assessment (Table 8.1) demonstrate that all of the
identified distinctive Scottish features are addressed by one or more OSS at a primary level,
and many, perhaps unsurprisingly, are linked to multiple OSSs at both primary and
secondary level. Notably, OSS 3 and OSS 17 have few correspondences because they
relate to specific elements of commercial use of the sea (contaminants in seafood and
populations of commercially exploited fish).
The framework we have proposed for National Marine Outcomes, designed to achieve the
set of 25 Outcomes from Scotland’s Seas, would therefore appear to be entirely compatible
with the particularly Scottish features we have identified, and it should therefore be possible
to address these features by drafting specific NMOs, or accommodating them as specific
features within broader NMOs. Consideration should be given as to whether one or more
Marine Ecosystem Standard might be needed to ensure that the increased sustainable
economic growth proposed by the Scottish Government does not damage the very features
which make Scotland special.
72
Table 8.1: An assessment of the correspondence between the identified unique, special distinctive Scottish features and the proposed
Outcomes for Scotland’s Seas (OSS) (see table 3.5). The larger, emboldened ticks indicate where the OSS is assessed as applying at a strong
and specific (primary) level. The smaller fonts indicate where the OSS applies at a level considered to be of a lesser or secondary significance.
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9 9 9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9 9 9 9 9
9
9 9 9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9 9 9
9 9 9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9 9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9 9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9 9
9 9 9
9
9
9 9
9
9 9
9
9
9
9
OSS25
9
9
OSS24
9
9
OSS23
9
OSS22
9
OSS21
Oil and Gas Exploration
Marine
Research
Institutions
Recreation and Amenity
9
OSS20
Wildlife watching and
ecotourism
Small communities with
traditional, cultural and
economic affinities to the
sea
Renewable resources
9 9 9
9
9
9
Fisheries
OSS19
9 9 9
9
9 9 9 9 9
9 9 9 9 9 9 9
9
9
OSS18
Aquaculture
9
OSS17
9 9
OSS16
Marine and coastal areas
of minimal disturbance
Abundance of natural
marine resources
9
9
OSS15
9
9
OSS14
73
Islands and skerries
9
OSS13
9
OSS12
9
9
OSS11
9
OSS10
9
OSS9
9
OSS8
Cold-water biogenic reefs
Cetacean
and
seal
populations
Proximity to deep-water
biological communities
OSS7
9 9 9 9 9
9
9 9 9
9
9 9 9 9 9
9 9
9 9 9
Geographical location
OSS6
9
9
OSS5
OSS4
99
OSS3
OSS2
OSS1
Sealoch Environments
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9. ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSALS AGAINST SCOTTISH POLICY BACKGROUND
We were specifically requested to consider how proposals for Marine Ecosystem Objectives
would fit within the wider policy framework in Scotland. The main policy background, as
already noted, is discussed in Sustainable Seas for All (Scottish Government, 2008a).
In 2007, the Scottish Government announced details of its agreed purpose, strategic
objectives and national outcomes, and these are reported upon through 45 national
indicators on the Scotland Performs website at www.scotland.gov.uk/About/scotPerforms .
The purpose is “to focus Government and public services on creating a more successful
country, with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish, through increasing sustainable
economic growth”. The background documentation states: “We want to live in a successful
Scotland: a healthy, safe, well-educated country, with a vibrant economy and opportunities
for all. We want Scotland to be fair, tolerant and green. Put simply, we want a Scotland to
be proud of.”
If increasing economic growth is to be truly sustainable, then environmental safeguards need
to be put in place, and that is the purpose of the Marine Ecosystem Standards which we
propose. If Scotland is to be truly green, and we are to provide a land and sea of which
Scots can be truly proud, then we must begin to address past mismanagement of our seas,
by ensuring this is addressed effectively in the environmental suite of National Marine
Objectives.
The national purpose is to be taken forward by five strategic objectives. The National Marine
Plan and National Marine Objectives must contribute to all five of these, but the specific
proposals in this report contribute primarily to the fifth, ‘greener Scotland’ objective: “to
improve Scotland’s natural [and built] environment, and the sustainable use and enjoyment
of it”, but, by so doing it will also contribute to the ‘wealthier and fairer’ objective, by ensuring
that marine businesses do not deplete the natural environmental capital on which they
depend; to the ‘safer and stronger’ objective, by helping to ensure a safer environment for
coastal communities and a better quality of life for all Scots; and to the ‘healthier’ objective
by ensuring that the seas remain clean and safe for people to visit. There is a key role for the
‘smarter’ objective in taking all this forward, because life-long learning will have a vital role in
ensuring that we better understand the marine environment and so are able to manage it
more sustainably.
In terms of the 15 national outcomes, the proposals in this report will contribute most
strongly to the outcome which states: “We value and enjoy our built and natural environment
and protect it and enhance it for future generations”, but we believe they will also contribute
to the outcomes on ‘healthier lives’, ‘sustainable places’, and ‘reducing environmental
impact’, while enhancing our ‘national identity’ with the sea, and ensuring that ‘better
employment opportunities’ in the marine environment are not at odds with the other national
outcomes identified.
In terms of wider policy initiatives, the Scottish Planning Policy document, published in
October 2008 (Scottish Government, 2008c) is explicit that its focus is on land-use policy,
but two of its core principles are relevant also to the present work:•
•
The constraints and requirements that planning imposes should be necessary and
proportionate;
There should be a clear focus on the quality of outcomes, with due attention given to
considerations of the sustainable use of land [and sea], good design and the protection
and enhancement of the built and natural environment.
74
Earlier, in January 2008, these issues were also discussed in National Planning Framework
2: 2008 Discussion Draft (Scottish Government, 2008b). Again, this is essentially terrestrial
in its focus, although in its introductory assessment of Scotland, it does state: “Marine
resources are vitally important to Scotland, supporting a wide range of economic activities.
Our territorial waters extend to nearly 89,000 km2 and support around 40,000 marine
species.” With respect to proposals for the marine environment, it states: “The Scottish
Government intends to deliver a Marine Bill including amongst other things a system of
marine planning to enhance the sustainable use of the marine areas and to ensure that this
key asset is maintained in robust health for future generations to use and enjoy.” The
proposals contained in the present report are designed to ensure that all uses of marine
areas are truly sustainable, and that the marine environment is maintained in robust health
for future generations to use and enjoy, so they precisely meet the requirements of the
proposed National Planning Framework. As highlighted in section 6.9, if we are to achieve
the desired Outcomes for Scotland’s Seas, it is very important that the future marine
planning system is informed by National Marine Objectives and underpinned by Marine
Ecosystem Standards.
The discussion draft goes on to propose twelve elements for a spatial strategy for the period
to 2030. Of these elements, the proposals in this report would help to contribute to at least
five, as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
support strong, sustainable growth for the benefit of all parts of Scotland;
promote development which helps to reduce Scotland’s carbon footprint and facilitates
adaptation to climate change;
support sustainable growth in the rural economy;
conserve and enhance Scotland’s distinctive natural and cultural heritage;
expand opportunities for communities and businesses by promoting environmental
quality and good connectivity.
Although launched under the previous administration, Choosing Our Future (Scottish
Executive 2005c) has not been superseded as a sustainable development strategy for
Scotland. This sets out to meet within Scotland the common UK sustainable development
aim:“to enable all people throughout the world to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better
quality of life without compromising the quality of life of future generations”
The measures proposed in this report to maintain and improve the quality of Scotland’s
marine environment are aimed specifically at not compromising the quality of life of future
generations who use or rely on the ecosystem services provided by the sea.
These proposals furthermore contribute directly to two of the strategic priorities outlined in
Choosing Our Future:•
•
Sustainable consumption and production: achieving more with less. This includes
reducing the inefficient use of resources, looking at the impact of products and
materials across their whole lifecycle and encouraging people to think about the social
and environmental consequences of their purchasing choices.
Natural resource protection and environmental enhancement: protecting our
natural resources, building a better understanding of environmental limits, and
improving the quality of the environment.
Indirectly they also contribute to two other strategic priorities:•
Climate change and energy: securing a profound change in the way we generate and
use energy, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
75
•
Sustainable communities: creating communities that embody the principles of
sustainable development locally.
The strategy document states:“Our marine and coastal environments are at potential risk from water-borne pollution
and there is evidence of excess pressure on stocks of some fish species, particularly
cod, habitat loss and disturbance to the sea-bed and sea life in the seas around
Scotland. Action is in hand to address these risks but more work is needed to identify
and tackle the cumulative and cross-sectoral impacts of the range of marine-based
activity in and around our coasts and seas.”
These are key outcomes which the proposed system of National Marine Objectives and
Marine Ecosystem Standards are intended to deliver.
Choosing Our Future also states: “Economic growth is our top priority – but not at any cost.
We must recognise that economic growth and the protection of our world for the future go
hand in hand. The challenge is to make economic growth sustainable, breaking the link with
environmental damage.”
We propose that the system of National Marine Objectives, with an underpinning level of
Marine Ecosystem Standards, should do precisely that for the marine environment of
Scotland.
76
REFERENCES
AGMACS, 2007. Recommendations of the Advisory Group on Marine and Coastal Strategy.
Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.
Baxter, J.M., Boyd, I.L., Cox, M., Cunningham, L., Holmes, P. & Moffat, C.F. (eds.), 2008.
Scotland's Seas: towards understanding their state. Aberdeen: Fisheries Research Services.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2005. Securing the Future. The UK
Government Sustainable Development Strategy. London TSO.
DFO, 2003. A Strategic Planning Framework for the Eastern Scotian Shelf Ocean
Management Plan: A Discussion Paper Prepared for the ESSIM Forum. In Eastern Scotian
Shelf Integrated Management (ESSIM) Initiative, Dartmouth: Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
DFO, 2004. Habitat Status Report on Ecosystem Objectives. Ontario: DFO Canadian
Science Advisory Secretariat.
DFO, 2007. Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management Plan. Strategic Plan. Dartmouth,
Nova Scotia: Oceans and Habitat Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Eldridge, B. & Kennedy, K., 2008. Workshop to develop a UK position on the interpretation
of Good Environmental Status (‘GES’) to meet the aims of the Marine Strategy Framework
Directive (MSFD) for UK waters. Synthesis Report of Workshop Findings. 5th November,
2008, Defra Innovation Centre, Reading. Cefas.
European Union, 2008. Directive 2008/56/EC Of The European Parliament And Of The
Council of 17 June 2008. Establishing a framework for community action in the field of
marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). In Directive
2008/56/EC. Brussels: European Commission.
HELCOM 2006 Helsinki Commission – Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission,
Minutes of the 27th Meeting Helsinki, Finland, 8–9 March 2006 (www.helcom.fi)
Heywood, V.H. (ed.), 1995. Global biodiversity assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Jamieson, G., O’Boyle, R., Arbour, J., Cobb, D., Courtenay, S., Gregory, R., Levings, C.,
Munro, J., Perry, I. & Vandermeulen, H., 2001. Proceedings of the National Workshop on
Objectives and Indicators For Ecosystem-based Management. In National Workshop on
Objectives and Indicators For Ecosystem-based Management, pp. 142. Sidney, British
Columbia: Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat.
Laffoley, D.d’a., Burt J., Gilliand, P., Connor, D.W., Davies J., Hill, M., Breen J., Vincent, M.
& Maltby, E. 2003. Adopting an Ecosystem Approach for the improved stewardship of the
martime environment: some overarching issues. English Nature, Peterborogh, English
Nature Research Reoprts, No538, 20pp
O’Boyle, R. & Jamieson, G., 2005. Observations on the implementation of ecosystem-based
management: Experiences on Canada's east and west coasts. Fisheries Research, 79(1-2),
1-12.
77
O’Boyle, R. & Worcester, T., 2006. Eastern Canada – Ecosystem approach to fisheries in
DFO Maritimes Region. In Report of the PICES/NPRB Workshop on Integration of
Ecological Indicators of the North Pacific with Emphasis on the Bering Sea., vol. Report 33
(December 2006) (eds. G.H. Kruse, P. Livingston, J.E. Overland, G.S. Jamieson, S.
McKinnell and R.I. Perry), pp. 63-64. Sidney, B.C., Canada: North Pacific Marine Science
Organization (PICES).
OSPAR Commission, 2007. Ecological Quality Objectives: Working towards a healthy North
Sea. London: OSPAR Commission.
Paramor, O. & Frid, C., 2006. Marine Ecosystem Objectives. Further development of
objectives for marine habitats. pp. 126. London: Defra
Park, C., 2007. Oxford dictionary of environment and conservation. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Rogers, S.I. & Greenaway, B., 2005. A UK perspective on the development of marine
ecosystem indicators. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 50, 9-19.
Rogers, S.I., Tasker, M. & Whitmee, D., 2005. A technical paper to support the development
of marine ecosystem objectives for the UK. In Technical Report: London: Defra
Rogers, S.I. & Tasker, M.L., 2005. The Manchester Workshop on Marine Objectives: a
workshop to identify objectives in support of the UK vision for the marine environment. In
The Manchester Workshop on Marine Objectives, pp. 45. London: Defra
Rogers, S.I., Tasker, M.L., Earll, R. & Gubbay, S., 2007. Ecosystem objectives to support
the UK vision for the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 54(2), 128-144.
Rutherford, R.J., Herbert, G.J. & Coffen-Smout, S.S., 2005. Integrated ocean management
and the collaborative planning process: the Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management
(ESSIM) initiative. Marine Policy, 29, 75-83.
Scottish Environment LINK, 2008. Marine Ecosystem Objectives. Perth: Scottish
Environment LINK.
Scottish Executive, 2003. The Sustainable Development of Scotland’s Marine Resources:
Towards New Management Framework Options? Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.
Scottish Executive, 2005a. Seas the opportunity. A strategy for the long-term sustainability of
Scotland's Coasts and seas. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.
Scottish Executive, 2005b. Sustainable Development Criteria and the Ecosystem Approach:
SSMEI desk study. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.
Scottish Executive, 2005c. Choosing our Future: Scotland’s Sustainable Development
Strategy. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.
Scottish Government, 2008a. Sustainable seas for all: a consultation on Scotland's first
Marine Bill. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.
Scottish Government, 2008b. National Planning Framework 2: 2008 Discussion Draft.
Edinburgh: Scottish Government.
Scottish Government, 2008c. Scottish Planning Policy. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.
78
Walmsley, J., 2004. Developing objectives and indicators for marine ecosystem-based
management. Definition of commonly-used terms. Final report. pp. 23. Dartmouth: DFO.
Walmsley, J., Coffen-Smout, S., Hall, T. & Herbert, G., 2007. Development of a Human Use
Objectives Framework for Integrated Management of the Eastern Scotian Shelf. Coastal
Management, 35(1), 23-50.
WSSD 2002a Our Origins to the Future. The Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable
Development. Johannesburg: World Summit on Sustainable Development.
WSSD 2002b Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. Johannesburg: World Summit on
Sustainable Development.
79
GLOSSARY
The authors have sought to explain concepts and terminology as they first occur in the text.
This glossary therefore only covers terms which occur several times within the text, without
explanation at each occurrence.
Contributory Marine Objectives (CMOs): A proposed set of objectives (no longer under
development) to guide progress at the UK level towards seas which are ‘clean, healthy, safe,
productive and biologically diverse’ (see chapter 4.6 and Appendix 2.4).
Defra: The UK Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management Project: A project within the Canadian
Oceans Strategy (see Chapter 5.2 and Appendix 5)
Ecological Quality Objectives (ecoQOs): A set of targets, developed through a pilot
project of OSPAR (qv), which are intended to be representative of a healthy North Sea (see
chapter 4.4).
ecosystem: short for ‘ecological system’, meaning the natural interacting living and nonliving system in any area of sea or land (see chapter 3.1)
ecosystem based approach: Integrating and managing the range of demands placed on
the natural environment in such a way that it can indefinitely support essential services and
provide benefits for all (see chapter 3.3 and Table 3.1).
ecosystem management: an integrated approach to the management of ecosystems and
natural resources that seeks to balance ecological, economic and social goals in a
sustainable way (see chapter 3.1).
EcoQOs: Ecological Quality Objectives (qv).
EMSFD: the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (see chapter 4.2)
European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (EMSFD): The European Union directive,
which came into force in July 2008, aimed at achieving Good Environmental Status (qv) for
the seas around Europe (see chapter 4.2)
Good Environmental Status: The environmental condition of national seas which European
Union member states are required to take action to achieve or maintain by the year 2020
under the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (see chapter 4.2). The
‘descriptors’ required to assess this condition are shown in Table 3.4.
High Level Marine Objectives: A set of high-level objectives developed by the UK
government and the devolved administrations, proposed in the consultation document The
Seas – a shared resource (see chapter 4.6), and consulted upon in Scotland in Sustainable
Seas for All. These are shown in Table 3.3.
Highly Used Waters: Proposed here as a designation for waters around Scotland which
have been highly modified by human activities, and for which Scottish Marine Regions may
be allowed to set a lower level of Marine Ecosystem Standards (see chapter 6.2).
HELCOM: The Helsinki Convention for the Baltic Sea (see Chapter 5.1 and Appendix 4).
80
Marine Ecosystem Objectives (MEOs): Proposed in Sustainable Seas for All as “a
mechanism for setting out what the management of Scotland’s coasts and seas is aiming to
achieve; outlining strategic goals for the marine environment, and translating the principles
of an ecosystem-based approach into practice” (see chapter 1). They are taken here to
encompass National Marine Objectives (qv) and Marine Ecosystem Standards (qv).
Marine Ecosystem Standards (MESs): Proposed in this report as a ‘bottom line’ set of
targets for Scotland’s seas, which will allow us to ensure that we are managing human
activities in a way that is not damaging marine ecosystems and the environmental goods
and services they provide for Scotland’s people, and are making progress in restoring past
damage where this is necessary (see chapter 1).
National Marine Objectives (NMOs): Proposed in Sustainable Seas for All as a set of
objectives for the environmental, social and economic conditions of Scotland’s seas,
determining the use and the limits of our use of the seas and developed within the context of
sustainable economic growth, and reflecting also on international commitments and
obligations. This paper (see chapter 1) considers, in particular, the development of
environmental objectives within these NMOs.
Marine Scotland: The government body responsible for managing the seas around
Scotland, which will be established from April 2009 (see chapter 1).
Natura network: the network of nature conservation sites, including marine sites, across the
European Union established under the EC Habitats and Birds Directives (see chapter 4.3).
OSPAR: The Oslo-Paris Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the
North-East Atlantic (see chapter 4.4)
Outcomes for Scotland’s Seas (OSSs): Proposed in this report as a set of 25 high-level
outcomes and objectives for Scotland’s Seas, based on, and integrated from, the High Level
Marine Objectives (qv) proposed by the UK and Scottish Governments, and the Descriptors
of Good Environmental Status (qv) in the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive.
Scottish Marine Regions (SMRs): Bodies proposed in Sustainable Seas for All, which will
be established through secondary legislation under the Scottish Marine Bill and given
responsibility by Scottish Ministers for delivering marine planning and management at a
more localised level within the seas around Scotland.
Sustainable Seas for All: The Scottish Government consultation paper outlining proposals
for Scotland’s first Marine Bill (Scottish Government, 2008a)
UK Marine Monitoring and Assessment Strategy (UKMMAS): A programme set up at the
UK level to advise on the monitoring and assessment required to establish whether or not
the overall objectives for the seas around the UK are being achieved (see chapter 4.6).
81
APPENDIX 1: INVENTORY OF AIMS, OBJECTIVES, GOALS OR DESCRIPTORS
RELEVANT TO THE UK – OBLIGATIONS AND COMMITMENTS
This inventory is in two sections. Appendix 1 considers aims, objectives, goals and
descriptors extracted from a range of directives or policy initiatives to which the Scottish
government either has a legal obligation, or to which it has made a stated commitment
(including a range of policy documents produced by the Scottish Government itself).
Appendix 2 considers aims, objectives, goals and descriptors in a further range of policy
initiatives, which the Scottish Government has supported to varying degrees, but to the
outcomes of which it has made no specific commitment, as well as a number of initiatives
which have lapsed for various reasons but which still contain aims, objectives, goals or
descriptors which might be worthy of consideration in developing the National Marine Plan
for Scotland.
In each appendix, we have attempted to categorise objectives, or statements that may
approximate to objectives, into one of three levels;
•
High level goals – High-level, strategic and broadly aspirational.
•
Intermediate level objectives – Objectives targeted to a particular marine and coastal
element but without the detail required for operational-level objectives.
•
Operational level objectives – Statements supporting the achievement of strategic-level
objectives which can be practically implemented and associated with management
actions. Operational Objectives should be able to be evaluated through some measure
of performance.
The catalogued ‘objectives’ in this Appendix that have been implemented and to which there
is an obligation or stated commitment, arranged from international, through European and
UK to Scottish policy instruments, are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea – resolutions
Bergen Ministerial Declaration
EU Habitats Directive
EU Birds Directive
EU Water Framework Directive
European Marine Strategy Framework Directive
OSPAR Annex V
OSPAR Strategies for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East
Atlantic
Safeguarding Our Seas
UK High Level Marine Objectives
Review of Marine Nature Conservation Operational Objectives
UK Biodiversity Action Plan23
UK Public Service Agreement Framework
Scottish National Marine Objectives
Scottish Biodiversity Strategy
A Strategic Framework For Scotland's Marine Environment
Renewed Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture
23
Note: some specifically dated BAP objectives have expired. A revision of the UK Biodiversity Action
Plan is currently underway.
82
The catalogued ‘objectives’ in Appendix 2 to which there is, as yet, no stated commitment
from the Scottish Government, or which are of uncertain status, are:
•
•
•
North Sea Pilot (OSPAR) Ecological Quality Objectives
Scottish Biodiversity Implementation Plan (Marine and Coastal Ecosystems)
(currently undergoing Strategic Environmental Assessment before finalisation)
Scottish Natural Heritage – Natural Heritage Futures Update
The catalogued ‘objectives’ in Appendix 2 that have not been implemented or adopted, or
which have been superseded, are:
•
•
•
Draft Proposed UK Contributory Marine Objectives
Irish Sea Conservation Objectives (Irish Sea Pilot)
Scottish Biodiversity Strategy (2003)
83
Objective Descriptions
A1.1 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea – resolutions
Owner/Originator:
United Nations: General Assembly
Objective Suite Title:
UNGA Resolutions
Source:
United Nations
Objective Level:
High level goals
No. of Stated Objectives:
Multiple
Status:
Adopted by General Assembly, with UK as signatory
Details:
Broadly speaking, the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
commits signatory states (including the UK) to a fundamental obligation to protect and
preserve the marine environment. It further urges all states to co-operate on a global and
regional basis in formulating rules and standards, and otherwise take measures for the same
purpose. One specific measure that followed from UNCLOS was the 1996 Agreement on
Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, which introduced a range of
general resource protection measures for widespread fish species outwith national waters24.
These measures are generally broad-brush, and could be said to be achieved by measures
already in place, most specifically by the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive.
However, two more recent resolutions contain a number of more specific commitments that
come closer to the form of high-level objectives relevant to the current report.
Sustainable fisheries (resolution 61/105; 2006)
Resolution 61/10525, adopted at the General Assembly’s 61st session in December 2006,
related to sustainable fisheries, and includes a number of requirements on signatory states
(including the UK) which are relevant to the present work (although largely operative at the
EU level). Some of the 108 clauses most relevant to this report are listed below, somewhat
edited for brevity (see the resolution for complete wording of the paragraphs, as numbered in
parenthesis):•
Calls upon all States, directly or through regional fisheries management organizations
and arrangements, to apply widely, in accordance with international law…, the
precautionary approach and an ecosystem approach to the conservation, management
24
See www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_historical_perspective.htm
25
See resolution A/RES/61/105 on www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/r61.htm
84
and exploitation of fish stocks, including straddling fish stocks, highly migratory fish
stocks and discrete high seas fish stocks… (5);
•
Encourages States to increase their reliance on scientific advice in developing, adopting
and implementing conservation and management measures, and to increase their efforts
to promote science for conservation and management measures that apply, in
accordance with international law, the precautionary approach and an ecosystem
approach to fisheries management, enhancing understanding of ecosystem approaches,
in order to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of marine living
resources…(6)
•
Also encourages States to apply the precautionary approach and an ecosystem
approach in adopting and implementing conservation and management measures
addressing, inter alia, by-catch, pollution, overfishing, and protecting habitats of specific
concern, taking into account existing guidelines developed by the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (7);
•
Calls upon States to take all measures consistent with international law necessary to
prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities, such
as developing measures consistent with national law to prohibit vessels flying their flag
from supporting vessels engaging in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities,
including those listed by regional fisheries management organizations or arrangements
(38);
•
Calls upon States in accordance with international law to strengthen implementation of
or, where they do not exist, adopt comprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance
measures and compliance and enforcement schemes individually and within those
regional fisheries management organizations or arrangements in which they participate
in order to provide an appropriate framework for promoting compliance with agreed
conservation and management measures, and further urges enhanced coordination
among all relevant States and regional fisheries management organizations and
arrangements in these efforts (47);
•
Urges States, regional and subregional fisheries management organisations and
arrangements and other relevant international organizations that have not done so to
take action to reduce or eliminate by-catch, catch lost or abandoned gear, fish discards
and post-harvest losses, including juvenile fish, consistent with international law and
relevant international instruments, including the Code, and in particular to consider
measures including, as appropriate, technical measures related to fish size, mesh size or
gear, discards, closed seasons and areas and zones reserved for selected fisheries,
particularly artisanal fisheries, the establishment of mechanisms for communicating
information on areas of high concentration of juvenile fish, taking into account the
importance of ensuring confidentiality of such information, and support for studies and
research that will reduce or eliminate by-catch of juvenile fish (60);
•
Encourages States to apply by 2010 the ecosystem approach… (76)
•
Further encourages States to increase scientific research in accordance with
international law on the marine ecosystem (78);
•
Calls upon States to take action immediately, individually and through regional fisheries
management organizations and arrangements, and consistent with the precautionary
approach and ecosystem approaches, to sustainably manage fish stocks and protect
vulnerable marine ecosystems, including seamounts, hydrothermal vents and cold water
corals, from destructive fishing practices, recognizing the immense importance and value
of deep sea ecosystems and the biodiversity they contain (80);
•
Calls upon regional fisheries management organizations or arrangements with the
competence to regulate bottom fisheries to adopt and implement measures, in
85
accordance with the precautionary approach, ecosystem approaches and international
law, for their respective regulatory areas as a matter of priority, but not later than 31
December 2008 (83):
(a) To assess, on the basis of the best available scientific information, whether individual
bottom fishing activities would have significant adverse impacts on vulnerable marine
ecosystems, and to ensure that if it is assessed that these activities would have
significant adverse impacts, they are managed to prevent such impacts, or not
authorized to proceed;
(b) To identify vulnerable marine ecosystems and determine whether bottom fishing
activities would cause significant adverse impacts to such ecosystems and the long-term
sustainability of deep sea fish stocks, inter alia, by improving scientific research and data
collection and sharing, and through new and exploratory fisheries;
(c) In respect of areas where vulnerable marine ecosystems, including seamounts,
hydrothermal vents and cold water corals, are known to occur or are likely to occur
based on the best available scientific information, to close such areas to bottom fishing
and ensure that such activities do not proceed unless conservation and management
measures have been established to prevent significant adverse impacts on vulnerable
marine ecosystems;
Oceans and the law of the sea (resolution 62/215; 2007)
At its 62nd session in December 2007, the UN General Assembly adopted a further
resolution (no 62/215)26 relating to UNCLOS and the harmonisation of national legislation.
