An Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered Via EMFF In

An Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered Via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs 25558 Final Report

November 2019 Submitted by

MRAG Ltd is an independent fisheries and aquatic resource consulting company dedicated to the sustainable use of natural resources through sound, integrated management practices and policies.

Established in 1986, MRAG has successfully completed projects in more than 60 countries. Our in-house experts have a wide variety of technical expertise and practical experience across all aspects of aquatic resource management, policy and planning, allowing us to take a multi -disciplinary approach to every project. Our capability to service an extensive array of resource management needs is further extended

through our network of associations with internationally acclaimed experts in academic institutions and private organisations worldwide.

MRAG Ltd 18 Queen Street T: +44 (0) 20 7255 7755

London F: +44 (0) 20 7499 5388 W1J 5PN W: www.mrag.co.uk United Kingdom E: [email protected]

Disclaimer This study has applied an exploratory approach to applying Natural Capital. This approach does not represent the position of any government body within England.

Project code: GB2644 Version: 05 Prepared by: HO, RA, SH, PH, DS Approved by: RA Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) Table of Contents

List of Tables ...... iv List of Figures ...... ix Acronyms ...... xi Executive Summary ...... 1 1 Introduction ...... 3 2 Approach and methods ...... 7 2.1 Approach ...... 7 2.2 Methods ...... 8 2.2.1 Literature and evidence review ...... 8 2.2.2 Stakeholder interviews ...... 9 2.2.3 Case studies ...... 10 3 Results ...... 18 3.1 Objective 1: Review EMFF Criteria ...... 18 3.1.1 Eligibility criteria ...... 20 3.1.2 Selection criteria ...... 20 3.1.3 Application of selection criteria ...... 21 3.2 Objective 2: Funding Gap ...... 21 3.2.1 Stakeholder eligibility ...... 22 3.2.2 Scope of the schemes ...... 23 3.3 Objective 3: Environmental Benefits of EMFF Projects ...... 26 3.4 Objective 4: Stakeholder Perceptions of EMFF Effectiveness ...... 26 3.4.1 Pressures facing the environment ...... 26 3.4.2 Current policy priorities ...... 28 3.4.3 Relevance of the current EMFF funding scheme ...... 30 3.5 Objective 5: Case Studies ...... 32 3.5.1 Examples of the impacts identified ...... 33 3.5.2 Discussion of impacts ...... 76 3.5.3 Potential for upscaling impact ...... 77 3.5.4 Experiences with using the Natural Capital framework to assess impact ...... 78 3.6 Objective 6: EMFF Reporting Requirements ...... 80 3.6.1 Programme reporting ...... 81 3.6.2 Beneficiary reporting requirements ...... 83 3.7 Objective 7: Conclusions and Lessons Learned ...... 85 3.7.1 Lesson 1: The current scheme remains relevant ...... 86 3.7.2 Lesson 2: Flexibility and responsiveness have been beneficial ...... 86 3.7.3 Lesson 3: The existing application process provides a good basis ...... 87 3.7.4 Lesson 4: Project beneficiaries should explicitly identify the impacts they will achieve ...... 87 3.7.5 Lesson 5: Broad eligibility provides opportunity for innovation ...... 88 3.7.6 Lesson 6: Research successes could be an opportunity to scale up success 88 3.7.7 Lesson 7: Selecting appropriate indicators ...... 88 3.7.8 Lesson 8: More systematic reporting is needed ...... 89 3.7.9 Lesson 9: Systems and structures are needed to manage information ...... 90 4 References ...... 91 Annex 1 Detailed case studies ...... 95

Page i

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

4.1 Connecting freshwater habitats ...... 95 4.1.1 Project background ...... 96 4.1.2 Methods ...... 97 4.1.3 Results...... 98 4.1.4 Summary ...... 101 4.2 Energy efficiency ...... 104 4.2.1 Project progress ...... 106 4.2.2 Results...... 106 4.2.3 Summary ...... 112 4.3 Habitat forming aquaculture ...... 114 4.3.1 Introduction ...... 114 4.3.2 Project backgrounds ...... 114 4.3.3 Methods ...... 117 4.3.4 Results...... 118 4.3.5 Summary ...... 121 4.4 Selectivity ...... 124 4.4.1 Project progress ...... 127 4.4.2 Results...... 127 4.4.3 Summary ...... 132 4.5 Research to improve fisheries management ...... 134 4.5.1 Project Background...... 135 4.5.2 Methods ...... 137 4.5.3 Results...... 139 4.5.4 Summary ...... 143 4.6 Stock conservation and restoration ...... 148 4.6.1 Project background ...... 148 4.6.2 Methods ...... 149 4.6.3 Results...... 151 4.6.4 Summary ...... 153 4.7 Co-management and participation ...... 156 4.7.1 Project backgrounds ...... 156 4.7.2 Methods ...... 157 4.7.3 Results...... 158 4.7.4 Summary ...... 160 4.8 References ...... 162 Annex 2 Key stakeholders identified and their response to the request for interview ...... 169 Annex 3 Stakeholder engagement information pack ...... 170 Annex 4 Data consent form ...... 171 Annex 5 Stakeholder questionnaire ...... 172 Annex 6 Typology of EMFF projects within England that have an environmental aspect ...... 174 Annex 7 Grants through which EMFF funding can be applied for in England ...... 207 Annex 8 EMFF Article specific selection criteria ...... 211 Annex 9 Summary of the results of the scoring of projects against selection criteria by MMO ...... 215 Annex 10 Evaluation of the selection criteria implementation ...... 216

Page ii

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Annex 11 Funding schemes available in England that were examined to better understand their similarity to the EMFF ...... 234 Annex 12 Case studies, the indicators developed to chart their impact/outcomes and how these compare to the indicators in the 25 Year Environment Plan ...... 238 Annex 13 Case studies and how these relate to the 25 Year Environment Plan .... 246

Page iii

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) List of Tables

Table 1: Summary of the total projects funded and environmental projects funded and EMFF expenditure in England across the six Union Priorities for the period 2014 – February 2019. 4

Table 2: Examples of the types of evidence used to assess project progress and impact ..... 9

Table 3: Typology of impact themes developed and used in the study to classify those projects aimed at providing environmental benefits funded under the EMFF ...... 11 Table 4: Summary of the projects included within each case studies across the seven selected case study themes ...... 12

Table 5: A model of how projects may bring about change through contributions to a wider body of evidence or in a more focused manner. Based on Punton (2014)...... 16

Table 8: Issues facing the marine and aquatic environment, as identified by various stakeholder groups, by the number of mentions each issue received ...... 27

Table 9: Environmental issues highlighted in the UK 25 Year Environment Plan (Defra, 2018) that are relevant to this study ...... 29

Table 10: Summary of the environmental issues highlighted through stakeholder engagement, literature and UK policy documents and the EMFF’s relevance to these issues ...... 31

Table 11: Summary of the current stage along the impact pathway currently achieved by the case study projects ...... 33

Table 12: Summary of the projects funded in England through the EMFF that were selected for the connecting of freshwater habitats case study ...... 34 Table 13: Possible environmental impacts that could result from connecting freshwater habitats projects and the appropriate Natural Capital indicators to track any change ...... 35 Table 14: Observed and expected impacts connected with each Natural Capital indicator associated with the connecting freshwater habitats case study ...... 36

Table 15: Summary of the projects funded in England through the EMFF that were selected for the energy efficiency case study ...... 41

Table 16: Possible environmental impacts that could result from energy efficiency projects and the appropriate Natural Capital indicators to track any change ...... 42

Table 17: Observed and expected impacts connected with each Natural Capital indicator associated with the energy efficiency case study ...... 44

Table 18: Scaling potential for engine upgrades to the English fishing fleet ...... 45

Page iv

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 19: Summary of the projects funded in England through the EMFF that were selected for the habitat forming aquaculture case study ...... 47

Table 20: Possible environmental impacts that could result from habitat forming aquaculture projects and the appropriate Natural Capital indicators to track any change ...... 48 Table 21: Observed and expected impacts connected with each Natural Capital indicator associated with the habitat forming aquaculture case study ...... 49 Table 22: Summary of the projects funded in England through the EMFF that were selected for the selectivity case study ...... 53

Table 23: Possible environmental impacts that could result from selectivity projects and the appropriate Natural Capital indicators to track any change ...... 54

Table 24: Observed and expected impacts connected with each Natural Capital indicator associated with the selectivity case study ...... 55

Table 25: Summary of the projects funded in England through the EMFF that were selected for the research to improve fisheries management case study ...... 59

Table 26: Assessment of the projects within the research to improve fisheries management case study in terms of their contributions to Human Capital ...... 60

Table 27: Observed and expected impacts connected with each Natural Capital indicator associated with the research to improve fisheries management case study ...... 61 Table 28: Summary of the projects funded in England through the EMFF that were selected for the stock conservation and restoration case study ...... 65 Table 29: Assessment of projects within the stock conservation and restoration case study in terms of their contributions to Human Capital ...... 66

Table 30: Observed and expected impacts connected with each Natural Capital indicator associated with the stock conservation and restoration case study ...... 67

Table 31: Summary of the projects funded in England through the EMFF that were selected for the Co-management/participatory approach case study...... 70

Table 32: Indicator framework developed by this study to assess stakeholder engagement and participation ...... 71

Table 33: Assessment of the selected participation and co-management projects in terms of stakeholder engagement and participation ...... 72

Table 34: Observed and expected impacts connected with each Natural Capital indicator associated with the co-management and participation cast study ...... 73 Table 35: Approach to achieving impact projects funded under the ‘research for fisheries management’ theme summarised using the Punton matrix ...... 77

Table 36: Summary of the EMFF Results Indicators that have an environmental target ...... 82 Table 37: Summary of the projects funded in England through the EMFF that were selected for the connecting of freshwater habitats case study ...... 95 Table 38: Possible environmental impacts that could result from connecting freshwater habitats projects and the appropriate Natural Capital indicators to track any change ...... 97

Page v

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 39: Project stakeholders contacted for engagement ...... 98

Table 40: Estimated annual value of reduced fragmentation and river restoration for each project ...... 99

Table 41: observed and expected impacts connected with each Natural Capital indicator associated with the connecting freshwater habitats case study ...... 102

Table 42: Summary of the projects funded in England through the EMFF that were selected for the energy efficiency case study ...... 105

Table 43: Possible environmental impacts that could result from energy efficiency projects and the appropriate Natural Capital indicators to track any change ...... 105

Table 44: Project stakeholders contacted for engagement ...... 106

Table 45: Engine upgrade projects, their environmental claims, and targets ...... 107

Table 46: Scaling potential for engine upgrades to the English fishing fleet...... 108

Table 47: Project stakeholders contacted for engagement ...... 109

Table 48: Hull modification projects, their environmental claims, and targets ...... 110

Table 49: Case study sub-theme green technology project stakeholders contacted for engagement ...... 110

Table 50: Project ENG2235 Energy usage before (2017) and after (2018) the facilities LED lighting retrofit...... 111

Table 51: Green technology retrofit projects, their environmental claims, and targets ...... 112

Table 52: Observed and expected impacts connected with each Natural Capital indicator associated with the energy efficiency case study ...... 113

Table 53: Summary of the projects funded in England through the EMFF that were selected for the habitat forming aquaculture case study ...... 114 Table 54: Possible environmental impacts that could result from habitat forming aquaculture projects and the appropriate Natural Capital indicators to track any change ...... 117

Table 55: Observed and expected impacts connected with each Natural Capital indicator associated with the habitat forming aquaculture case study ...... 121

Table 56: Summary of the projects funded in England through the EMFF that were selected for the selectivity case study ...... 125

Table 57: Possible environmental impacts that could result from selectivity projects and the appropriate Natural Capital indicators to track any change ...... 126

Table 58: Observed and expected impacts connected with each Natural Capital indicator associated with the selectivity case study ...... 128

Table 59: Selectivity projects, their environmental claims, and targets ...... 130

Table 60: Summary of the projects funded in England through the EMFF that were selected for the research to improve fisheries management case study ...... 134

Table 61: Project stakeholders contacted for engagement ...... 137

Page vi

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 62: Summary of intended outcomes and associated impacts in terms of Natural Capital Components within projects under the ‘Research for improving fisheries management’ case study ...... 138

Table 63: Assessment of the projects within the research to improve fisheries management case study in terms of their contributions to Human Capital ...... 140

Table 64: Observed and expected impacts connected with each Natural Capital indicator associated with the research to improve fisheries management case study ...... 145

Table 65: Summary of the projects funded in England through the EMFF that were selected for the stock conservation and restoration case study ...... 148

Table 66: Impacts associated with the Natural Capital components expected to arise from the conservation projects evaluated ...... 150

Table 67: Project stakeholders contacted for engagement ...... 150

Table 68: Assessment of projects within the stock conservation and restoration case study in terms of their contributions to Human Capital ...... 151

Table 69: Observed and expected impacts connected with each Natural Capital indicator associated with the stock conservation and restoration case study ...... 154

Table 70: Summary of the projects funded in England through the EMFF that were selected for the Co-management/participatory approach case study...... 156 Table 71: Indicator framework developed by this study to assess stakeholder engagement and participation ...... 158 Table 72: Assessment of the selected participation and co-management projects in terms of stakeholder engagement and participation ...... 159

Table 73: Observed and expected impacts connected with each Natural Capital indicator associated with the co-management and participation cast study ...... 161

Table 74: Key stakeholders identified and their response to the request for interview ...... 169

Table 75: Stakeholders questionnaire used during interviews as part of Objective 4 ...... 172

Table 76: Typology of EMFF projects with an environmental aspect ...... 174

Table 77: EMFF Article specific selection criteria, taken directly from a UK government document...... 212

Table 79: Details of the project scoring against the four scoring criteria for individual projects in the sample provided by MMO ...... 217

Table 80: Information on funds available and funding schemes in England that could be similar to the EMFF ...... 235

Table 81: A comparison of the case studies’ indicators (developed to chart their impact/outcomes) and how these compare to the indicators in the 25 Year Environment Plan ...... 239

Page vii

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 82: The case studies cross referenced with the goals of the 25 YEP, to show how the case study themes address these goals...... 247

Page viii

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) List of Figures

Figure 1: Impact pathway approach used to assess project progress towards environmental impacts and benefits ...... 8 Figure 2: Conceptual framework for improving the environment. Source: Supplementary evidence report to the 25 Year Environment Plan ...... 14

Figure 3: Direct and indirect impacts on Natural Capital, including by developing Human and/or Social Capital through Foundational or Enabling projects. Source: authors elaboration based on Figure 2 ...... 15

Figure 4: Application process for EMFF funding in England, as described by the MMO online. Date of approval of this Selection Criteria by the UK EMFF PMC: 14 December 2015...... 19 Figure 5: Key issues facing the marine and aquatic environments, as reported by stakeholder group ...... 27 Figure 6: Progress along the impact pathway of projects within the connecting freshwater habitats case study ...... 35

Figure 7: Progress along the impact pathway of projects examined within the energy efficiency case study; where it was possible to establish ...... 42

Figure 8: Progress along the impact pathway of projects within the habitat forming aquaculture case study ...... 49

Figure 9: Progress along the impact pathway of projects examined within the Selectivity case study ...... 54

Figure 10: Progress along the impact pathway of projects within the research for fisheries management case study ...... 60

Figure 11: Progress along the impact pathway of projects within the stock conservation and restoration case study ...... 65 Figure 12: Schematic representation of the progress along the impact pathway of selected projects funded to enhance participation and co-management under the EMFF ...... 71

Figure 13: Examples of how the relationships between Natural Capital pressures, assets and flows can differ depending on the particular intervention, assets, pressures and flows being considered. Source: authors elaboration based on case studies ...... 80

Figure 14: Beneficiary application and project reporting process for the EMFF as described by the MMO and set out in the “Conditions of European Funding” (grey) that is sent to all successful applicants, compared the reporting that is required in practice (green) ...... 83

Figure 15: The life cycle of the freshwater pearl mussel demonstrating the symbiotic relationship and importance of juvenile salmon. Adapted from Skinner et al. (2003) ...... 96