Of its 152 clauses, the following seem most relevant to the present work (with paragraph
numbers in parenthesis):•
Urges all States to cooperate, directly or through competent international bodies, in
taking measures to protect and preserve objects of an archaeological and historical
nature found at sea, in conformity with the Convention, and calls upon States to work
together on such diverse challenges and opportunities as the appropriate relationship
between salvage law and scientific management and conservation of underwater cultural
heritage, increasing technological abilities to discover and reach underwater sites,
looting and growing underwater tourism (7);
•
Notes the effort made by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization with respect to the preservation of underwater cultural heritage, and notes
in particular the rules annexed to the 2001 Convention on the Protection of the
Underwater Cultural Heritage 12 that address the relationship between salvage law and
scientific principles of management, conservation and protection of underwater cultural
heritage among parties, their nationals and vessels flying their flag (8);
•
Emphasises once again the importance of the implementation of Part XII of the
Convention in order to protect and preserve the marine environment and its living marine
resources against pollution and physical degradation, and calls upon all States to
cooperate and take measures consistent with the Convention, directly or through
competent international organizations, for the protection and preservation of the marine
environment (80);
26
Downloadable from http://www.un.org/ga/62/resolutions.shtml .
86
•
Encourages States, individually or in collaboration with relevant international
organizations and bodies, to enhance their scientific activity to better understand the
effects of climate change on the marine environment and marine biodiversity and
develop ways and means of adaptation (82);
•
Urges States to integrate the issue of marine debris into national strategies dealing with
waste management in the coastal zone, ports and maritime industries, including
recycling, reuse, reduction and disposal, and to encourage the development of
appropriate economic incentives to address this issue, including the development of cost
recovery systems that provide an incentive to use port reception facilities and discourage
ships from discharging marine debris at sea, and encourages States to cooperate
regionally and subregionally to develop and implement joint prevention and recovery
programmes for marine debris (90);
•
Reaffirms paragraph 119 of resolution 61/222 regarding ecosystem approaches and
oceans, including the proposed elements of an ecosystem approach, means to achieve
implementation of an ecosystem approach and requirements for improved application of
an ecosystem approach, and in this regard (99):
(a) Notes that continued environmental degradation in many parts of the world and
increasing competing demands require an urgent response and the setting of priorities
for management interventions aimed at conserving ecosystem integrity;
(b) Notes that ecosystem approaches to ocean management should be focused on
managing human activities in order to maintain and, where needed, restore ecosystem
health to sustain goods and environmental services, provide social and economic
benefits for food security, sustain livelihoods in support of international development
goals, including those contained in the Millennium Declaration, and conserve marine
biodiversity;
(c) Recalls that States should be guided in the application of ecosystem approaches by a
number of existing instruments, in particular the Convention, which sets out the legal
framework for all activities in the oceans and seas, and its implementing Agreements, as
well as other commitments, such as those contained in the Convention on Biological
Diversity and the World Summit on Sustainable Development call for the application of
an ecosystem approach by 2010;
(d) Encourages States to cooperate and coordinate their efforts and take, individually or
jointly, as appropriate, all measures, in conformity with international law, including the
Convention and other applicable instruments, to address impacts on marine ecosystems
within and beyond areas of national jurisdiction, taking into account the integrity of the
ecosystems concerned;
•
Reaffirms the need for States to continue their efforts to develop and facilitate the use of
diverse approaches and tools for conserving and managing vulnerable marine
ecosystems, including the possible establishment of marine protected areas, consistent
with international law and based on the best scientific information available, and the
development of representative networks of any such marine protected areas by 2012
(111);
Calls upon States, individually or in collaboration with each other or with relevant
international organizations and bodies, to improve understanding and knowledge of the
oceans and the deep sea, including, in particular, the extent and vulnerability of deep sea
biodiversity and ecosystems, by increasing their marine scientific research activities in
accordance with the Convention (121).
87
A1.2 Bergen Ministerial Declaration
Owner/Originator:
Ministers responsible for the protection of the environment of
the North Sea, and member of the European Commission
responsible for environmental protection
Objective Suite Title:
Bergen Declaration
Source:
5th International Conference on the Protection of the North
Sea
Objective Level:
High level goals
No. of Stated Objectives:
Multiple
Status:
Signed by Michael Meacher, Minister for the Environment, on
behalf of the UK Government.
Details:
The Fifth International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea was held in Bergen,
Norway on 20–21 March 2002. At the end, the nine environment ministers present, and the
Director of the EC Directorate Generale Environment, all signed the ‘Bergen Declaration’27, a
high-level statement of intent on “the need to manage all human activities that affect the
North Sea, in a way that conserves biological diversity and ensures sustainable
development”. In effect, this was a reaffirmation of many of the principles of the Oslo-Paris
Treaty that gave rise to OSPAR, and in particular it endorsed the pilot project to develop
‘EcoQOs’ for the North Sea [see Appendix 2.1], but a number of the general commitments
made amongst the 88 clauses of the declaration seem particularly relevant to the work of
developing objectives for Scotland’s marine environment:2. The Ministers therefore agree to implement an ecosystem approach by identifying and
taking action on influences which are critical to the health of the North Sea ecosystem. In
particular, they that management will be guided by the conceptual framework set out in
Annex 2, which includes:
- the development of general and operational environmental goals;
- best use of available scientific and technical knowledge about the structure and
function of the ecosystem;
- best use of scientific advice;
- integrated expert assessment;
- coordinated and integrated monitoring;
- involvement of all stakeholders; and
- policy decisions and control and enforcement.
3. To implement an ecosystem approach in line with this framework the Ministers will:
i) develop focused research and information gathering which address the driving forces
of North Sea ecosystems variability, including climatic, biological and human factors,
27
Available online at www.ospar.org/html_documents/ospar/html/5nsc2002_bergen_declaration_english.pdf
88
which are critical for maintaining ecosystem structure and function and invite the
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), Global Ocean Ecosystem
Dynamics (GLOBEC) programme and other relevant scientific organizations and
programmes to consider the priority science issues from the Scientific Expert Conference
in Bergen 20–22 February 2002;
ii) recognize the need for shared integrated expert advice and assessments of the North
Sea, including marine resources, environmental and socioeconomic factors, and invite
OSPAR in cooperation with the EU and ICES to propose how this might be undertaken
at periodic intervals involving stakeholders and to take the first steps;
iii) develop a strategy for achieving dialogue with all relevant stakeholders for the
development and implementation of the ecosystem approach, including through the use
of existing national and international forums;
iv) improve the coordination, harmonization and efficiency of current national and
international monitoring to serve the assessment processes, including building on the
OSPAR Joint Assessment and Monitoring Programme and relevant EU monitoring
programmes;
v) make appropriate policy decisions, including integration of environmental protection
into all sectors, implement the corresponding management actions and ensure proper
control and enforcement to deliver an ecosystem approach; and
vi) make use of ecological quality objectives (EcoQOs) as a tool for setting clear
operational environmental objectives directed towards specific management and serving
as indicators for the ecosystem health.
4. For delivering an ecosystem approach for the North Sea, the Ministers stress the
importance of developing a coherent and integrated set of ecological quality objectives.
Therefore they welcome the progress that is being made within OSPAR and ICES to
develop operational ecological quality objectives…
6. The Ministers reaffirm the agreement within OSPAR to promote the establishment of a
network of marine protected areas to ensure the sustainable use, conservation and
protection of marine biological diversity and its ecosystems and note the progress within
OSPAR to develop draft guidelines for the identification and selection of marine protected
areas1 as well as draft guidelines for their management…
7. The Ministers agree that by 2010 relevant areas of the North Sea will be designated as
marine protected areas belonging to a network of well-managed sites, safeguarding
threatened and declining species, habitats and ecosystem functions, as well as areas which
best represent the range of ecological and other relevant character in the OSPAR area.
11. Taking account of article 8h of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and ongoing
international work in this field, the Ministers agree to take action, as far as possible and as
appropriate, to reduce the risk and minimise adverse effects on ecosystems, habitats or
naturally occurring species arising from the introduction or release of non-indigenous
species, including:
i) in the case of intentional introductions to develop and implement, where necessary,
systems of approval based on the precautionary principle and environmental impact
assessments to ensure confinement of potentially invasive non-indigenous organisms
and associated biota, taking account of the ICES Code of Practice on Introductions and
Transfers of Marine Organisms; and
ii) in the case of unintentional introductions, to take action at the earliest possible stage
with the aim of preventing the firm establishment of the introduced species.
89
13. The Ministers are concerned by the fact that the majority of the commercially important
fish stocks in the North Sea are outside 'safe biological limits' 2. The Ministers are also
concerned about the fact that some non-target species and the physical environment are
also threatened from excessive fishing pressure. This may put populations and habitats in
danger, reduce biodiversity and affect the productivity of ecosystem.
16. In order to rebuild fish stocks, the competent authorities are invited:
i) to establish Total Allowable Catch (TAC) levels consistent with scientific catch
recommendations based on the precautionary principle;
ii) to use their best endeavour to restore and keep stocks above the level of the
precautionary reference points (Bpa) as soon as possible; and
iii) to extend the TAC regime and other management measures to species which are
unregulated at present, and improve the existing regimes for stocks extending beyond
the North Sea.
19. The Ministers agree that fisheries policies and management should move towards the
incorporation of ecosystem considerations in a holistic, multiannual and strategic context.
While the transition towards a full ecosystem approach to fisheries management should be
progressive and concomitant with the enhancement of scientific knowledge, the Ministers
are convinced that the current state of scientific knowledge, coupled with a sound
application of the precautionary principle, allows the immediate setting of certain
environmental protection measures.
20. The Ministers invite the competent authorities to give high priority to research and
studies allowing a better understanding of the structure and functioning of marine
ecosystems and contributing to the operational application of an ecosystem approach to
fisheries management.
73. The Ministers express their concern about the fact that, despite the wide range of
measures taken in recent years, marine litter is still causing environmental, safety and
economic problems to marine and coastal environments, as well as to coastal communities
in the North Sea States.
74. The Ministers agree that litter can only be addressed by efforts from all sectors of
society. The Ministers therefore:
i) emphasise the importance of the role of the voluntary sector, particularly in mounting
clean-up campaigns, information activities and educational projects (such as
Beachwatch, Coastwatch and Adopt-a-beach), and welcome their contribution;
ii) in relation to litter from land-based sources, such as tourism/recreation, sewage, and
waste landfills, invite organizations concerned with promoting tourism, managing waste
disposal and encouraging the public not to create litter to review their programmes to see
if there are further projects which could be developed to reduce marine litter by changing
public attitudes;
iii) note with interest the project conducted in cooperation between a number of Dutch
fishermen and Dutch authorities under which litter caught in trawls is brought back to port
where it can be unloaded free of charge for safe disposal, and draw the attention of the
relevant authorities in other North Sea States to this fruitful cooperation as a possible
model for wider cooperation in this field;
iv) commit themselves to giving priority, within their national programmes to combat
litter, to projects that effectively address the problems of marine litter (such as the Save
the North Sea Project) and, where appropriate, to supporting them within the framework
of the EU INTERREG IIIB North Sea initiative; and
90
v) in relation to litter from the maritime transport sector and offshore installations, invite
the operators to review the provisions of their environmental management systems to
see how they can better control litter.
76. The Ministers are aware of the potential conflicts between the requirements for
conservation and restoration of the marine environment and the different human activities in
the North Sea. The cumulative effects of the uses of the sea and seabed on the ecosystems
and their biodiversity are of increasing concern to the North Sea States, in particular in
relation to the conservation of the Natura 2000 network and other areas of ecological
significance.
In order to prevent and resolve the potential problems created by such conflicts, the
Ministers agree that the strengthening of cooperation in the spatial planning processes of
the North Sea States related to the marine environment will be required.
A1.3 EU Habitats Directive
Owner/Originator:
EU
Objective Suite Title:
Measures in order to protect habitats and species.
Source:
European Union (1992)
Objective Level:
High level goals
No. of Stated Objectives:
10 objectives under 3 Articles
Status:
Implemented
Details:
Article 2
1. The aim of this Directive shall be to contribute towards ensuring bio-diversity through
the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora in the European
territory of the Member States to which the Treaty applies.
2. Measures taken pursuant to this Directive shall be designed to maintain or restore, at
favourable conservation status, natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora of
Community interest.
3. Measures taken pursuant to this Directive shall take account of economic, social and
cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics.
Article 3
1. A coherent European ecological network of Special Areas of Conservation shall be
set up under the title Natura 2000. This network, composed of sites hosting the
natural habitat types listed in Annex I and habitats of the species listed in Annex II,
shall enable the natural habitat types and the species' habitats concerned to be
maintained or, where appropriate, restored at a favourable conservation status in
their natural range.
91
The Natura 2000 network shall include the special protection areas classified by the
Member States pursuant to Directive 79/409/EEC.
2. Each Member State shall contribute to the creation of Natura 2000 in proportion to
the representation within its territory of the natural habitat types and the habitats of
species referred to in paragraph 1. To that effect each Member State shall designate,
in accordance with Article 4, sites as special areas of conservation taking account of
the objectives set out in paragraph 1.
3. Where they consider it necessary, Member States shall endeavour to improve the
ecological coherence of Natura 2000 by maintaining, and where appropriate
developing, features of the landscape which are of major importance for wild fauna
and flora, as referred to in Article 10.
Article 6
1. For special areas of conservation, Member States shall establish the necessary
conservation measures involving, if need be, appropriate management plans….and
appropriate statutory, administrative or contractual measures which correspond to
the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types in Annex I and the species in
Annex II present on the sites.
2. Member States shall take appropriate steps to avoid, in the special areas of
conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well
as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as
such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of this Directive.
3. Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of
the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in
combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment
of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives.
A1.4 EU Birds Directive
Owner/Originator:
EU
Objective Suite Title:
Measures in order to protect all bird species, their sites and
their habitats.
Source:
http://www.birdlife.org/action/awareness/eu_birds_directive/
what.html
Objective Level:
High level goals
No. of Stated Objectives:
7
Status:
Implemented
Details:
Together the Birds and Habitats Directives require the 25 EU Member States to take a
number of measures in order to protect all bird species, their sites and their habitats:
92
They require Member States to:
•
Take measures to conserve all naturally occurring bird species across the EU
•
Classify as Special Protection Areas (SPAs) the most suitable territories for species
listed on Annex I of the Directive and migratory species28
•
Maintain SPAs in Favourable Conservation Status
•
Prepare and implement management plans, setting clear conservation objectives for
all SPAs in the EU 25
•
Provide co-financing for the management of these protected sites (SPAs)
•
Regulate the hunting of certain species of birds listed in Annex II of the Birds Directive
•
Follow the procedure outlined in Article 6 of the Habitats Directive for carrying out
appropriate assessments of environmental impacts on SPAs.
A1.5 EU Water Framework Directive
Owner/Originator:
European Union
Objective Suite Title:
Water Framework Directive Objectives
Source:
European
Union
(2005);
www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Environment/Water/17316/8084
Objective Level:
Intermediate level objectives
No. of Stated Objectives:
Status:
Undergoing implementation
Details:
The basic objectives to be achieved as set out in Article 4(1) of WFD Directive 2000/60/EC
can be summarised as follows:
•
prevent deterioration in the status of surface water bodies;
•
protect, enhance and restore all bodies of surface water with the aim of achieving good
surface water status (i.e. good ecological status or potential and good chemical status)
by 2015;
28
Special Protection Areas (SPAs) are classified under article 4 of the Birds Directive. Together with
the Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) designated under article 4 of the Habitats Directive they
make up the Natura 2000 Network.
93
•
prevent deterioration of the status of groundwater bodies;
•
protect, enhance and restore all bodies of groundwater with the aim of achieving good
groundwater status (i.e. good chemical and good quantitative status) by 2015;
•
prevent or limit the input of pollutants to groundwater and reverse any significant and
sustained upward trend in the concentration of pollutants in groundwater;
•
comply with European wide measures against priority and priority hazardous
substances; and
•
achieve compliance with any relevant standards and objectives for protected areas
These requirement apply not just to freshwaters (surface and ground waters) but also to
transitional waters, which are defined as “bodies of surface water in the vicinity of river
mouths which are partly saline in character as a result of their proximity to coastal waters but
which are substantially influenced by freshwater flows”, and also to coastal water, defined as
“surface water on the landward side of a line, every point of which is at a distance of one
nautical mile on the seaward side from the nearest point of the baseline from which the
breadth of territorial waters is measured, extending where appropriate up to the outer limit of
transitional waters”. In Scotland, the Scottish Parliament chose to extend this coastal zone
out to 3 nautical miles.
The Directive includes an exemption to certain clauses for “heavily modified” water bodies,
which are defined as a body of surface water which as a result of physical alterations by
human activity is substantially changed in character, as designated by the Member State in
accordance with the provisions of Annex II of the Directive.
The Directive also established a European 'priority list' of substances posing a threat to or
via the aquatic environment. There are currently 33 substances on this priority list, which
was agreed in 2001 (Decision 2455/2001/EC), and the list will be reviewed on a regular
basis. These substances are referred to as 'priority substances', and those which are
thought to pose the greatest threat are further identified as 'priority hazardous substances'.
The objectives of the Water Framework Directive include the aim to achieve 'good chemical
status' for surface water bodies by 2015. A body would obtain ‘good chemical status’ if it met
all of the environmental quality standards for priority substances and certain other pollutants.
Further Water Framework Directive obligations are aimed at:
•
•
the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of priority substances to
surface water bodies and
the cessation or phasing-out of discharges, emissions and losses of priority hazardous
substances to surface water bodies.
94
A1.6 European Marine Strategy Framework Directive
Owner/Originator:
European Union
Objective Suite Title:
Qualitative descriptors for determining good environmental
status
Source:
European Union (2008)
Objective Level:
High level goals
No. of Stated Objectives:
11
Status:
Undergoing definition before implementation
Details:
See Table 3.4 for a list of the 11 proposed qualitative descriptors.
A1.7 OSPAR Annex V
Owner/Originator:
OSPAR
Objective Suite Title:
OSPAR Annex V
Source:
OSPAR
Objective Level:
High level goals
No. of Stated Objectives:
5 objectives (5 ‘sub-objectives’)
Status:
Being implemented
Details:
Article 2
In fulfilling their obligation under the Convention to take, individually and jointly, the
necessary measures to protect the maritime area against the adverse effects of human
activities so as to safeguard human health and to conserve marine ecosystems and, when
practicable, restore marine areas which have been adversely affected, as well as their
obligation under the Convention on Biological Diversity of 5 June 1992 to develop strategies,
95
plans or programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity,
Contracting Parties shall:
a. take the necessary measures to protect and conserve the ecosystems and the
biological diversity of the maritime area, and to restore, where practicable, marine
areas which have been adversely affected; and
b. cooperate in adopting programmes and measures for those purposes for the control
of the human activities identified by the application of the criteria in Appendix 3.
Article 3
1. For the purposes of this Annex, it shall inter alia be the duty of the Commission:
a. to draw up programmes and measures for the control of the human activities
identified by the application of the criteria in Appendix 3;
b. in doing so:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
to collect and review information on such activities and their effects on
ecosystems and biological diversity;
to develop means, consistent with international law, for instituting protective,
conservation, restorative or precautionary measures related to specific areas
or sites or related to particular species or habitats;
subject to Article 4 of this Annex, to consider aspects of national strategies
and guidelines on the sustainable use of components of biological diversity of
the maritime area as they affect the various regions and sub-regions of that
area;
subject to Article 4 of this Annex, to aim for the application of an integrated
ecosystem approach.
c. also in doing so, to take account of programmes and measures adopted by
Contracting Parties for the protection and conservation of ecosystems within waters
under their sovereignty or jurisdiction.
A1.8 OSPAR Strategies for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the NorthEast Atlantic
Owner/Originator:
OSPAR
Objective Suite Title:
2003 Strategies of the OSPAR Commission for the
Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East
Atlantic
Source:
OSPAR Commission (2003)
Objective Level:
Intermediate level objectives
No. of Stated Objectives:
5 objectives
Status:
Being implemented
96
Details:
Strategy Title
Biological diversity
ecosystems
and
Eutrophication
Hazardous substances
Objective
To protect and conserve the ecosystems and the biological diversity of
the maritime area which are, or could be, affected as a result of human
activities, and to restore, where practicable, marine areas which have
been adversely affected, in accordance with the provisions of the
OSPAR Convention, including Annex V and Appendix 3.
To combat eutrophication in the OSPAR maritime area, in order to
achieve and maintain a healthy marine environment where
eutrophication does not occur.
The objective of the Commission with regard to hazardous substances
is to prevent pollution of the maritime area by continuously reducing
discharges, emissions and losses of hazardous substances, with the
ultimate aim of achieving concentrations in the marine environment near
background values for naturally occurring substances and close to zero
for man-made synthetic substances.
"Hazardous substances" are defined as substances which fall into one
of the following categories:
(i) substances or groups of substances that are toxic, persistent and
liable to bioaccumulate;
Offshore
industry
oil
and
gas
(ii) other substances or groups of substances which are assessed by
the Commission as requiring a similar approach as substances referred
to in (i), even if they do not meet all the criteria for toxicity, persistence
and bioaccumulation, but which give rise to an equivalent level of
concern. This category will include both substances which work
synergistically with other substances to generate such concern, and
also substances which do not themselves justify inclusion but which
degrade or transform into substances referred to in (i) or substances
which require a similar approach.
The objective of the Commission with regard to the setting of
environmental goals for the offshore oil and gas industry and the
establishment of improved management mechanisms to achieve them
is to prevent and eliminate pollution and take the necessary measures
to protect the maritime area against the adverse effects of offshore
activities so as to safeguard human health and to conserve marine
ecosystems and, when practicable, restore marine areas which have
been adversely affected.
Offshore activities are defined in the OSPAR Convention as:
Radioactive substances
“activities carried out in the maritime area for the purposes of the
exploration, appraisal or exploitation of liquid and gaseous
hydrocarbons.”
To prevent pollution of the maritime area from ionising radiation through
progressive and substantial reductions of discharges, emissions and
losses of radioactive substances, with the ultimate aim of concentrations
in the environment near background values for naturally occurring
radioactive substances and close to zero for artificial radioactive
substances. In achieving this objective, the following issues should,
inter alia, be taken into account:
a. legitimate uses of the sea;
b. technical feasibility;
c. radiological impacts on man and biota.
97
A1.9 Safeguarding Our Seas
Owner/Originator:
UK Government
Objective Suite Title:
Safeguarding Our Seas Core Principles
Source:
DEFRA (2001)
Objective Level:
High level goals
No. of Stated Objectives:
5 objectives
Status:
Undergoing implementation
Details:
“The intention is to promote a generic ecosystems approach that can be applied in a wide
range of policy areas and decision-making contexts, based on a number of core principles:
•
taking a more holistic approach to policy-making and delivery, with the focus on
maintaining healthy ecosystems and ecosystem services
•
ensuring that the value of ecosystem services is fully reflected in decision-making
•
ensuring environmental limits are respected in the context of sustainable development,
taking into account ecosystem functioning
•
taking decisions at the appropriate spatial scale while recognising the cumulative
impacts of decisions
•
promoting adaptive management of the natural environment to respond to changing
pressures, including climate change.”
A1.10 UK High Level Marine Objectives
Owner/Originator:
Defra/UK Government and devolved administrations
Objective Suite Title:
High Level Marine Objectives
Source:
DEFRA (2008b)
Objective Level:
High level goals
No. of Stated Objectives:
22 objectives, grouped
development principles
Status:
Out to consultation (closed 30 September 2008); the
Scottish Government is ‘minded to adopt’.
1
under
five
sustainable
The UK High Level Marine Objectives were revised following consultation, after the completion of
this report. The final version is available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/marine/pdf/environment/ourseas2009update.pdf.
98
These are discussed fully in Chapters 3 and 6 of this report.
Details:
Achieving a sustainable marine economy
•
Infrastructure is in place to support and promote safe, profitable and efficient marine
businesses.
•
Long-term wealth is generated by the responsible use of the marine environment and its
resources.
•
Marine businesses are taking long-term strategic decisions and managing risks
effectively. They are competitive and operating efficiently.
•
Marine businesses are acting in a way which respects environmental limits and is
socially responsible. This is rewarded in the marketplace.
Ensuring a strong, healthy and just society
•
People appreciate the value of the marine environment, its natural and cultural heritage
and its resources and act responsibly.
•
The use of the marine environment is benefiting society as a whole, contributing to
resilient and cohesive communities.
•
The coast, seas, oceans and their resources are safe to use.
•
The marine environment plays an important role in mitigating climate change.
•
There is equitable access for those who want to use the coast, seas and their wide range
of resources and assets.
•
Use of the marine environment will recognise, and integrate with, defence priorities,
including the strengthening of international peace and stability and the defence of the
United Kingdom and its interests.
Living within environmental limits
•
Biodiversity is protected, conserved and recovered where appropriate.
•
Healthy marine habitats occur across their natural range and are able to support strong,
biodiverse biological communities and the functioning of healthy, resilient and adaptable
marine ecosystems.