Figure 16: Progress along the impact pathway of projects within the connecting freshwater habitats case study...... 98

Figure 17: Photos from (a) Mill Street weir on the River Teme with the fish pass complete and (b) from the River Corve showing the unstable weir that halted construction. Photos were taken from the reports for projects ENG2743 and ENG2753 respectively...... 99

Page ix

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Figure 18: Progress along the impact pathway of projects examined within the energy efficiency case study; where it was possible to establish ...... 106

Figure 19: Pimputkar et al 2009, Historic development of the most common white-light sources and improvements in their ability to produce white light efficiently. The theoretical limit for luminous efficacy (ηL) is less than 420 lm W–1 for good-quality white light, and 263 lm W–1 for a blue LED combined with a yellow phosphor...... 111

Figure 20: Progress along the impact pathway of projects examined within the selectivity case study...... 127 Figure 21: Progress along the impact pathway of projects within the research for fisheries management case study ...... 139 Figure 22: Progress along the impact pathway of projects within the stock conservation and restoration case study ...... 151

Figure 23: Schematic representation of the progress along the impact pathway of selected projects funded to enhance participation and co-management under the EMFF ...... 158

Page x

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) Acronyms

Acronym Definition 25 YEP 25 Year Environment Plan ABFT Atlantic Bluefin Tuna AIR Annual Implementation Report BAP Biodiversity Action Plan BBSRC Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BES British Ecological Society CEFAS Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science CFP Common Fisheries Policy CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent CSC Cornish Seaweed Company DEFRA Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs DCF Data Collection Framework DCI Dendritic Connectivity Index DFA Devolved Fisheries Administrations EA Environment Agency EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development EEA European Environment Agency EC European Commission EFF European Fisheries Fund EGT European Grants Team EMFF European Maritime and Fisheries Fund ENORI Essex Native Oyster Restoration Initiative EU European Union EoI Expression of Interest ESIF European Structural Investment Fund FAME Fisheries Aquaculture Monitoring and Evaluation FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation FLAG Fisheries Local Action Groups FTE Full Time Employment FWP Fisheries White Paper GES Good Environmental Status GMS Grant Management System I-BASS Immature Basic Acoustic Stock Surveillance IB Intermediate Bodies ICEGRAPH Increasing Confidence in Evaluating GES for Regional Assessments of Pelagic Habitats IFCA Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority IFM Institute of Fisheries Management ISEAL International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling IUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee k Kilo (thousand) kg Kilogram km Kilometre kWh Kilowatt hour LED Light Emitting Diode MBA Marine Biological Association MCS Marine Conservation Society MFV Motor Fishing Vessel MMO Marine Management Organisation MPA Marine Protected Area

Page xi

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Acronym Definition MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSFD Marine Strategy Framework Directive MS Member state MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield NERC Natural Environment Research Council NFFO National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NIFCA Northumberland Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority nm Nautical Mile NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units NWEBS National Water Environment Benefit Survey OP Operational Programme OSPAR Oslo/Paris convention PMC Programme Monitoring Committee RASS Risk Assessment for Sourcing Seafood RI Results Indicator RIF River Improvement Fund ROPE Response Of predators to Protection and Enhancement SEAES Socio-Economic Analysis of the English Solway SEG Sustainable Eel Group SME Small to Medium-sized Enterprise SSCF Small Scale Coastal Fishing UK United Kingdom UP Union Priority WFD Water Framework Directive WWF World Wide Fund for Nature ZSL Zoological Society of London

Page xii

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) Executive Summary

The European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) is one of five European Structural and Investment Funds that invest in job creation and promote a European economy and environment that are both healthy and sustainable. The EMFF (2014 - 2020) supports the delivery of European Union maritime and fisheries policies, and was launched in the UK (opened for applications) in 2016. This study aimed to evaluate the environmental benefits and impacts delivered via the EMFF In England; 2014 to present. To date (as of February 2019), a total of 1,172 projects have been funded, accounting for approximately 66% of the funding allocated to England (£77 million). From this total, 777 projects were filtered out; those not funded under an overtly environmental Article and those judged unlikely to have environmental benefits. The remaining 396 projects, representing 23% of allocated funds, are classified potentially providing environmental benefit.

To inform this study, information across three key areas was collected and collated. First, information was collected about the EMFF programme itself in the UK and England and environmental projects funded were identified, the criteria used to select projects examined, and activity and impact reporting requirements described. Secondly, information was sought that could describe the EMFF’s place within the wider landscape of funding for environmental improvement within England. This included issues of scale, scope and targeting as well as stakeholder perceptions of the utility and efficacy of the scheme. Finally, more detailed information was collected about the activities of specific projects funded under the scheme and their effectiveness in delivering, or potentially delivering, environmental benefits.

In contrast with many other schemes, one of the benefits of the EMFF is that the scheme has broad eligibility criteria. As such, the EMFF provides a wide range of stakeholders with opportunities to pursue projects that can deliver environmental benefits. Individuals and organisations wishing to apply for funding can submit an ‘Expression of Interest’ (EoI) form to receive an initial assessment of the eligibility of their proposal, or submit a full proposal for assessment. If the project application is above £25,000 a business case must also be submitted. However, the current Results Indicators used to assess applications have few environmental criteria. Interviews with stakeholders in the marine environment and fisheries sectors suggested that the EMFF is relevant to current policy and marine environmental priorities in England. However, only 60% of respondents thought that the current criteria for selecting projects were effective in addressing these priorities. The responses suggested that the EMFF may be perceived more as a fund to support to the fisheries sector than a means for generating environmental benefits.

To explore the impact of the programme in England, an impact pathway approach was used to describe the progress of projects that had received EMFF funding. This was applied to provide insight regarding the type/scale of environmental benefits that had been delivered or that could be expected. A total of 53 projects were selected across seven environmental impact themes to provide a set of impact case studies on connecting freshwater habitats; energy efficiency; habitat forming aquaculture; selectivity; research for fisheries management; stock conservation and restoration and co-management/participatory approaches. These case studies included projects that generate environmental benefits both directly and indirectly. To systematically describe impacts and benefits, specific Natural Capital impact indicators were developed for each project and evidence of impact was sought from a combination of available literature and interviews with key stakeholders.

While many projects are still ongoing, it was possible to identify positive outcomes, impacts and likely impacts from many of the projects funded, including reduced CO2 emissions, reductions in unwanted catches and increased biodiversity. More difficult to assess were projects that addressed environmental concerns in less direct ways, e.g., through research or participatory planning processes. However, these projects can make important contributions

Page 1

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) to increasing the legitimacy of planning processes and enhancing our understanding of the natural world in ways that can inform management.

The 25 Year Environment Plan calls for an approach to agriculture, forestry, land use and fishing that puts the environment first. Any future funding scheme could therefore address this call by providing support for projects delivering environmental benefits. A number of key lessons were generated by the study that could be used to inform any future scheme, ensuring that it both builds on the successes of the EMFF (lessons 1-6) and addresses some of the existing weaknesses (lessons 7-9):

1. There is a clear demand for funding that supports innovation, delivers environmental benefits and is available to a broad range of stakeholders, several of whom have limited alternative options for funding. 2. The flexibility and responsiveness of the EMFF in England have been a feature of the scheme and this has allowed policy-makers, managers and stakeholders to respond to new environmental challenges. However, there are few environmental indicators and additional criteria for assessing projects based on their intended environmental impacts; these should be developed. 3. The current application two-stage process with an initial expression of interest (EoI) appears to work well and means that applicants do not spend large amounts of time on ineligible applications. Developing more explicit environmental Results Indicators for the scheme related to Natural Capital pressures and assets could help applicants to identify how their projects could contribute to the goals of the scheme. If more environmental objectives are included, then it may be useful to have environmental technical specialists involved in developing indicators and in the review of proposals. 4. It is important that any future scheme is results-based and able to demonstrate that it is delivering benefits to the environment and society. This could be achieved in part by ensuring that beneficiaries should explicitly identify the environmental benefits their projects will deliver using impact indicators that are robust and verifiable, as well as being aligned with the 25 YEP and consistent across projects as far as possible. 5. Providing a wide range of stakeholders with opportunities to develop environmental projects has been a strength of the EMFF. To ensure that it delivers environmental benefits, research funding should be limited to applied research and uptake of research outputs, rather than for theoretical / conceptual work. 6. Benefits delivered by applied research projects (for example, successful methods for reducing unwanted catches) could be increased if funds were made available specifically for translating research into use, scaling up success and promoting wider adoption of good practice. 7. Appropriate environmental indicators need to be included in project applications to aid selection and provide a basis for measuring project progress and success. These should be aligned with broader policy objectives, and utilise a Natural Capital framework and indicators where relevant. 8. More systematic reporting of project progress and impacts is needed. Clear advice needs to be given to beneficiaries on their data collection and reporting requirements and the extent and frequency of the reporting they are required to provide. More structured impact reporting across the projects would capture progress, problems, and successes, providing a feedback loop to inform future funding decisions. 9. Information management systems and structures appropriate for the revised progress and impact reporting requirements need to be developed. A requirement to report environmental benefits of the scheme would also create incentives to strengthen beneficiary reporting. Despite addressing many of key environmental issues the EMFF was largely perceived as a fisheries scheme. To ensure that stakeholders are aware of the environmental benefits being delivered, the new system should include a mechanism to disseminate good news stories and lessons learned.

Page 2

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) 1 Introduction

This study examined the environmental benefits delivered through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) in England, between 2014 and the present. The aim of this study has been to identify the role of the EMFF in delivering positive environmental impacts, the effectiveness of projects funded, and lessons on the implementation of the programme that can inform future funds. The study outputs should contribute to creating a world-class management system that supports a sustainable seafood industry1, and the delivery of the 25 Year Environment Plan (25 YEP)2.

The EMFF, and its predecessor the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) (2007-2013), is one of five European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) which complement each other in order to invest in job creation and promote a European economy and environment that are both healthy and sustainable. The EMFF supports the delivery of European Union (EU) maritime and fisheries policies3, and is aimed at improving the social, economic and environmental sustainability of Europe’s seas and coasts, and more broadly the structural reform of fisheries and aquaculture sectors. This aim is achieved through support to projects, businesses and communities.

The EMFF amounts to approximately €5,749 million (£4,797 million4) of funds available to all EU Member States (MS) over a seven-year period (2014 to 2020). The allocation of funds is subdivided into six Union Priorities (UPs)5 that receive 95% of the total budget; the remaining 5% concerns technical assistance to MS. The EMFF, along with supplementary national funding from either public or private sources, is used to co-finance and (where applicable) finance individual projects according to each MS Operational Programme (OP). The OP describes the MS spending intentions and once approved by the European Commission (EC) it is then at the MS discretion to decide which projects receive funding, as long as they are compliant with EMFF regulations.

The United Kingdom’s (UK) share of EMFF is distributed to each Devolved Fisheries Administrations (DFA). The DFAs are considered to act as Intermediate Bodies (IBs) in each country, taking care of day-to-day management of the EMFF. Such activities in the day-to-day management include promoting the fund, providing guidance, as well as processing and approving applications. Separate elements of the UK's OP are thus delivered by Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales. The Marine Management Organisation (MMO), as well as acting as the English IB, also acts as the managing authority for the UK on behalf of Defra. This role includes reporting to EU on progress towards agreed OP and spending targets, whilst allowing them to manage their own projects independently.

1https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/751309/sum mary-of-responses-fisheries-for-future-generations.pdf 2 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/25-year-environment-plan 3Regulation (EU) No 508/2014: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013PC0245&from=EN 4 Note: All currency conversions were made on www1.oanda.com. Currency conversion made with rate at 01/01/2014, the beginning of the first year of the current round of EMFF funding 5 The six Union Priorities (UPs) are: UP1: Promoting environmentally sustainable, resource-efficient, innovative, competitive and knowledge–based fisheries; UP2 Fostering environmentally sustainable, resource-efficient, innovative, and competitive and knowledge–based aquaculture; UP3: Fostering the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP); UP4: Increasing employment and territorial cohesion by promoting economic growth, social inclusion and job creation and providing support to employability and labour mobility in coastal and inland communities which depend on fishing and aquaculture, including the diversification of activities within fisheries and into other sectors of maritime economy; UP5 Fostering marketing and processing; UP6: Fostering the implementation of the Integrated Maritime Policy.

Page 3

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

The UK is the eighth largest recipient of EMFF funding, equivalent to approximately €243 million (£202 million6) over the seven years of the fund. The largest share of EMFF funding provided to the UK has been allocated to Scotland (£90 million or 44%), followed by England (£77 million or 38%), Northern Ireland (£19.5 million or 10%) and Wales (£14.5 million or 8%)7. The EMFF in England has been able to support a wide range of beneficiaries, providing the industry with opportunities to modernise, improve environmental performance, develop aquaculture and upgrade processing.

A total of 1,172 projects in England have been funded as of February 20198, with the majority of these (n = 903) under Union Priority (UP) 1 (Table 1).

Table 1: Summary of the total projects funded and environmental projects funded and EMFF expenditure in England across the six Union Priorities for the period 2014 – February 2019 Number of Expenditure Number of Eligible environmental on Union Priority projects expenditure projects environmental funded (£) funded9 projects (£) UP1: Promoting environmentally sustainable, resource efficient, innovative, 903 23,958,672 358 9,728,528 competitive and knowledge- based fisheries UP2: Fostering environmentally sustainable, resource efficient, 38 2,031,459 14 782,751 innovative, competitive and knowledge-based aquaculture UP3: Fostering the 9 15,426,585 0 0 implementation of the CFP UP4: Increasing employment 110 3,006,959 5 140,779 and territorial cohesion UP5: Fostering marketing and 98 5,354,288 9 248,592 processing UP6: Implementation of the 14 870,431 11 552,757 Integrated Maritime Policy Total 1,172 50,648,39410 396 11,453,406 Source: MMO Transparency Initiative data February 2019.

6 Throughout this document the figures are provided for the EMFF funds committed. Many projects require co- financing but the level of co-financing required is dependent on the subject and the location (because of priority regions). Reporting EMFF funds in this way emphasises the cost to the scheme of the projects. 7 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund-emff-before-you-apply. 8 The MMO Transparency Initiative data February 2019 9 The MMO Transparency Initiative data February 2019 was reviewed and all projects with a clear environmental aspect (n=396) were retained on a new, internal, typology. Relevance, in terms of the environmental aspect of a project, was determined by the Article under which projects were funded, and or the key words used in the project title. 10 Of the UK’s EMFF budget England is apportioned £77M over the seven-year period (2014 – 2020). The budget is allocated for; ‘technical assistance’ with the implementation system (4% or £3M), £40M for UPs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, and £31M for UP 3. As February 2019, according to the MMO Transparency Initiative dataset, England had spent £50M directly on projects that fell under all UPs. Of this £35M was channelled through the MMO, for UPs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, and £15M for UP 3. Therefor the money remaining for England from the EMFF is around £5M for UPs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, £16M for UP 3, and an unknown amount still remaining for ‘technical assistance’. All funding comes to the UK as Euros and must be converted to GBP (£). This has meant that the value in GBP of EMFF funding has varied over the duration of the scheme (2014 – present).

Page 4

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Study aim

This study focuses on the environmental benefits of the EMFF and the impacts on the marine environment, habitats and species through its funded projects within England only. Descriptions of actual or predicted societal benefits are also captured where these are evident. Specifically, the study has the following objectives:

Objective 1 – Identification/ review of current criteria used for allocating EMFF spending across all six UPs for environmental merit; Objective 2 – Identification of the strategic gap in England that EMFF funding seeks to address; Objective 3 – Assessment of the effectiveness of projects successfully funded since the establishment of the EMFF; Objective 4 – Seeking of input from stakeholders in the marine environment and fisheries sectors to assess the extent to which existing criteria and projects have been effective; Objective 5 – Identification of various ways that the EMFF scheme has been used to deliver environmental benefits; Objective 6 – Reviewing of the reporting requirements to ensure that projects are adequately supported for their duration; and Objective 7 – Identification and provision of an analysis of the lessons that can be learnt from the English experience of the EMFF in terms of delivering environmental benefits. These seven objectives have been addressed through a combination of reviewing existing literature and information regarding the EMFF and other funding schemes (e.g., Defra Litter Innovation Fund), complemented by interviews with key stakeholders within the seafood industry and with stakeholders (e.g., Non-Governmental Organisations) that have an environmental mandate, and lastly through undertaking a series of thematic case studies that explore different types of environmental projects. Where appropriate, the study has also made use of Natural Capital indicators to describe and measure progress towards any environmental targets identified within separate projects11. Natural Capital has increasingly been applied as a way to explain the contribution that the natural world can make to human economies and livelihoods, and has been used extensively to monitor environment change, as well as assess the impact on the environment following management change (e.g., within the 25 YEP).