•
Our oceans support viable populations of rare, vulnerable, and valued species.
•
The loss of biodiversity has been halted.
Promoting good governance
•
All those who have a stake in the marine environment have an input into associated
decision-making.
•
Marine and coastal management mechanisms are responsive and work effectively
together, for example through integrated coastal zone management.
99
•
Marine management in the UK takes account of different management systems that are
in place because of administrative or political boundaries.
•
Marine businesses are subject to clear, timely, proportionate and plan-led regulation.
•
The use of the marine environment is spatially planned and based on an ecosystems
approach which takes account of climate change and recognises the protection needs of
individual historic assets.
Using sound science responsibly
•
Our understanding of the marine environment continues to develop through new
scientific research and data collection.
•
Sound evidence and monitoring underpins effective marine management and policy
development.
•
The precautionary principle is applied consistently in accordance with Government’s
sustainable development policy.
A1.11 Review of Marine Nature Conservation Operational Objectives
Owner/Originator:
DEFRA
Objective Suite Title:
RMNC Examples of operational conservation objectives
Source:
DEFRA (2004)
Objective Level:
High level goals, Intermediate level objectives and Operational
objectives
No.
of
Objectives:
Stated 10 ‘High Level Objectives’, 38 Operation Objectives
Status:
Under consideration
Details:
Strategic Goal 1: To halt the deterioration in the state of the UK's marine biodiversity
and promote recovery where practical.
High Level Objectives
1. Maintain
habitats/
communities within
bounds of natural
variability
Ecosystem Components
(illustrative)
Trophic level balance
• effective number of species
within each trophic level
• abundance
of
keystone
species
100
Operational Conservation
Objectives
1.1 Protect the trophic level balance
from significant changes due to
human activity.
High Level Objectives
Ecosystem Components
(illustrative)
Habitat complexity
• overall
number
of
habitats/communities
Areas identified as being the
‘best representative examples’ of
the range of marine landscapes,
water body features, habitats
and species.
Rare and sensitive habitats
Habitats which are threatened by
decline or have declined
1.2 Prevent a significant decline in
the habitat complexity of marine
ecosystems due to human
activity.
1.3 Maintain the ‘best representative
examples’ in, or recover them to,
as close to their natural state as
practicable.
1.4 Protect rare and sensitive habitats
from decline due to human
activity.
1.5 Protect threatened habitats from
decline due to human activity.
1.6 Enable habitats which have
declined to recover to a
nonthreatened
state,
where
practicable.
1.7 Prevent the introduction of nonnative species that may adversely
impact the marine environment.
Non-native species
2. Maintain
species
within bounds of
natural variability
Operational Conservation
Objectives
Overall diversity of species
Important areas for highly mobile
and migratory species
spawning/breeding
• nursery
• calving
• feeding
• nesting
• migration bottlenecks
Species which are threatened by
decline or have declined
1.8 Reduce impacts of existing nonnative species to below levels
which risk affecting the marine
ecosystem, where practicable.
2.1 Prevent significant changes in the
overall species diversity of marine
landscapes and water bodies due
to human activity.
2.2 Protect the important areas for
aggregations of mobile species
(e.g. spawning/ breeding, nursery,
calving, feeding or nesting areas,
and migration bottlenecks.
2.3 Safeguard species which are
threatened by decline due to
human activity.
2.4 Promote the recovery of species
which have declined, to a nonthreatened
state,
where
practicable.
101
High Level Objectives
3. Maintain populations
within bounds of
natural variability
Ecosystem Components
(illustrative)
Structure among populations
• metapopulation structure
• distribution
• habitat availability
Structure within populations
• population size
• distribution
• habitat availability
• age structure
Populations at risk
Genetic
diversity
populations
among
Genetic
diversity
populations
within
Operational Conservation
Objectives
3.1 Protect the structure among
populations
from
significant
change due to human activity.
3.2 Protect the structure within
populations
from
significant
change due to human activity.
3.3 Protect populations defined to be
at risk and recover them to non-at
risk state, where practicable.
3.5 Protect the genetic diversity
among
populations
from
significant change due to human
activity.
3.6 Protect the genetic diversity within
populations
from
significant
change due to human activity.
Strategic Goal 2: To further the conversation of the features of the marine ecosystem
High level objective
Ecosystem components
(illustrative)
Operational conservation
objectives
1. Maintain
primary
production
within
bounds of natural
variability
Trophic status
• nutrient concentrations
• water clarity
• cOSSrophyll A
• concentration
Trophic complexity
• number of trophic levels
• biomass at each trophic level
Habitat availability:
• pelagic habitats
• benthic habitats
• nursery areas
• spawning areas
• migration pathways
Predator-prey relationships
• predator-induced
mortality
rates on prey populations
• biomass of key dependent
predators:
• commercially
exploited
fish/shellfish
• non-target fish species
• benthic animals
• birds
• marine mammals
1.1 Ensure
compliance
with
precautionary standards which
aim
to
avoid
‘undesirable
disturbance’ of trophic status
2. Maintain
trophic
structure so that
individual species
and stages can
sustain
their
characteristic roles
in the food web
102
2.1 Ensure harvest of all species at a
specified trophic level is below
precautionary limits.
2.2 To protect the extent and function
of habitats, areas and pathways
from significant decline due to
human activities.
2.3 Reduce direct and indirect
impacts upon prey populations to
below levels at which their
populations may be affected.
2.4 Reduce direct and indirect
impacts upon key dependent
predators to below levels at which
their
populations
may
be
significantly affected.
High level objective
3. Maintain
mean
generation times of
populations within
bounds of natural
variability
Ecosystem components
(illustrative)
Longevity
• survivorship curves
• mortality rate
Trophic complexity
• number of trophic levels
• biomass at each trophic level
Reproductive potential
• fecundity
• spawning stock biomass
Operational conservation
objectives
3.1 Protect populations from changes
in longevity which may have a
significant impact upon the marine
ecosystem,due to human activity.
3.2 Protect populations from changes
in life history strategy which may
have a significant impact upon the
marine ecosystem, due to human
activity.
3.3 Enable the spawning stock
biomass
of
commercially
exploited fish/shellfish to recover
to within safe biological limits
3.4 Increase the spawning stock
biomass
of
commercially
exploited fish/shellfish stocks
further, to within limits defined for
an
ecologically
sustainable
fishery, where this is possible.
3.5 Reduce fishing mortality of
Commercially
exploited
fish/shellfish stocks to within safe
biological limits
Fishing mortality
3.6 Reduce fishing mortality of
commercially-exploited
fish/shellfish stocks further, to
within limits defined for an
ecologically-sustainable fishery,
where this is possible.
Strategic Goal 3: To maintain the water quality, natural processes and structure of the
marine environment
High level objective
1. Protect
seabed
features so that
they can support
the
processes,
habitats
and
species
characteristic of the
marine landscapes.
Ecosystem components
(illustrative)
Coastal morphology
• coastal processes
Seabed habitats
• substratum type
• particle
size
composition
topography
• substratum structure
• siltation
• physical processes
• chemical processes
103
Operational conservation
objectives
1.1 Protect coastal processes from
ecologically-significant
change
due to human activity, and
reverse such change where
practicable.
1.2 Protect seabed habitats from
ecologically-significant
change
due to human activity, and
reverse such change where
practicable.
High level objective
2. To protect water
column features so
that
they
can
support
the
processes, habitats
and
species
characteristic of the
waterbodies.
3. Protect the water
quality
of
the
component water
column features so
they can support
the
processes,
habitats
and
species
characteristic of the
water column and
associated seabed
habitats.
Ecosystem components
(illustrative)
Operational conservation
objectives
Biogenic structures
• Saltmarshes
• eelgrass beds
• Sabellaria spp reefs
• Modiolus reefs
Water column features
• Tides, waves, fetch, currents
Fronts
• Stratification
• Temporal changes
• Freshwater inputs
• Salinity
• Suspended solids
• Turbidity
1.3 Protect biogenic structures from
ecologically-significant
change
due to human activity, and
reverse such change where
practicable.
Water quality
2.1 Protect the water column features
from
ecologically-significant
change due to human activity,
and reverse such change where
practicable.
3.1 Maintain or recover water quality
to within defined standards which
aim to prevent ‘undesirable
disturbance’
caused
by
eutrophication.
• Chemical conditions
• Nutrients
• Dissolved gases
Chemical pollutants
3.2 Ensure
that
environmental
standards are not exceeded.
• Contaminants
• Organic compounds
• Radioactive elements
Oil
• Chronic
• Acute
3.3 Ensure
that
environmental
standards are not exceeded.
3.4 Reduce the input of oil from
accidents, as far as practicable.
3.5 Maintain noise and vibration
levels
below
precautionary
standards aimed at protecting
vulnerable marine species from
disturbance.
Noise and vibration
Marine litter
3.6 Reduce input of litter to the
marine environment to below
levels
aimed
at
protecting
vulnerable marine habitats and
species.
104
High level objective
4. Maintain
quality
biota
Ecosystem components
(illustrative)
Contaminants
Operational conservation
objectives
4.1 Ensure
standards
for
contaminants in biota are not
exceeded.
• Contaminant loads
• Bioaccumulations
• Health of animals
A1.12 UK Biodiversity Action Plan
Owner/Originator:
UK Government
Objective Suite Title:
UK Biodiversity Action Plans
Source:
U.K. Biodiversity Group (1999)
Objective Level:
Operational objectives
No. of Stated Objectives:
47 habitat, 7 broad habitat, 56 species
Status:
Undergoing implementation
Details:
The objectives given below are those stated for the first list of BAP species and habitat, and
some of the specific target dates have since expired. Only those habitats and species known
to occur in Scotland and within the range up to high tide level, but including brackish water
and lagoonal elements, are listed here.
For each of the habit and species action plans stated objectives were originally given under
a section entitled “Action plan objectives and targets”. For the broad habitat plans,
statements (and associated suggested measures) that equated to objectives were provided
under a section called “Conservation direction”.
Habitats
Habitat
Coastal saltmarsh
Coastal sand dunes
Objective
1. There should be no further net loss (currently estimated at 100
ha/year) of coastal saltmarsh. This will involve the creation of 100
ha/year during the period of this plan.
2. Create a further 40 ha of saltmarsh in each year of the plan to replace
the 600 ha lost between 1992 and 1998, based on current estimates.
3. Maintain the quality of the existing resource in terms of community
and species diversity.
4. Where necessary, restore the nature conservation interest through
appropriate management. It will be desirable for some managed
realignment sites to develop the full range of saltmarsh zonation.
1. Protect the existing sand dune resource of about 54,500 ha from
105
Habitat
Coastal
shingle
vegetated
Maerl beds
Modiolus modiolus beds
Lophelia pertusa reef
Mud habitats in deep
water
Mudflats
Sabellaria
reefs
alveolata
Objective
further losses to anthropogenic factors, whether caused directly or
indirectly (eg by sea defence schemes affecting coastal processes).
2. Offset the expected net losses due to natural causes of about 2% of
the dune habitat resource over 20 years by encouraging new dunes to
accrete and where possible by allowing mobile dune systems to move
inland.
3. Seek opportunities for restoration of sand dune habitat lost to forestry,
agriculture or other human uses. A target figure of up to 1000 ha to be
reinstated by 2010 (to be reviewed as a result of the inventory
proposed in 5.5.1) is suggested.
4. Encourage natural movement and development of dune systems, and
control natural succession to scrub and woodland where necessary.
5. Maintain dune grassland, heath and lichen communities on the
majority of dune systems.
6. Create Atlantic dune woodland on five carefully selected sites.
1. Prevent further net loss of existing vegetated shingle structures
totalling about 5800 ha. (However local gains and losses due to storm
events occur sporadically and should be accepted provided that the
national and regional resources are maintained overall.)
2. Prevent, where possible, further exploitation of, or damage to, existing
vegetated shingle sites through human activities.
3. Maintain the quality of existing plant and invertebrate communities
which are currently in favourable condition.
4. Achieve the restoration, where possible, of degraded or damaged
habitats of shingle structures, including landward transitions, where
such damage has been extensive and natural recovery is not likely to
be initiated, by 2010
1. Maintain the geographical range of maerl beds and associated plant
and animal communities in the UK subject to best available
information.
2. Maintain the variety and quality of maerl beds and associated plant
and animal communities in the UK subject to best available
information.
1. Maintain the extent and distribution of M. modiolus beds in UK waters.
2. Maintain the quality of M. modiolus beds in UK waters.
1. Protect the distribution and status of the L. pertusa pseudo- colonies
and reefs within the UK territorial sea and the 200 mile UK waters.
2. Enhance the density and community richness of the L. pertusa
pseudo- colonies and reefs within the UK territorial sea and the 200
mile UK waters.
Protect a representative range of 8 to 10 sites, illustrating typical mud
biotopes in deep water, by 2009.
1. Maintain at least the present extent and regional distribution of the
UK's mudflats.
2. This target will require compensating predicted losses to development
by the restoration of mudflats. Whilst this may not be possible in the
same location, it should be within the same littoral sediment cell.
3. Create and restore enough intertidal area over the next 50 years to
offset predicted losses to rising sea level in the same period.
4. Predicted losses in the next 15 years should be offset in the next 10
years.
5. Restore estuarine water quality to ensure that existing mudflats fulfil
their important ecological and conservation role.
1. Maintain the extent of S. alveolata reef habitats.
2. Maintain the quality of S. alveolata reef habitats.
3. Within 15 years, attempt to re-establish S. alveolata reefs in five areas
where they were formerly present.
106
Habitat
Sabellaria
reefs
Objective
spinulosa
Saline lagoons
Seagrass beds
Serpulid reefs
Sheltered muddy gravels
Sublittoral
gravels
sands
and
Tidal rapids
1. By 2004 maintain the extent and distribution of existing S. spinulosa
reefs in the UK.
2. By 2004 maintain the quality of existing S. spinulosa reefs in the UK.
3. By 2004 establish and ensure necessary habitat conditions required
for the re-establishment of S. spinulosa reef where formerly found, for
example in the Essex Estuaries and Morecambe Bay.
1. Maintain the current area (c.5200 ha) of coastal saline lagoons.
2. Maintain the current number and distribution of coastal saline
lagoons.
3. Maintain and improve, as necessary, the quality of coastal saline
lagoons as measured by the retention of lagoonal specialist BAP
Priority and Red Data Book species where these occur.
4. Create, by the year 2015, 120 ha of saline lagoon.
1. Maintain extent and distribution of seagrass beds in UK waters.
2. Assess feasibility of restoration of damaged or degraded seagrass
beds. Until surveys assess the extent of the seagrass resource, it will
not be possible to assess whether restoration is necessary, or to
specify a final target. An interim target of 1,000 ha has been costed.
1. Maintain the extent of serpulid reefs and associated plant and animal
communities in the UK.
2. Maintain the quality of serpulid reefs and associated plant and animal
communities in the UK
1. Maintain the extent and distribution of sheltered muddy gravel bed
habitats, as defined in section 1 of this habitat action plan.
2. Maintain the quality of sheltered muddy gravel bed habitats, as
defined in section 1 of this habitat action plan.
1. Protect the extent of a representative range of sublittoral sand and
gravel habitats and communities.
2. Protect the quality of a representative range of sublittoral sand and
gravel habitats and communities.
1. Maintain the extent of marine communities in tidal rapids based on
best available information.
2. Maintain the quality of marine communities in tidal rapids based on
best available information.
3. Maintain the variety of marine communities in tidal rapids based on
best available information.
Broad Habitats
Habitat
Inshore sublittoral rock
Objective
Maintain the extent and quality of inshore sublittoral rock habitats in the
UK, including the full diversity of communities. Measures to be
considered further include:
•
•
•
•
protecting sites of conservation importance from damage
through contamination and physical disturbance (eg turbidity
and towed fishing gears);
requiring EIAs for coastal developments to examine potential
effects on intertidal and nearshore areas;
monitoring any impact of dump sites on inshore sublittoral rock
habitats, communities and wildlife, and taking action as
appropriate;
implementing strategies for managing the coastal zone at local,
107
Habitat
Inshore
sediment
sublittoral
Objective
regional and national levels.
Maintain the extent and quality of sublittoral sediment habitats in the UK,
including the full diversity of communities. Measures to be considered
further include:
•
Littoral rock
protecting sites of conservation importance from damage
through contamination and physical disturbance or excessive
use (e.g. nutrient enrichment, dredging and development);
• requiring EIAs for coastal developments to examine potential
effects on nearshore areas;
• monitoring any impact of dump sites on inshore sublittoral
sediment habitats, communities and wildlife, and take action as
appropriate;
• developing and implementing strategies for the conservation
and management of the wider marine environment at local,
regional and national levels. For example integrated Coastal
Management Plans, water quality objectives, pollution control
and avoidance measures. Species recovery and habitat
restoration programmes should be included.
Maintain the extent and quality of littoral rocky habitats in the UK,
including the full diversity of communities. Measures to be considered
further include:
•
Littoral sediment
protecting sites of conservation importance from damage
through contamination, physical disturbance or excessive use
(eg maritime accidents, trampling and collection);
• minimising the risk of the introduction of non-native species;
• ensuring that EIAs for coastal developments, including
developments above high water mark, examine potential effects
on intertidal and nearshore areas;
• ensuring a co-ordinated framework for management of protected
areas which span the coastal zone;
• developing and implementing strategies for the conservation
and management of the wider marine environment at local,
regional and national levels. For example, integrated coastal
management plans, water quality objectives, pollution control
and avoidance measures. Species recovery and habitat
restoration programmes should be included.
Maintain the extent and quality of littoral sediment habitats in the
UK,including the full diversity of communities. In the case of estuarine
habitats, wherethere have been considerable losses and deterioration in
the past, and where there is afuture threat from sea level rise, work to
enhance the extent and quality of thesehabitats in the UK. Measures to
be considered further include:
•
•
•
•
protecting sites of conservation importance from damage
through contamination, physical disturbance or excessive use
(eg oil spills, shellfish dredging and marina/harbour
development);
promotion of the management of littoral sediment habitats within
strategies (eg MAFF Shoreline Management Plans which permit
the natural functioning of sediment systems);
ensuring that EIAs for coastal developments, including those
above high water, examine potential effects on intertidal and
nearshore areas;
developing and implementing strategies for the conservation
and management of the wider marine environment at local,
regional and national levels. For example, integrated Coastal
Management plans, water quality objectives, pollution control
108
Habitat
Oceanic seas
Objective
and avoidance measures. Species recovery and habitat
restoration programmes should be included.
Maintain the extent and quality of oceanic habitats in the UK Waters,
includingthe full diversity of communities. Measures to be considered
include:
•
Offshore shelf rock
encouraging research to rectify the general lack of biological
knowledge about the region and to prepare guidelines for the
design of environmental impact assessments and monitoring
programmes for developments in the area;
• monitoring the impact of developments on habitats, communities
and wildlife, and taking remedial action if appropriate;
• establishing protected areas where these will benefit the
conservation of oceanic species and habitats.
Maintain the extent and quality of offshore rocky habitats in the UK,
including the full diversity of communities. Measures to be considered
include:
•
Offshore shelf sediment
implementing strategies for minimising contamination of the
seas at national and international levels by toxic, long lasting
and bioaccumulating contaminants;
• protecting sites of conservation importance from damage by
contamination and physical disturbance;
• continuing efforts to minimise impacts caused by new and
existing industrial activities;
• including the monitoring of the effects of hydrocarbon
exploration and exploitation as a stipulation for licensing. All
information collected in this way should be made publicly
available and included in the Environment Statement for any
proposed exploration drilling or production activity.
Maintain the extent and quality of offshore shelf sediment habitats in the
UK Waters, including the full diversity of communities. Measures to be
considered include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
a case for 'no-take' reserves to conserve spawning stocks and
reduce fishing mortality of commercial species. This will ensure
that sufficient areas of seabed remain undisturbed so that
representative examples of seabed communities receive
adequate protection. Additionally this will provide areas where
baseline scientific study and observation can be conducted
without hindrance;
the development of guidelines to ensure that site surveys of
areas to be explored and exploited by the hydrocarbon industry
collect adequate baseline data. This data should be used to
underpin future monitoring around the sites. Operations should
also be designed in such a way as to minimise impacts;
support by the UK government for the implementation of Annex
V to the Oslo and Paris Convention (OSPAR);
carry out systematic surveys of UK shelf waters similar to those
conducted in the North Sea and make the data freely available.
Novel data sources such as the sound records from defence
hydrophones should be exploited;
compile an inventory of materials dumped in the past and survey
a few key sites to assess what impact the sites still have on the
ecology of the vicinity.
reduce the environmental impact of fisheries, including the
extent of discards and the size of by-catches of non-target
species;
continue attempts to improve water quality in the UK shelf seas,
109
Habitat
Objective
•
•
•
•
by reducing discharges from ships and shore facilities as much
as is practical, and also examining ways of reducing aerial
inputs;
curtail the manufacture and use of organic molecules that
persist in the marine environment;
continue the development of controls preventing introduction
and spread of exotic species;
seek the establishment of an interdepartmental committee to coordinate all aspects of coastal and shelf seas management and
protection;
support all actions to minimise shipping and offshore accidents
through safety procedures and response planning.
Species
Species
Objective
Knotted wrack (Ascophyllum
nodosum ecad mackaii)
1. Maintain the geographical range of A. nodosum ecad mackaii
on UK shores.
2. As a pilot, re-establish populations at one recently lost bed (in
Scotland) by 2010.
1. Maintain, and where appropriate enhance, existing populations
and, where appropriate, restore populations at former sites.
2. Maintain the range and number of sites including, where
appropriate, through introduction to adjacent localities where
existing localities become unsuitable.
1. Maintain, and where appropriate enhance, existing populations
and, where appropriate, restore populations at former sites.
2. Maintain the range and number of sites including, where
appropriate, through introduction to adjacent localities where
existing localities become unsuitable.
1. Maintain viable populations at all extant sites.
2. Restore populations to three sites by 2005, focussing on the
East Anglia fens in order to restore its historic range.
1. Maintain any populations which are discovered or rediscovered.
2. Where biologically feasible, re-establish populations at the
former sites in Orkney and the Outer Hebrides, by 2005.
1. Maintain, and where appropriate enhance, existing populations
and, where appropriate, restore populations at former sites.
2. Maintain the range and number of sites including, where
appropriate, through introduction to adjacent localities where
existing localities become unsuitable.
Maintain viable populations at all extant sites.
Baltic
baltica)
Stonewort (Chara
Bearded
Stonewort (Chara
canescens)
Lesser
Bearded
Stonewort (Chara curta)
Mossy
muscosa)
Stonewort (Chara
Foxtail
Stonewort (Lamprothamnium
papulosum)
Starry
Stonewort (Nitellopsis
obtusa)
Bird's
nest
stonewort (Tolypella nidifica)
Sea-fan
Anemone (Amphianthus
dohrnii)
1. Maintain, and where appropriate enhance, existing populations
and, where appropriate, restore populations at former sites.
2. Maintain the range and number of sites including, where
appropriate, through introduction to adjacent localities where
existing localities become unsuitable.
1. Maintain the geographical distribution of known viable
populations.
2. Maintain the abundance of populations identified from a
baseline to be established by 2004.
110
Species
Objective
Tall
sea
pen (Funiculina
quadrangularis)
Ensure that the distribution of the species is maintained.
Fan Mussel (Atrina fragilis)
Sea squirt (Styela gelatinosa)
1. Maintain the geographical distribution of A. fragilis within the
UK.
2. If biologically feasible, enhance the distribution of A. fragilis
within the UK.
3. Maintain the population size of A. fragilis within the UK.
4. If biologically feasible, enhance the population size of A. fragilis
within the UK.
1. Maintain the existing geographical distribution of the native
oyster within UK inshore waters.
2. Expand the existing geographical distribution of the native
oyster within UK inshore waters, where biologically feasible.
3. Maintain the existing abundance of the native oyster within UK
inshore waters.
4. Increase the abundance of the native oyster within UK inshore
waters, where biologically feasible.
1. Maintain, and where appropriate enhance, existing populations
and, where appropriate, restore populations at former sites.
2. Maintain the range and number of sites including, where
appropriate, through introduction to adjacent localities where
existing localities become unsuitable.
1. Maintain the distribution of the northern hatchett shell within the
UK.
2. Enhance the distribution of the northern hatchett shell within the
UK, where biologically feasible.
3. Maintain the size of the population in Loch Etive, Scotland.
4. Enhance the size of the population in Loch Etive, Scotland,
wherever biologically feasible.
5. Ensure no further declines in the population(s) of the species
due to anthropogenic factors.
Ensure that the distribution of the species is maintained.
Allis Shad (Alosa alosa)
Ensure the continued survival of allis shad stocks.
Grouped plan for commercial
marine
fish.
Specifically
mentioned species:
Bring all stocks identified in the plan within precautionary
reference points as defined by ICES within 5 years.
Native Oyster (Ostrea edulis)
Lagoon
sea
adspersa)
slug (Tenella
Northern
Hatchett
Shell (Thyasira gouldi)
Clupea harengus (Herring),
Gadus
morhua
(Cod),
Merlangius
merlangus
(Whiting), Merluccius bilinearis
(a Hake)
Merluccius
merluccius
(a
Hake), Pleuronectes platessa
(Plaice)
Pollachius
virens
(Saithe), Scomber scrombrus
(Mackerel), Solea vulgaris
(Sole),
Trachurus trachurus (Horse
Mackerel)
Grouped plan for deep-water
fish. Specifically mentioned
species:
Stabilise all stocks of commercially exploited deep-water species
at or above safe biological limits by 2005
111
Species
Objective
Aphanopus
carbo
(Black
Scabbardfish), Argentina silus
(Greater silver smelt), Brosme
brosme
(Tusk),
Coryphaenoides
rupestris
(Roundnose
grenadier),
Hoplostethus
atlanticus
(Orange
roughy),
Lophius
piscatorius (Sea monkfish),
Macrourus
berglax
(Roughhead
grenadier),
Micromesistius
poutassou
(Blue
Whiting),
Molva
dypterygia (Blue Ling), Molva
molva (Ling), Raja hyperborea
(Arctic Skate), Reinhardtius
hippoglossoides
(Greenland
halibut),
Sebastes
spp.