Outputs from this study will provide evidence of the types of environmental benefits realised to date from funded projects, their relevance to the challenges facing the industry and the marine environment, and the role played by the fund to date in addressing them. This study is expected to contribute to policy development on how to best support sustainable development and protection in the marine environment by delivering future funding instruments that are targeted and streamlined, in line with the grant-making powers proposed in the Fisheries White Paper (sustainable fisheries for future generations)12 and the Fisheries Bill13. It is expected that this study will complement other ongoing evaluations of the EMFF programme, for example the social evaluation currently being undertaken on behalf of Defra by Risk and Policy Analysts14. In the next section we describe the methods that were used to address each of the objectives of the study. This is followed by a summary of the key findings of this study against each of

11 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/774218/ncc- annual-report-2019.pdf 12 https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/fisheries-white-paper-sustainable-fisheries-for-future-generations 13 https://services.parliament.uk/Bills/2017-19/fisheries.html 14 Invitation to Tender, project 25558. An Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered Via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Page 5

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Objectives 1-6. Finally, the key findings from each objective are synthesised in Objective 7 to provide an analysis of the lessons learned that can inform future funding schemes.

Page 6

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) 2 Approach and methods

This section details the methods that were used to capture evidence and evaluate the environmental benefits of the EMFF in England. In total 1,173 projects have been funded in England from 2014 to February 201915. From this total, 777 were filtered out (leaving 396) that were not funded under an overtly environmental Article and or did not have any terms in the project title related to environmental aspects, and therefore were not likely to have environmental benefits as a key project outcome16. 2.1 Approach

The overall approach of the study was based on the need to collect and collate information across three key areas. In the first instance, information was collected about the EMFF programme itself. Focusing on the 396 pre-filtered projects17 the type of environmental projects funded were identified, the criteria used to select projects examined, and activity and impact reporting requirements described. Secondly, information was sought that could describe the place of the EMFF within the wider landscape of funding for environmental improvement within England, including issues of scale, scope and targeting as well as stakeholder perceptions of the utility and effectiveness of the scheme. Finally, more detailed information was collected about the activities of specific projects funded under the scheme and their effectiveness in delivering, or potentially delivering, environmental benefits.

Given that projects are at different stages, an impact pathway approach was used to describe progress and contribute to understanding the current level of impact. The progress along the impact pathway (Figure 1) for each project funded within the English OP EMFF framework varies, as projects have been funded at different times between 2016 and February 2019. For some types of project, e.g., for research projects, there may be time lags between project outcomes and the resulting impact on the natural environment. Therefore, it was important to take into account the particular type of project to be able to assess the kinds of impacts that might reasonably be expected from the project's activities and outcomes. Impact pathways were therefore used to assess and describe progress toward impact and to assess potential future impacts through comparison with other, similar, types of projects. While the terms may be similar, it is important to differentiate between outputs, outcomes and impacts when assessing projects and their contribution to change (e.g., Penfield et al., 2013). Essentially, project activities (e.g., engine replacement) produce outputs (new engine), which lead to outcomes (increased fuel efficiency and associated reduced emissions). The outcomes then contribute to, and interact with wider contextual features and processes to produce impacts (reduced global greenhouse gases and improved climate).

15 This includes support to the Data Collection Framework (DCF), funded under UP 3 of the EMFF. “The European Commission’s DCF establishes a European Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). It seeks to provide scientists and others responsible for making decisions on the management of fisheries with the information they need. One significant area of the DCF is the setting out of the scientific data that are needed as inputs into the annual assessments of fish stocks.” - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/data-collection-framework 16 This approach may have resulted in some projects with environmental benefits being excluded. However, the majority are likely to have been picked up and therefore the general picture is likely to have been captured. One potential limitation of this is that due to the fact that some projects with environmental benefits were likely not included in this study, the environmental benefits delivered by the EMFF are also likely underestimated. 17 Once an applicant has selected the online grant they wish to apply to (Annex 7), and begun the online application, a unique identifying reference number is assigned to their project. This consists of a three-letter country code (e.g., ENG for England) followed by a 4-character numerical code (e.g., ENG0001).

Page 7

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Figure 1: Impact pathway approach used to assess project progress towards environmental impacts and benefits

Based on the impact pathway approach (Figure 1) methods were identified that could capture information about the progress of EMFF-funded projects along their impact pathways. These methods are described in the section below and the specific methods and indicators used are provided in the individual case studies. 2.2 Methods

The information requirements to assess progress towards impact were addressed using a combination of: (i) literature and evidence reviews that focused on key documents/websites, (ii) interviews with key stakeholders associated with the EMFF programme and projects, and (iii) case studies providing details of activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts for projects that encompassed the different kinds of environmental projects funded. These are described below. 2.2.1 Literature and evidence review

The literature review compiled various sources of peer reviewed/grey literature and technical documents to provide an understanding of the programme and its place in the wider context of funding for environmental improvement. Understanding the EMFF programme was largely based upon a review of the following documents:

• MMO webpages and online guidance material; • UK EMFF Operational Programme; • Annual Implementing Reports for England; • 2018 review of the projects funded under the EFF and EMFF; and • Data from the MMO and Transparency Initiative.

Examining the place of the EMFF in the wider context was also achieved by reviewing literature related to both the policy and funding context. Key sources for this included:

• ‘A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment’; • Sustainable fisheries for future generations. A White Paper on Defra’s future fisheries policy; • Online information and guidance documents for funding schemes, including Waterloo Foundation, Innovate UK etc; • Grey literature, e.g., MBA-BES (2018) Marine Environment workshop report; WWF et al. (2017) Delivering sustainable fisheries management; and • Peer reviewed papers, e.g., Jefferson et al. (2014) Public perceptions of the UK marine environment. Marine Policy 43: 327-337

Each of the EMFF UPs has a set of Articles that set out more detailed aims. Associated with each Article is a Results Indicator (RI) that is intended to track progress in delivering against the aims. At the programme level, fifty-four project evaluations provided by the MMO were

Page 8

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) also used to evaluate how the EMFF programme RIs were applied during the process of project selection.

Literature and evidence were also used to establish the environmental benefits from individual projects and project clusters18 funded under the OP for England. Within the case studies (see Annex 1), a range of literature sources were used in order to provide a summary of the progress of the project, identify documented outcomes and impacts and, in the absence of the latter, contribute to identifying plausible future impacts based on the results from similar projects (see Table 2 for examples of literature used).

Table 2: Examples of the types of evidence used to assess project progress and impact Area of enquiry Examples of sources Project progress Stakeholder interviews Project reports, e.g., Solent Forum newsletter (ENG1980); Native Oyster bed restoration plan (ENG2157); Dorset Coastal Forum (ENG2838) Project websites, e.g., Blue Marine Foundation (ENG1980); ENORI (ENG1980); JNCC (ENG2283) Environmental benefits (documented project Stakeholder interviews, scientific literature and outcomes and impacts, including in terms of project reports, e.g., Helmer et al., 2019 Natural Capital) (ENG1980); Pimputkar et al., 2009 (ENG2335, ENG2004); Cote et al., 2019 (ENG2407, ENG1777, ENG2743, ENG2753) Potential environmental benefits (potential Stakeholder interviews and scientific literature, project outcomes and impacts, including in e.g., Weitzman, 2019 and Fairbanks, 2016 terms of Natural Capital) (ENG1318, ENG1210, ENG2153); Pomeroy and Douvere 2008 and Brown et al., 2016 (ENG1964); Browne et al., 2018 (ENG1372, ENG1215, ENG1369, ENG1426)

2.2.2 Stakeholder interviews

To complement the analysis of data sets and review of literature, stakeholder interviews were also used to provide additional information and/or perspectives on the EMFF programme, context and projects. In the first instance, interviews were held with key stakeholders in the MMO’s European Grants Team (EGT) to provide an understanding of the structure of the EMFF and the processes of project selection, management and reporting. The interviews were also used as an opportunity to discuss this project and its aims, setup the necessary data sharing agreement, source data sets and request additional information about individual projects.

To understand the context within which the EMFF operates, and to collect perceptions on the focus and utility of the EMFF in relation to key issues facing the aquatic environment in England, a structured stakeholder engagement strategy was developed. This stakeholder engagement included individuals from different sectors with an interest in the environment, seafood industry and the EMFF scheme itself. A full list of key stakeholders was finalised at the project inception meeting (Annex 2). Stakeholders were initially contacted via email; those that agreed to participate were sent a brief pre-interview information pack (Annex 3) and were asked to sign and return a Data Consent Form (Annex 4). Interviews were held face-to-face or over the telephone and were based on a semi-structured interview template (Annex 5). In addition, semi-structured interviews were also utilised to collect evidence and perceptions

18 A project cluster refers to a group or series of related projects that collectively contribute to achieving impact.

Page 9

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) related to case studies (see below); in particular where documentation or data on the projects was lacking, or where the issue being addressed by the project was complex.

Semi-structured interviews are a flexible approach to collecting data that uses open questions and probing to develop understanding as well as collect data. This approach is suitable when working with different stakeholder groups, providing a way of capturing different perspectives which allows for the exploration any of unexpected, but relevant, issues that arise. Within the interviews, triangulation techniques were used where evidence of impact was stated to ensure robustness of evidence and to provide a means to validate key findings (e.g., Valentine, 2005).

Semi-structured interviews differ from structured interviews or questionnaires that follow a pre- determined and standardised list of questions. While they have some degree of order to the questions, they are structured around themes that provide flexibility in the way issues are addressed by the questioner and allow exploration of issues raised by the respondent with follow-up questions (Dunn, 2005). Interviews conducted in this style are less formal in tone than those carried out with a structured questionnaire, thus encouraging open responses by interviewees in their own words. 2.2.3 Case studies

Case studies were used to provide detailed insights into the impact, or potential impact, of funded projects, as well as highlighting where funding might be effective in achieving environmental benefits. Case studies focused on a sub-set of projects, or clusters of projects, from within selected impact themes. Within the filtered set of 396 projects (representing 34% of total projects funded in England), the EMFF has funded a diverse range of projects, aimed at providing a variety of environmental benefits either as primary or secondary objectives. The first step in developing the case studies, therefore, was to develop a typology19 in order to group projects from the MMO Transparency Initiative dataset (February 2019) into 17 ‘impact themes’ (see Table 3 and Annex 6). Note that throughout this document the project titles provided by the MMO are used and have not been modified from the original text.

19 The Typology was developed using the February 2019 Transparency Initiative dataset and contained all projects with a clear environmental aspect (n=396). Relevance, in terms of the environmental aspect of a project, was determined by expert knowledge, the Article under which projects were funded, and or key words used in the project title.

Page 10

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 3: Typology of impact themes developed and used in the study to classify those projects aimed at providing environmental benefits funded under the EMFF Impact theme Number of projects Co-management/participatory approach 5 Connecting freshwater habitats 12 Energy efficiency 59 Fisheries management 1 Habitat forming aquaculture 13 Invasive species 2 Marine plastics 8 Marine pollution (excluding plastics) 0 Physical impact of fishing gear 3 Research 29 Selectivity 239 Spatial planning 5 Special feature/species mapping 7 Stock conservation and restoration 3 Sustainable seafood 9 Sustainability training 1 Source: February 2019 Transparency Initiative dataset provided by the MMO on the 12/03/2019 Several of these environmental impact themes had sub-themes. For example, ‘energy efficiency’ included projects that used green technologies such as solar panels or reduced fuel consumption through either hull modification or engine upgrades, while ‘habitat forming aquaculture’ included projects related to seaweed, oysters and mussels. From a review of the typology, a reduced set of projects were selected (53) that covered seven of the impact themes (Table 4), while also representing a diversity of project types (e.g., in terms of scale, cost and type of stakeholder beneficiary). The selected case studies include 13% of all environmental projects by number, and received 28% of all funds allocated on environmental grounds. These projects crosscut UPs 1, 2, 4 and 6, and include nine of the 18 Articles under which projects have been funded for environmental criteria in England (see Annex 6). Projects included in the case studies range in value from £469 to £240,000.

Page 11

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 4: Summary of the projects included within each case studies across the seven selected case study themes Case study/environmental impact theme Projects included in each case study (and case study sub-theme) Connecting freshwater habitats ENG1777; ENG2407; ENG2743; ENG2753 Energy efficiency Green technology: ENG2004; ENG2235 Reduced fuel use – hull modification: ENG1479; ENG3061; Reduced fuel use – engine upgrades: ENG2471; ENG2677; ENG2678; ENG3082; ENG3118; ENG3291; ENG3399 Habitat forming aquaculture Mussels: ENG1210; ENG1318; ENG2153; Oysters: ENG1980; ENG2157 Selectivity Cod-ends: ENG1215; ENG1369; ENG1372; ENG1462 Static nets: EMG1468; ENG1103; ENG1842; ENG2364; ENG3121 Pots: ENG1822; ENG2107; ENG2214; ENG2245; ENG2292; ENG2358; ENG2781; ENG2856 ENG3063; ENG3165; ENG3227; ENG3576; ENG3231 Research to improve fisheries and marine ENG2395; ENG2755; ENG3305; ENG3590 management Stock conservation and restoration ENG1400; ENG1723 Co-management/participatory approach ENG1812; ENG1964; ENG2283; ENG2838; ENG3055

Consistent with the approach described above, literature reviews and semi-structured interviews were developed for each case study. These were based on following projects along their impact pathways (Figure 1) from activities, to outputs, outcomes and final impacts; an approach designed to capture the change attributable to individual projects20.

Each case study started with a review of the available literature related to each project within that theme (sub-theme). This included the MMO review of the application, acceptance letter, relevant RIs and business case (where relevant21). Other available project documents were collated and combined with information on the projects held by the MMO to determine the expected outcomes of each project. Recognising that many of the projects funded under the EMFF are still ongoing, the literature review was also used to establish, as far as possible, the evidence for progress along the impact pathway (e.g., evidence from workshop reports, installation of infrastructure etc.). Data collection and semi-structured interviews were used to acquire additional quantitative and qualitative information about the projects’ progress, the scale of activities and outcomes, and any evidence for impacts. Further details of the specific data collection requirements and sources for each case study can be found in individual case study reports (see Annex 1). A common template was developed for the case studies to report the approach, methods, results and lessons learned to simplify navigation and enable comparison.

20This approach is consistent with the principles for EMFF evaluation and impact assessment: https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/fame-working-paper-emff-evaluation_en.pdf 21 Business cases are only required for projects seeking funding of over £25,000 from the EMFF.

Page 12

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Measuring impact: understanding impact pathways and developing Natural Capital indicators

The 25 YEP explicitly recognises the economic benefits and contributions to human well-being that can be realised from investments in Natural Capital22. While there is no universal methodology through which a Natural Capital approach has been applied, the core requirement is to assess the state of Natural Capital by measuring the natural assets that are present and the services and benefits derived from them (Natural Capital Coalition, 2016; Natural Capital Committee, 2017). This study used the Natural Capital framework, definitions and indicators from the 25 YEP23 as a starting point from which to identify specific indicators for projects or project clusters within each case study. For each case study, indicators relating to each of the pressures, assets and flows of ecosystem services that may be affected by the projects - either positively or negatively - were identified (see Figure 2), including:

• pressures (measures of the extent or magnitude of pressures, e.g., level of fishing pressure, carbon dioxide emissions); • the condition of assets (measures of the extent, quality and connectivity of habitats and the status of stocks, e.g., commercial fish stocks relative to Maximum Sustainable Yield; and • flows of ecosystem services (measures of the quantity of services, e.g., volume of food produced)24.