(Redfish)
Basking
maximus)
Shark (Cetorhinus
Common Skate (Raja batis)
Grouped plan for baleen
whales. Specifically mentioned
species:
Balaenoptera
acutorostrata
(Minke Whale), Balaenoptera
borealis
(Sei
Whale),
Balaenoptera musculus (Blue
Whale),
Balaenoptera
physalus
(Fin
Whale),
Eubalaena glacialis (Northern
right
whale),
Megaptera
novaeangliae
(Humpback
Whale)
Grouped
plan
for
small
dolphins.
Specifically
mentioned species:
Delphinus delphis (Common
Dolphin), Grampus griseus
(Risso's
dolphin),
Lagenorhynchus
acutus
(Atlantic white-sided dolphin),
Lagenorhynchus
albirostris
(White-Beaked
Dolphin),
Stenella coeruleoalba (Striped
dolphin), Tursiops truncatus
Maintain the current basking shark population.
1. By 2004 stabilise refuge populations in all key centres of
abundance.
2. In the long term, facilitate the migration of common skate from
refuge populations to areas within which they are either scarce
or have been fished out by minimising fishing pressure on the
species. Inevitably, this will take not less than one or two
decades due to the species slow rates of reproduction and
growth.
1. In the short term, maintain the current range of baleen whales.
2. In the short term, maintain the current abundance of baleen
whales.
3. In the long term (over the next 20 years), increase the baleen
whale population ranges around the UK, if biologically feasible.
4. In the long term (over the next 20 years), increase the baleen
whale population sizes around the UK, if biologically feasible.
1. In the short term, maintain the current range of small dolphins.
2. In the short term, maintain the current abundance of small
dolphins.
3. In the longer term, seek to increase the ranges of small dolphin
populations where appropriate.
112
Species
Objective
(Bottlenosed dolphin)
Grouped plan for toothed
whales. Specifically mentioned
species:
Globicephala melas (Longfinned
pilot
whale),
Hyperoodon
ampullatus
(Northern bottlenose whale),
Mesoplodon
bidens
(Sowerby's beaked whale)
Mesoplodon mirus (True's
Beaked Whale), Orcinus orca
(Killer
Whale),
Physeter
macrocephalus
(Sperm
Whale), Ziphius cavirostris
(Cuvier's beaked whale)
Harbour Porpoise (Phocoena
phocoena)
Otter (Lutra lutra)
1. In the short term, maintain the range of toothed whales.
2. In the short term, maintain the numbers of toothed whales.
3. In the longer term, increase abundance by seeking to optimise
conditions enabling their populations to increase.
1. Maintain the current geographical range of the harbour
porpoise.
2. Maintain the current abundance of the harbour porpoise.
3. In the long-term ensure that no anthropogenic factors inhibit a
return to waters that it previously occupied.
1. Maintain existing otter populations.
2. Expand existing otter populations.
3. By 2010, restore breeding otters to all catchments and coastal
areas where they have been recorded since 1960.
A1.13 UK Public Service Agreement Framework
Owner/Originator:
UK Government
Objective Suite Title:
Public Service Agreement Objectives
Source:
(DEFRA, 2008a)
Objective Level:
High Level Goals
No. of Stated Objectives:
7 (1 overarching goal)
Status:
Announced in 2007 as part of the Comprehensive Spending
Review
Details:
“To secure a diverse, healthy and resilient natural environment, which provides the basis for
everyone’s well-being, health and prosperity now and in the future; and where the value of
the services provided by the natural environment are reflected in decision making:
113
•
The air that we breathe free from harmful levels of pollutants
•
Sustainable water use which balances water quality, environment, supply and demand
•
Land and soils managed sustainably
•
Biodiversity valued, safeguarded and enhanced
•
Sustainable, living landscapes with best features conserved
•
Clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas
•
People to enjoy, understand and care for the natural environment.”
A1.14 Scottish National Marine Objectives
Owner/Originator:
Scottish Government
Objective Suite Title:
Marine objectives for Scotland
Source:
Scottish Government
Objective Level:
High level goals
No. of Stated Objectives:
None as yet
Status:
Not developed
Details:
The Scottish Marine Bill will support this overall purpose, managing Scotland's coasts and
seas in a way that balances the interests of resource use and resource protection. In
particular, the Bill will seek to deliver:
•
•
•
Wealthier and Fairer - managing the exploitation of Scotland's coastal and marine area.
Greener - developing new tools to manage and direct exploitation to ensure Scotland's
assets are used sustainably.
Safer and Stronger - ensuring that local coastal communities have the opportunity to
manage local coasts and seas to improve opportunities and enhance quality of life.
Marine objectives for Scotland, will also include marine ecosystem objectives ( MEOs).
These will be a mechanism for setting out what the management of Scotland's coasts and
seas is aiming to achieve; outlining strategic goals for the marine environment and
translating the principles of an ecosystem-based approach into practice. The MEOs will be
substantially informed by the River Basin Management Plan objectives at both local and
national levels.
All Marine objectives will be founded on the five guiding principles of sustainable
development:
•
•
•
living within environmental limits;
ensuring a strong, healthy and just society;
achieving a sustainable economy;
114
•
•
promoting good governance; and
using science responsibly.
Timescales
Scottish Ministers anticipate that it will take somewhere between 12 to 18 months to draft
marine objectives and construct a National Marine Plan. Allowing time for consultation
suggests that the first Plan and objectives could take up to two years to produce. Scottish
Ministers intend to review and revise National Marine Plans and objectives on a five-yearly
cycle. It may also be appropriate to apply the same timescales to Regional Marine Plans.
A1.15 Scottish Biodiversity Strategy
Owner/Originator: Scottish Biodiversity Forum
Objective
Title:
Suite Marine objectives for Scotland
Source:
Scottish Executive (2004)
Objective Level:
High level goals and Intermediate level objectives
No. of Stated 5 Objectives, 1 Aim, 1 Vision
Objectives:
Status:
Undergoing implementation
Details:
Vision
“By 2030 Scotland is recognised as a world leader in biodiversity conservation. Everyone is
involved; everyone benefits. The nation is enriched.”
Aim
To conserve biodiversity for the health, enjoyment and wellbeing of the people of Scotland
now and in the future.
Objectives
1. Species & Habitats: To halt the loss of biodiversity and continue to reverse previous
losses through targeted action for species and habitats
2. People: To increase awareness, understanding and enjoyment of biodiversity, and
engage many more people in conservation and enhancement
3. Landscapes & Ecosystems: To restore and enhance biodiversity in all our urban,
rural and marine environments through better planning, design and practice
115
4. Integration & Co-ordination: To develop an effective management framework that
ensures biodiversity is taken into account in all decision making
5. Knowledge: To ensure that the best new and existing knowledge on biodiversity is
available to all policy makers and practitioners.
A1.16 A Strategic Framework For Scotland's Marine Environment
Owner/Originator:
Scottish Government
Objective Suite Title:
Strategic Framework Aims
Source:
Scottish
Government
(2004)
(http://openscotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/04/19253/359
70)
Objective Level:
Intermediate level objectives
No. of Stated Objectives:
12 objectives grouped in 5 “elements”,
Status:
Implemented
Details:
Strategic vision:
“The Scottish Executive is committed to working for a clean, healthy, safe, productive and
biologically diverse marine environment which, through sustainable management, will
continue to support the interests of nature and people.”
Element
Clean,
safe
healthy,
Objective
To be achieved by:
Improving water quality
through continued compliance with relevant
EC Directives; implementation of the revised
Bathing
Water
Directive,
the
Water
Environment and Water Services Act (WEWS)
and the Water Framework Directive (WFD);
and through implementation of the OSPAR
(Oslo and Paris Conventions for the
Protection of the North-East Atlantic) strategy
for the discharge of radioactive substances
Maintaining and improving
the licensing regime for
deposits in the sea
Continuing to improve our
capability for responding to
marine pollution incidents
through the development of an electronic
database of applications made and consents
issued
through co-ordination of Scottish Standing
Environment Group, maintaining links with the
Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) and
involvement in training exercises
through the creation of a single focal point for
consent applications which will simultaneously
handle consents required under the Electricity
Improving the co-ordination of
offshore renewable energy
related
development
116
Element
Objective
To be achieved by:
consents
Promoting environmental best
practice in ports and harbours
works
Productive
Promoting
fisheries
sustainable
Promoting
aquaculture
sustainable
Promoting
tourism
sustainable
Biologically
diverse
Conservation
and
enhancement of biodiversity
and protection of important
marine habitats
Sustainably
managed
Developing an integrated
approach to coastal zone
management
Developing a management
framework for the marine
environment
Based on sound
Improving the co-ordination of
117
Act 1989 , the Food and Environment
Protection Act 1985, and the Coast Protection
Act 1949
through the development of policies and
legislation on Port and Harbour matters, in
liaison with stakeholders, and the issuing of
consents under Section 34 of the Coast
Protection Act
through the progressive development of an
ecosystem based approach to fisheries
management within the Common Fisheries
Policy (CFP), aiming to ensure that the
exploitation of living aquatic resources
provides sustainable economic, environmental
and social conditions, in particular supporting
positive change in fishing industries and
promoting increased stakeholder involvement
in managing resources
through the implementation of a Strategic
Framework which balances the needs of local
communities with potential implications to the
marine environment, develops policy on the
location/relocation of marine fish farms,
establishes a Scottish Aquaculture Research
Forum and takes forward an Aquaculture Bill;
and through the extension of planning controls
to Scottish marine aquaculture (implementing
section 24 of the WEWS Act 2003)
through
working
in
partnership
with
stakeholders to strengthen the links between
tourism and environmental sustainability
through the completion and publication of a
Scottish Biodiversity Strategy, including an
action plan on marine and coastal biodiversity;
implementation of the EC Birds and Habitats
Directives in the appropriate marine and
coastal areas including the designation of
Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and
Special Protected Areas (SPAs); and working
with the Scottish Seals Forum to manage the
competing conservation interests of seals and
fisheries
through a national stock take to identify the
relevant legislation and the roles of principal
stakeholders, and consultation on the best
strategy for protecting and enhancing all of
Scotland's coastline, including the options of
establishing a national coastline park and
marine national parks
through a Scottish Sustainable Marine
Environment Initiative (SSMEI) project to test,
in pilot projects, the benefits of possible new
management framework options for the
sustainable development of Scotland's marine
resources;
and,
separately,
through
consideration of current management and
rental arrangements for the sea-bed
through the development of a Scottish
Element
Objective
To be achieved by:
scientific principles
Government funded marine
science in Scottish waters
monitoring strategy to meet our obligations
under the WFD, contribute to wider UK
monitoring programmes and underpin our
input to EU and OSPAR initiatives on an
ecosystem-based approach to management
of the marine environment.
A1.17 Seas the Opportunity: A Strategy for the Long Term Sustainability of
Scotland’s Coasts and Seas
Owner/Originator:
The Scottish Executive
Objective Suite Title:
A Strategy for the Long Term Sustainability of
Scotland’s Coasts and Seas
Source:
Scottish Executive (2005)
Objective Level:
High level goals
No. of Stated Objectives:
13
Status:
Being implemented
Details:
The top-level objectives are principally those described in the 5 guiding principles of
sustainable development and in the vision. Beneath those, and taking forward proposals
made in response to the 2004 consultation and other reviews, we intend to pursue the
following strategic level objectives in 5 key areas:
National Level Governance
•
•
•
To provide effective, strategic and adequately resourced leadership
To ensure better co-ordination of policy and supporting activities
To promote wider public awareness, understanding and appreciation of the value of
the marine and coastal environments and the pressures on them
Sustainable Environment
•
•
To enhance and conserve the overall quality of our coasts and seas, their natural
processes and their biodiversity
To integrate environmental and biodiversity considerations into the management of
marine related activities
Sustainable Communities
•
•
•
To maintain strong, prosperous and growing coastal communities
To support integrated marine and coastal management at local level
To identify means of working with natural processes to protect against coastal
flooding and to maintain inter-tidal and coastal habitats of importance for biodiversity
118
Sustainable Industries
•
•
To improve capacity for planning the growth of coastal and offshore developments
To promote sustainable, profitable and well managed marine related industries
Sound Science
•
•
•
To develop better integrated, relevant scientific data on the marine environment and
the effects of the pressures on it
To increase our understanding of natural processes and ways of working with them
To understand the cumulative effects of activities in the marine and coastal areas.
A1.18 Renewed Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture
Owner/Originator:
Scottish Government
Objective Suite Title:
Renewed Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture
Source:
The Scottish Government (2008)
Objective Level:
Intermediate and Operational objective level
No. of Stated Objectives:
5 themes with 5 desired outcomes
Status:
Unknown
Details:
Theme
Health
Planning, consents and sites
Containment
Markets, marketing and image
Finance
Desired outcome
A secure long-term future for the industry by protecting the
asset through adoption of disease-control strategies which
also contribute to minimising impacts on the environment.
Development of the right sites, in the right places, by the
right people through transparent, streamlined and
proportionate regulation/ processes to minimise impacts on
other users of the marine and freshwater environment
Fish farm escapes minimised by adopting best-practice to
reduce stock loss, improve profitability and secure the future
and credibility of the industry whilst minimising
environmental impact and preventing conflict with others’
interests
Maximised profitability for commodity and niche market
producers by promotion of a positive image of the industry
and making best use of the Scottish quality brand to secure
markets home and abroad
An investment climate which supports and underpins the
long-term future and competitiveness of the sector with
investment in best practice and technologies to minimise
impacts on the environment
119
References to Appendix 1
DEFRA, 2001. Safeguarding our seas. A Strategy for the conservation and sustainable
development of our marine environment. pp. 82. London: DEFRA.
DEFRA, 2004. Review of Marine Nature Conservation. Working Group report to
Government. pp. 139. London: DEFRA.
DEFRA, 2008a. Marine Programme Plan 2008/09. pp. 31. DEFRA.
DEFRA, 2008b. Our Seas - a shared resource. Consultation 2008. London: DEFRA.
European Union, 1992. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.
European Union, 2005. Environmental Objectives under the Water Framework Directive.
Policy summary and background document. pp. 30.
European Union, 2008. Directive 2008/56/EC Of The European Parliament And Of The
Council of 17 June 2008. Establishing a framework for community action in the field of
marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). In Directive
2008/56/EC.
OSPAR Commission, 2003. 2003 Strategies of the OSPAR Commission for the Protection
of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic. In Ministerial Meeting of The OSPAR
Commission, Summary Record OSPAR 03/17/1-E, Annex 31 pp. 22. Bremen: OSPAR
Commission.
OSPAR Commission, 2006. Report on North Sea Pilot Project on Ecological Quality
Objectives. pp. 126.
Scottish Executive, 2004. Scotland's Diversity: it's in your hands. A strategy for the
conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in Scotland: Scottish Executive.
Scottish Executive, 2005. Seas the opportunity. A strategy for the long-term sustainability of
Scotland's Coasts and seas. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.
The Scottish Government, 2008. Scottish Aquaculture - A Fresh Start. A Consultation on a
Renewed Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture. pp. 35. Edinburgh: The Scottish
Government.
U.K. Biodiversity Group, 1999. Tranche 2 Action plans. Volume V - maritime species and
habitats. Peterborough: English Nature.
120
APPENDIX 2: INVENTORY OF AIMS, OBJECTIVES, GOALS OR DESCRIPTORS
RELEVANT TO THE UK – INITIATIVES OF UNCERTAIN STATUS OR LAPSED
For a description of the purpose and use of this Inventory, see the introduction to Appendix
1.
A2.1 North Sea Pilot Ecological Quality Objectives
Owner/Originator:
OSPAR Commission
Objective Suite Title:
Ecological Quality Objectives
Source:
OSPAR Commission (2006)
Objective Level:
Operational Level
No. of Stated Objectives:
18 objectives (6 under development)
Status:
11 EcoQOs have been elaborated and are ready for
implementation.
Details:
Ecological Quality Issue
Spawning stock biomass
commercial fish species
Marine mammals
Ecological Quality Objective
of
Maintain the spawning stock biomass above precautionary
reference points for commercial fish stocks agreed by the
competent authority for fisheries management.
Seal Population Trends:
(a) There should be no decline in harbour seal population size
of 10% within any of nine sub-units of the North Sea.
(b) There should be no decline in pup production of grey seals
of 10% within any of nine sub-units of the North Sea.
Annual by-catch of harbour porpoises should be reduced to
below 1.7% of the best population estimate (under review).
Seabirds
The proportion of oiled common guillemots should be 10% or
less of the total found dead or dying in all areas of the North
Sea.
Additional seabird EcoQOs are under development for
contaminant concentrations in seabird eggs, and plastic
particles in seabird stomachs and local sand eel availability for
black legged kittiwakes.
Fish communities
Under development
Benthic communities
The average level of imposex (development of male
characteristics by females) in female dog whelks or other
selected gastropods should be consistent with specified
levels.
Plankton community
See Eutrophication EcoQOs.
121
Ecological Quality Issue
Ecological Quality Objective
Threatened
species
and/or
declining
Under development
Threatened
habitats
and/or
declining
Under development
Eutrophication
All parts of the North Sea should have the status of nonproblem areas with regard to eutrophication by 2010.
Winter concentrations of dissolved inorganic nitrogen and
phosphate should remain below specified limits.
Maximum and mean phytoplankton cOSSrophyll a
concentrations during the growing season should remain
below specified limits.
Area-specific phytoplankton species that are indicators of
eutrophication should remain below specified limits.
Oxygen concentration should remain above specified limits.
There should be no kills in benthic animal species as a result
of oxygen deficiency and/or toxic phytoplankton species.
A2.2 Scottish Biodiversity Implementation Plan (Marine and Coastal Ecosystems)
Owner/Originator:
Marine Biodiversity Working Group
Objective Suite Title:
Scottish Biodiversity Implementation Plan (Marine and
Coastal Ecosystems)
Source:
http://www.biodiversityscotland.gov.uk/library/Marine%20IP.p
df
Objective Level:
Intermediate level objectives
No. of Stated Objectives:
14 Objectives (Targets)
Status:
Provisional (currently under consultation as part of SEA
process)
Details:
Note: Objectives are termed ‘Targets’ in the source table.
122
Objectives
Action
1.1 An ‘ecologically coherent network’ of
marine
protected
areas
around
Scottish waters is in the process of
being established, meeting existing
obligations under Natura 2000, OSPAR
and WSSD, with mechanisms in place
or in development to ensure that these
sites can be managed to protect the
biodiversity interests for which they
were selected. Consideration is given
as to whether any further sites are
required to meet the objectives of the
Scottish Biodiversity Strategy.
a. An analysis undertaken of Natura 2000 sites
within Scotland against the OSPAR commitment,
to establish to what extent they represent “an
ecologically coherent network of marine protected
areas”, and options developed for completing the
network, should additional measures be
necessary.
b. Dependent upon outcome of 1.1a, evidencebased criteria developed for completing an
ecologically coherent network of marine protected
areas within Scottish waters, meeting OSPAR
criteria.
c. Based on these criteria a range of sites identified
which are likely to be strong contenders for
selection through this process, and an
assessment undertaken of impacts on the
biodiversity for which those sites are special, to
inform
management
and/or
legislative
requirements.
d. Following completion of the analysis in 1.1a and
1.1b, a wider debate instigated on whether any
further site protection mechanism might be
needed, beyond OSPAR, to meet the objectives of
the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy.
e. Further consideration and exploration of
Scotland's statutory options for marine nature
conservation completed as part of the consultation
process for developing a Scottish Marine Bill.
f.
Biodiversity benefits of an “ecologically coherent
network of marine protected areas” meeting
OSPAR criteria promoted to all relevant partners;
as part of this process, potential social and
economic benefits identified and promoted.
g. A review of benefits of marine protected areas
additional to the ecologically coherent network, in
the context of any Marine Strategy Directive
requirement for achieving “good environmental
status”, included in 2011 - 2013 Marine
Biodiversity Implementation Plan.
123
Objectives
Action
1.2 Action taken to assist 6-10 marine
species and habitats*, selected by
defined criteria, where it is possible to
make a significant difference within the
lifetime of the plan and where funding
can be identified.
a. Criteria for prioritising species and habitats for
conservation action proposed by SNH, discussed
more widely, and agreed upon by MBWG.
b. Each species and habitat on the Scottish
Biodiversity List assessed against these criteria
(as part of the analysis in action 1.3a), and a
short-list of 6-10 species and habitats* proposed
for action.
c. Lead partners agreed for each of proposed
species and habitats*, with a commitment to take
forward action within identified budgets.
d. Plans for delivery drawn up by identified lead
partners, in consultation with SNH and MBWG,
including the identification of budgets for the
agreed actions; work underway.
e. Report on progress of all above action plans
completed and published.
1.3 An updated Scottish Biodiversity List is
available to all officers of public bodies
whose activities impact upon marine
biodiversity. This updated list is
harmonised with the revised UK
Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) List,
identifies gaps in marine coverage, and
includes supporting information on
coastal and marine habitats and
species.
a. Scottish Biodiversity List revised to incorporate
changes to marine species included on the new
UK BAP list and the reclassification of marine
habitats in that list.
b. Existing information sources on the status and
current protection of all coastal and marine
species and habitats on the revised Scottish
Biodiversity List identified and reviewed, including
an assessment of the main threats impacting on
each feature.
c. One-page summary of conservation priorities,
legislative
protection
and
management
requirements prepared for each of these species
and habitats (highlighting any for which the current
assessment is provisional), linking species with
habitats to allow an ecosystem approach to
biodiversity action.
d. These summaries, and information on the
distribution of marine habitats and species made
available on appropriate web pages (e.g. SBF,
NBN) as part of action 2.4d, and availability of this
information made known to target audiences;
where existing information is perceived to be
inadequate for management purposes, this
information fed into the marine data assessment in
target 5.3b.
e. Following completion of this work, a review
undertaken of any gaps in marine species and
habitats on the Scottish Biodiversity List, including
an assessment of criteria used for selecting the
list; proposals made to SBF for any required
updates to the list to ensure it is up-to-date and fit
for purpose.
124
Objectives
Action
2.1 Working with key Scottish industry fora,
a targeted range of materials is
developed to assist marine and coastal
industries
to
understand
the
requirements and benefits of sound
management of marine biodiversity.
a. A list of key industries situated in Scotland’s
coastal zone and marine area collated, together
with an overview of existing assessments of these
industries’ impacts on marine biodiversity. If this
analysis shows up major gaps in information, then
opportunities sought to address these gaps.
b. As part of this exercise, key fora and other
opportunities identified for engaging most
effectively with these industries.
c. From the analysis in 2.1a, prioritise one or more
industry fora with whom engagement could lead to
most immediate benefits for marine biodiversity.
Work with these fora to identify what biodiversity
information and guidance the relevant industries
require to assist them in integrating marine
biodiversity considerations into their management
and operations, then engage with these industries
and other industry bodies (including CBI Scotland,
the enterprise agencies and trade associations) to
develop and disseminate these materials.
d. Information from 2.1b made available on the web
as part of action 2.4d, and compiled into a training
pack, highly targeted at marine industries;
disseminate pack at Local Coastal Partnership
and other appropriate industry events.
e. As part of engagement in 2.1b, seek opportunities
to encourage and assist marine and coastal
industries to record biodiversity information
gathered in their work.
2.2 New strategies and reviews of existing
strategies, relating to the marine
environment, are critically assessed to
ensure that they meet the objectives of
the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy.
a. SG Marine Directorate works with MBWG and
industry groups to ensure that new strategies, and
reviews of existing strategies, relating to the
marine environment, are consistent with, and
contribute to, the objectives of the Scottish
Biodiversity Strategy, within the wider context of
‘clean, safe, healthy, productive and biologically
diverse oceans and seas’.
b. Advice provided to the Scottish Government on
how best to integrate biodiversity considerations
into the forthcoming Scottish Marine Bill.
125
Objectives
Action
2.3 Pilot project undertaken which carries
out a gap analysis of coastal and
marine biodiversity delivery at the local
level; based on this analysis, the
potential role of Local Coastal
Partnerships
(LCPs) and
LBAP
Partnerships/Officers in addressing
these gaps is assessed.
a. Gap analysis undertaken of coastal and marine
biodiversity delivery in one or more Local Coastal
Partnership region(s) through partnership working
with the LCP, LBAPs and constituent Local
Authorities.
b. Based on this analysis, the most effective
mechanism(s) proposed to deliver sound
management of coastal and marine biodiversity.
c. Conclusions of this work fed into advice to
Scottish Government in 2.2b.
d. Building on this work, letter sent to Local Authority
Chief Executives emphasising the role of local
authorities, public bodies and local partnerships in
achieving action for marine and coastal
biodiversity in Scotland.
2.4 Accessible materials produced to
assist Scottish coastal and marine
biodiversity regulators and practitioners
in delivering the Scottish Biodiversity
Strategy objectives in the marine
environment, including guidance on
engagement with stakeholders at the
local level.
a. The Marine LBAP Guidance Manual for England
(2007), prepared by the Marine Conservation
Society with support from Defra and English
Nature, assessed, and amended if necessary, to
make applicable to Scotland.
b. Scottish coastal and marine biodiversity regulators
and deliverers, including Local Biodiversity Action
Plans, canvassed at appropriate fora to identify
support materials required to assist in the delivery
of local coastal and marine biodiversity (including
consideration of any guidance on integrating
biodiversity in local Strategic Environmental
Assessments).
c. Any guidance requirements identified in 2.4b, are
developed and published via the SBF website as
part of action 2.1b (including a menu suite of
objectives and criteria for local SEA assessment if
this is shown to be required).
d. Materials produced to meet these needs (including
outputs from actions 1.3c, 1.3d, 2.1a, 2.4b, 3.2b
and 4.1b), and presented on the SBF or other
appropriate website, with particular emphasis on
an easily accessible portal for this information
(ensuring that this is integrated with any Scottish
marine data centres developed through the Marine
Data
and
Information
Partnership,
as
recommended by AGMACS)
126
Objectives
Action
3.1 A set of Marine Ecosystem Objectives
(MEOs) is proposed for Scotland,
integrating
requirements
of
EU
directives, within wider objectivesetting for the sustainable use of
Scottish seas.
a. Approach to be adopted for MEOs scoped, and an
initial set of objectives proposed for wider
consultation.
b. Based
on
these
proposals,
consultation
undertaken on a system of Scottish MEOs, as a
contribution to the development of the Scottish
Marine Bill.
c. Following consultation, advice offered to Ministers
on these MEOs and their implementation at the
Scottish level, in cooperation with lead partners
and stakeholders.
d. Measures taken to ensure that MEOs are reflected
in the development of proposals for Marine Spatial
Planning in Scottish waters, including in any
proposals on MSP in the Scottish and UK Marine
Bills.
e. Actions included in 2011-2013 Marine Biodiversity
Implementation Plan to address any blockages
identified to achieving MEOs with a biodiversity
component.