Indicators in the 25 YEP may relate to one or more component of Natural Capital, i.e., pressures, assets and flows25. The approach taken for the case studies was to use the indicators from the 25 YEP wherever possible, but also to try and consistently identify indicators for each of the three Natural Capital components.

The input of Capital (Human, Social and Financial) combine with Natural Capital to generate ecosystem services. In turn, these other forms of Capital can affect Natural Capital assets by altering the pressures upon them (see Figure 2). For example, investments in the creation or expansion of marine aquaculture may decrease available commercial and/or recreational fishing areas. If so, this may to cause effort displacement and an increase in fishing pressure in other locations. However, aquaculture systems may act as artificial reefs and may act to protect some habitats, and if fishing (including recreational harvesting) inside a site is prohibited then, depending on size and location, there is potential for local benefits to some fish and shellfish populations. The case studies also sought to capture some of these additional, and sometimes unintended, impacts. It is also recognised that the types, extent and collective value of derived ecosystem services may be determined by the type of management measures applied to catchments and marine areas.

Where the value associated with impacts and benefits could be determined this was given in pound sterling (£). Where possible, on the advice of Defra economists and in line with methods stated in The Green Book26, a 3.5% discounting rate was applied to all monetary values across assumed appraisal periods, which are unique to each project and stated in each case study.

22https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/774218/ncc- annual-report-2019.pdf 23 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/673492/25- year-environment-plan-annex1.pdf 24 Consistent with this studies approach to Natural Capital, only flows that directly relate to assets in terms of yields have been considered and not those that are derived from the assets. 25 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/802094/25- yep-indicators-2019.pdf 26 The Green Book: appraisal and evaluation in central government - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-book-appraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-governent

Page 13

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Figure 2: Conceptual framework for improving the environment. Source: Supplementary evidence report to the 25 Year Environment Plan

Management therefore becomes important, for example, to ensure that capture fisheries reflect productivity or can increase economic returns, or that the restoration of watersheds enhance their overall productivity. This is highly relevant given the intention within the UK of developing a world-class fisheries management system, as laid out in the Fisheries White Paper (Defra, 2018). Effective management requires the application of Human Capital, in the form of skills, knowledge and innovation, Social Capital in the forms of institutional arrangements27 and inter-personal relationships (e.g., Folke et al., 2005) and Financial Capital. The application of these capitals can modify or affect pressures, assets and flows, sometimes in unintended or unanticipated ways. This is a critical point for this study in that this means there are interventions aimed at delivering environmental benefits that have a more indirect pathway to changes in Natural Capital.

Under the UK Natural Environment Assessment28 these less direct pathways are identified as ‘Foundational’ or ‘Enabling’ responses29. For example, there are projects highlighted in the case studies that support research on the pressures, assets and flows of ecosystem services. These projects are aimed at developing Human Capital (knowledge and skills) and evidence on the basis that such knowledge and skills will then be applied to improve management. The recognition of the value of increasing Human and Social Capital is evident in the EMFF Directive (e.g., Article 50 - Implementation reports), together with the assumption that this capital will be applied to positively impact Natural Capital. Similarly, projects that supported new governance initiatives, e.g., more participatory forms of decision-making, have also sought to increase Human and Social Capital (rules, norms and processes of decision-making) on the basis that this will also lead to changes across the three elements of Natural Capital.

27 Institution here refers to the rules in place and social norms rather than organizations’ involved in management. 28 http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/Default.aspx 29 In contrast with more Instrumental responses, which include technologies, practices, markets and incentives and voluntary actions that have more direct effects.

Page 14

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

One way of looking at how Foundational and Enabling projects can bring about change is highlighted in Figure 3. This shows how applied projects address Natural Capital (pressures, assets and flows) directly, while the development of Human and Social Capitals may bring about changes through a chain of events, each link of which needs to be effective to bring about the ultimate impact.

Figure 3: Direct and indirect impacts on Natural Capital, including by developing Human and/or Social Capital through Foundational or Enabling projects. Source: authors elaboration based on Figure 2

For Human Capital, this chain, in its simplest form, involves: the generation of information or skills, the sharing of these and, finally, the utilisation or application of them to effect change. Researchers and research projects often identify 'impact' as being the intellectual contribution to the academic field of study, e.g., number of publications (e.g., Penfield et al., 2014). However, in this present analysis we would identify these as 'outcomes' not 'impact'. It is the effect on, or change in, Natural Capital and associated pressures that would be considered as the ultimate impact. When examining Social Capital, a similar chain can be conceptualised with the focus on engaging stakeholders, developing networks and/or institutions and utilising or implementing these to bring about change (Figure 3).

How projects with a more indirect pathway contribute to bringing about change depends both on what the project seeks to change, which may be Instrumental, i.e., practice or policy; Conceptual, i.e., the ideas and understanding of issues, or Capacity, i.e., the Human or Social Capital. As Table 5, based on the Punton (2014) framework shows, how these types of change can happen can also differ. Symbolic change is where a decision has already been taken and the outcomes are used to support this decision. Where decisions, theories and knowledge/skills are actually changed by project outcomes, this can occur either through a

Page 15

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) contribution to a wider process or body of evidence (Cumulative) or could be aimed at influencing a particular policy or practice (a Focused approach).

Table 5: A model of how projects may bring about change through contributions to a wider body of evidence or in a more focused manner. Based on Punton (2014) Instrumental Outcomes used Outcomes part of Outcomes to legitimise a overall evidence directly influence decision already used to influence a specific policy made a specific policy or practice. or practice Type of change Conceptual N/A Outcomes feed Outcomes into general directly influence understanding or the way people particular understand an concepts issue Capacity N/A Outcomes or Outcomes or relationships relationships contribute to directly improve improving Human specific Human and/or Social and/or Social Capital Capital Symbolic Cumulative Focused How change happened

A key challenge for assessing impacts, both direct and indirect (highlighted in Figures 2 and 3) is that Natural Capital assets and flows are affected not only by the particular EMFF project or project cluster, but are dynamically affected by a number of other processes, both internal (for example, changing user objectives) and external (the pressures), many of which can be unquantifiable but which may be more significant than the project intervention (e.g., Baur et al., 2001). These processes create their own particular opportunities and constraints to delivering environmental benefits with which the project or cluster must interact. This was an important consideration in the process of describing impact.

Generating evidence of impact

In terms of the stages of the evidence gathering and analysis to assess impact and Natural Capital indicators within each project, these were guided by best practice and the steps identified by the Natural Capital Coalition including:

• Identify changes in natural capital associated with the activity; • Select methods for measuring changes; • Define the consequences of impacts and/or dependencies; and • Determine the relative significance of associated costs and/or benefits

Identifying changes in natural capital associated with the activity

In the first instance each project or project cluster within a case study was assessed to understand the extent of progress along the impact pathway and therefore the type of analysis that could be undertaken. For those at an early stage, the emphasis was on the likelihood of attributable future impact, while for those closer to completion there was a greater emphasis on the actual impacts and changes to Natural Capital.

Page 16

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Select methods for measuring changes

The study identified specific Natural Capital indicators for projects or project clusters within each case study that relate to the pressures, assets and flows of ecosystem services that are affected by the projects either positively or negatively (see section 2.2.3.1).

The specific indicators therefore informed the types of data and information sought for each project and case study. The details of these are explained in more depth within individual case studies. Where studies have an indirect impact, consideration was given to the way in which the projects contribute to impact (Table 5) to see if there were any lessons that could be learned. Where it was not possible to plausibly establish impacts or likely impacts from the data, the study sought to examine the potential likelihood of impacts by gathering evidence of impact from similar projects that have been implemented in the past or elsewhere. This was primarily a review of the available literature but again attempted to describe potential contributions in terms of the Natural Capital indicators.

Define the consequences of impacts and/or dependencies

By addressing each of the pressures, assets and flows in the case study impact indicators, it was intended that the consequences of the impacts, including scale and scope, would be captured. It was also recognised that there may be interactions and possibly unintended consequences and the study sought also, where possible, to capture these. For example, investments in the creation or expansion of marine aquaculture may decrease available commercial and/or recreational fishing areas. If so, this may to cause effort displacement and an increase in fishing pressure in other locations. However, aquaculture systems may act as artificial reefs and may act to protect some habitats, and if fishing (including recreational harvesting) inside a site is prohibited then, depending on size and location, there is potential for local benefits to some fish and shellfish populations.

Determine the relative significance of associated costs and/or benefits

Because the focus of the study is on evidence to inform future funding schemes, to the extent that it was feasible, there was an attempt to place the impacts and funding in context, including highlighting the scale of the particular challenge or issue that remained to be addressed. For example, within energy efficiency, the benefits of engine replacement were considered against the numbers of engines that may require replacement and the additional benefits of doing so.

Page 17

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) 3 Results

In this section we provide a summary of the key findings associated with each of the seven Objectives of the study. Additional detail on the analysis can be found in the Annexes to the report. Where relevant, evidence from the analysis and case studies are highlighted in the text. 3.1 Objective 1: Review EMFF Criteria

Identification/review of current criteria used for allocating European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) spend across all six Union Priorities for environmental merit30.

A literature review was completed in order to confirm and assess the environmental criteria that have been used to allocate funds under the EMFF programme. Central to this was to examine the “selection criteria model” used by the MMO to assess project suitability31.

Responsibility for implementing the EMFF lies with the MMO. As the Managing Authority, the MMO is responsible for the ensuring that the programme is operated and governed effectively and is the only UK body recognised by the EU. The MMO also has the role of IB for England, established via a Service Level Agreement with the Managing Authority. As IB, the MMO works with potential EMFF beneficiaries to identify funding opportunities that can contribute to the OP outcomes. The MMO also ensures that all decisions relating to approving and releasing funding are made in line with approved control systems. EMFF programme delivery is assisted by the UK EMFF Programme Monitoring Committee which ordinarily meets twice a year, to verify the performance of the OP and the effectiveness of its implementation following conditions set out in Article 49 of Regulation 1303/2013 and Article 113 of Regulation (EU) No 508/2014.

The EMFF programme is supported by applicant-facing tools such as E-Systems and web- based Guidance Notes that were developed by the MMO. Applicants are encouraged to contact the MMO to discuss their application. Individuals and organisations wishing to apply for funding under the EMFF may first submit an ‘Expression of Interest’ (EoI) form in order to receive an initial assessment of the eligibility of their proposal, or submit a full proposal for assessment (Table 4). If the project application is below £25,000 no business case is required; any projects submitted with budgets higher than £25,000 must submit a business case. In addition, for projects below £100,000 the MMO EGT will review the application against the eligibility criteria and potential value-for-money. The application will then either be rejected or approved; an applicant may appeal a rejection if applicable. For applications over £100,000 a selection panel will review the proposal, and are able to request clarifications from the applicant32. Independent of the size of the project, offers for funding are made after the submission of a full application, which in England is reviewed and approved by the MMO.

30 The six Union Priorities (UPs) are: UP1: Promoting environmentally sustainable, resource-efficient, innovative, competitive and knowledge–based fisheries; UP2 Fostering environmentally sustainable, resource-efficient, innovative, and competitive and knowledge– based aquaculture; UP3: Fostering the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP); UP4: Increasing employment and territorial cohesion by promoting economic growth, social inclusion and job creation and providing support to employability and labour mobility in coastal and inland communities which depend on fishing and aquaculture, including the diversification of activities within fisheries and into other sectors of maritime economy; UP5 Fostering marketing and processing; UP6: Fostering the implementation of the Integrated Maritime Policy. 31Further details of the selection criteria can be found at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/490778/EMFF _UK_Selection_Critieria.pdf 32For_example:_https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/589126/EMFF_No vember_2016_panel.pdf

Page 18

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Figure 4: Application process for EMFF funding in England, as described by the MMO online. Date of approval of this Selection Criteria by the UK EMFF PMC: 14 December 2015.

Page 19

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

3.1.1 Eligibility criteria

Each funding area (see details within Annex 7), has its own application process and guidance document provided by the MMO. Indeed, there are different eligibility requirements depending on who the applicant is and what is being proposed within their project. However, independent of the funding area, all applications for EMFF funding are firstly evaluated by the EGT regarding basic project and applicant eligibility (termed 'Eligibility Assessment'). This assessment seeks to determine whether an application for funding is eligible for EMFF funding (i.e., meets all of the basic criteria to qualify to be considered for funding under the EMFF scheme). Following this, projects are then examined against Selection Criteria dependent on which of the six funding areas projects have been applied under33. Such criteria enable a qualitative assessment that determines whether the EMFF application merits being awarded funding from the EMFF scheme based on the support for the objectives and results outlined in the OP and its RIs. 3.1.2 Selection criteria

To allocate funding under an Article within the UK’s OP, a range of Selection Criteria34 are used to undertake a qualitative assessment of a projects’ aims and objectives35. This 'selection criteria model' used by the MMO assesses a projects suitability against four areas: 1) the Specific Objective, 2) the Specific RI, 3) other Objectives and RIs, and 4) the deliverability of the application. Each of the four assessment areas is scored as either ‘low’, ‘medium’, or ‘high’36. To examine this in detail, the following section provides a review of the selection criteria that have an environmental aspect, by Article number, listed within the guidance document for each grant.

The Selection Criteria under each funding area (see Table 77 in Annex 8) are useful for assessing projects in terms of their effect on the pressures acting upon Natural Capital assets (e.g., Change in unwanted catches). However, the Selection Criteria are less useful for assessing projects in terms of their contribution to improving the environment (or Natural Capital assets), and specifically the likely benefits to the environment as a result of funding the project.

It was necessary to evaluate how the RIs (see Table 78 in Annex 9) are applied in the project selection process for each of the environmentally relevant Articles, and whether wider environmental issues that do not necessarily have specific RIs are recognised in the process (see Table 79 in Annex 10).

33ihttps://www.gov.uk/guidance/european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund-emff-before-you-apply#funding-you-can- apply-for 34 Articles identified as having an environmental aspect, along with their selection criteria, are listed in Annex 8 Annex 8 35https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/490778/EMF F_UK_Selection_Critieria.pdf 36 From the selection criteria these terms have the following definitions in relation to the Results Indicators: Low - Operation has limited or no contribution to the achievement of the relevant Local Development Strategy; Medium - Operation reasonably contributes to the achievement of the relevant Local Development Strategy; High: Operation significantly contributes to the achievement of the relevant Local Development Strategy. Additionally, for deliverability, these terms are defined as: Low - The application provides a poor level of assurance that that the operation and the benefits, targets, objectives and outcomes will be achieved. Assurance can be assessed by reviewing evidence such as, but not exclusively, the rationale for the application, the experience of the applicant and the achievability of the targets and outcomes.; Medium - The application provides a reasonable level of assurance that that the operation and the benefits, targets, objectives and outcomes will be achieved. Assurance can be assessed by reviewing evidence such as, but not exclusively, the rationale for the application, the experience of the applicant and the achievability of the targets and outcomes; High - The application provides a significant level of assurance that that the operation and the benefits, targets, objectives and outcomes will be achieved. Assurance can be assessed by reviewing evidence such as, but not exclusively, the rationale for the application, the experience of the applicant and the achievability of the targets and outcomes.

Page 20

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

3.1.3 Application of selection criteria

Within this study, 53 projects were evaluated, spanning 11 Articles. Table 79 (Annex 10) provides an overview of the scoring for each project. This work shows that the current Specific Objectives and RI’s (see Table 78 in Annex 9) have limited relevance to the types of projects that are being awarded EMFF funds to deliver environmental benefits in England. A significant proportion of the projects reviewed were found to have scored ‘low’ in three of the four areas assessed in the Selection Criteria Model; the Specific Objective, the Specific RI, and other Objectives and RIs. Yet, these projects all received EMFF funding and scored ‘high’ in the fourth area of the model; deliverability. The comments extracted from the proposal evaluation spreadsheets (Table 79, in Annex 10) reveal that in some cases there were wider environmental benefits that would not be realised using the formal EMFF framework. For example, under Article 27, a project to establish the feasibility of the UK’s first National Marine Park (ENG3783) was awarded under the specific objective to “enhance the competitiveness and viability of fisheries enterprises”, which this project does directly address. Instead, the ultimate aim was to create a means of protecting and enriching the marine environment in the UK, which would have a measurable environmental benefit to England. A further example of this is apparent under Article 40.1, where a proposal has sought funding to map seabed and habitats within a Marine Protected Area (ENG1346). Although this project does not fulfil any of the Specific RIs under this Article, it would have clear environmental benefits. As such, the assessors were able to award project funding where the benefits of the project were clear, despite relatively weak connection to the RIs.

Overall, the analysis indicated that the application process was successful in funding projects that could potentially generate environmental benefits. The E-system and web-based guidance were helpful for applicants and provided a means for applications to be reviewed at an early stage. However, the criteria for reviewing applications provided by the current RIs have few environmental results and, in Natural Capital terms, the existing ones emphasise the contribution to reducing pressures and enhancing flows, with less attention to improving assets. The fact that the RIs emphasise flows is likely to be because the EMFF is designed to achieve several objectives, of which environmental benefits is only one. Despite this, funding has been available for projects where the environmental benefits of the project were clear, despite relatively weak connection to the RIs. Evaluators have been able to work within the framework of the OP to fund projects that may lead to positive environmental benefits. 3.2 Objective 2: Funding Gap

Identification of the strategic gap in England that EMFF funding seeks to address.

This objective set out to identify the strategic gap in England which EMFF funding seeks to address, i.e., what the EMFF uniquely delivers that other existing funding streams or mechanisms cannot, in terms of environmental benefits.

A non-exhaustive working list of funding schemes (n=12) available in England, identified as having some overlap with the EMFF in terms of delivering environmental benefits in the marine environment, are presented in Table 80, Annex 11. For each funding scheme identified it was important to identify the following:

• The scale of the scheme; • The extent to which it is available to stakeholders in the marine, fisheries, and aquaculture sectors; and • The specific environmental issues that they have a mandate to fund.

Schemes were not included for closer investigation within this section if they are currently closed (e.g., Defra Water Environment Grant), or if the scheme was limited in terms of the

Page 21

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) projects funded (e.g., Esmee Fairbairn require strategic level projects that also deliver for people and communities as well as the environment). The focus of this study was on schemes that can fund initiatives in England and that are less likely to be affected by EU-exit, therefore any other EU funding schemes were also excluded. Finally, the eligibility criteria, level of funding (Table 7), and target group, stakeholders (Table 6), were compared to the EMFF to identify where the EMFF fits within the overall funding landscape, the overlaps and the key gaps. 3.2.1 Stakeholder eligibility

Based on the publicly available eligibility criteria, or based on the types of previously funded projects, stakeholder eligibility criteria for six separate schemes, or funding providers, were examined. The analysis indicated that there was a degree of overlap across schemes with the EMFF (Table 6). However, the degree of overlap differed, with public and non-profit sector and academia having a greater number of alternative funding sources for environmental projects.

Access to funding schemes for individual fishers and aquaculture producers, and the private sector generally, was more limited. This is important as the EMFF has supported many small projects with individual fishers, e.g., on engine replacement, vessel modification and enhancing selectivity. In this respect, one of the key benefits of the EMFF is its broad eligibility, with selection based more on relevance and deliverability. Of the stakeholders directly involved with EMFF projects and willing to provide information on their projects, 63% identified the EMFF as the single most important fund for those in the marine/fisheries/aquaculture sector.

Page 22

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 6: Summary of stakeholder eligibility across funding schemes assessed. Green indicates the fund is available to that stakeholder group, grey that they are not specifically excluded and red indicates the fund explicitly precludes the stakeholder group. Based on known eligibility criteria or previously funded projects or organisations Funding scheme National Stakeholder Coastal Defra, Litter Research Funding Lottery Sea- group Community Innovation councils FISH Heritage Changers Fund Fund Fund Fishers Aquaculture producers Other private sector Academia

Local

Authorities Community organisations, Charities

Public sector organisations

3.2.2 Scope of the schemes

Of the 12 schemes examined (Table 80, Annex 11), five ongoing schemes are considered to have some overlap with the environmentally relevant Articles of the EMFF (Table 7). Based on a list of impact themes developed from the analysis of projects funded by the EMFF, funding schemes were compared as to the extent that they funded projects within these themes. This analysis indicated that the EMFF continues to play an important role in addressing a wide range of environmental issues, indeed more than the other schemes examined in Table 80 (Annex 11) and then in more detail in Table 7. Furthermore, one of the additional features of the EMFF is that it is not limited to measures that solely create environmental impacts (i.e., addressing Natural Capital pressures and assets) but that there is scope also to address flows, e.g., in the case of habitat-forming aquaculture where food production, income and employment are also key considerations. The analysis also identified a number of key gaps currently occupied by EMFF funding, in particular for projects focused on employing a co- management/participatory approach, energy efficiency, and through this ocean acidification and climate change37, fishing gear selectivity improvements, spatial planning, stock conservation and restoration and special features/species mapping.

There are areas that the EMFF does not cover that are addressed by other funding schemes (Table 7). There is, for example, £1.8 million available for projects that address marine pollution through the Coastal Community Fund (April 2019 – late March 2021), but no funding committed through the EMFF in England. There are, for other areas such as sustainability- related training, multiple schemes from which projects can draw funding including the EMFF (£1 million between 2014 and 2020) and the Coastal Communities Fund (£2.8 million between April 2019 and late March 2021). However, although the potential for funding exists within the EMFF, only one project (£48,000) has been funded as of February 2019. The reason for this

37 Both ocean acidification and climate change were among the key perceived issues facing the marine environment as listed by stakeholders. Climate change was the most discussed ‘issue’, stated by 73% of respondents (n=8).

Page 23

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) is unclear; either projects are not being selected for funding, stakeholders are not aware that funding covers this area, or there is simply not the demand currently out there to deliver such projects.

It is not possible to determine the exact size of the funding gap occupied by the EMFF due to the fact that details of both available funding and uptake within themes are often not made available by other funding schemes. Some funds offer money to tackle similar issues to the EMFF, but where project information is available it shows that there is little cross over. The Defra Litter Innovation Fund, for example, has around £45,000 available to tackle litter related issues, but only three of its 15 projects (combined value £19,88038) address marine plastics. This is an issue that is currently under-committed under the EMFF, with projects so far receiving £47,756 of the £131,039 budget to tackle “lost fishing gear and marine litter” (Article 40.1.a.). Similarly, areas such as habitat forming aquaculture, selectivity and aspects of marine spatial planning were environmental benefits where the EMFF had a particularly important role.

38http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/litter-innovation-fund

Page 24

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 7: Summary of the funding available annually through the EMFF and five other funding schemes to projects tackling environmental issues through key impact themes. Themes were identified thought evaluation of the EMFF programme, stakeholder engagement and review of key policy documents (e.g., 25 YEP) Alternative funding sources* EMFF funds Coastal National EMFF impact theme committed Defra, Litter Funding Sea- Community Lottery annually39 Innovation FISH Changers Fund40 Heritage Fund Co-management/participatory approach £107k £1 million £3.3 million Connecting freshwater habitats £331k £3.3 million Energy efficiency (covering climate change and £173k £600k ocean acidification) Fisheries management £10k £1 million Habitat forming aquaculture £209k Invasive species £24k £3.3 million Illegal Unreported and Unregulated fishing (UP3) £3.1M £1 million Marine pollution† £0 £600k £3.3 million Marine plastics £10k £75k £3.3 million £30k Physical impact of fishing gear £4k Research £589k £1 million £3.3 million £30k Selectivity £517k Spatial planning £35k Special feature/species mapping £79k £1 million £3.3 million Stock conservation and restoration £81k £3.3 million £30k Sustainability training £9k £1.35 million Sustainable seafood £112k £1.35 million £30k Circa <£2.9 million £75k41 (£10k Circa £1 Circa £3.3 £30k44 Total >£5.7 million (£50k minimum grant limit) million42 million43 (£12k grant project size) limit) * Figures given as funding available per year while the scheme is live. † Excluding marine plastics

39 Average annual EMFF funding between January 2014 – February 2019. 40 These figures are best estimates, as the funding scheme did not engage with this study. £40 million available (in total) April 2019 to end of March 2021. 41 £112k awarded between April 2017 and October 2018 (18 months). (£112k / 18) x 12 = £74.6k. 42 Roughly £1 million allocated per year (pers. comm.). 43 Between 2000 and the end of March 2017, £57.5 million was awarded to 245 projects that included marine or coastal capital and community activity. £57.5 million / 17.25 = 3.33 million per year. 44 The funding available is determined by the donations received by the charity, but is £30,000 per year on average (pers. comm.).

Page 25

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) 3.3 Objective 3: Environmental Benefits of EMFF Projects

Assessment of the effectiveness of projects successfully funded since the establishment of the EMFF.

Project reporting was intended to be the primary information source to address Objective 3 by providing the evidence for EMFF project effectiveness. However, during the initial stages of this study it became clear that the systematic reporting of EMFF project impacts and environmental benefits is limited. This is due, in part, to the fact that very few projects have reached the point at which reporting progress towards their targets is required. Therefore, it became necessary to address and report on Objective 3 using approaches and reporting against Objective 5 (case studies) respectively. Therefore, all outcomes that were to be reported under Objective 3 are now reported under Objective 5. 3.4 Objective 4: Stakeholder Perceptions of EMFF Effectiveness

Seek input from the stakeholders in the marine environment and fisheries sectors to assess the extent to which existing criteria and bids are/have been effective in improving the marine environment, habitats and species.

Objective 4 involved identification of the key environmental pressures facing England’s marine environment at present, and an evaluation of whether the EMFF addresses such pressures. To complete this, relevant literature and policy documents were reviewed and input sought from stakeholders. This section, therefore, examines the relevance of the current EMFF (in terms of the environmental issues addressed), to a) pressures facing the environment (with an emphasis on the marine environment), and b) current policy priorities. 3.4.1 Pressures facing the environment

Public perception studies have shown that the issues which are most visible to the public (e.g., marine litter and marine pollution) are generally highlighted as the most important threats (Jefferson et al. 2014). Complex issues, including habitat degradation, loss of biodiversity and ocean acidification (although highlighted as important threats) tend to be identified by individuals with a greater association with the marine environment (Jefferson et al., 2014; Spence et al., 2018).

To explore stakeholder perceptions on key issues facing the aquatic (marine and freshwater) environment within England, a series of interviews were held with representatives of key stakeholders in the seafood industry and those with a wider environmental remit (n=25). These included stakeholders across the following sector groups: governmental organisations; non- governmental organisations (NGO); universities; commercial fishing organisations, and a recreational fishing organisation. Interviewees were asked to identify in their opinion what the main issues facing the marine environment are today.

A broad range of responses were given and the issues raised were condensed into the following seven categories: climate change; fisheries management; habitat degradation; marine litter; invasive species; politics, and human capital. Table 8 shows the number and percentage of responses given by stakeholders across sector groups.

Page 26

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 8: Issues facing the marine and aquatic environment, as identified by various stakeholder groups, by the number of mentions each issue received

Fisheries Climate Habitat Marine Invasive Human Sector manage Politics change degradation litter species capital ment Governmental Organisations 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 (n=7) Non- Governmental 2 2 4 0 0 0 1 Organisations (n=4) Universities 3 3 2 0 0 0 0 (n=3) Commercial Fishing 3 10 0 0 0 0 1 Organisations (n=10) Recreational Fishing 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 Organisations (n=1) Total 12 19 8 3 1 1 5 % 24.49 38.78 16.33 6.12 2.04 2.04 10.20

Issues related to fisheries management were identified most frequently, at around 40% of total responses, and was mentioned by all sector groups (Table 8). These responses highlighted issues of IUU fishing, inadequate fisheries management and overfishing.

2 Number of mentions (n) mentionsof Number

0 Governmental Non-Governmental Universities (n=3) Commercial Fishing Recreational Fishing Organisations (n=7) Organisations (n=4) Sector Organisations (n=10) Organisations (n=1) Human capital Politics Invasive species Marine litter

Habitat degradation Fisheries management Climate change

Figure 5: Key issues facing the marine and aquatic environments, as reported by stakeholder group

Page 27

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Climate change was the second-most common response, equating to approximately 25% of total responses, and was mentioned by all sector groups. These responses frequently highlighted the issue of rising sea temperatures and ocean acidification. Habitat degradation was the third-most common response, equating to 16% of total responses. These responses included habitat degradation of freshwater environments, nutrient run-off and pollution. However, stakeholders from commercial and recreational fishers did not recognise habitat degradation as a key issue facing the marine environment in England.

Governmental organisations, including statutory nature conservation bodies and regulators, identified the broadest array of issues. Climate change, fisheries management and human capital (e.g., lack of scientific understanding or poor education) were the most frequently identified issues by stakeholders from this sector. The lack of realistic and practical regional management measures for inshore fisheries was stressed as a prominent issue in relation to fisheries management. Additionally, governmental organisations were one of only two sectors to identify marine litter as an issue facing the marine environment in England.

NGOs similarly identified a broad range of issues, with a stress on habitat degradation. This issue was raised by all four NGOs interviewed, with poor river water quality resulting from of the use of modern pollutants mentioned.

Stakeholders from universities with active marine research departments identified climate change and fisheries management to be the most pressing issues facing the marine environment in England. Challenges surrounding overfishing and damage to gear were mentioned here specifically. Similarly, stakeholders from commercial and recreational fishing organisations also perceived climate change and fisheries management as major issues.

The majority (58%) of interviewees asked (n=1145) thought EMFF projects were likely to effectively address the environmental aims of the programme; 25% gave a mixed response to this question, while 17% were unsure. Of respondents, 60% also believe that the criteria for EMFF funding could be effective for selecting projects that address the key environmental threats that they identified. Of those interviewed, 73%46 thought the EMFF was limited in its effectiveness at addressing threats identified by the stakeholders (Figure 5). In addition, 18% of respondents thought that the EMFF was not effective at tackling what they perceived to be the main issues facing the marine environment. 3.4.2 Current policy priorities

In recent years the UK government has committed to improve the status of the natural environment. Key to these commitments is the 25 YEP, developed to “help the natural world regain and retain good health”, leave the “environment in a better state than we found it and pass on to the next generation a natural environment protected and enhanced for the future”47. The 25 YEP has identified a number of issues that need to be addressed in order to achieve the goals of:

• Clean air and water; • Thriving populations of plants and wildlife; • Reduced harmful impacts resulting from flooding and drought; • Sustainable and efficient use of natural resources; and • Enhanced beauty and heritage of the natural environment.