3.2 Case promoted to ensure that climate
change mitigation measures are taken
forward in ways that respect marine
and coastal biodiversity.
a. The role of marine and coastal biodiversity
championed in wider discussions on climate
change policy (including highlighting the services
offered by coastal and marine ecosystems in
reducing climate change impacts).
b. To assist in this championing role, MBWG will
work with relevant experts to clarify understanding
of the biodiversity implications of marine
renewables; it applies this understanding in any
advice it offers.
127
Objectives
Action
4.1 All officeholders of public bodies have
access to the guidance and information
they need in taking forward their
biodiversity duty in the marine
environment,
as
part
of
their
responsibilities for ensuring the wider
set of Marine Ecosystem Objectives in
Scottish waters.
a. A SNIFFER scoping study in 2008 will “identify
existing biodiversity guidance for, and produced
by, public bodies” and “identify gaps in existing
guidance for public bodies with respect to delivery
of the biodiversity duty”. Following completion of
this study, assessment undertaken of gaps in
guidance which are particularly critical to the
marine environment.
b. Materials produced to fill identified gaps in existing
guidance for public bodies with respect to delivery
of the biodiversity duty in the marine environment
and biodiversity elements of the Scottish MEOs
(action 3.1a), drawing on the review of priority
species and habitats in action 1.3a.
c. The SNIFFER study will also “provide costed
options for an internet-based tool that would allow
public bodies (and others) to access this
information and guidance”. Using this information,
work to establish a simplified access portal for this
information and guidance (linked to the outputs
from action 1.3c and 2.4d) using the SBF website
and any internet-based tool developed as an
outcome of the SNIFFER study.
d. Guidance published on the biodiversity duty in the
marine environment and biodiversity requirements
of the MEOs reviewed annually, in the light of any
new information, to ensure this remains relevant
and up-to-date.
5.1 Coastal and marine monitoring in
Scotland is coordinated between all
agencies operating in the marine
environment,
and
a
pertinent
environmental indicator suite has been
developed for application in these
environments. This work should be
fully coordinated with work of the UK
Marine Assessment and Reporting
Group (MARG) and any Scottish
marine data centre developed from the
Marine Bill.
a. Depending on the outcome of the Marine Bill
consultation, existing coastal and marine
monitoring activities in Scotland reviewed against
Scottish Biodiversity Strategy objectives.
b. Depending on the outcome of the Marine Bill
consultation, in concert with development of
proposals for Marine Ecosystem Objectives
(action 3.1a), relevant ecosystem indicators
identified to monitor delivery of biodiversityrelevant MEOs, integrated with other Scottish
biodiversity indicators.
c. Gaps identified in current monitoring needed to
assess delivery of MEOs and Scottish Biodiversity
Strategy in marine environment.
d. Cost-effective means identified to fill these
monitoring gaps, with respect to international,
national and regional drivers, responsibility
assigned for monitoring to fill these gaps, and
monitoring underway.
e. Outcomes of this monitoring reported annually (or
as advised otherwise in developing the indicators)
via links within the SBF, MDIP, Mermaid and other
websites, and through the 3-yearly report on
biodiversity outcomes to the Scottish Parliament.
128
Objectives
Action
5.2 The information, support and guidance
needed to assist local Scottish
biodiversity partnerships and other
marine
stakeholders
is
easily
accessible through a targeted website.
5.3 A full review on the “State of Scotland’s
Seas”, is completed and published; this
includes
identification
of
key
information gaps.
a. Website maintained to remain up-to-date and to
supply critical Scottish coastal and marine
biodiversity information and guidance as it
becomes available
a. The initial state of Scotland’s seas assessed in
terms of the vision of the Scottish Government, i.e.
“clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically
diverse marine and coastal environments,
managed to meet the long-term needs of nature
and people”. Where data is inadequate to make
this assessment with reasonable scientific
certainty, these data gaps are highlighted.
b. MBRCG considers data gaps highlighted in this
report and seeks to identify cost-effective
mechanisms to address these gaps.
5.4 Work to develop and improve the
quality and accessibility of biodiversity
related data and information has
progressed a great deal in recent years
and is set to continue in-line with
technological advances and public and
professional expectations relating to
data and information accessibility. It is
therefore critical that the provision and
support of biodiversity related data is
adequately recognised and supported
within Scotland giving consideration to
local, UK and European biodiversity
reporting obligations.
a. Expansion of MarLIN to provide increased access
to marine species data.
b. Marine website maintained to ensure up-to-date
and timely supply of critical Scottish coastal and
marine biodiversity information and guidance as it
becomes available.
A2.3 Scottish Natural Heritage – Natural Heritage Futures Update
Owner/Originator:
Scottish Natural Heritage
Objective Suite Title:
Natural Heritage Futures Update
Source:
Scottish Natural Heritage (2002, 2008)
Objective Level:
High level goals
No. of Stated Objectives:
8 Objectives, 65 Actions
Status:
Draft
Details:
129
Objectives
Actions
To achieve sustainable use of our
coasts and seas through better
management,
knowledge
and
understanding of the marine
environment
1. Implement stronger management and stewardship of
the sea at government and at international level
2. Develop and implement national and
integrated strategies for Scotland’s coasts
regional
3. Develop
and
implement
new
environmental
management for marine ecosystems including broad
measures and protected areas for special features
4. Develop access opportunities and related interpretation
to improve community understanding and ownership of
the coastal environment
5. Promote awareness and education of Scotland’s
marine natural heritage e.g. by using videos and data
obtained during underwater surveys
6. Ensure adequate visitor management at key sites with
interpretative provision to achieve maximum raising of
awareness and understanding of the natural heritage
7. Encourage community involvement programmes in
integrated management initiatives, implementation of
Local and National Biodiversity Action Plans and the
management of Special Areas of Conservation
8. Support and undertake research to address gaps in
knowledge and understanding of the marine
environment
To manage the coast in sympathy
with natural processes
1. In areas under long-term threat of coastal flooding or
erosion, promote approaches to coastal defence work
with nature and avoid diverting erosive forces
elsewhere by:
• Developing shoreline management plans to assess
defence options and guide built development away
from areas at risk;
• Promoting flexible land management and managed
realignment to reduce the sea’s power to erode
coastlines and to restore areas of soft coast habitat;
• Removing or abandoning hard sea defences where
they are not essential to allow low-lying land to
return to the sea, and using new built defences to
protect only essential developments or installations.
2. Minimise the extraction of marine aggregates and
ensure all impacts of extraction on coastal processes
are understood.
3. Recycle (clean) dredged sediment wherever possible,
e.g. in beach recharge operations.
Where such
recycling I not possible, encourage disposal within the
active coastal cell from which the material was dredged
(thus maintaining the sediment supply within the coastal
cell and lowering the risk of coastal erosion).
4. Maintain natural processes and biodiversity on coastal
habitats such as saltmarsh, sand dune and machair
through sensitive agricultural and recreational
management.
130
Objectives
Actions
5
To
safeguard
and
enhance
maritime
biodiversity
and
ecosystems
Improve understanding of the impacts of seaweed
harvesting on coastal erosion.
6. Extend the Natural Heritage Futures framework to the
marine environment with the identification of distinct
marine areas and the development of targeted policies.
1. Develop a Scottish coastal strategy including an
integrated management framework, designated sites
and wider environmental measures to provide effective
protective mechanisms for the natural heritage of the
coasts and seas.
2. Designate marine Natura 2000 sites (SPA and SAC) and
secure appropriate management.
3. Implement maritime habitats, species and local
biodiversity action plans to achieve targets relevant to
Scotland.
4. Safeguard coastal and marine features of conservation
importance within areas of special care and protection,
including both sites formally designated under nature
conservation legislation and other areas identified and
managed through the marine spatial planning system.
5. Reduce by-catch of cetaceans and other non-target
species through fisheries policies and technical
measures.
6. Review options for the management of predator/prey
issues such as seal numbers.
7. Ensure developments on rocky cliffs and coastline
maintain the natural heritage and biodiversity value of
the coastline.
8. Improve data and knowledge above maritime natural
heritage and map the locations of special sites on
charts, etc, to enable other sea users to avoid causing
damage e.g. by anchoring or the use of towed gear.
9. Increase enforcement of regulations against fly tipping
to protect coastal habitats.
10 Clarify the distribution and abundance of maerl, and
minimise extractions.
11 Ensure anti-fouling and ballast water control and
management measures are in place to prevent the
further introduction of non-native species, or disease
from ballast water or from ships’ hulls.
12. Implement recommendations of the Donaldson report to
protect coastal areas, such as the Minch, at risk from
shipping e.g. through the identification of Marine
Environmental High Risk Assessment (MEHRA)
13. Use agri-environmental measures to protect and
enhance coastal biodiversity habitats and species.
To safeguard and enhance the fine
scenery and diverse character of
coastal
seascapes
ands
landscapes
1. Ensure a strategic approach to marine and coastal
development, allowing only those for which a coastal
location is essential and relating site and design to
seascape character.
131
Objectives
Actions
2. Consider the landscape and visual impact of all coastal
and marine development proposals and devise and
implement strategies for avoidance or mitigation of
negative visual and landscape impact.
3. Ensure that the new system of marine spatial planning
addresses the need to direct development towards
areas of least landscape and visual sensitivity and
takes account of landscape carrying capacity.
4. Ensure coastal and shoreline integrated management
initiatives
•
•
are informed by approaches in National Scenic
Areas to integrate land use in coastal
landscapes; and
incorporate local people’s values and aspirations
for the coastal landscape.
5. Enforce regulations that prohibit deposition of litter and
fly-tipping on coastal habitat and promote removal of
discarded plant, machinery, fencing and other artefacts
that impact on the landscape.
6. Ensure that environmental impact assessment takes
account of landscape and visual impact, including
landscape carrying capacity.
To
achieve
sustainability
in
Scottish sea fisheries through
responsible fishing that keeps
stocks within safe biological limits
and minimises adverse impact on
the natural heritage
1
Focus recovery efforts for target fish stocks on
addressing factors affecting the rate at which young fish
are added to the population, including the protection of
critical nursery habitats.
2. Apply consistent standards of management at all of the
relevant scales at which fisheries occur, i.e. local to
international.
3. Maintain fishing capacity and effort within limits set by
stock availability.
4. Make effective use of stakeholder management
mechanisms: Regional Advisory Councils, Inshore
Fisheries Groups and other local initiatives where
appropriate.
5. Integrate fishery and environmental objectives more
effectively.
6. Encourage implementation of fisheries management
tools that implement an ecosystem approach.
To ensure that salmon farming and
other types of aquaculture are
environmentally sustainable
1. Develop a strategic approach to the selection of sites
for salmon farming that takes account of the carrying
capacity of coastal waters.
2. Support the detailed siting and design of marine
aquaculture to minimise visual impacts on the seascape
character.
3. Move existing and place new fish farms away from the
mouths of salmon rivers and the migratory routes of
salmon and sea trout, to promote the recovery of wild
stock that have been damaged by impacts of fish farms
e.g. through sea lice infection.
132
Objectives
Actions
4. Develop and implement strategies for sea lice
management to reduce the impacts of treatment on the
environment
5. Work with the industry and regulatory authorities to
develop policy and guidelines for the sustainable
management of salmon farms that take account of
natural heritage considerations.
6. Encourage the adoption of the principles of ‘organic’
salmon farming.
7. Ensure that salmon farming does not increase the
exploitation of other fish populations.
8. Encourage fish farms to adopt an independently
accredited
industry
standard
environmental
management system such as ISO 14001.
9. Implement fully the Shellfish Waters Directive by
designating more sites in Scottish Waters.
10. Implement the Water Framework Directive to enhance
water quality around Scotland.
11. Promote the use of stock of local origin for aquaculture
and prohibit introduction of alien or genetically modified
(GM) species until the potential impacts on local
biodiversity from escapes or disease introduction are
understood.
12. Use following cycles that allow time for benthos
recovery as well as the breaking of disease cycles.
13. Further develop the industry’s Code of Good Practice to
ensure high standards of environmental management.
To improve the water quality of
estuaries and seas
1. Use the Water Framework Directive to achieve further
improvements in water quality and to restore natural
coastal biodiversity.
2. Maintain adequate oil spill contingency plans, give local
authorities a statutory duty to contribute clean up
resources.
Strengthen environmental protection
measure in the oil production industry.
3. Improve removal at source of all toxic substances in
coastal waters.
4. Improve the enforcement of regulations to control
discharges and waste disposal from shipping.
5. Ensure compliance with the requirements imposed on
shipping by Marine Environmental High Risk Areas
(MEHRA).
6. Develop a wide partnership project to tackle marine
litter, improve traceability of materials and promote
better enforcement of regulations on disposal of waste
and sea.
To promote access to the sea and
coast for public enjoyment and
Recreation
1. Plan for the recreational use of coasts, and promote
responsible access to the sea and coast and to
maritime recreational resources, linked to well planned
visitor management.
133
Objectives
Actions
2. Improve water quality for bathing, extend the Bathing
Waters Directive to protect the health of people who
practice water contact recreation, designate more
bathing water beaches and provide better information
on safe bathing beaches.
3. Increase the length and quality of coastal paths, create
lines to forma better network of paths, and develop
well-planned interpretation.
4. Identify and promote the use of appropriate areas of the
coast for water sports and promote codes of behaviour
for these sports.
5. Develop and promote the use of codes of conduct for
cetacean watching, crag climbing, wild-fowling and
other recreational activities.
6. Ensure wildlife tourism is operated responsibly and that
codes of practice are in place and adhered to by
operators and participants.
7. Include visitor management and tourism development
within integrated coastal zone management and marine
spatial planning.
A2.4 Draft Proposed Contributory Marine Objectives (Version 0.2)
Owner/Originator:
Healthy & Biologically Diverse Seas Evidence Group
Objective Suite Title:
UK Contributory Marine Objectives
Source:
UKMMAS (2007)
Objective Level:
Intermediate level objective
No. of Stated Objectives:
24 Contributory Marine Objectives (7 Human Use, 8 Healthy
Functioning Ecosystems, 5 Optimising economic returns
and Infrastructure, 4 Social Integration)
Status:
Proposed, but work was discontinued in 2007.
Details: see Appendix 3
134
A2.5 Irish Sea Conservation Objectives (superseded)
Owner/Originator:
Irish Sea Pilot
Objective Suite Title:
Irish Sea Conservation Objectives
Source:
Vincent et al.(2004)
Objective Level:
High level goals, intermediate level objectives, operational
objectives
No. of Stated Objectives:
3 High Level Aims, 10 Intermediate level objectives (referred
to as “High Level Objectives”), 39 “Operational Conservation
Objectives”
Status:
Proposed, but not implemented. Many of the proposed
objectives were reconsidered in the Review of Marine
Nature Conservation Operational Objectives.
Details:
High Level Aims
For the purpose of setting conservation objectives, the Regional Sea is considered as having
three components: the physical and chemical properties of the Regional Sea, its productivity
and its biodiversity. It is proposed to set an aim for each of these components as follows:
1. to maintain the physical and chemical properties of the ecosystem;
2. to maintain each component of the ecosystem so that it can make its expected
contribution to the food web;
3. to prevent further loss of marine biodiversity, and promote its recovery where practicable,
so as to maintain the natural richness and resilience of the ecosystem.
Aim 1: To maintain the physical and chemical properties of the ecosystem
High Level Objectives
1. Protect
seabed
features so that they
can
support
the
processes, habitats
and
species
Ecosystem Components
(illustrative)
Coastal morphology
Operational Conservation
Objectives
1.1 Protect coastal processes from
ecologically significant change
due to human activity, and
reverse such change where
practicable.
• coastal processes
135
High Level Objectives
characteristic of the
marine landscapes.
Ecosystem Components
(illustrative)
Seabed habitats
• substratum type
• particle size composition
• topography
• substratum structure
• siltation
• physical processes
• chemical processes
Biogenic structures
2. To
protect
water
column features so
that they can support
the
processes,
habitats and species
characteristic of the
waterbodies.
3. Protect the water
quality
of
the
component
water
column features so
they can support the
processes, habitats
and
species
characteristic of the
water column and
associated
seabed
habitats.
• saltmarshes
• eelgrass beds
• Sabellaria spp reefs
• Modiolus reefs
Water column features
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Tides, waves, fetch, currents
Fronts
Stratification
Temporal changes
Freshwater inputs
Salinity
Suspended solids
Turbidity
Water quality
Chemical conditions
Nutrients
Dissolved gases
Chemical pollutants
• Contaminants
• Organic compounds
• Radioactive elements
Oil
• Chronic
• Acute
Noise and vibration
Marine litter
4. Maintain biota quality
Contaminants
• Contaminant loads
• Bioaccumulations
• Health of animals
136
Operational Conservation
Objectives
1.2 Protect seabed habitats from
ecologically-significant
change
due to human activity, and
reverse such change where
practicable.
1.3 Protect biogenic structures from
ecologically-significant
change
due to human activity, and
reverse such change where
practicable.
2.1 Protect the water column features
from
ecologically-significant
change due to human activity,
and reverse such change where
practicable.
3.1 Maintain or recover water quality
to within defined standards which
aim to prevent ‘undesirable
disturbance’
caused
by
eutrophication.
3.2 Ensure
that
environmental
standards are not exceeded.
3.3 Ensure
that
environmental
standards are not exceeded.
3.4 Reduce the input of oil from
accidents, as far as practicable.
3.5 Maintain noise and vibration
levels
below
precautionary
standards aimed at protecting
vulnerable marine species from
disturbance.
3.6 Reduce input of litter to the
marine environment to below
levels
aimed
at
protecting
vulnerable marine habitats and
species.
4.1 Ensure
standards
for
contaminants in biota are not
exceeded.
Aim 2: To maintain each component of the ecosystem so that it can make its expected
contribution to the foodweb
High Level Objectives
1. Maintain
production
bounds of
variability
primary
within
natural
2. Maintain
trophic
structure
so
that
individual
species
and
stages
can
sustain
their
characteristic roles in
the foodweb
3. Maintain
mean
generation times of
populations
within
bounds of natural
variability
Ecosystem Components
(illustrative)
Trophic status
• nutrient concentrations,
• water clarity,
• cOSSrophyll A concentration
Trophic complexity
• number of trophic levels
• biomass at each trophic level
• Habitat availability:
• pelagic habitats
• benthic habitats
• nursery areas
• spawning areas
• migration pathways
Predator-prey relationships
• predator-induced
mortality
rates on prey populations
• biomass of key dependent
predators:
o commercially
exploited
fish/shellfish
o non-target fish species
o benthic animals
o birds
o marine mammals
Longevity
• survivorship curves
• mortality rate
Life history strategy
• changes
in
reproductive
parameters (age of maturity,
time of breeding)
• lifetime reproductive success
rates
Reproductive potential
• fecundity
• spawning stock biomass
137
Operational Conservation
Objectives
1.1 Ensure
compliance
with
precautionary standards which
aim to avoid ‘undesirable
disturbance’ of trophic status.
2.1 Ensure harvest of all species at
a specified trophic level is
below precautionary limits.
2.2 To protect the extent and
function of habitats, areas and
pathways
from
significant
decline due to human activities.
2.3 Reduce direct and indirect
impacts upon prey populations
to below levels at which their
populations may be affected.
2.4 Reduce direct and indirect
impacts upon key dependent
predators to below levels at
which their populations may be
significantly affected.
3.1 Protect
populations
from
changes in longevity which
may have a significant impact
upon the marine ecosystem,
due to human activity.
3.2 Protect
populations
from
changes in life history strategy
which may have a significant
impact upon the marine
ecosystem, due to human
activity.
3.3 Enable the spawning stock
biomass
of
commerciallyexploited
fish/shellfish
to
recover to within safe biological
limits.
3.4 Increase the spawning stock
biomass
of
commerciallyexploited fish/ shellfish stocks
further, to within limits defined
for an ecologically-sustainable
fishery, where this is possible.
High Level Objectives
Ecosystem Components
(illustrative)
Fishing mortality
Operational Conservation
Objectives
3.5 Reduce fishing mortality of
commercially-exploited
fish/shellfish stocks to within
safe biological limits
3.6 Reduce fishing mortality of
commercially-exploited
fish/shellfish stocks further, to
within limits defined for an
ecologically-sustainable fishery
where this is possible.
Aim 3: To prevent further loss of marine biodiversity, and promote its recovery where
practicable, so as to maintain the natural richness and resilience of the ecosystem
High Level Objectives
1. Maintain
habitats/
communities
within
bounds of natural
variability
Ecosystem Components
(illustrative)
Trophic level balance
• effective number of species
within each trophic level
• abundance
of
keystone
species
Habitat complexity
• overall
number
of
habitats/communities
Areas identified as being the
‘best representative examples’
of the range of marine
landscapes,
water
body
features habitats and species
Rare and sensitive habitats
Habitats which are threatened
by decline or have declined
Non-native species
138
Operational Conservation
Objectives
1.1 Protect the trophic level
balance
from
significant
changes due to human activity.
1.2 Prevent a significant decline in
the habitat complexity of
marine ecosystems due to
human activity.
1.3 Maintain
the
‘best
representative examples’ in, or
recover them to, as close to
their
natural
state
as
practicable.
1.4 Protect rare and sensitive
habitats from decline due to
human activity.
1.5 Protect threatened habitats
from decline due to human
activity.
1.6 Enable habitats which have
declined to recover to a nonthreatened
state,
where
practicable.
1.7 Prevent the introduction of nonnative species that may
adversely impact the marine
environment.
1.8 Reduce impacts of existing
non-native species to below
levels which risk affecting the
marine
ecosystem,
where
practicable.
High Level Objectives
2. Maintain
species
within
bounds
of
natural variability
Ecosystem Components
(illustrative)
Overall diversity of species
Important areas for highly
mobile and migratory species
• spawning/breeding
• calving
• nursery
• feeding
• migration bottlenecks
• nesting
Species which are threatened
by decline or have declined
3. Maintain populations
within
bounds
of
variability
Structure among populations
• metapopulation structure
• distribution
• habitat availability
Structure within populations
• population size
• distribution
• habitat availability
• age structure
Populations at risk
Genetic
diversity
populations
among
Genetic
diversity
populations
within
Operational Conservation
Objectives
2.1 Prevent significant changes in
the overall species diversity of
marine landscapes and water
bodies due to human activity.
2.2 Protect the important areas for
aggregations of mobile species
(e.g.
spawning/breeding,
nursery, calving, feeding or
resting areas, and migration
bottlenecks).
2.3 Safeguard species which are
threatened by decline due to
human activity.
2.4 Promote the recovery of
species which have declined,
to a non-threatened state,
where practicable.
3.1 Protect the structure among
populations from significant
change due to human activity.
3.2 Protect the structure within
populations from significant
change due to human activity.
3.3 Protect populations defined to
be at risk and recover them to
non-at risk state, where
practicable.
3.4 Protect the genetic diversity
among
populations
from
significant change due to
human activity.
3.5 Protect the genetic diversity
within
populations
from
significant change due to
human activity.
A2.6 Scottish Biodiversity Strategy (2003 ~ superseded)
Owner/Originator:
Scottish Biodiversity Forum
139
Objective Suite Title:
Making Biodiversity matter: the strategy
Source:
Scottish Executive Environment Group (2003)
Objective Level:
High level goals and Intermediate level objectives
No.
of
Objectives:
Stated 2 aims, 4 principles, 13 objectives
Superseded by a revised Scottish Biodiversity Strategy
(Scottish Executive, 2004)
Status:
Details:
Aims
“The key overarching aim of the strategy is to facilitate real change on the ground to
conserve and enhance Scotland’s biodiversity.
In delivering the strategy and working towards the vision we will aim:
•
To halt the loss of Scotland's biodiversity and to continue to reverse previous losses
by targeted action for species and habitats.
•
To raise awareness of the many benefits of biodiversity by significantly increasing the
number and range of people contributing to its conservation and enhancement
Table A1.1 Scottish Biodiversity Strategy (2003) Principles and Objectives
Principles
Providing the framework
biodiversity action in Scotland
Objectives
for
Promoting
the
conservation,
enhancement and sustainable use
of Scotland's biodiversity by
placing people at the heart of the
strategy
• Develop integrated public policies and strategies that
further the conservation and sustainable use of natural
resources
• Achieve greater resource and delivery efficiency for
biodiversity action
• Manage Scotland's use of resources in a way that
considers the natural functioning of ecosystems so their
future health is maintained and enhanced.
• Work together towards targets identified in the UK
Biodiversity Action Plan
• Further develop partnership working and collaboration
needed to promote initiatives, raise the profile of
biodiversity and access funding
• Strengthen the links between people and their natural
environment through improved and appropriate biodiversity
action, communication and interpretation.
• Raise awareness and ownership of the values of
biodiversity and the impacts (both negative and positive)
that individuals can affect
• Encourage and empower people and partnerships to seek
appropriate solutions to local biodiversity issues
140
Gathering,
developing
and
applying the best available existing
and new knowledge to assist
people in understanding, caring for
, enjoying and making wise use of
Scotland’s biodiversity
• Cultivate an appreciation of the social and economic
benefits of healthy biodiversity resource
• Co-ordinate and target research on the biodiversity
resource and peoples interaction with it.
• Make existing knowledge and information more accessible
to people
• Utilise the best available knowledge to inform decisions,
identify priorities for action and ensure value for money
• Survey and monitor Scotland's biodiversity resource
References to Appendix 2
Scottish Executive Environment Group, 2003. Towards a strategy for Scotland’s biodiversity:
Biodiversity Matters! Strategy proposals. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.
Scottish Natural Heritage, 2002. Natural Heritage Futures: Coasts and Seas. Perth: Scottish
Natural Heritage.
Scottish Natural Heritage, 2008. Natural Heritage Futures Update: Coasts and Seas (Draft).
Perth: Scottish Natural Heritage.
UKMMAS, 2007. Healthy & Biologically Diverse Seas Evidence Group: Papers for 6th
HBDSEG Meeting – 8th November 2007. Draft Proposed Contributory Marine Objectives
(Version 0.2). Healthy & Biologically Diverse Seas Evidence Group.
Vincent, M.A., Atkins, S.M., Lumb, C.M., Golding, N., Lieberknecht, L.M. & Webster, M.,
2004. Marine nature conservation and sustainable development - the Irish Sea Pilot. Report
to Defra by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Peterborough: JNCC.
141
APPENDIX 3: DRAFT CONTRIBUTORY MARINE OBJECTIVES (UKMMAS, 2007)
Columns containing editing comments have been removed.
Theme A – Human use
Ensuring the sustainable use of marine resources for future sustainability with management decisions made in the marine environment
reflecting the need to minimise risk to human health and safety.
142
Revised Draft Contributory
Objective
Examples of possible
Indicators
Achieve
and
maintain
the
sustainable and productive use of
biological
resources
which
maximise socio-economic benefits
whilst minimising the unsustainable
negative impacts on habitats and
species.
- Fishing effort.
- Landings and discards.
- Selectivity and impact of
fishing gears.
- Disturbance.
- Climate change.
- Eutrophication.
- Contaminants.
- Mortality.
- Biomass.
- Stock resilience.
- Ecosystem properties.
- Distribution.
- Habitat condition.
- Contribution to human ‘healthy’
diets.
- Resource status and trends.
- Distribution patterns.
- Changing genetic diversity.
- Assessment stock levels/safe
biological limits
- Industry
Parameter/ Data
-
Fishery landings.
Discard sampling.
Gear selectivity studies.
Environmental
monitoring.
ICES
stock
assessments.
Surveys.
Fishery databases.
Habitat surveys.
Driver (legislative, non-legislative,
obligatory, non-obligatory)
- Sea
Fisheries
(Wildlife
Conservation) Act 1992.
- Common Fisheries Policy 1983.
- EC Council Regulation 602/2004
(the protection of deepwater coral
reefs from the effects of trawling–
north west Scotland)
- Convention for the Conservation of
Salmon in the North Atlantic Ocean
1982.
- International Convention for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
1966.
- North East Atlantic Fisheries
Commission Convention 1982.
- FAO Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries 1995.
- International Plan of Action for
reducing incidental catch of
Seabirds in Longline Fisheries
1998.
- International Plan of Action for the
Conservation and Management of
Sharks 1999.
- United Nations Agreement on
Evidence
Collection
Group
PSEG
(owner)
HBDSEG
(input
required).
Revised Draft Contributory
Objective
Examples of possible
Indicators
Parameter/ Data
Driver (legislative, non-legislative,
obligatory, non-obligatory)
-
Achieve
and
maintain
the
productive use of the marine
environment by extractive industries
to meet national needs for the
security of energy supply and a built
environment
whilst
preventing
unsustainable negative impacts on
habitats and species.
-
143
Achieve
and
maintain
the
sustainable and productive use of
renewable energy to meet EU and
UK needs.
Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly
Migratory Fish Stocks 2001.
World Summit on Sustainable
Development 2002 (WSSD)
Inshore Fisheries Act
Conservation of Seals Act
Aquaculture Regulations
Convention on Biodiversity
Aquaculture
legislation
in
development
Food and Environment Protection
Act 1985 (FEPA)
EIA/SEA Directive
Kyoto
Possible EU targets
Electricity Act
Energy Act
Installed capacity.
Availability.
Spatial conflicts.
Repair & maintenance costs.
Availability of new sites.
Costs to consumers.
Regulatory timescales.
Investment levels
- Trends in generation
records.
- Industry surveys.
- Industry information.
- Government
and
industry stats.
- Industry records.
- Government info.
-
Production volumes.
Environmental impact.
Climate change.
Availability
of
alternative
sources.
- Repair & maintenance needs.
- Availability of new sites.
- Regulatory
timescales.
Investment levels.
- Industry surveys.
- Industry information.
- Government
and
industry statistics.
- Industry records.
- Government information.
- Food and Environment Protection
Act 1985 (FEPA).
- Environmental
Protection
Act
1990.
- Merchant Shipping (Prevention of
Pollution) Regulations 1996.
- Merchant Shipping & Maritime
Security Act 1997.
- Pollution Prevention and Control
Act 1999.
- Dangerous Substances Directive.
-
Evidence
Collection
Group
PSEG
(owner)
HBDSEG
(input
required).
PSEG
(owner)
HBDSEG
(input
required).
Revised Draft Contributory
Objective
144
Achieve
and
maintain
the
sustainable and productive use of
the marine environment with
respect to the provision of goods &
services to meet national needs.
Examples of possible
Indicators
-
Competition.
Environmental impact.
Climate change.
Availability of alternatives.
Operating costs.
Ability to expand.
Availability of locations.
Market trends.
Investment levels.
Parameter/ Data
- Industry surveys.
- Industry information.
- Government
and
industry statistics.
- Industry records.
- Government information.
Driver (legislative, non-legislative,
obligatory, non-obligatory)
- London
Convention
on
the
Prevention of Marine Pollution by
Dumping Wastes and Other Matter
1972.
- OSPAR Offshore Oil and Gas
Industry Strategy.
- EIA/SEA Directive
- Marine and Offshore Conservation
Regulations
- Aggregate Regulations
- Petroleum Act
- Food and Environment Protection
Act 1985 (FEPA).
- Environmental
Protection
Act
1990.
- Pollution Prevention and Control
Act 1999.
- COSSr-alkali Directive
- IPCC Council Directive 96/61/EC
concerning integrated pollution
prevention and control 1996.
- Dangerous Substances Directive.
- EU Directive on port reception
facilities for ship generated waste
and cargo residues.
- Protocol (London Convention) on
the Prevention of Marine Pollution
by Dumping Wastes and Other
Matter 1972.
- Titanium Dioxide Directive.
- International Convention on the
Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling
Systems on Ships.
- International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships
Evidence
Collection
Group
PSEG
(owner)
HBDSEG
(input
required).
Revised Draft Contributory
Objective
145
Prevent contaminants, toxins, and
microbiological and radioactive
contamination of seafood from
reaching
concentrations
that
present a significant risk to human
health.
Prevent contaminants, toxins, and
microbiological and radioactive
contamination of marine and
coastal ecosystems from reaching
concentrations that present a
significant risk to human health.
Examples of possible
Indicators
- Contaminant concentrations in
UK (and imported?) harvested
seafood to be lower than the
relevant standard.
- Contaminant concentrations in
feeding stuffs to be lower than
the relevant standard.
- Proportion of harvesting areas
closed each year (include
duration of closures).
- All sites achieving at least
Class B and moving towards
Class A or Shellfish Growing
Waters guideline standards
- All Bathing identified and nonidentified bathing waters under
the Bathing Waters Directive
meet mandatory standards and
moving
towards
guideline
standards.
- Dose to humans less than
statutory limits.
Parameter/ Data
- FSA Shellfish Hygiene
programme.
- FSA
chemical
contaminants
survey
programmes.
- FSA Scotland Survey
Programme.
- FSA
programme.
Driver (legislative, non-legislative,
obligatory, non-obligatory)
1973.
- UN Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS).
- Protection of Wrecks Act 1973
- Defence Acts/Regs (various ones)
- IEA/SEA Directive
- Urban
Wastewater
Treatment
Directive
- OSPAR Convention
- COPA
- WRA
- Harbours Act
- Telecoms Act
- EU Food Hygiene Regulations.
- Shellfish
Growing
Waters
Directive.
- Water Framework Directive
- EU Fish and Shellfish Disease
legislation
Evidence
Collection
Group
CSSEG
(owner)
feedstuffs
- Bathing
waters
programme.
- Dose rates.
- Release rates.
- Inter-tidal
exposure
rates.
- RIFE.
- Bathing Waters Directive.
- Urban Waste Water Treatment
Directive.
- Water Framework Directive
- Radioactive Substances Act 1993.
- Council
Directive
96/29/EURATOM.
- OSPAR Strategy for Radioactive
CSSEG
(owner)
Revised Draft Contributory
Objective
Prevent anthropogenic sourced
litter from reaching levels which
affect amenity (aesthetics & safety)
value of the marine environment.
Examples of possible
Indicators
- Temporal trends in dose to
humans.
- Aquatic
and
Gaseous
Discharge trends.
- good
ecological
status/potential
and
good
chemical status
- Continuous
reduction
in
numbers of items per kilometre
of beach.
- Offshore waters achieve some
standard for litter items per
square Km.
Parameter/ Data
Driver (legislative, non-legislative,
obligatory, non-obligatory)
Evidence
Collection
Group
Substances.
- MCS
Adopt-a-beach/
beachwatch.
- OSPAR Marine Litter
Monitoring Programme.
- KIMO Fishing for litter
project.
- CSEMP.
- Clean
Neighbourhoods
Environment Act 2005.
- Environment Act 1995.
- Northern Ireland Litter Order.
&
CSSEG
(owner)
146
Theme B - Healthy functioning ecosystems
Ensure ecosystem integrity, adaptability and resilience is maintained in light of anthropogenic and natural disturbances, allowing for a suitable
range of biodiversity in our oceans and preventing further declines in species and habitats, enhancing where possible
Revised Draft Contributory
Objective
Examples of possible
Indicators
Support, and where appropriate
restore, the distribution, extent and
character of marine ‘landscapes’
and habitats.
- Observed
damage
(e.g.
trawl/dredge tracks).
- Extent of habitats (area).
- Classification of coastal waters
(integrating at a landscape
level).
- Distribution,
extent
and
Parameter/ Data
Driver (legislative, non-legislative,
obligatory, non-obligatory)
- Environment Act 1995.
- Convention for the International
Council for the Exploration of the
Seas (ICES).
- Proposed
Marine
Strategy
Directive.
- OSPAR Biological Diversity and
Evidence
Collection
Group
HBDSEG
(owner)
Revised Draft Contributory
Objective
Examples of possible
Indicators
Driver (legislative, non-legislative,
obligatory, non-obligatory)
character
(type)
of
landscapes/habitats.
- Extent of habitats with high
structural
complexity
e.g.,
biogenic reefs
- good
ecological
status/potential
and
good
chemical status
Ecosystems Strategy.
- Conservation (Natural Habitats)
Regulations 1994.
- Countryside & Rights of Way Act
(CROW) 2000.
- Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
- Nature Conservation (Scotland)
Act 2004.
- Habitats Directive.
- Water Framework Directive (WFD).
- Bern
Convention
for
the
Conservation of European wildlife
and natural habitats 1982.
- The Convention on Wetlands of
International
Importance
(The
Ramsar Convention) 1971.
- World Heritage Convention 1972.
- Birds Directive
- Amount of marine litter e.g.
loss of fishing gear.
- Ghost fishing i.e. loss of gear
and litter on seabed.
- Mass mortality events e.g. fish
kills, bird strikes etc.
- Extinction events.
- Indicator on populations
- Benthic community indicators
such
as
IQI/biodiversity
measures under WFD/Habitats
Directives
- Planktonic
indicators
of
ecosystem status, primary
- Environment Act 1995.
- Convention for the International
Council for the Exploration of the
Seas (ICES).
- Proposed
Marine
Strategy
Directive
- OSPAR Biological Diversity and
Ecosystems Strategy.
- Water Framework Directive (WFD).
- Conservation of Seals Act 1970.
- Sea
Fisheries
(Wildlife
Conservation) Act 1992.
- UK Biodiversity and Action Plan
(BAP) 2002.
147
Support, and where appropriate
restore, biodiversity and ecological
patterns and processes.
Parameter/ Data
Evidence
Collection
Group
HBDSEG
(owner)
Revised Draft Contributory
Objective
Examples of possible
Indicators
-
-
148
production (CPR and remote
sensing data)
Secondary
production
(zooplankton), biogeographical
changes, phenology changes,
harmful algal blooms, etc.
Marine Mammal stranding
autopsy reports
Non native species
Status of protected species
Patterns of biodiversity
Marine Mammal stranding
autopsy reports
good
ecological
status/potential
and
good
chemical status
Parameter/ Data
Driver (legislative, non-legislative,
obligatory, non-obligatory)
- Wildlife and Countryside Act
(1981).
- Nature Conservation (Scotland)
Act 2004.
- Birds Directive.
- Agreement on the Conservation of
African-Eurasian
Migratory
Waterbirds (AEWA) 1995.
- Agreement on the Conservation of
Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and
North Seas (ASCOBANS) 1992.
- Bern
Convention
for
the
Conservation of European wildlife
and natural habitats 1982.
- Agreement on the Conservation of
Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP)
2004.
- Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD) 2004.
- Convention on International Trade
in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES) 1975.
- International Convention for the
Regulation of Whaling 1946.
- International Plan of Action for the
Conservation and Management of
Sharks 1999.
- World Summit on Sustainable
Development 2002 (WSSD).
- European Landscaping Convention
- [Habitats Directive]
- Northern Ireland legislation
- EU Fish and Shellfish Regulations
- Fish and Shellfish Disease Act
Evidence
Collection
Group
149
Revised Draft Contributory
Objective
Examples of possible
Indicators
Parameter/ Data
Driver (legislative, non-legislative,
obligatory, non-obligatory)
Evidence
Collection
Group
Prevent
those
anthropogenic
activities which affect the physical
and hydrographical conditions in the
marine environment from negatively
impacting on ecosystem integrity
and viability in an unsustainable
manner.
- Seabed erosion and sediment
type change.
- River mouth flow (rates).
- Classification of coastal waters
(integrating at a landscape
level) – e.g. seagrasses,
mudflats etc.
- Habitat connectivity.
- good
ecological
status/potential
and
good
chemical status
- Strategic Environment Assessment
(SEA) Directive.
- Water Framework Directive (for
hydromorphological aspects).
- Bergen Declaration 2002.
- Habitats Directive
- Birds Directive
HBDSEG
(owner)
Prevent
those
anthropogenic
activities affecting the chemical and
biological characteristics of the
marine environment from negatively
impacting ecosystem processes,
and the range, distribution, diversity
and health of species and
communities in an unsustainable
manner.
- Concentrations
of
contaminants in top level
predators, marine mammals,
birds, etc.
- Marine Mammal stranding
autopsy reports
- Nutrients (winter nutrient max,
total
nitrogen,
nitrate:phosphate ratio).
- Species as indicators of
pollution e.g. organic.
- Temperature
- pH,
- Salinity regime
- Marine Mammal stranding
autopsy reports
- good
ecological
status/potential
and
good
chemical status
- Environment Act 1995.
- Convention for the International
Council for the Exploration of the
Seas (ICES).
- OSPAR Convention.
- Proposed
Marine
Strategy
Directive.
- Water Framework Directive.
- Habitats Directive
- Birds Directive
- Nitrates directive
HBDSEG
(owner)
150
Revised Draft Contributory
Objective
Examples of possible
Indicators
Prevent anthropogenic inputs of
contaminants
from
reaching
concentrations in the marine
environment
that
present
a
significant risk to marine habitats
and species.
- Inputs continue to move
towards cessation targets.
- Trends
in
concentrations
continue to reduce to zero or
background levels.
- Measured
effects
meet
Environmental
Quality
Standards (EQS).
- Measured effects do not
exceed
Environmental
Assessment Criteria (EAC).
- EcoQO’s.
- Marine Mammal stranding
autopsy reports
Parameter/ Data
Driver (legislative, non-legislative,
obligatory, non-obligatory)
CAMP.
RID.
Oil and Gas.
Accidents.
Munitions.
CSEMP
trend
determinands.
- CSEMP determinands.
- Environment Act 1995.
- Food and Environment Protection
Act 1985 (FEPA).
- Environmental
Protection
Act
1990.
- Pollution Prevention and Control
Act 1999.
- COSSr-alkali Directive.
- OSPAR Convention.
- IPCC Council Directive concerning
integrated pollution prevention and
control 1996.
- Dangerous Substances Directive.
- London
Convention
on
the
Prevention of Marine Pollution by
Dumping Wastes and Other Matter
1972.
- Proposed
Marine
Strategy
Directive.
- OSPAR Biological Diversity and
Ecosystems Strategy.
- OSPAR Strategy for Hazardous
Substances.
- OSPAR Offshore Oil and Gas
Industry Strategy.
- Titanium Dioxide Directive.
- Water Framework Directive.
- International Convention on the
Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling
Systems on Ships.
- Habitats Directive
- Birds Directive
-
Evidence
Collection
Group
CSSEG
(owner)
HBDSEG
(input
required)
151
Revised Draft Contributory
Objective
Examples of possible
Indicators
Parameter/ Data
Driver (legislative, non-legislative,
obligatory, non-obligatory)
Minimise ‘undesirable disturbance’
in the marine environment arising
from eutrophication.
- Eutrophication status of UK
waters
as
assessed
by
Comprehensive Procedure &
EU
Directives
does
not
decline.
- Nutrients.
- COSSrophyll (pigmented
classification).
- Phytoplankton.
- Macroalgae.
- Dissolved oxygen.
- Organic carbon.
- Benthic invertebrates.
- good
ecological
status/potential
and
good chemical status
- Environment Act 1995
- OSPAR Convention.
- Proposed
Marine
Strategy
Directive.
- Nitrates Directive.
- OSPAR Eutrophication Strategy.
- Water Framework Directive
- Urban Waste Water Treatment
Directive.
Prevent anthropogenic sourced
litter from reaching levels which
present a significant negative
impact to marine habitats and
species.
- Meet OSPAR EcoQO for
plastic in seabirds.
- Number of items per kilometre
of beach.
- Marine Mammal stranding
autopsy reports.
- Concentrations of microplastic
litter.
- Ghost fishing/nets.
- Plastic
particles
in
seabirds.
- MCS
beachwatch
survey.
- Kimo Fishing for Litter.
- Sediment
samples.
analysed by Plymouth
University.
- Clean
Neighbourhoods
Environment Act 2005.
- Environment Act 1995.
- Northern Ireland Litter Order.
Characterise
atmospheric
contribute to
understanding
interactions.
-
ocean
and
processes
to
the overall UK
of environmental
Long-term mean sea level.
Sea surface temperature.
Wave height (significant).
Species as indicators
climate change.
- pH
- Salinity regime
of
&
- Convention for the International
Council for the Exploration of the
Seas (ICES).
- Proposed
Marine
Strategy
Directive.
- United
Nations
Framework
Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) 1994.
Evidence
Collection
Group
CSSEG
(owner)
HBDSEG
(owner)
CSSEG
(input
required)
HBDSEG
(owner)
Theme C - Optimising economic returns and Infrastructure.
Promote a sustainable marine industry and encourage profitable and efficient businesses who take a responsible approach to business practice
in the marine environment. Ensure a efficient regulatory framework and other systems are available to support business and trade in the marine
environment.
Revised Draft Contributory
Objective
Promote and maintain sustainable
and viable maritime industries.
Examples of possible
Indicators
152
-
-
-
Promote efficient access to, and
use of marine data and information.
Climate.
Globalisation.
Competition.
EU & National policies.
Business
failure
rates
compared with UK norms and
downturn
in
economic
investment.
Trend in employment levels.
Business growth rates.
Levels of innovation.
Tourism
Good
environmental
performance
which
is
measurable and quantifiable in
national
and
international
terms.
implementation
of
technological advances
Parameter/ Data
- Trend in %GDP and
GVA.
- Trend in Exports.
- Trend in employment
levels.
- Trends in skill levels.
- Trends in accident rates.
- Trends in investment.
Driver (legislative, non-legislative,
obligatory, non-obligatory)
Evidence
Collection
Group
- Crown Estate Act
PSEG
(owner)
- Freedom of Information Act 2000.
- Freedom of Information (Scotland)
Act 2001
CSSEG,
HBDSEG,
and PSEG,
Revised Draft Contributory
Objective
153
Achieve and maintain fit-forpurpose regulatory regime with
demonstrable
environmental
benefits
whilst
reducing
administrative
and
financial
burdens.
Examples of possible
Indicators
-
Costs.
Controls/red tape.
Timescales.
Success rates.
Spread
and
mix
development/use.
- Business confidence.
- Capital investment.
Parameter/ Data
of
- Periodic
statistics
(Industry
and
Government).
- Meeting delivery targets.
- Minimising
environmental
harm
(reduction in footprint of
activity).
- Reduction in impacts
(chemical,
biological,
physical, economic).
- Changes in seascape
due
to
use
and
placement of physical
structures.
- New technology.
- Participation.
- Collaboration
with
Government on policy
Driver (legislative, non-legislative,
obligatory, non-obligatory)
Evidence
Collection
Group
- Infrastructure
for
spatial
information in Europe (INSPIRE)
Directive
- Environmental Information Regs
(EIR).
- European Environment Agency
Annual Management Plan - Marine
Data.
- Convention
on
Access
to
Information, Public Participation in
Decision-Making and Access to
Justice in Environmental Matters
(Aarhus Convention).
(coowners)
- FEPA
PSEG
(owner)
- Better Regulation
Revised Draft Contributory
Objective
Examples of possible
Indicators
Parameter/ Data
Driver (legislative, non-legislative,
obligatory, non-obligatory)
Evidence
Collection
Group
development.
- Trend in some measure
of efficiency of the
process.
Maintain an effective evidence base
for decision making in the marine
environment.
154
Maintain the ability to identify and
respond to current and future
pressures of climate change on the
marine environment.
CSSEG,
HBDSEG,
and PSEG,
(coowners)
- Phytoplankton concentrations
and species.
- Nutrient
changes
(concentration)
in
winter
maxima onshore and offshore.
- Changes in CO2 air-sea
exchanges.
- United
Nations
Framework
Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) (1994)
CSSEG,
HBDSEG,
and PSEG,
(coowners)
Theme D - Social integration
Building strong cohesive communities that take an active role in managing the marine and coastal environment, recognising that the benefits
arising from using the oceans and seas and their resources will be shared equitably within society.
Revised Draft Contributory
Objective
Examples of possible
Indicators
Provide and maintain adequate
opportunities
for
stakeholder
engagement and participation in the
decision making process.
- MCS
beachwatch
style
campaigns
- Report Cards to test public
understanding
- Examples
from
omnibus
surveys (UK Nat statistics
office)
155
Provide and maintain effective
communication, education, and
knowledge transfer with respect to
marine issues.
Reduce social exclusion and
promote social cohesion in coastal
communities.
Parameter/ Data
Legislative and Obligatory Driver
Evidence
Collection
Group
- Agenda 21
- ICZM demonstration programme
- Other EU supported projects
delivered by local authorities to
support coastal and marine
projects
- Non-statutory Marine Conservation
Areas (e.g., Marine Sites of Nature
Conservation Importance)
- UKBAP and LBAP processes,
targets, etc
CSSEG,
HBDSEG,
and PSEG,
(coowners)
CSSEG,
HBDSEG,
and PSEG,
(coowners)
- Degree of social exclusion
- Number of second homes
- Relative household prosperity
PSEG
(owner)
Revised Draft Contributory
Objective
Examples of possible
Indicators
Promote and support dynamic and
sustainable coastal economies.
- Loss of cultural distinctness
- Patterns
of
sectional
employment
- Volume of traffic
- Intensity of tourism
- Sustainable tourism.
Parameter/ Data
Legislative and Obligatory Driver
Evidence
Collection
Group
PSEG
(owner)
156
APPENDIX 4: CASE STUDY – THE APPROACH OF HELCOM
A4.1 The ecosystem approach in the Baltic Sea
The semi-enclosed Baltic Sea has major problems from eutrophication, build-up of
hazardous chemical contaminants, and depleted natural resources (HELCOM, 2003),
leading to what has been described as a “whole ecosystem regime shift” – problems much
greater than experienced around the seas of Scotland.
Since signing the Helsinki Convention in 1974, the countries with coasts around the Baltic
Sea (including Russia and other non-EU countries) have worked through the Helsinki
Commission (HELCOM) with the aim of achieving ecological restoration in the Baltic Sea.
The European Community signed the revised Helsinki Convention in 1992. In 2003, the
contracting parties of HELCOM agreed to adopt the “ecosystem approach to the
management of human activities” to further the goal of attaining good ecological status for
the Baltic Sea (Backer & Leppänen, 2008). Essentially this committed the HELCOM states
to developing and applying ecological objectives and appropriate indicators for ‘good
ecological status’, as stipulated in the EU Water Framework Directive. Although strictly this
directive is valid only for inland and coastal waters of EU Member States, this agreement
extended its remit to cover the whole Baltic Sea (and it was therefore de facto also adopted
by non-EU states).
Backer & Leppänen (2008) explain how the approach changed in 2003:“In the ecosystem approach, the state of the ecosystem itself is used as a measure by
which to identify, plan and implement management actions needed to combat pollution
and to promote protection, as well as sustainable use and development, of the
environment. The state of the ecosystem is defined by comparing the present level of
selected indicators to agreed target levels representing a good, but not necessarily
pristine, state. In general, the holistic concepts characteristic of the ecosystem
approach have been a part of the thinking of many Baltic Sea scientists for over half a
century which can also be seen in the wide thematic coverage of HELCOM
environmental assessments… The novelty of the approach is the aim to quantify a
good ecological status of the Baltic Sea. While the previous HELCOM management
regime for nutrients was based on a flat 50% reduction target for land-based nitrogen
and phosphorus inputs in relation to 1992 levels, the agreed ecosystem approach
process aims at substituting these targets with those needed to reach good ecological
status.”
During 2004–2005, working groups of national experts defined the major features of good
ecological status, including a vision, goals and objectives, based on the model in figure A4.1
.
Figure A4.1: The HELCOM hierarchy for defining good ecological status
(from Backer & Leppänen, 2008; modified from HELCOM, 2006)
157
Backer & Leppänen (2008) described the HELCOM approach further:“In the assessment system adopted, the ‘Vision’ describes the overall ambition of
HELCOM; ‘Strategic goals’ define major issues of concern (e.g. eutrophication); and
ecological objectives describe central characteristics of a healthy sea (e.g. clear
water). ‘Indicators’ (e.g. summertime Secchi depth [a standardised measure of water
clarity]) are the selected quantitative proxies of ecological state. Finally, the ‘Targets’
define the indicator values representing acceptable deviation from reference
conditions, defined by historical background levels, modelling or expert judgement, for
the given indicator and specified area… The HELCOM system of a vision, strategic
goals and objectives aim at a holistic approach and the goals and objectives are highly
interlinked. As an example, natural landscapes and seascapes are not achievable
without natural levels of algal blooms and oxygen, or viable populations of species
without healthy wildlife.”