45 During the first round of stakeholder engagement 46 During the first round of stakeholder engagement 47 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/25-year-environment-plan

Page 28

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 9: Environmental issues highlighted in the UK 25 Year Environment Plan (Defra, 2018) that are relevant to this study 25 Year Specific threats to tackle Environment Plan Goal Clean air Air pollution from total emissions Use of petrol and diesel engines Clean and plentiful River fragmentation mechanisms water Water quality (in terms of drinking water and enhancement of biodiversity) Loss of water (water company leakage) Pollution (bacterial blooms) Thriving plants and Loss of biodiversity wildlife Lack of, and inadequate, management of protected sites Unsustainable populations of key species due to improper age structures Overexploited, unproductive, damaged seafloor habitats Unfavourable conditions of terrestrial and freshwater protected sites Unsustainable and unsuitable habitat outside of protected sites Reduction of threatened, iconic or economically important species Sustainable and Low resource productivity due to overexploitation efficient use of Overexploited fish stocks fished beyond the level at MSY resources Ensuring that food is produced sustainably and profitably Enhanced beauty Loss of beauty and heritage of the natural environment through improvement and heritage of the of its environmental value natural Loss and lack of high quality, accessible, natural spaces close (recreational) environment Disengagement of some societal sectors from improving the environment Mitigating and Maintaining cutting of greenhouse gas emissions adapting to climate Lack of consideration of climate change in investment, management and change policy Minimising waste High levels of avoidable waste High levels of plastic waste Waste crime and illegal waste High levels of marine plastic pollution (land- and sea-derived) Enhancing Risk of disease to animals and plants biosecurity Risk of invasive and non-native species Lack of biosecurity protection

In addition to the 25 YEP, the Fisheries White Paper (FWP) sets out the intention to develop world-class fisheries management in the UK (Defra 2018). The major environmental issues that the FWP aims to address include climate change, fisheries management (including overfishing, discards, recreational fishing), and IUU fishing. In addition, the FWP also seeks to address evidence gaps, while also improving the science base supporting fisheries management and policy, and lastly to address issues associated with EU exit. Finally, the EMFF ends in 2020 and a new domestic replacement scheme is being developed. While it is the intention that the UK will not be taking part in the next iteration of the EMFF programme (2021-2027) currently being developed, it is also worth considering the extent to which the future EMFF might address environmental issues. This is still in early stages of development but is expected to have a wide range of measures that support progress towards the goals of the CFP (e.g., European Parliament 2018). These goals have been identified as:

Page 29

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

• Foster sustainable fisheries and conserve marine biological resources; • Generate competitive but sustainable aquaculture markets to enhance food security; • Help the sustainable blue economy to grow and develop prosperous coastal communities; and • Strengthen the Union’s international ocean governance to allow for safe, secure clean and sustainably managed oceans. 3.4.3 Relevance of the current EMFF funding scheme

Overall, the existing EMFF programme is relevant to both the current policy priorities in England and the issues identified by stakeholders (Table 10). However, only 60% of respondents thought that the criteria for EMFF funding could be effective for selecting projects that address these threats. This suggests that amongst stakeholder the EMFF may be perceived more as a fund that provides support to the fisheries sector than a means for generating environmental benefits, despite the number of projects that have been funded to deliver environmental benefits.

Page 30

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 10: Summary of the environmental issues highlighted through stakeholder engagement, literature and UK policy documents and the EMFF’s relevance to these issues

Pressures highlighted in: Pressures addressed in / by: Addressed by anticipated Threat Current EMFF Stakeholder 25 future 2021- Literature FWP (relevant impact engagement YEP 2027 EMFF theme) programme:

(Energy Climate change ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ efficiency; ✔ research) Ocean (Energy ✔ ✔ ✔ ❌ ✔ ❌ acidification efficiency) Inadequate (Research; stock fisheries ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ conservation and ✔ management restoration) Management of marine ❌ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ (Spatial planning) ❌ protected areas Marine spatial (Research ✔ ❌ ❌ ❌ ✔ ❌ planning Spatial planning) (Selectivity; Overfishing ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ research; ✔ aquaculture) Illegal, unregulated ✔ ✔ ❌ ✔ ✔ UP 3* ✔ and unreported fisheries (IUU) (Research; Recreational connecting activities freshwater ❌ ✔ ❌ ✔ ✔ ❌ (including habitats; fishing) conservation and restoration) Habitat (Connecting degradation ✔ ✔ ✔ ❌ ✔ freshwater ❌ (freshwater) habitats) Marine litter ✔ ✔ ✔ ❌ ✔ (Marine litter) ✔ Pollution (freshwater and ✔ ✔ ✔ ❌ ❌ ✔ marine) Nutrient runoff ✔ ✔ ✔ ❌ ❌ ❌ Inadequate scientific ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ (Research) ✔ understanding (Invasive species management; Invasive ✔ ✔ ✔ ❌ ✔ special features / ✔ species species mapping) Parasites, eutrophication and disease ✔ ✔ ✔ ❌ ❌ ❌ (from fish farming) * Control and enforcement issues are funded separately from the projects.

Page 31

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) 3.5 Objective 5: Case Studies

Identification of various ways that the EMFF scheme has been used to deliver environmental benefits

This section provides an overview of the impacts achieved to date and the progress towards impact across a number of environmental themes. In addition, the section reports on the experience of using Natural Capital indicators to assess impact and measure environmental benefits within each project.

The EMFF has addressed a wide range of environmental issues through the projects funded to date. To explore the impact of the programme, 53 projects from seven environmental impact themes were selected. The themes and projects represent a mixture of different approaches, with projects that generate environmental benefits from both direct and indirect means. In addition, projects selected also included those that addressed environmental issues in a focused manner, targeting a particular fishery or policy, as well as those that sought to bring about change through contributions to a wider collective effort. Specific Natural Capital impact indicators were developed for each project (see Annex 12), covering the three key elements of pressures, assets and flows that were the basis for identifying data sources and approaches for collecting data. The experiences of doing so are discussed in Section 3.5.4 and specific lessons learnt presented in Section 3.7. Table 81, Annex 12, offers a comparison between the indicators developed in this study and those presented in the 25 YEP, and explains why separate indicators were generated.

Project beneficiaries were contacted using the contact details provided by the MMO and in publicly available documents. To maximise participation, where stakeholders did not respond, follow-up emails and phone calls were made. Some stakeholders were also contacted by the MMO on behalf of the study. Despite this, it was not possible to engage with all project stakeholders during the study. At the same time as collecting information about impacts and progress towards impact of each project, information was also collected that contributed to other objectives, primarily Objectives 2 and 6. For example, project beneficiaries were asked about their experience of impact reporting requirements and any data that they may be collecting to capture progress towards their stated aims.

While measuring impact appears conceptually straightforward, it is often not the case. One challenge encountered in the study was quantifying and attributing impact. The environment is affected not only by the particular project or project cluster, but is responding dynamically to a number of processes, both internal (e.g., changing recruitment rates) and external (e.g., environmental conditions), many of which may have a more significant effect on the environment than the project intervention. This clearly creates challenges in attributing change to a specific project or project cluster.

While the EMFF programme period is 2014-2020, in England the programme started in 2015 and was officially launched and opened for applications for a limited set of measures on 18 January 2016. The remaining measures opened for applications on 23 May 2016. Approaching the mid-way point in the EMFF programme, approximately 66% of England’s allotted EMFF funding had been allocated (as of February 2019). This created an additional challenge in analysis, as with so many projects only recently funded (after May 2016), many of them were at an early stage (e.g., Activities or Outputs) along the impact pathway (Figure 1). In addition, for 27 projects it was difficult to conclude exactly where along the pathway the project had reached, due to a lack of published information or an inability to engage the relevant stakeholders. Where this was the case, these were recorded then as ‘Not possible to establish’ (Table 11).

Page 32

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 11: Summary of the current stage along the impact pathway currently achieved by the case study projects Stage along impact Number of Project codes pathway projects 1. Activities 5 ENG2753; ENG1400; ENG1723; ENG3305; ENG2395 2. Outputs 4 ENG3590; ENG1964; ENG2283; ENG3055 3. Outcomes 5 ENG1777; ENG2743; ENG3063; ENG3399; ENG2157 4. Impacts 20 ENG2407; ENG2755; ENG2781; ENG2107; ENG2241; ENG2292; ENG2471; ENG3118; ENG1479; ENG2235; Likely to have reached impact stage*: ENG1215; ENG136; ENG1372; ENG1462; ENG1103; ENG1468; ENG1842; ENG1822; ENG2004; ENG1908 Not possible to 19 ENG2364; ENG3121; ENG2245; ENG2358; ENG2856; establish ENG3165; ENG3227; ENG3231; ENG3576; ENG2677; ENG2678; ENG3082; ENG3291; ENG3061; ENG1210; ENG1318; ENG2153; ENG2838; ENG1812 * No information from the project but the end date for the project has passed.

Using the case study methodology, it was possible to follow projects’ progress along the impact pathway to identify project outcomes and, where possible and plausible, impacts. In the section below, details of the specific Natural Capital indicators that were developed for each case study and examples of outcomes and impacts achieved, or that might plausibly be expected, are described and discussed. This is followed by a section that describes some of the experiences of applying the Natural Capital framework to the assessment of environmental benefits of projects, which could be useful for any future funding scheme. 3.5.1 Examples of the impacts identified

The following sub-sections highlight projects and environmental benefits realised within each of the seven environmental impact case studies. Each of these is summarised in an infographic.

Page 33

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Connecting Freshwater Habitats

The 'connecting freshwater habitats' case study includes projects funded to mitigate the effects of river habitat fragmentation due to infrastructure, such as weirs. These effects are greatest for species such as Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), sea trout (Salmo trutta) and European eel (Anguilla anguilla), that migrate between salt water and freshwater (White and Knights, 1997; Aarestrup and Koed, 2003; Gowans et al., 2003). Increasing the connectivity of freshwater habitats can benefit species such as these by increasing the potential for completion of their life cycles.

The importance of projects focused on connecting freshwater habitats was made clear during stakeholder engagement, with several stakeholders identifying degradation of freshwater habitats as a major issue facing the aquatic environment in and around England. Fragmentation of freshwater habitats can also carry a high financial cost, especially in cases where emergency assistance is required to assist upstream migration. For example, low water events in 2007, 2011 and 2016 alone cost the Environment Agency (EA) a total of £40,000 in emergency measures to facilitate Atlantic salmon movement.

It is estimated that there are over 19,053 man-made barriers to freshwater species migration in the England (Jones et al. 2019). Of these, the EA has identified approximately 115 as having a high impact/priority48. A total of 11 projects have been funded by the EMFF in England that address connectivity of freshwater habitats, focusing on the installation of fish passes and removal of weirs. These projects represent a total commitment of EMFF funding of £1,415,521, with an average project commitment of £128,683. All of these projects have addressed Union Priority 1 (Articles 40.1.b-g, 44.6), and contributed to several of the 25 YEP’s goals, especially ‘Thriving plants and wildlife’ (Annex 13, Table 82). Additionally, all projects within this case study stated, in their business cases, that their funding applications came in response to a call, within England, to get projects funded that addressed issues related to Water Framework Directive (WFD) drivers.

In order to evaluate the success of projects within the 'connecting freshwater habitats' theme, four of the nine projects were selected for further investigation (Table 12). The selected projects include those that represent significant investment (e.g., ENG1777) and utilise alternative approaches to increasing connectivity, specifically removing barriers such as weirs (e.g., ENG2407) and installing fish passes (e.g., ENG2743).

Table 12: Summary of the projects funded in England through the EMFF that were selected for the connecting of freshwater habitats case study EMFF EMFF Project code Project title funding funding priorities value (£) ENG1777 England inland waters migration priorities - Flint Mill weir Union 240,000 ENG2407 Ennerdale Mill weir removal Priority 1 203,731 (Articles ENG2743 Springs of Rivers - Mill Street fish pass 40.1.b-g 103,649 ENG2753 Springs of Rivers - Corve fish pass 44.6) 89,914

Indicators were developed by MRAG based on the intended change associated with each of the projects, and against the three components of Natural Capital (Table 13). These indicators were the basis of measuring success, or potential success, and environmental benefits delivered by the projects. The indicators also included potential dis-benefits that might result, e.g., enhanced connectivity allowing invasive species access to more of a river or increased fish mortality from improved recreational fishing opportunities. Environmental benefits of the

48 Pers. comm. with a project stakeholder

Page 34

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) four projects were assessed through interviews with project stakeholders and a literature review of the success of previous similar projects.

Table 13: Possible environmental impacts that could result from connecting freshwater habitats projects and the appropriate Natural Capital indicators to track any change Natural Capital Outcomes Potential impact Indicator* component Abundance of non-native Spread of non-native species species (n) Decreased habitat Dendritic Connectivity Pressures 49 Improved habitat fragmentation Index (km) connectivity Increased fishing mortality as a result of catches and catch-and- Mortality (n) release fishing

Increased stocks Increased stocks of migratory Abundance of migratory species within river systems species (n)

Increased stocks of species Abundance of species

Assets dependent on migratory species dependent on migratory Increased sale of within river systems species (n) fishing permits Increased populations of Abundance of endangered species endangered species (n) Increased catches from Commercial and Flows increased fishable area recreational catches (n) * identified by authors based on Natural Capital component

Project progress

Projects evaluated differed with regards to their progress (Figure 6) with only one reaching the stage where it has been possible to assess environmental benefits.

Figure 6: Progress along the impact pathway of projects within the connecting freshwater habitats case study

Environmental benefits

The observed and expected environmental benefits and Natural Capital indicators identified for the four projects are summarised in Table 14 and the indicators compared to those in the 25 YEP in Table 81 (Annex 12). While it is not possible at this stage to confirm or quantify the environmental benefits, there was evidence that the connectivity had increased and local stakeholders expected that the benefits would increase over the next few years. Previous studies of improved riverine connectivity (through removal of weirs and installation of fish passes) have demonstrated the environmental benefits in terms of stock abundance of both migratory and coarse fish (White and Knights, 1997; Aarestrup and Koed, 2003; Aarestrup et al., 2003; Fjeldstad et al., 2012; Shaw et al., 2016). The increased stocks could lead to

49 Dendritic connectivity is the longitudinal connectivity within a Dendritic Ecological Network (e.g., river or stream); the number of barriers along the length of a river network. More detail of this concept can be found within Cote et al., (2009).

Page 35

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) increases in permit and licence sales for fishing above the weirs, increasing income and human interaction with the natural environment.

Construction of fish passes on the River Ouse and improvements in water quality are perceived to have increased fish biodiversity, and a stakeholder commented that between 25 and 30 fish species are now observed 50. Such increase in fish biodiversity within this system has resulted in an increase in local fishing being observed, with fishers opting to fish within the local river rather than travelling to distant river systems51. The increased popularity of local fishing is likely to draw other recreational anglers to the area, further contributing to increasing economic benefits for local tackle shops and permit dispensers. Furthermore, the presence of endangered species within a river system also provides an additional cultural ecosystem service, with the presence of the species potentially increasing both educational and recreational attraction (Hooper et al., 2019).

Table 14: Observed and expected impacts connected with each Natural Capital indicator associated with the connecting freshwater habitats case study Natural Environmental Natural Capital Project Capital Observed or expected impact impact indicator component ENG2407 Pressures Potential Stocks of non- Expected: Monitoring and risk ENG1777 spread of non- native species (n) assessments for signal crayfish native species suggest risk is minimal ENG2743 Observed and expected: ENG2753 Stakeholders report that fishing effort is expected to increase upstream. This has been Potential observed on the Ouse River mortality as a system with improvements to result of Fishing mortality river quality and connectivity catches and (n) encouraging anglers to fish catch-and- locally release fishing

No information on fish mortality as a result of changes in effort was available Observed: Weirs have been successfully removed and fish passes installed, successfully increasing connectivity 16 km of additional habitat has been made available to migratory species. Decreased Dendritic habitat Connectivity Expected: A further 103 km of fragmentation Index river will be available on completion of the remaining projects. The Dendritic Connectivity Index (DCI) value for the River Ehen was 38.5. Following removal this would increase to the maximum value of 100

50 Pers. comm. with a project stakeholder 51 Ibid

Page 36

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Natural Environmental Natural Capital Project Capital Observed or expected impact impact indicator component Increased Observed: Information only stocks and Stocks of available for ENG2407 where distribution of migratory species fishers report increased salmon migratory (n) catches upstream of the former commercial fish weir site No evidence available to assess; however, it is expected that with increased abundance Increased of migratory species (e.g., populations of Stocks of species salmon), populations dependant species dependent on on these (i.e., freshwater pearl dependent on migratory species mussels) will benefit. migratory (n) species within river systems Expected: In the case of pearl mussels it is unclear if the Assets populations will increase or simply decline at a reduced rate.

Increased Expected: No specific monitoring has been conducted; populations of Increased however, stakeholders endangered populations of associated with all four projects species endangered indicated that they expected eel species (n) populations to increase within the rivers

Increased No evidence of increased Commercial and catches from income to date as projects still Flows recreational increased ongoing or only recently catches (n) fishable area completed

Summary

Of the 115 high priority barriers in England, approximately 50% have already been altered to mitigate the barrier to migration through projects such as those investigated in this case study. Based on Environment Agency (2013) figures used in the business cases for the four projects assessed, targeting the remaining 58 high priority barriers would restore an estimated additional 1,725.5 km52. This would result in benefits with the equivalent Natural Capital value of £113,260,893 over the assumed 30 year appraisal period for these operations. The increase in value of benefits, service and annual flows is expected to exceed the value of the EMFF investment in the four projects after only one and a half years. Possible dis-benefits associated with restoring habitat connectivity could be increased human disturbance of the natural environment (Welcomme, 1995; Kummu, 2008). This introduces another pressure which may affect some of the species (including herons, kingfisher and otters) that otherwise benefit from restoration of the habitat.