Under this system, four strategic goals were agreed and adopted in 2006, to reflect the main
management mandate of HELCOM. The resulting vision, goals and objectives are shown in
figure A4.2 below.
Figure A4.2: General outline of the HELCOM system of ecological objectives. For each
objective, a number of indicators with target levels must be agreed upon
(from Backer & Leppänen, 2008; modified from HELCOM, 2006).
158
A4.2 Establishing targets and indicators for the Baltic Sea
Critical to this process is the setting of targets and indicators to measure whether these
objectives are being achieved. Work on this is still underway, and is now also being refined
to take into account the requirements of the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive.
Backer & Leppänen (2008) gives further information on this process:“The development of a coherent set of ecosystem assessment indicators to quantify
good ecological status, and their associated ecological objectives, is a major task for
present activities within the HELCOM ecosystem approach process (HELCOM, 2006).
It can be anticipated that some objectives, such as ‘clear water’ and ‘natural nutrient
concentrations’, can be assessed with one or only a few indicators, while other
objectives may need several indicators for quantification, especially such objectives as
‘healthy wildlife’ and the three objectives under biodiversity (Figure A4.2). The aim is to
use indicators which are based on existing, and emerging, monitoring programmes
such as the HELCOM coordinated monitoring programme COMBINE. At present,
approximately 20 annually updated indicator fact sheets are available on the HELCOM
website covering some, but not all, ecological objectives.
Most importantly, the indicators should be provided with target levels reflecting
favourable status. It is of central importance that the effects of global climate change to
the Baltic Sea ecosystem (HELCOM, 2007) are acknowledged and that the ‘shifting
baseline syndrome’ is avoided by rigid scientific scrutiny of the underlying information
when drafting and agreeing upon targets for the selected indicators.”
For the purposes of this report, it is interesting to note that HELCOM is aiming to base its
programme of indicators, as far as possible, on monitoring programmes that are already
underway or proposed, and that it appears to be seeking to keep the number of indicators to
as small a number as possible, while still seeking to ensure that these have the rigour
necessary to tell whether or not the objectives are being achieved. This broadly parallels the
recommendations we have made in chapters 2 and 3. The comment about the ‘shifting
baseline syndrome’ in the light of climate change is especially important to take into account
in developing the set of Marine Ecosystem Standards for Scotland.
A4.3 The HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan
This work then fed into a Baltic Sea Action Plan, launched at a ministerial meeting in 2007.
This aims to restore the good ecological status of the Baltic marine environment by 2021
(the original planned deadline also for good environmental status in the European Marine
Strategy Framework Directive, although was this was amended to 2020 during the codecision process in the European Parliament and Council of Ministers). The full text of the
plan can be view from www.helcom.fi/BSAP/en_GB/intro/ , and of particular interest, with
respect to this report, is the text on indicators and targets for monitoring and evaluation of
implementation of the Baltic Sea Action Plan at
www.helcom.fi/BSAP/ActionPlan/otherDocs/en_GB/indicators/ .
This shows that the ecological objectives for eutrophication will be measured by the following
indicators:
•
Winter surface concentrations of nutrients reflecting the ecological objective
“Concentrations of nutrients close to natural levels”
159
•
Summer Secchi depth reflecting the ecological objective “Clear water” (with specific
measurable targets for each sub-basin of the Baltic)
•
COSSrophyll at concentrations reflecting the ecological objective “Natural level of algal
blooms”
•
Depth range of submerged vegetation reflecting the ecological objective “Natural
distribution and occurrence of plants and animals”
•
Area and length of seasonal oxygen depletion reflecting the ecological objective
“Natural oxygen levels”.
Ecological objectives for nature conservation and biodiversity will be measured by the
following initial indicators and targets:
Natural marine and coastal landscapes
Targets:
•
By 2010 to have an ecologically coherent and well-managed network of Baltic Sea
Protected Areas (BSPAs), Natura 2000 areas and Emerald sites in the Baltic Sea,
•
By 2012 to have common broad-scale spatial planning principles for protecting the
marine environment and reconciling various interests concerning sustainable use of
coastal and offshore areas, including the Coastal Strip as defined in HELCOM Rec.
15/1,
•
By 2021 to ensure that “natural” and near-natural marine landscapes are adequately
protected and the degraded areas will be restored.
Preliminary indicators:
•
Designated BSPAs, Natura 2000 and Emerald site area as percentage of total subregion area,
•
Percentage of important migration and wintering areas for birds within the Baltic Sea
area which are covered by the BSPAs, Natura 2000 and Emerald sites,
•
Percentage of marine and coastal landscapes in good ecological and favourable
status,
•
Percentage of endangered and threatened habitats/biotopes’ surface covered by the
BSPAs in comparison to their distribution in the Baltic Sea,
•
Trends in spatial distributions of habitats within the Baltic Sea regions.
Thriving and balanced communities of plants and animals
Targets:
•
By 2021 to ensure that the spatial distribution, abundance and quality of the
characteristic habitat-forming species, specific for each Baltic Sea sub-region, extends
close to its natural range,
•
By 2010 to halt the degradation of threatened and/or declining marine
biotopes/habitats in the Baltic Sea, and by 2021 to ensure that threatened and/or
declining marine biotopes/habitats in the Baltic Sea have largely recovered,
•
To prevent adverse alterations of the ecosystem by minimising, to the extent possible,
new introductions of non-indigenous species.
Preliminary indicators:
160
•
Percentage of all potentially suitable substrates covered by characteristic and healthy
habitat-forming species such as bladderwrack, eelgrass, blue mussel and stoneworts,
•
Trends in abundance and distribution of rare, threatened and/or declining marine and
coastal biotopes/habitats included in the HELCOM lists of threatened and/or declining
species and habitats of the Baltic Sea area,
•
Trends in trophic structure and diversity of species (e.g. caught in scientific surveys),
•
Trends in the numbers of detections of non-indigenous aquatic organisms introduced
into the Baltic Sea.
Viable populations of species
Targets:
•
By 2021 all elements of the marine food webs, to the extend that they are known,
occur at natural and robust abundance and diversity,
•
By 2015, improved conservation status of species included in the HELCOM lists of
threatened and/or declining species and habitats of the Baltic Sea area, with the final
target to reach and ensure favourable conservation status of all species,
•
By 2012 spatial/temporal and permanent closures of fisheries of sufficient size/duration
are established thorough the Baltic Sea area,
•
By 2009, appropriate breeding and restocking activities for salmon and sea trout are
developed and applied and therefore genetic variability of these species is ensured,
•
By 2009 illegal, unregulated and unreported fisheries are close to zero,
•
By 2008 successful eel migration from the Baltic Sea catchment area to the spawning
grounds is ensured and national programmes for conservation of eel stocks are
implemented,
•
By 2015, as the short-term goal, to reach production of wild salmon at least 80%, or
50% for some very weak salmon river populations, of the best estimate of potential
production, and within safe genetic limits, based on an inventory and classification of
Baltic salmon rivers,
•
By 2015, to achieve viable Baltic cod populations in their natural distribution area in
Baltic proper,
•
By 2015, to have the re-introduction programme for Baltic sturgeon in place, and - as a
long term goal, after their successful re-introduction has been attained - to have best
natural reproduction, and populations within safe genetic limits in each potential river,
•
By 2015 by-catch of harbour porpoise, seals, water birds and non-target fish species
has been significantly reduced with the aim to reach by-catch rates close to zero,
•
By 2015 discards of fish are close to zero (<1%).
Preliminary indicators:
•
Trends in the number of threatened and/or declining species,
•
Abundance, trends and distribution of Baltic seal species compared to the safe
biological limit (limit reference level) as defined by HELCOM HABITAT,
•
Abundance, trends, and distribution of Baltic harbour porpoise,
•
Number of rivers with viable populations of Baltic sturgeon,
161
•
Spawning stock biomass of western Baltic cod and eastern Baltic cod compared to
precautionary level (Bpa) as advised by ICES and/or defined by EC management
plans,
•
Fishing mortality level of western Baltic cod and eastern Baltic cod, compared to
precautionary level (Fpa) as advised by ICES and/or defined by EC management
plans,
•
Trends in numbers of discards and by-catch of fish, marine mammals and water birds,
•
Number of entangled and drowned marine mammals and water birds,
•
Number of salmon rivers with viable stocks,
•
Trends of salmon smolt production in wild salmon rivers.
There are also stated targets and indicators for hazardous substances and maritime
activities. Many of these seem to relate to specifically Baltic problems, but they will repay
further consideration in developing Marine Ecosystem Standards for Scotland.
We also note the HELCOM approach of reporting on progress by publishing, and regularly
updating, a series of ‘indicator factsheets’ (37 of which are online at the time of writing at
www.helcom.fi/environment2/ifs/ifs2007/en_GB/cover/ ). We reproduce the full list of these
HELCOM indicator fact sheets in Table A3.1 below, as some of these might be worthy of
further consideration as exemplars for the proposed range of Marine Ecosystem Standards
for Scotland. We commend the transparency of this indicator factsheet approach as one
that Marine Scotland should consider once it has begun its work.
References to Appendix 4
Backer, H & Leppänen, J-M 2008 The HELCOM system of a vision, strategic goals and
ecological objectives: implementing an ecosystem approach to the management of human
activities in the Baltic Sea Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 18: 321–334
HELCOM 2003
Proceedings 87.
The Baltic marine environment 1999–2002. Baltic Sea Environment
HELCOM 2006 Helsinki Commission – Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission,
Minutes of the 27th Meeting Helsinki, Finland, 8–9 March 2006 (www.helcom.fi)
HELCOM 2007 HELCOM thematic assessment of climate change in the Baltic Sea area,
2007. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings 111.
162
Table A4.1: List of 2007 HELCOM Indicator Fact Sheets
Water exchange between the Baltic Sea and the North Sea, and conditions in the deep basins
Hydrography and oxygen in deep basins
Total and regional Runoff to the Baltic Sea
Water transparency in the Baltic Sea between 1903 and 2006
Development of Sea Surface Temperature in the Baltic Sea in 2006
Wave climate in the Baltic Sea 2006
The ice season 2006-2007
Nitrogen emissions to the air in the Baltic Sea area
Atmospheric nitrogen depositions to the Baltic Sea during 1995-2005
Waterborne loads of nitrogen and phosphorus to the Baltic Sea
Spatial distribution of the winter nutrient pool
Phytoplankton spring bloom biomass in the Gulf of Finland, Northern Baltic and Arkona Basin in 2007
Cyanobacterial blooms in the Baltic Sea
Cyanobacteria bloom index
Bacterioplankton growth rate
Temporal and spatial variation of dissolved nutrients and cOSSrophyll a in the Baltic Sea in 2006
Atmospheric emissions of heavy metals in the Baltic Sea region
Atmospheric depositions of heavy metals on the Baltic Sea
Waterborne loads of heavy metals to the Baltic Sea
Atmospheric emissions of PCDD/Fs in the Baltic Sea region
Atmospheric depositions of PCDD/Fs on the Baltic Sea
Heavy metals in Baltic Sea water, 1993-2006
Temporal trends in contaminants in Herring in the Baltic Sea in the period 1980-2005
Cadmium concentrations in fish liver
Lead concentrations in fish liver
Mercury concentrations in fish muscle
TCDD-equivalents in herring muscle and guillemot egg
PCB concentrations in fish muscle
Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) concentrations in herring muscle and Guillemot egg
Concentrations of the artificial radionuclide caesium-137 in Baltic Sea fish and surface waters
Total amounts of the artificial radionuclide caesium -137 in Baltic Sea sediments
Liquid discharges of Cs-137, Sr-90 and Co-60 into the Baltic Sea from local nuclear installations
Shifts in the Baltic Sea summer phytoplankton communities in 1992-2006
Temporal development of Baltic coastal fish communities and key species
The recent aquatic invasive species American comb jelly Mnemiopsis leidyi in the Baltic Sea
Ecosystem regime state in the Baltic Proper, Gulf of Riga, Gulf of Finland, and the Bothnian Sea
Illegal discharges of oil in the Baltic Sea in 2006
163
APPENDIX 5: CASE STUDY – AN ECOSYSTEM APPROACH IN CANADIAN WATERS –
THE EASTERN SCOTIAN SHELF
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is responsible for developing and implementing
policies and programs in support of Canada’s scientific, ecological, social and economic
interests in oceans and fresh waters.
An ecosystem approach was adopted by DFO as a basis for managing human activities in
the oceans, under Canada’s Oceans Act (1997)29 and related policy instruments such as the
DFO Strategic Plan30 and Canada’s Ocean Strategy31. One of the keystones of the Oceans
Act is the implementation of integrated ocean management, a process aimed at addressing
the multiple and potential competing uses in the oceans while considering the impacts from
these activities at the ecosystem level.
An early central component of the Canadian approach was the adoption and development of
ecosystem objectives which were progressed through a Working Group on Ecosystem
Objectives made up of representatives from a wide range of sectors and from various DFO
Regions.
A5.1 The Development of Ecosystem Objectives in Canadian waters
In 2001, DFO held a workshop on objectives and indicators for ecosystem-based
management (commonly referred to as the ‘Dunsmuir Workshop’) with the specific aim of
identifying ecosystem-level objectives and discussing and developing a national level
framework for evaluating progress against such objectives. As a high level starting point, two
broad overarching goals for ecosystem-based management were proposed (Jamieson et al.,
2001):
•
the sustainability of human usage of environmental resources and;
•
the conservation of species and habitats, including those other ecosystem components
that may not be utilised by humans
While it was recognised that humans were part of the ecosystem and that societal and socioeconomic considerations were important to consider, this workshop concluded that this
element required additional discussion and would require expertise that was absent at that
time, so that the discussion thereafter concentrated on addressing the second of the above
goals.
The ‘conservation’ high level goal was subsequently assigned three ‘Conceptual
Objectives’, each defined by ecosystem properties relating to ecosystem structure
(biodiversity), ecosystem function (productivity) or habitat (physical and chemical elements):
•
to conserve enough components (ecosystem, species, populations etc.) so as to
maintain the natural resilience of the ecosystem
29
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showtdm/cs/O-2.4
30
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/dfo-mpo/glance-coup_oeil-eng.htm
31
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans-habitat/oceans/ri-rs/cos-soc/index_e.asp
164
•
•
to conserve each component of the ecosystem so that it can play its historic role in the
food web (i.e. not cause any component of the ecosystem to be altered to such an extent
that it ceases to play its historic role in the higher order component
to conserve the physical and chemical properties of the ecosystem
The Conceptual Objectives were further disaggregated into Conceptual Objective
‘Components’ (Figure A5.1). Conceptual Objectives and their components were, however,
still at a relatively high level, consisting of broad statements with a lack of specificity and
were intended to serve as government or organisational policy statements, which would be
understandable by a broad audience.
Broad Ecosystem
Goals
Conceptual
Objectives
(Habitat)
Conceptual
Objectives
C
t
Figure A5.1. DFO Ecosystem objective conceptual framework proposed at
the 2001 ‘Dunsmuir Workshop’
(adapted from Jamieson et al., 2001).
It was recognised that the broad nature of Conceptual Objectives rendered them vulnerable
to differences in interpretation. In addition, they still provided no clear elements from which a
practical management strategy could be guided. For this to be achieved an ‘unpacking’
process had to be initiated, where Conceptual Objectives were reduced (sometimes over
165
several iterations) to a level that could be associated with a defined management action,
which would itself be guided by a quantifiable entity. A management action might, for
example, be initiated by the degree of divergence of a measurable indicator from a reference
point. Objectives that could be associated with management actions were termed
‘Operational Objectives’ (Jamieson et al., 2001) and these were defined by the format:
Verb (e.g. maintain) + Indicator (e.g., biomass) + Reference Point (e.g., >50,000 t)
The workshop went on to develop a series of example indicators and reference points to
demonstrate the process of underpinning a suite of suggested Operational Objectives. An
illustrative example of the relationship between a Conceptual Objective Component and the
corresponding Operational Objective is shown in Table A5.1.
Table A5.1. Example (extract) of a Conceptual Objective Component leading
to associated Operational Objectives
(from Jamieson et al., 2001).
Conceptual
Objective
C.
O.
Component
Characteristics
Indicators
(illustrative)
Conserve
ecosystem
components
Maintain
species
within
the
bounds
of
natural
variability
Numbers
species
Numbers
species
in
location
of
Species at risk
Reference
points
Operational
Objective
of
a
Possibly
based
on
undisturbed
situations
Maintain
numbers
of
species > some
minimum RP
Many
tools
developed:
Population
of
species
before
becoming “at risk”
Rebuild species
at risk above
reference points
within
a
specified
time
frame
Reference levels
perhaps based on
existing
or
undisturbed
situations relative
to results of a
population
viability analysis
Maintain ESUs
within species
-
Evolutionary
significance units
Abundance
Size
structure
Organism
condition
Growth rate
Numbers
of
breeding
individuals in the
ESU
Further refinements, based on suggestions made at the workshop were incorporated into the
hierarchical structure (Figure A5.2) and, while some of the terminology was subtly different,
the processes directing the unpacking process remained the same.
166
High level policy objective
(e.g. conserve biodiversity)
Next level of specificity: Biodiversity Conservation Objective
(e.g. maintain habitat structure and complexity within bounds of
natural variability)
Next level of specificity: Habitat Objective
(e.g. maintain critical rare and sensitive species)
MEQ, or Operational (Habitat) Objective
Relate to indicators, Reference Points
(e.g. maintain 100% of eelgrass habitat undisturbed)
Figure A5.2. Revised example of the conceptual objective unpacking process
(after Jamieson & McCorquodale, 2007).
A5.2 Implementation Progress in Canada
Canada currently has five regional integrated management initiatives, two of which were
selected at an early stage as large-scale “laboratories” for testing the application of
management based on ecosystem objectives. The selected test sites were the Gulf of Maine
Area (GOMA) and the Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management (ESSIM) Initiative.
Progress has been significantly greater in the latter and is examined below.
The ESSIM Initiative32 commenced in December 1998 and was established to develop and
implement an integrated management plan for the eastern Scotian Shelf, a Large Ocean
Management Area (LOMA) off the east coast of Nova Scotia, consisting of approximately
325,000 km2, with the boundary incorporating the eastern Scotian Shelf and the adjacent
slope area (Figure A5.3). The plan, with associated strategies and actions, is intended to
promote a collaborative process which will achieve ecological, social, economic and
institutional sustainability in the offshore areas, specifically beyond the 12 nautical mile
Territorial Sea (Walmsley et al., 2007).
32
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/back-fiche/2005/mar01-eng.htm
167
Initially, the high level objectives developed at a national level in the Dunsmuir Workshop
were taken as the basis for developing more specific objectives for the Eastern Scotian
Shelf. Through a series of Working Groups, a selection of ecosystem elements and
objectives were refined to reflect regional relevance, while remaining consistent with the
overall national ecosystem-based framework.
A strongly stated aim of the present ESSIM plan is the application of objectives-based or
outcome-orientated management, underpinned by three overarching goals for which
associated “outcome statements” have been developed (Table A5.2). These goals are the
apex around which a hierarchy of elements, strategic-level objectives and operational
objectives are organised. The first goal “collaborative governance and integrated
management” is considered to be the primary goal above all others, since it establishes
“…the creation of an enabling environment for achieving the goals of sustainable human use
and healthy ecosystems” (DFO, 2007).
The nomenclature is specific to the ESSIM plan. Elements are recognised components or
attributes for which objectives need to be developed in order to achieve the desired goals.
Strategic-level objectives are objectives that are developed for each element under the
broader goals and express a desired outcome for each element and the general
management direction necessary to achieve the outcome. Operational objectives are more
specific objectives that support the achievement of strategic-level objectives and are used to
guide the development of management strategies and actions to meet higher level goals and
objectives.
The hierarchical structure is embedded within a framework which aligns the objectives with a
set of management strategies, actions and a reporting system associated with both outcome
and management performance indicators (Figure A5.4).
Figure A5.3. The Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management Area
(reproduced from Walmsley et al., 2007).
168
Table A5.2. The ESSIM plan overarching goals and associated outcome statements
(DFO, 2007).
Goals
Collaborative
management
governance
Sustainable human use
Healthy Ecosystems
Outcome Statements
and
integrated
•
•
•
•
Effective governance structures and processes.
Capacity among stakeholders.
Knowledge to support integrated management.
Ecologically sustainable use of ocean space and
resources.
• Sustainable communities and economic wellbeing.
• Resilient and productive ecosystems, with diverse
habitats, communities, species and populations.
• Strong marine environmental quality supports
ecosystem functioning.
Figure A5.4: The ESSIM initiative objectives, management strategy and reporting structure
(reproduced from DFO, 2007)
Management strategies are the methods by which the plan will pursue the strategic-level
objectives and, in keeping with the integrated process, may not be linked to a single objective,
but could satisfy the requirements of multiple objectives. Management actions are intended to
contribute to the implementation of the management strategies and are initiated with a stated
time frame, within which the implementation process is expected to proceed.
The two types of indicators are designed to assess both the measure (and direction) of progress
achieved against the objectives and the effectiveness of the management strategies and actions.
The Outcomes Indicator, in particular, is recognised to be unlikely to cover all aspects of each
objective and would probably be a measure of a component, providing a strong indication of a
directional trend.
With the three overarching goals established, an ‘unpacking’ process of identifying lower level
objectives and specific strategy statements identifying how the objectives are to be achieved
have been developed. The basic starting point of core ‘elements’ retains the structure proposed
in the 2001 workshop, but begins to build both nationally and regionally relevant objectives and
169
strategies. In addressing the ‘healthy ecosystems’ goal, clear and unambiguous nomenclature
was evidently considered necessary, and terms such as ‘conserve’, ‘reduce’ and ‘representative’
are carefully defined within the context of the strategic plan (DFO, 2007). This is a reflection of
previously encountered difficulties where terms and descriptors were regularly misinterpreted or
inappropriately applied across the different regional strategies (G. Herbert pers. com.; DFO,
2004). The proposed objectives and supporting strategies for the ‘healthy ecosystem’
overarching goal are presented in Table A5.3, although it is clearly stated that the healthy
ecosystem goal cannot be seen in isolation and can only be achieved “…through the integration
of all ecosystem objectives as well as those for sustainable human use”.
Table A5.3: ESSIM objectives and management strategies for the ‘Healthy Ecosystems’
overarching goal (DFO, 2007).
Element
Communities/
Assemblages
Species/
Populations
Objective (What)
Strategy (How)
Diversity
of
benthic,
demersal and pelagic
community
types
is
conserved.
Incidental mortality of
Biodiversity
all species is within
acceptable levels.
At risk species protected
and/or recovered.
Invasive
species
introductions
are
prevented
and
distribution is reduced.
170
• Develop
an
integrated,
coordinated
conservation framework.
• Identify representative, important and
sensitive benthic, demersal and pelagic
(including
seabird)
communities/assemblages.
• Identify threats and management options for
conservation.
• Implement management measures based
on framework.
• Quantify the extent of incidental mortality
and
understand
the
impact
on
species/populations.
• Identify acceptable levels of incidental
mortality for species/populations.
• Monitor the catch of non-commercial
species in all fisheries.
• Identify mechanisms for managing incidental
mortality within acceptable levels.
• Assess the risks (social and economic) of
implementing management measures to
address incidental mortality.Manage human
activities to address incidental mortality
where practical.
• Implement recovery strategies, action and
management plans under the Species at
Risk Act.
• Ensure that sectoral management plans and
ocean activities are consistent with SARA.
• Coordinate multi-species recovery planning
where appropriate.
• Assess sources, vectors, extent and risks of
invasive species.
• Develop management plans and measures
to prevent introductions and limit distribution
of invasive species.
• Establish a surveillance and monitoring
system.
Genetic integrity (i.e.,
genetic
fitness
and
diversity) is conserved.
Primary and
Secondary
Productivity
Trophic
Structure
Primary productivity and
secondary
productivity
are healthy.
Trophic structure is
Productivity
healthy.
Population
Productivity
Physical
.
Biomass and productivity
of harvested and other
species are healthy.
Physical characteristics
of ocean bottom and
water column support
resident biota.
Marine Environment Quality
Harmful noise levels are
reduced
to
protect
resident and migratory
species and populations
Wastes and debris are
reduced.
Chemical
Chemical characteristics
of ocean bottom and
water column support
resident biota.
171
• Improve knowledge of genetic integrity and
identify priority species.
• Develop and implement management
measures to conserve genetic integrity
where required.
• Assess and review factors that influence
primary and secondary productivity.
• Review, evaluate and upgrade monitoring
programs.
• Develop management measures to address
negative factors.
• Increase knowledge of trophic interactions
and human influences and define trophic
structure objectives.
• Recognize the importance of a healthy
trophic structure in sector management
plans.
• Develop management measures where
needed for healthy trophic structure.
• Define biomass and productivity objectives.
• Support and enhance stock assessment
practices
and
explore
effort-based
management approaches.
• Ensure
compliance
with
established
measures and limits.
• Identify other important species and develop
management measures (e.g., keystone
species).
• Identify and quantify the impacts of physical
factors on biota.
• Manage human influences to address
negative impacts on physical properties.
• Improve knowledge of sound and its impacts
in the marine environment.
• Identify mechanisms for reducing sound in
the marine environment.
• Identify and quantify acceptable noise levels
for species/populations.
• Develop management measures for ocean
activities to meet acceptable levels.
• Assess sources and impacts of wastes and
debris.
• Assess current measures, capabilities and
infrastructure.
• Develop and implement measures to limit
inputs (e.g., awareness programs and
compliance promotion).
• Eliminate the intentional discarding of
garbage at sea.
• Identify and quantify the impacts of chemical
factors on biota.
• Manage human influences to address
negative impacts on chemical properties
(e.g., toxic chemicals).
Atmospheric
pollution
from ocean activities is
reduced.
Habitat
Habitat integrity is
conserved.
• Identify sources and extent of atmospheric
pollution from ocean activities.
• Develop management measures to meet
acceptable levels.
• Incorporate habitat considerations in the
integrated conservation framework (see
communities/assemblages).
• Identify and conserve rare, important and
representative habitats.
• Manage human influences to address
negative impacts on habitat.
The objectives and strategies presented in Table A5.3 are further discussed in greater detail in
the ESSIM 2007 Strategic Plan document (DFO, 2007) with examples given of developing
preliminary programmes and contributory or parallel strategies and/or plans. Unsurprisingly, the
collaborative governance and sustainable human use goals concentrate on emerging
programmes and initiatives broadly targeted towards areas of social inclusion, education
programmes, stakeholder involvement, cultural importance, development of legislative tools and
instruments, promoting collaborative working and integrated government. The healthy
ecosystems goal is notably different in its significantly heavier reliance on the acquisition of data
and knowledge, much of which still remains to be identified and collected before a full suite of
practical objectives are established. To this end, one of the larger programmes underway is
attempting to identify ecologically and biologically significant areas (EBSAs) of the Scotian shelf,
which, it is hoped, may form core areas where multiple criteria are met, providing opportunities
for fully integrated management strategies and objectives (G. Herbert, pers. com.).
The ESSIM initiative’s adoption of an ecosystem-based approach and the translation process
towards developing ecosystem objectives is well-documented with a good body of supporting
literature available via the web. With the relatively long time period from inception to the present
and the publication of detailed discussion of objectives and associated components there is a
tendency to assume that management or ecosystem objectives have been established and are
presently providing results. This is not the case. The ESSIM plan was published in 2007 after an
extensive collaborative planning and review process. It is not envisaged that all strategies will be
fully implemented within the first five year phase of the plan and many of the objectives and
strategies will only be achievable over the long term (DFO, 2007). The plan is, however,
committed to the production of a biennial progress report in which progress and achievements
will be documented.
References to Appendix 5
DFO, 2004. Habitat Status Report on Ecosystem Objectives. Ontario: DFO Canadian
Science Advisory Secretariat.
DFO, 2007. Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management Plan. Strategic Plan. Dartmouth,
Nova Scotia: Oceans and Habitat Branch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Jamieson, G. & McCorquodale, B., 2007. DFO's MEQ approach in the determination of
marine indicators. Paper presented at the "Monitoring the Effectiveness of Biological
Conservation" conference. In Monitoring the Effectiveness of Biological Conservation,
Richmond BC.
Jamieson, G., O’Boyle, R., Arbour, J., Cobb, D., Courtenay, S., Gregory, R., Levings, C.,
Munro, J., Perry, I. & Vandermeulen, H., 2001. Proceedings of the National Workshop on
Objectives and Indicators For Ecosystem-based Management. In National Workshop on
172
Objectives and Indicators For Ecosystem-based Management, Sidney, British Columbia:
Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat.
Walmsley, J., Coffen-Smout, S., Hall, T. & Herbert, G., 2007. Development of a Human Use
Objectives Framework for Integrated Management of the Eastern Scotian Shelf. Coastal
Management, 35(1), 23-50.
173
APPENDIX 6: CASE STUDY – A MANAGEMENT APPROACH TO AUSTRALIAN
WATERS
A6.1 National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development
In 1992, Australia and its state governments endorsed a National Strategy for Ecologically
Sustainable Development 33 (Walmsley, 2005). This defines Ecologically Sustainable
Development (ESD) as
“using, conserving and enhancing the community's resources so that ecological
processes, on which life depends, are maintained, and the total quality of life, now and
in the future, can be increased”.
Since then, ESD has become a major objective within most fisheries acts in Australia, and
relevant management agencies are required to report on progress against the objectives of
ESD. The national strategy includes three high-level, core objectives:•
•
•
to protect biodiversity and maintain essential ecological processes
to provide effective legal, institutional and economic frameworks for ESD;
to enhance individual and community well-being by following a path of economic
development that safeguards the welfare of current and future generations.
These are core objectives which the Scottish Parliament may wish to consider in developing
the Scottish Marine Bill.
A6.2 Australian Oceans Policy
Six years later, in 1998, the Australian government released its Oceans Policy34. This has
the stated vision of “healthy oceans, cared for, understood and used wisely for the benefit of
all, now and in the future”. It’s aim was to put in place the framework for integrated and
ecosystem-based planning and management for all of Australia’s marine areas.
The Oceans Policy has nine broad goals:
1. To exercise and protect Australia’s rights and jurisdiction over offshore areas, including
offshore resources.
2. To meet Australia’s international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea and other international treaties.
3. To understand and protect Australia’s marine biological diversity, the ocean environment
and its resources, and ensure ocean uses are ecologically sustainable.
4. To promote ecologically sustainable economic development and job creation.
5. To establish integrated oceans planning and management arrangements.
6. To accommodate community needs and aspirations.
7. To improve expertise and capabilities in ocean-related management, science,
technology and engineering.
33
see www.environment.gov.au/esd/
34
see www.oceans.gov.au/the_oceans_policy_overview.jsp
174
8. To identify and protect natural and cultural marine heritage.
9. To promote public awareness and understanding.
The Oceans Policy put in place an overall strategic framework, although the responsibility for
enacting this in the marine environment falls to the state governments, who were responsible
under the policy for drawing up a series of Regional Marine Plans (this is somewhat
analogous to the proposed relationship between Marine Scotland and the Scottish Marine
Regions, although the sea areas concerned are very considerably larger). Specific
commitments in the Oceans Policy included:
•
•
•
•
•
the introduction of regional marine planning
work to improve understanding of the marine environment, including environmental
baseline surveys and sustainability indicators, monitoring and improved assessment of
the impacts of commercial and recreational activities, all targeted to support regional
marine plans
accelerated development and improved management of marine protected areas
support for national mandatory standards for marine and estuarine water quality
support for the development of a single national ballast water management system
Addressing more specific problems, it also included:
•
•
•
trials to the problem of acid sulphate from disturbed coastal soils: addressing a marine
pollution problem from the site of its origins on the land.
a national moorings programme for sensitive marine areas; and
support for the early phased withdrawal of the use of toxic organotin anti-fouling pains,
including tributyl tin paints.
The Oceans Policy was established with governance arrangements that might be of some
relevance in developing the Scottish Marine Bill. These initially included:
•
•
•
A National Oceans Ministerial Board of key Australian Government Ministers;
A National Oceans Advisory Group of industry, community and government
stakeholders; and
A National Oceans Office, which was established to provide secretariat and technical
support and programme delivery for initiatives under the policy.
The National Oceans Ministerial Board was chaired by the minister for the environment, but
also included the ministers responsible for industry, resources, fisheries, science, tourism
and shipping, and had the power to co-opt other ministers as necessary, including, for
example, defence and foreign affairs. The principal responsibility of the Board was to
oversee the Regional Marine Planning process, developing the scope and timetable for each
Regional Marine Plan and ultimately approve each Plan.
The National Oceans Advisory Group is comprised primarily of members with nongovernment interests. It is tasked with:(1) advising the Australian Government on:
•
•
•
cross-sectoral and cross-jurisdictional oceans issues, focussing on gaps, overlaps
and priorities and examining matters such as integration issues and ecosystembased planning and management;
the scope and effectiveness of the Regional Marine Planning process;
the views of a broad range of relevant non-government stakeholders on the
implementation of Australia’s Oceans Policy;
175
• regional and economic opportunities and impediments to marine industry
development;
• other matters related to oceans planning and management, as requested by
Government;
(2) examining and identifying emerging issues in ocean planning and management; and
(3) promoting awareness of Australia’s Oceans Policy amongst non-government and other
stakeholders.
Such a group has some parallels with the Sustainable Seas Task Force, and the proposal,
briefly discussed, that there would be value for such a forum continuing to work in the run-up
to the Marine Bill and at the implementation phase. The National Oceans Office would
appear to have had responsibilities somewhat akin to those proposed for Marine Scotland.
In 2003, two other bodies were established to assist the further development and
implementation of Australia's Oceans Policy. The Oceans Board of Management was
formed to provide high-level, cross-government advice on operational aspects of Australia's
Oceans Policy and its central programme of regional marine planning. It comprises
representatives from seven Australian Government departments and agencies relevant to
Australia's marine jurisdiction:•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Department of Environment and Heritage
Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Department of Education, Science and Training
Department of Transport and Regional Services
Department of Defence
Department of Finance and Administration
Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet
Australian Fisheries Management Authority
An Oceans Policy Science Advisory Group was also established at this time (curiously late in
the process), comprising representatives of Australian Government marine science and
related agencies, as well as State research institutions and non-government marine science
interests.
Documentation relating to the Oceans Policy includes the following statement, that could
equally be applied to Scotland and which any Scottish system of marine planning should
seek to address:“Australia’s ocean ecosystems and their marine biological diversity are core national
assets. If our use of them is well managed, they can meet a broad range of economic,
social and cultural aspirations. They also provide a range of essential environmental
services that would be extremely costly or impossible to restore or replace if ecosystem
functioning was impaired.”
Of most relevance to this report, the documentation on the Oceans Policy elucidates the
Australian vision for “ecosystem-based oceans planning and management”, which states
that this should aim to ensure the maintenance of:
•
ecological processes in all ocean areas, including, for example, water and nutrient
flows, community structures and food webs, and ecosystem links;
•
marine biological diversity, including the capacity for evolutionary change; and
•
viable populations of all native marine species in functioning biological communities.
176
It states also that an important element of managing our oceans to maintain marine
ecosystems is representation within protected areas of marine ecosystem types across their
natural range of variation. It continues that, with the fundamental objective of maintaining
ecosystem integrity, ecosystem-based management requires development beyond the
strictly sectoral focus of some management approaches with the aim of ensuring that:
•
Connections across ecological dimensions (populations, species, habitats, regions)
are taken into account, not just effects at one level.
•
Planning and management boundaries recognise ecological entities, integrating across
other administrative, sectoral and jurisdictional boundaries.
•
Data are collected for ecosystem-based management, to provide the basis for sectoral
and cross-sectoral integration.
•
Management is monitored for maintenance of ecosystem health, against ecosystembased performance indicators, and can be adapted in response to environmental and
other indicators of change.
•
Management decisions are planned and precautionary, based on assessments of the
consequences of use, rather than solely reactive.
•
There is recognition that human activity is a fundamental influence in many marine
ecological patterns and will be the focus for planning and management action.
•
Natural and human values should be integrated taking into account that, while
biological diversity values must be recognised and incorporated as a key part of
planning and management processes, human values will play a dominant role in
decisions about ocean uses.
These are many of the same issues being discussed in Scotland in the context of the
Scottish Marine Bill.
In its work on the Oceans Policy, the Australian government has also identified some
principles for ecologically sustainable ocean use (because of their relevance to Scotland,
these are reproduced also in Table 3.2). It states that these principles should be applied to
all decisions and actions affecting access to and use of Australia’s marine jurisdictions and
adjacent waters, and the associated resource base. They should be considered together,
recognising that ocean ecosystem health and integrity is fundamental to ecologically
sustainable development:•
The maintenance of healthy and productive marine ecosystems is fundamental to the
management of both the oceans and of the land.
•
The benefits from the use of Australia’s common ocean resources, and the
responsibilities for their continued health and productivity, should be shared by all
Australians.
•
Internationally competitive and ecologically sustainable marine industries are essential
for wealth generation, employment and continued regional development.
•
Economic, environmental, social and cultural aspirations are to be accommodated
through integrated planning and management of multiple uses of ocean resources.
•
Management of human activities that affect our oceans will require progressive
improvement in our understanding of living and non-living ocean resources and
processes.
177
•
Ocean planning and management decisions should be based on the best available
scientific and other information, recognising that information regarding ocean
resources will often be limited.
•
If the potential impact of an action is of concern, priority should be given to maintaining
ecosystem health and integrity.
•
Incomplete information should not be used as a reason for postponing precautionary
measures intended to prevent serious or irreversible environmental degradation of the
oceans.
•
The processes for assessing, planning, allocating and managing the ocean resources
should:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
be easily understood and openly justified;
be certain;
have clear lines of accountability;
provide for equity within and between generations;
be designed to deliver outcomes that balance long and short-term economic,
environmental, social and cultural considerations;
involve the minimum effective regulatory burden on ocean users required to meet
economic, environmental, cultural and social objectives;
ensure cooperation and coordination between governments and across the sectors
which use the oceans; and
take into account wider interests and ensure effective community involvement.
This has many parallels with the Scottish position described in Sustainable Seas for All
(2008).
A6.3 Subsequent changes to Australian Oceans Policy
In 2004, the National Oceans Ministerial Board was dissolved, with the Minister for the
Environment and Heritage taking on lead responsibility for Australia's Oceans Policy. The
National Oceans Office was incorporated into the new Marine Division of the Department of
the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts and continues to have lead responsibility for
regional marine planning (in effect reverting to a model analogous to the present Marine
Management Division of the Scottish Government). This Marine Division is intended to bring
together the key elements of marine environment policy into a central point within the
Department. This appears to correspond to a move away from the integrated approach
towards a more specific environmental focus – precisely the opposite of what we are no
trying to achieve in Scotland.
We sought clarification as to why these changes had come about, and it does appear that
there are some lessons which are of significance in developing the proposal for Marine
Scotland and for the proposed National Marine Strategy (B. Musso35, pers.comm.). The
Oceans Policy had strong support when it was established, driven by a strong and influential
Environment Minister in Robert Peel. However this level of commitment did not continue
35
Dr Barbara Musso, Director, Marine Conservation (Temperate West) Section, Marine Division,
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Kingston, Tasmania. Dr Musso was
involved in these matters since the creation of the National Oceans Office, but emphasised that she
spoke to us in a purely personal capacity.
178
with his successor as Environment Minister, because neither the bureaucracy nor the key
industry stakeholders had been carried with the policy initiative.
It seems that two critical mistakes were made. Firstly, the National Oceans Office was
established as a small executive agency, reporting directly to the Minister. It was
established as a small office of young enthusiastic individuals, based in Tasmania well away
from the centre of political influence in Canberra. It was thus marginalised, right from its
establishment. Other government departments and agencies were reluctant to engage with
this process, but instead they concentrated their efforts in improving their own interactions
with marine stakeholders – a valuable step forward in marine management, but one which
only served to further marginalise the National Oceans Office. Having the National Oceans
Ministerial Board chaired by the Environment Minister may have compounded the lack of
willingness to integrate departmental responsibilities. It has been suggested that this might
have been achieved better had the Prime Minister chaired the Board.
The other problem lay with the lack of support from marine industry stakeholders. As in
Scotland, the main incentive which might have encouraged these stakeholders to support
the Oceans Policy would have been the streamlining of regulation (since they, as in
Scotland, were struggling with more than one hundred pieces of legislation constraining their
activities). However the Policy provided no mandate for that, since it stated that no
legislative reform would be required. Because the Policy failed to deliver the outcome they
had sought, industry stakeholders were not keen to support the Policy.
A specifically Australian problem was that a considerable body of management power and
responsibility lay with the States, and only certain powers were vested in the central
Commonwealth Government (perhaps more analogous to the discussions over
responsibilities between the Scottish and UK Governments). As a result of this, the first (and
only) bioregional plan to be published under this regime, the South East Regional Plan (see
Appendix A6.4 below) was unable to offer real integration across management regimes and
failed to deliver a significant difference to the protection of the seas, despite its good
intentions.
When these problems were recognised, the Secretary of the Environment Department was
asked to investigate what had gone wrong, and to make recommendations for the future.
There were still a number of drivers on marine policy, including the international commitment
to creating a network of Marine Protected Areas, but the lack of willingness to integrate
across departmental responsibilities was recognised, and it was decided to refocus marine
management onto core priorities. Shortly after the Oceans Policy, the same influential
Environment Minister, Robert Peel, had driven through the Environmental Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). As this was a legislative instrument, rather
than a policy statement, it offered strong drivers for the integration of environmental policies,
and was much clearer on the division of responsibility between the Federal and State
governments.
The EPBC Act integrated effectively across various environmental regimes, and it allowed
for the development of an integrated approach within marine bioregional planning, and
enable the creation of the required network of marine protected areas. The focus therefore
shifted from the broad, integrated Oceans Policy to the more specific biodiversity focus of
the EPBC Act. Although the Act has the additional aim of promoting ecologically sustainable
development, this change in approach would seem to have abandoned the integration of
economic and environmental purposes envisaged for the Marine Regional Plans. The aim of
this was said to be to “bring the program of Regional Marine Planning directly under federal
environment law to provide a clearer focus on conservation and sustainable management of
the marine environment”.
179
Dr Musso expressed the personal opinion that, had the mandate for regulatory reform and
policy integration been delivered successfully, the outcome for the Oceans Policy might have
been different. She also noted that the biggest successes of the National Oceans Office,
while it existed, had been the substantial advances made in science and data, allowing the
development of plans for the biggest bioregional areas established anywhere in the world
(see Appendix A6.4), based on sound science, and also the substantial increase in public
interest in, and attention to, the deep oceans around Australia.
In taking forward the Scottish Marine Act, it will be important to ensure that we do not make
similar mistakes in Scotland if we wish an integrated approach to be successful.
A6.4 Australian regional planning
One of the core issues in Australia's Oceans Policy was the development of Regional Marine
Plans by the appropriate states36, based on large marine ecosystems (although plan areas
are defined mainly on geographic considerations, rather than specifically by ecosystem
types). The stated objectives of this regional marine planning were:
•
•
•
•
•
to ensure continuing marine ecosystem health
to safeguard marine biological diversity
to promote diverse, strong and sustainable marine industries
to provide increased certainty and long-term security for all marine users
to ensure the establishment of a representative system of marine protected areas.
The shift in 2005 which brought regional marine planning directly under the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), led to the creation of a new
kind of Marine Bioregional Plans, established under section 176 of the EPBC Act. These will
set out key conservation issues and priorities in each marine region to act as a guide to the
Minister, sectoral managers and industry about what activities can occur in each region. The
establishment of a network of Marine Protected Areas is seen as a key part of this process.
Five bioregions are proposed, as shown on the map below:-
Figure A6.1: Map of Australian marine bioregions
(from www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/index.html )
36
see www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/index.html
180
Documentation online states: “The plans will draw on Australia's growing marine science and
socio-economic information base to provide a detailed picture of each marine region. Each
plan will describe a region's key habitats, plants and animals; natural processes; human
uses and benefits; and threats to the long-term ecological sustainability of the region. The
plans will give details about the various statutory obligations under the EPBC Act that apply
in any region, and will describe Government’s range of conservation measures in place,
such as those relating to recovery planning for threatened species.”
This seems a retrograde step from the perspective expressed for Scotland in Sustainable
Seas for All, since the previous Regional Marine Plans were intended to outline a wide range
of regional objectives (including economic and social objectives, not just to environmental
objectives) and listed individual management actions to be undertaken by governments,
industry and community members to achieve these objectives.
The only Plan developed using this previous, broader approach to marine planning was the
South-east Regional Marine Plan, released in May 2004. This is no longer available online,
since the policy change that year, so the information below is based on Walmsley (2005).
The South-east Regional Marine Plan covered a region of about 2 million km2 of sea around
Victoria and Tasmania, and off the far south coast of New South Wales. There are more
than 275,000 jobs that depend directly or indirectly on marine-based industries in the region,
which contribute more than $19 billion a year to the country’s economy, in waters which also
support rich biodiversity and unique natural habitats. Production of the plan was led by the
Australian Government in consultation with the relevant state governments, industry
representatives, indigenous groups, marine communities and others with an interest in the
marine environment. The Plan outlines the way in which management of the area will be
improved through Government and stakeholder co-operation and is designed to improve
existing management arrangements through objectives-based management.
The Plan specifies nine regional objectives and 93 actions required to implement the
objectives, together with an assessment of the expected outcomes if the objectives are met.
These are summarised in Table A6.1 (below). Although the structure of Objective – Key
Action – Outcome is different from what we propose in this paper for Scotland, there are a
number of interesting ideas which could usefully be considered in developing National
Marine Objectives for Scotland. However, we note that the Outcomes are aspirational in
nature, rather than ‘SMART’, and we suggest it would be difficult to monitor whether or not
they were successfully achieved.
Reference for Appendix 6
Walmsley, J 2005 Developing Objectives and Indicators for Marine Ecosystem-Based
Management: International Review of Marine Ecosystem-Based Management Initiatives
Throughout the World Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
181
Table A6.1: Objectives, actions and outcomes of the Australian South-East Regional Plan
OBJECTIVE
KEY ACTIONS
OUTCOME
Ensure that all ocean Design a monitoring and reporting regime A new way of understanding and
uses are ecologically to determine the ecological, social and measuring the ecosystem as a
sustainable
whole that provides a backdrop
economic health of the Region; and
for management of resources for
Conduct a risk assessment to identify the individual users. This will allow
us to confirm that the entire
combined effects of our activities.
range of marine resource use,
when considered jointly, is
ecologically sustainable.
Protect,
conserve
and
restore
the
Region’s
marine
biodiversity,
ecological processes,
and
natural
and
cultural
marine
heritage
A set of representative and
important habitats, that support
marine biodiversity, will be
protected and the impacts of
priority
threats
to
these
ecosystems will be minimized.
Improve our knowledge of marine
We will also be able to measure
ecosystems, including better mapping of
the health of the oceans in the
the seafloor and its habitats, e.g.
Region
to
see
whether
seamounts and canyons
management is working.
Do targeted work on key threats to the
Region’s
marine
biodiversity,
e.g.,
declining water quality and introduced
marine species.
Increase
long-term
security of access
and
certainty
of
process for existing
and future marinebased industries
Review
marine-related
laws
and Industries can actively manage
regulations that apply in the Region to see and plan for future growth with
access to better information and
where improvements can be made.
advice
about
management
Ensure industry representation and
requirements. They will also
participation in marine management, e.g.,
have opportunities to check that
through membership of an advisory group
their current and future needs
for the Region and participation in specific
are being considered in the
projects such as identifying candidate
development of management
marine protected areas
actions in the Region.
Provide a clear process for future
management planning and development
that considers existing access and use.
Promote
economic
development and job
creation
in
the
Region
consistent
with
ecologically
sustainable
development
Improve our understanding of key
economic issues facing marine industries,
such as increasing operational and
development costs, overcapitalization, and
internationally competitive markets;
Develop a system of representative marine
protected areas (MPAs) for the Region,
including candidate options for two areas
(Murray and Zeehan), that cover more than
2
40,000 km
Promote existing best practice and
innovation in marine-based industries,
such as improvements to gear technology;
Anticipate
and
develop
consistent
responses to emerging and future issues,
e.g., decommissioning of oil and gas
platforms and increasing vessel sizes
Pilot a regional tourism trail based on the
marine environment, seafood and culture.
182
Support
for
marine-based
industries to capitalize on their
investments and further refine
their activities to introduce
innovative
technology
and
explore new markets. Also
achieve recognition of recent
advances in industry operations
to promote stewardship and
self-management, e.g., codes of
conduct.
OBJECTIVE
KEY ACTIONS
OUTCOME
Integrate
management
of
access,
allocation,
conservation and use
of marine resources
to ensure fairness
and accountability to
the community and
all users
Efficiencies in planning and spatial A coordinated approach to
management across sectors, e.g., marine marine management in the
Region that is simple, well
protected areas and fisheries closures
understood and that recognizes
Establish a clear process for addressing
the needs of all users and the
cross-sectoral issues, including agreed
community.
approaches to multiple-use management in
Over time, we will have a
the Region
consistent
and
streamlined
Regular reporting and review procedures
reporting system to check on the
incorporated in a performance assessment
success of our management
system.
actions
and
increase
accountability.
Increase knowledge
and understanding of
the
Region
to
improve our capacity
to
pursue
ecologically
sustainable
development
Improved co-ordination of research effort
and the development of new research
partnerships, e.g., between industry and
government
Enhance community
and
industry
stewardship
and
understanding of the
values and benefits
of the Region and
involve them in its
management
Implement a marine education strategy Communities will be informed
that includes teaching packages for about
the
importance
of
schools
managing our marine ecosystem
to promote responsible and wise
Support the establishment of a Marine
use of the marine resources in
Discovery Centre Network
the Region and build their
Establish a stakeholder advisory group to capacity to be involved in
provide ongoing industry, community and management. Stewardship will
encouraged
through
expert participation in management of the be
Region, including implementation of key recognition of, and opportunities
for, communities and industries
actions and future reviews of the Plan.
that take responsibility for marine
management in their area.
Involve
Indigenous
communities
in
management of the
Region in a manner
that recognizes and
respects their rights,
custodial
responsibilities,
contributions
and
knowledge
Build capacity of communities to participate
in management through the development
of Sea Country Plans such as the Maar
Sea
Country
Plan
developed
in
collaboration
with
the
Framlingham
Aboriginal
Trust
and
Winda-Mara
Aboriginal Corporation
Make information available to all on a
central web-based Oceans Portal
More and better coordinated
science will be conducted in the
Region, leading to improved
evidence-based
decision
making.
Report
on
the
effectiveness
of
management actions and establish a way
of adapting management that is based on
risk assessment.
Look for opportunities for Indigenous
participation in commercial activities in the
Region, e.g., commercial fishing.
183
Support Indigenous communities
to take an active part in marine
resource use and management
in the Region.
OBJECTIVE
Take into account in
decision making the
needs, values and
contributions of the
community
and
industry, the national
interest
and
international
obligations relevant
to the Region
KEY ACTIONS
OUTCOME
Establish an agreed process that provides A more strategic co-ordinated
for consistent and inclusive decision approach
to
marine
making across Australian Government management in the Region.
agencies.
Work with South-East State governments
to explore arrangements that lead to coordinated oceans management in the
Region, e.g., links between estuarine and
ocean management
Provide public reports on the Region,
including the health of the ocean and the
well-being of the communities that depend
on the ocean and the economic benefits
provided by marine resource use.
184
Scottish Natural Heritage is a government body
responsible to the Scottish Government.
Statement of principles:
Scottish Natural Heritage – the government
body that looks after all of Scotland’s nature and
landscapes, across all of Scotland, for everyone.
Our 5 strategic priorities are:
–
–
–
–
–
Caring for Scotland’s nature and landscapes
Helping to address climate change
Delivering health and well being
Supporting the Scottish economy
Delivering a high quality public service
Find out more at www.snh.org.uk
Policy and Advice Directorate,
Great Glen House,
Leachkin Road,
Inverness IV3 8NW
www.snh.org.uk