52 The annual value of £3,500 per kilometre of river restored was calculated using National Water Environment Benefit Survey (NWEBS) official values (Environment Agency, 2013). The River Ouse sits within the Derwent (Humber) River Basin District (Environment Agency, 2014). The NWEBS states that the annual value per km of river within the ‘high’ region of this catchment is £21,000 when classified as “moderate to good”. This value was divided by six to give £3,500 per km, as ‘fish’ make up only one of six components contributing to this annual value

Page 37

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Page 38

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Page 39

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Energy efficiency

This case study focused on projects that received funding in order to increase energy efficiency within the wider industries involved in fishing, including capture fisheries and the processing and retail sectors. The aim is to better understand the potential benefits to Natural Capital in terms of pressures (e.g., CO2e emissions leading to climate change and ocean acidification).

Projects funded under the EMFF that address energy efficiency all aim to address the global need to mitigate climate change, and tie to the UK government’s recent commitment to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 205053. They aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing fuel consumption54, thereby contributing to climate change and ocean acidification mitigation; key targets of the 25 YEP55 (Annex 13, Table 82).

Twelve English EMFF funded projects (Table 15) were selected for the case study, across three sub-themes: engine upgrades56, hull modifications57 and green technology58. These projects represent a cumulative commitment of £272,612 in EMFF funds; £22,718 average.

53 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-announcement-to-end-uks-contribution-to-climate-change 54 The UK government’s emission conversion factors for 2018 greenhouse gas reporting were used as a reference to convert energy consumption (e.g., kWh) to carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). This enables an assessment to be made of the change in CO2e emissions. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas- reporting-conversion-factors-2018 55https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/693158/25- year-environment-plan.pdf (last accessed 29/04/2019) 56 Replacing older less efficient engines with newer more efficient engines of lesser or equal power output. EU fishing fleets consume significant volumes of fuel and it is now understood that the implementation and modernisation of engine systems could potentially achieve a reduction in fuel consumption by up to 20% (https://energyefficiency-fisheries.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=e4c681d4-c0a8-475b-aa64- 5be91c43dbb9&groupId=12762). 57 The retrofitting of bulbous bows on previously traditionally-shaped fishing vessel hulls. A bulbous bow is a protruding ‘bulb’ on the bow of a ship that sits just below the waterline. This protrusion modifies how water flows around the hull and can reduce frictional resistance, wave making resistance, and thereby increase fuel efficiency (https://www.dnvgl.com/maritime/energy-efficiency/efficiency-finder.html) 58 For this case study ‘green technology’ can be defined as technology that significantly increases energy efficiency. This sub-theme will focus on Light Emitting Diode (LED) lighting, which provides an opportunity to reduce energy consumption on land.

Page 40

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 15: Summary of the projects funded in England through the EMFF that were selected for the energy efficiency case study EMFF Case study Project EMFF funding funding Project title sub-theme code priority value (£) Replacement of old Ford Dover engine ENG2471 with new more efficient and economical 2,418 Ford engine Replace current old Ford Sabre engine ENG2677 with new more economic less HP 3,109 Engine ENG2678 Modernisation of main engine 1,839 Engine Engine modification and overhaul to Union Priority 1 ENG3082 2,228 upgrades increase efficiency (Article 41.2) Replacement of current engine for less 1,452 ENG3118 power and increased efficiency ENG3291 Engine replacement and efficiency 41,884 improvements Replacement of current engine to ENG3399 increase efficiency and reduce oil 1,963 consumption Improving fuel efficiency of MFV ‘Lloyd ENG1479 26,400 Hull Tyler’ Union Priority 1 modification Improving fuel efficiency through (Article 41.1.a-c) ENG3061 15,900 bulbous bow modification Boilers, LED lighting, lock knuckle ENG2004 116,054 Green fendering, fish market Union Priority 1 technology (Article 43.1) ENG2235 Billingsgate LED light retrofit 24,715

Indicators for each of the components of Natural Capital within the case study sub-themes were identified (Table 16) and compared to those in the 25 YEP in Table 81 (Annex 12). Because of the scale of the projects and the issue of attributing change - for example global CO2 - to individual projects, indicators were developed for the possible project outcomes rather than impacts.

Page 41

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 16: Possible environmental impacts that could result from energy efficiency projects and the appropriate Natural Capital indicators to track any change Natural Case study Outcomes Capital Potential impact* Indicator** sub-theme component Reduction in the rate of Change in annual Reduction in Pressure climate change energy/fuel Engine greenhouse consumption Reduction in the rate of upgrades gas emissions (litres/kWh) and ocean acidification and hull CO2 equivalent modifications Change in number Increased Increased fishing mortality Pressure of gear-hours fishing effort (unintended) fished (hours) Reduction in the rate of Change in annual Reduction in energy/fuel Green climate change greenhouse Pressure consumption technology gas emissions Reduction in the rate of (litres/kWh) and ocean acidification CO2 equivalent * based on project documents and information from project stakeholders ** identified by authors based on Natural Capital component

Project Progress

In order to assess progress towards impacts across the three sub-themes, the case study relied on stakeholder engagement, a literature review, and information provided by the MMO (including offer letters, selection matrixes and business cases). Stakeholder engagement59 highlighted the extent of progress along the impact pathway for each (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Progress along the impact pathway of projects examined within the energy efficiency case study; where it was possible to establish

Results

The results for the energy efficiency projects indicate that engine replacement, hull modifications and green technologies have all increased energy efficiency, reduced fuel consumption and, as a result, contributed to emissions reductions (Table 17). One of the project beneficiaries of an engine replacement reported a reduction in fuel consumption of 30 to 70 litres per week (representing between 15 and 32% of fuel used). Taking the average value, this represents an annual reduction of around seven tonnes of CO2e from this one

59 11 project beneficiaries were contacted and followed up by the MMO. In the end, five projects agreed to take part.

Page 42

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

60 project, or an ongoing annual reduction of 4.81kg CO2e for every £1 of EMFF funding . This result is broadly consistent with the literature, which indicates that engines upgrades can lead to decreased fuel consumption and increased efficiency; circa 20% (Notti and Sala, 2014). Bulbous bow hull modification also resulted in a reduction in fuel consumption of around 5%, which was in line with the initial project targets. It was not possible to quantify this reduction through stakeholder engagement, as no estimate of fuel use (in litres) was available. However, using information from the literature, it is possible to estimate that a 5% fuel use reduction will be in the region of 13,152 litres annually61. This is equivalent to an annual saving of 35 tonnes 62 63 of CO2e or 1.67kg CO2e for every £1 of EMFF funding . Benefits from energy efficiency projects were also seen on land. Project ENG2235 was funded by the EMFF to retrofit five floodlight towers with LED lighting, replacing 36 incandescent lights. This resulted in a 12% (8,473 kWh) decrease in energy consumption in 2018, equivalent to 2.4 tonnes of CO2e, or an ongoing annual reduction of 100g CO2e for every £1 of EMFF funding.

One concern was that with increased efficiency, fishers might be able to choose to afford to fish more rather than make the saving64. While it was not possible to confirm this or to quantify any change in fishing effort, all beneficiaries of hull modifications confirmed that, as a result of the modifications, they are now able to fish in conditions where they couldn’t previously.

60 50L x 52 = 2600L (diesel saved annually). 2600L x 2.68779 (kg CO2e produced per L of diesel). This is an annual project reduction of 6,988kg CO2e from EMFF funding at 4.81kg CO2e for every £1 of EMFF funding. 61 Average days at sea (141.5) for a trawler in Southwest England and the average fuel consumption (1,859L) per day for this type of vessel (Lawrence et al., 2017), it is possible to estimate that a 5% fuel use reduction will be in the region of 13,152 litres annually. 62 UK Governments 2018 conversion factors - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas- reporting-conversion-factors-2018 63 13,152 L x 2.68779 (kg CO2e produced per L of diesel) = 35 tonnes of CO2e. This is an annual project reduction of 35,350kg CO2e from EMFF funding at 1.67kg CO2e for every £1 of EMFF funding. 64 This would be dependent on a number of factors including method of fishing and access to sufficient quota or to non-quota stocks.

Page 43

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 17: Observed and expected impacts connected with each Natural Capital indicator associated with the energy efficiency case study Natural Natural Case study Environmental Observed or expected Capital Capital sub-theme impact impact component indicator Reduction in the Change in Observed: All projects that rate of climate annual had reached the outcome change energy/fuel stage have reported a consumption decrease in fuel consumption. Engine Reduction in the (litres / kWh) Reductions were between 5% Pressure upgrades rate of Ocean and CO2 (hull modification) and 15-35% and hull Acidification equivalent (engine replacement)

modifications Change in Observed: Not possible to Increased fishing number of quantify at this stage, but effort gear-hours initial reports suggest that (unintended) fished effort has increased as a (hours) result of these projects. Change in Observed: Project ENG2235 annual reported an 8,473kWh Reduction in energy/fuel Green decrease in energy Pressure greenhouse gas consumption technology consumption in the year post emissions (litres / kWh) project equivalent to 2.4 and CO2 tonnes of CO2e equivalent

Looking at the future potential, the average EMFF funding allocated for a fishing vessel engine upgrade was £7,842. Upgrading the remaining active English fishing vessels built before 2009 (1,368 vessels) would therefore cost an estimated £17,338,163 (equivalent to about 23% of the £77 million of EMFF funding allocated to England; 2014 - 2020). Assuming a conservative 10% decrease in overall fuel consumption, annual fleet-wide savings would be in the region 65,66 of £5 million and CO2e emissions would fall by around 22,000 tonnes (Table 18). This would represent about 0.009% of the UK 2018-2022 emissions target67, which is valued at £280,72068 annually or £4,087,321 over the assumed 20 year case study appraisal period.

65 Based on a per litre price of diesel (for fishers) of 60p. 66 Over the assumed 20 year case study appraisal period, cost saving to fishers as a result of decreased fuel purchasing would be in the region of £94 million. 67https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-greenhouse-gas- emissions/2010-to-2015-government-policy-greenhouse-gas-emissions 68 Social cost of carbon, given as £12.76 per tonne of CO2e - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/updated- short-term-traded-carbon-values-used-for-uk-policy-appraisal-2018

Page 44

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 18: Scaling potential for engine upgrades to the English fishing fleet69 Number of active Average Fuel Annual emissions Fuel used Vessels English fishing annual use per (tonnes)70 per year category vessels built days at day (litres) before 2009 sea (litres) CO2e CH4 N2O Under 1114 135 133 19,948,294 52,403 8 741 10m Over 10m 261 175 1,400 63,809,960 167,625 27 2,372 Total 1375 83,758,253 220,028 35 3,113 10% reduction in fuel consumption 8,375,825 22,003 4 311

Summary

The results suggest that projects have made progress towards the broad environmental aims under which they were funded – “Energy efficiency and mitigation of climate change”71. There was evidence of reductions in fuel use and energy consumption across the three case study sub-themes. From the projects sampled, investments at sea appeared to deliver increased gains in efficiency and CO2e reductions. However, this is based on a limited number of projects. It is also worth highlighting that the lack of data collection by individual project beneficiaries has made it difficult to quantify progress towards either the targets set by the MMO as a condition of funding or the Natural Capital indicators. This possibly due, in part, to the fact that in some of the targets may not be effective at capturing the environmental benefits for which the projects were funded: for example, cost saving is not a particularly good measure of energy efficiency as it may be affected by changes in energy costs.

69Vessel numbers, and years of construction, were taken from the UK vessel registry (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/vessel-lists-10-metres-and-under and https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/vessel-lists-over-10-metres). Vessel nationality was determined by ‘Administrative Port’. This gave 1797 under 10m and 421 over 10m vessels in England that were built after 2009. 2009 was chosen as a cutoff date for engines potentially in need of modernisation. The number of vessels in each category, 1797 under 10m and 421 over 10m, was then divided by 0.62 to give the proportion of vessels believed to be ‘active’ according to a recent Seafish report - https://www.seafish.org/media/publications/Quay_Issues_-_Economics_of_UK_Fishing_Fleet_- _2016_interactive_version.pdf 70Number of liters used multiplied by the UK Governments 2018 conversion factors - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2018 71 Article 41.2 Energy efficiency and mitigation of climate change - Replacement or modernisation of main or ancillary engines - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/706976/Operat ional_programme.pdf

Page 45

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Page 46

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Habitat forming aquaculture

This case study evaluated the environmental benefit of habitat forming aquaculture projects in England funded under the EMFF, focusing on shellfish. Aquaculture can be deemed as ‘habitat forming’ when the species being farmed, or cultured, are known to be autogenic engineers; modifying or creating habitats. Habitat forming aquaculture will contribute toward the 25 YEP goal of ‘clean air’, through the processes of carbon sequestration and low carbon protein production (Fodrie et al., 2017) and to the goals "thriving plants and wildlife"72, and “using resources from nature more sustainably and efficiently”73. Bivalve molluscs, such as native oysters, are known to play a critical role in estuarine health. The restoration or development of these colonies can restore, modify or enhance ecosystem services such as water quality through filtration contributing to the 25 YEP goal of ‘clean and plentiful water’. Additionally through benthic-pelagic coupling (Coen et al., 2007) as well as providing protection from predators and encourage fish diversity, biomass and abundance (Peterson et al., 2003; Gilby et al., 2018). Thirteen aquaculture projects were identified as ‘habitat forming’, which typically sought to implement, research or scope the feasibility of mussel, native oyster, or seaweed aquaculture. Collectively, these projects represent a total allocation of EMFF funds of £1,043,305, with an average commitment of EMFF funds of £80,254. Five projects were selected for this case study (Table 19) from two impact sub-themes: ‘restoration of native oyster beds’ and ‘development of offshore mussel culture’.

Table 19: Summary of the projects funded in England through the EMFF that were selected for the habitat forming aquaculture case study Case study Project EMFF funding EMFF funding Project title sub-theme code priority value (£) The Solent native oyster Restoration ENG1980 180,619.47 restoration project Priority 1 (Articles of native Recovering native oyster beds 40.1 b-g 44.6) oyster beds ENG2157 83,199.73 in Essex Offshore mussel farm ENG1210 87,478 floatation Development of offshore Increasing mussel farm Priority 2 (Articles ENG1318 187,500 mussel production capacity 1 48.1 a-d, f-h) culture Increasing production capacity ENG2153 110,156 of mussel farm

Indicators were developed by MRAG based on the intended change associated with each of the projects, and against the three components of Natural Capital (Tables 20 and 21). These indicators were the basis of measuring success, or potential success, and environmental benefits delivered by the projects and are compared to those in the 25 YEP in Table 81 (Annex 12). The indicators also included potential dis-benefits that might result, e.g., through changes in availability of commercial and recreational fishing grounds.

72https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/693158/25- year-environment-plan.pdf 73 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/25-year-environment-plan

Page 47

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 20: Possible environmental impacts that could result from habitat forming aquaculture projects and the appropriate Natural Capital indicators to track any change Case study Natural Capital Potential Outcomes Indicator* sub-theme component impact Increased Change in number of gear-hours fishing fished (hours) Increased mortality Pressures fishing effort Enhanced habitat Change in turbidity (NTU) quality Increased Change in species abundance stocks (n) Restoration Spatial coverage of habitat of native forming species (ha) oyster beds Enhanced Enhanced habitat extent Assets habitat extent Change in MPA area designated and quality under Birds, Habitats and MSF Directives (ha) Enhanced habitat Change in species richness (n) quality Increased Increased Volume of shellfish production oyster Flows oyster (tonnes) production production Reduced Reduction in Change in area (ha) of available capture wild fish fishing grounds to both Pressure fishing capture commercial and recreational opportunities opportunity fishers Spatial coverage of habitat Increase in Increase forming species (ha) Development mussel farm size Change in species abundance of offshore stocks (n) mussel Assets culture Enhance Enhanced Change in species richness (n) biodiversity habitat and water quality quality Change in turbidity (NTU) Increase Increase in Volume of shellfish production mussel Flows mussel (tonnes) production landings * identified by authors based on Natural Capital component

Project progress

The development of offshore mussel farming has moved from a trial to full production with support from a series of EMFF projects and evidence of impact or likely impact is becoming available. Work on oysters is ongoing in both Solent and Essex (Figure 8). For example, the Solent Native Oyster Restoration Project is due to finish in 2021 but has already reached several milestones and recorded evidence of environmental impacts, placing it at the outcomes stage (Figure 8).

Page 48

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

ENG1210 ENG1980 ENG1218 ENG2157 ENG2153

Figure 8: Progress along the impact pathway of projects within the habitat forming aquaculture case study

Results

Environmental benefits of projects were assessed through interviews with project stakeholders and a literature review of the success of similar projects. The observed and expected environmental benefits and Natural Capital indicators identified for native oyster restoration and offshore mussel culture projects are summarised in Table 21.

Table 21: Observed and expected impacts connected with each Natural Capital indicator associated with the habitat forming aquaculture case study Natural Case study Natural Capital Observed or expected Outcomes Capital sub-theme indicator impact component Change in Observed: No evidence of Increased number of gear- Pressures any changes in effort at this fishing effort hours fished stage (hours) Expected: No evidence of any changes in effort at this Enhanced Change in stage. Literature suggests Pressure habitat quality turbidity (NTU) that bivalves can play role in reducing turbidity so may be expected to reduce. Change in area (ha) of available Reduced Observed: 200 ha has been fishing grounds to Restoration capture fishing Pressure set aside in Essex as a both commercial of native opportunities conservation area oyster beds and recreational fishers Observed: 6.5 ha of native oyster bed created in Essex Observed: 69,000 native Change in oysters re-seeded in Solent Assets species Enhanced abundance (n) Observed: 900,000,000 habitat extent larvae released from caged and quality mature native oysters in Solent Spatial coverage Observed: 6.5 ha of native Assets of habitat forming oyster bed created in Essex species (ha)

Page 49

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Natural Case study Natural Capital Observed or expected Outcomes Capital sub-theme indicator impact component Observed: Creation of 200 Change in MPA ha voluntary no-take zone area designated (Blackwater Conservation (ha) Box) in Essex Observed: While it is not possible to directly attribute Change in an increase to the project, 96 species richness different species have been (n) reported within the Assets immediate vicinity of native oyster cages in the Solent Expected: This is not Change in expected unless/until the turbidity (NTU) native oyster fishery is fully recovered Not possible to identify at this Volume of stage as this is not expected Increased shellfish to be observed until native oyster Flows production oyster stocks are replenished production (tonnes) and the fishery is fully recovered Change in area Observed: Offshore mussel (ha) of available Reduced farm now covers 1,540 ha. fishing grounds to capture fishing Pressure No reports of changes in both commercial opportunities landings from commercial or and recreational recreational fisheries fishers Spatial coverage of habitat forming Expected: No stock figures species (ha) available but at full capacity Increase farm Assets Change in the farm will have over Development size species 10,000 tonnes of mussels on of offshore abundance site mussel (n/tonnes) culture Observed: Monitoring is ongoing but sightings of Enhance Change in Atlantic horse mackerel, biodiversity and Assets species richness European sea bass, Grey water quality (n) mullet, and Brown crab reported Volume of Increase shellfish Expected: Annual production mussel Flows production of 2000 tonnes is expected production (tonnes)

A total network of 150 cages cumulatively holding 18,00074 mature native oysters has been installed across The Solent. The results of which, gathered through monthly spot sampling,

74 This number can fluctuate due to the dynamic nature of the sea and resultant mortalities.

Page 50

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) reveal that an estimated total of 900,000,000 larvae have been released since project inception. If, as reported by BLUE, spat is settling and populating the wild beds75 that serve the native oyster fishery, it is possible that due to this EMFF funding the Solent native oysters could provide flows of goods and ecosystem services to commercial and recreational fishermen (Kamphausen, 2012). For example, Grabowski et al., (2012) reports high density, pristine oyster-beds to have an average of value of £11,00076 per hectare per annum. This would give the 6.5 ha of native oyster bed created in Essex a value of £71,50077 per annum, covering the cost of EMFF funding in just over a year.

There has also been success in the development of Offshore Shellfish’s offshore mussel farm in Lyme Bay where there are now seven full-time employees. Once fully developed across three sites the farm has the capability to produce 10,000 tonnes annually. However, the potential for upscaling is likely to be constrained by the identification and availability of a sheltered sited that boast good water flow and quality.

The availability of empirical data for these projects stems largely from licensing requirements and partnerships between funding beneficiaries and academic institutions, such as Southampton and Plymouth Universities.

75 Native oyster beds are defined by OSPAR as comprising >5 individuals per m2 (Saunders et al., 2015) 76 Converted $17,072 value to GBP using 2012 exchange rate. 77Total value of £1,041,049.68 over the assumed 10 year appraisal period for the project

Page 51

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Page 52

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Selectivity

This case study evaluated projects that have replaced commercial fishing gear on the grounds of improved selectivity. Environmental impacts from projects within this case study are direct, as improvements to selectivity can lead to measurable reductions in catch rates and potential mortality of both non-target species and undersized target species. Projects funded under the EMFF that address selectivity all contribute to 25 YEP goals, including using resources from nature more sustainably and efficiently; see Annex 13, Table 82 for more details.

This case study is focused on projects funded under Article 38 (limitation of the impact of fishing on the marine environment and adaptation of fishing to the protection of species), which constitute 58% of all environmental projects funded by the EMFF. Of the 239 selectivity projects identified, 22 projects were identified for closer evaluation (Table 22), under three sub-themes: cod-ends, nets and pots. These projects cumulatively represent an EMFF commitment in England of £520,438 at an average project allocation of £23,656.

Table 22: Summary of the projects funded in England through the EMFF that were selected for the selectivity case study EMFF EMFF Case study Project Project title funding funding sub-theme code priorities value (£) ENG1462 Nephrop cod-ends 617 Selectivity: ENG1369 Farne Deep cod-ends new 1,538 Cod-ends ENG1215 96mm cod-end regulations 724 ENG1372 New prawn cod-ends 469 Replacement gill nets to enhance ENG1468 23,452 selectivity and minimise discards ENG1103 Fishing nets 14,250 Selectivity: ENG1842 Improving the selectivity of netting 2,390 Static nets Improving the sustainability and selectivity ENG2911 7,954 of gill netting for hake Improving the selectivity and sustainability ENG3121 6,480 of inshore gill net fishing Transfer from mono tangle netting to ENG1822 26,805 sustainable pots ENG2107 Improved selectivity of fishing 19,836 Improving the sustainability and selectivity Union Priority ENG2214 32,893 of offshore pot fishing 1 (Article 38) Improve selectivity, sustainability and ENG2245 45,401 environmental impact of pot fishing Improving the sustainability and selectivity ENG2292 26,466 of pot fishing ENG2358 Pot replacement 27,193 Selectivity: Improving the sustainability and selectivity Pots ENG2781 56,250 of shellfish pot fishing ENG2856 pot selective 25,642 Improving the selectivity and sustainability ENG3063 33,209 of pot fishing Improving the selectivity and sustainability ENG3165 56,250 of offshore crab & lobster pot fishing ENG3227 Pots 53,100 ENG3231 Pots 24,091 Improving the selectivity and sustainability ENG3576 35,428 of pot fishing off North Devon

Page 53

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Natural Capital indicators for each of the three Natural Capital components were developed for each of the projects (Table 23) and compared to those in the 25 YEP in Table 81 (Annex 12)78. Information was sought through project documentation, stakeholder engagement and from the literature to assess the environmental benefits that they have achieved in each case, or that they might be likely to deliver.

While successfully reducing unwanted catches could be expected to contribute to increased abundance of target and non-target stocks (i.e., a natural capital asset), in practice identifying the contribution of an individual project in a dynamic environment where these stocks are subject to other internal and external processes and pressures is not achievable. Therefore, the case study focused on identifying the specific outputs and outcomes that have, or are expected to be, generated, with an emphasis on Natural Capital pressures in the first instance.

Table 23: Possible environmental impacts that could result from selectivity projects and the appropriate Natural Capital indicators to track any change Case Natural study sub- Capital Potential impact* Indicator* theme component Decrease in capture and mortality Change in the proportion of rate of non-target individuals unwanted catch Reduction in the rate of climate Pressure change Change in annual energy/fuel consumption (litres/kWh) and Reduction in the rate of Ocean CO2 equivalent Selectivity Acidification Stock size of affected species Asset Increased stock abundance (numbers or tonnes)

Maintenance of annual Flow Maintena nce of landings landings of target species (tonnes) * identified by authors based on Natural Capital component

Project Progress

All projects, for which sufficient information was available, had either reached or passed the outcomes stage along their impact pathway (Figure 9).

Figure 9: Progress along the impact pathway of projects examined within the Selectivity case study

78 Risk Assessment for Sourcing Seafood (RASS) was considered when developing indicators - https://www.seafish.org/risk-assessment-for-sourcing- seafood#targetText=Welcome%20to%20Risk%20Assessment%20for,by%20catch%20and%20habitat%20risks.

Page 54

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Results

Despite one of the EMFF RI’s specifically linked to this issue: 1.4.b - Change in unwanted catches, there is currently no baseline data on discard and unwanted catch rates and little information about how gear replacement projects are being monitored. This made the evaluation more difficult and may also affect the post-project impact reporting. Despite this, there are a number of positive results (Table 24).

Table 24: Observed and expected impacts connected with each Natural Capital indicator associated with the selectivity case study Case Natural Environmental Natural Capital study sub- Capital Observed or expected impact impact indicator theme component Expected: Results from the Decrease in literature review suggest that capture and Change in the the changes made will have a Selectivity: Pressure mortality rate of proportion of positive effect; reducing Cod-ends non-target unwanted catch unwanted catch and the individuals associated mortality of these individuals

Change in annual Expected: Results from the Reduction in energy/fuel literature review suggest that Selectivity: greenhouse consumption increasing mesh size could Nets Pressure gas emissions (litres / kWh) and potentially reduce overall fuel CO2 equivalent consumption by around 18% Observed: Projects are likely to have resulted in a reduction in Decrease in unwanted catches, where capture and Change in the Selectivity: selectivity upgrades have been mortality rate of proportion of Pots Pressure made. Expected: However, this non-target unwanted catch is unlikely to have a significant individuals effect on the pressure; rate of mortality Expected: The literature suggests that reducing mortality can have benefits for Stock size of the stock abundance of Increased affected species unwanted catch species. For stock Asset (numbers or example, O’Neill et al., (2019) abundance tonnes) suggest that improving size and species selectivity can Selectivity positively impact population (all sub- abundance themes) Observed and Expected: None of the stakeholders contacted reported a decrease in landings as a result of their new gear, Maintenance of and if this more selective Maintain annual landings fishing gear allows smaller Flow landings of target species individuals (of target species) (tonnes) to survive until they are larger, then these modifications could be expected to increase flows in the short to medium term

Projects sought to improve size and species selectivity by either increasing mesh size (static nets and cod-ends) or introducing escape gaps (pots). In all cases where these modifications

Page 55

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) have been made, selectivity has been or is likely to have been improved. Beneficiaries who had replaced pots with new designs, that incorporated escape hatches, claimed that unwanted catches had been reduced, either in line with, or beyond, the targets set in their offer letters (i.e., between 10 – 15%). However, the environmental benefits/impacts of this are less clear than for cod-end and static net sub-themes. Brown crabs (Cancer pagurus), European lobster (Homarus gammarus), and velvet swimming crabs (Necora puber) the main target species in the pots sub-theme, and other non-target species, have high discard survival rates (Bridges, 2017; Valentinsson and Nilsson, 2015; Öndes et al., 2017) so avoiding the need for post- capture release is likely to have little environmental impact/benefit.

Cod-end projects were allocated EMFF funds to increase cod-end mesh size to >95mm in the nephrop trawl fishery. This is a multi-species fishery known to catch quota species such as cod (Gadus morhua), haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), whiting (Merlangius merlangus), and so can be affected by choke species issues. Selectivity improvements in this fishery are especially important as it is known to have a high discard (Catchpole and Revill, 2008) and associated mortality rate for unwanted catches (Valentinsson and Nilsson, 2015). Studies have found that significant reductions in the amount of unwanted catch can result from increasing cod-end mesh size in this fishery (e.g., Browne et al., 2018).

Funding for static net selectivity was based on increasing mesh size, and cross-cut a number of fisheries around England. Size selectivity in static nets can be effectively regulated through mesh size, as the modal size of fish caught generally increases with increases in mesh size (e.g., Holst et al., 1998). However, projects did not state the intention behind selectivity modifications (e.g., targeting size or species), making the potential environmental benefits of these changes is unclear. It could be possible, for example, that new nets will simply shift the size selectivity bracket of the fishes caught, with potentially environmentally damaging consequences (Garcia et al., 2012).

The outcomes for both cod-end and static net sub-themes are both likely to reduce the mortality of unwanted individuals (Table 24), which is aligned with many of the project targets explicitly mentioned in the offer letters (Table 59 in Annex 1). For example, increased selectivity is expected to help to ‘reduce unwanted catch’ and ‘reduce juvenile nephrop catches’.

In addition, reducing mortality at size can have benefits for the stock abundance and structure of unwanted catch species. For example, O’Neill et al. (2019) suggest that improving size and species selectivity can positively impact recruitment and population abundance. However, it could also be argued that target species size selectivity, is simply changing the size at which individuals recruit to the fishery. The benefit of this to stock structure and the wider ecosystem is less clear. There are also differing opinions about the ecosystem impacts of catching smaller rather than larger fish, and the desirability of more selective forms of fishing (e.g., Garcia et al., 2012).

As well as reducing pressures and potentially benefiting Natural Capital assets, selectivity projects can also impact flows. While it was not possible to determine, at this stage, the effect upon landings of target species, none of the stakeholders contacted reported a decrease in landings. Indeed, if more selective fishing gear allows smaller individuals (of target species) to survive until they are larger, then these modifications could be expected to increase flows in the short to medium term.

This study also identified that trawl modifications may result in increased energy efficiency. While it was, again, not possible to quantify these benefits, results from literature review suggested increasing mesh size could potentially reduce overall fuel consumption by around 18% (e.g., Parente et al., 2008; Priour, 2009). The Project target set by the MMO was lower, at 7%, but if this was achieved it would equate to a saving of 6.5 tonnes CO2e annually, equivalent to 8.91kg kg per £1 of EMFF funding.

Page 56

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Summary

All projects contacted by this study (in the pots sub-theme), that purchased gear with modifications to improve selectivity, reported a decrease in the proportion of their catch deemed ‘unwanted’ as a result of this new gear. Results from the literature review substantiate this finding and also suggest that the changes made by cod-end and static net projects will have a similar effect; reducing unwanted catch.

Generally, selectivity is considered to be environmentally beneficial but this should be confirmed on a case-by-case basis. For example, modifications to pots have resulted in a decrease in unwanted catches that is in line with project targets (Table 59 in Annex 1). However, the actual environmental benefits of this outcome are unclear because survival rates are expected to remain relatively stable. Considering projects are funded, at least in part, with public money, there is a real need to ensure that funding allocated on environmental grounds produces tangible environmental benefits, rather than just modernising and increasing the efficiency of existing fishing gear. For example a ‘cleaner’ catch in pot fisheries may speed up the handling of gear with the result that fishers can fish more gear per trip thus exerting additional fishing pressure on the stock and increase benthic/gear interactions. Similarly, the mode of fishing in replacement gears may also have an effect that should be taken into account, i.e., a change in gear type (e.g., inkwell pots for creels) may change the nature the gears environment impact.

This study also found that framing impacts in terms of Natural Capital is useful for environmental accounting and serves to highlight systemic issues that arise in programme fundamentals. For example, project targets that include “a better bycatch rate” (Table 59 in Annex 1), which is neither objective nor specific. In order to fully assess project efficacy, it is necessary to have clear and objective targets with specific metrics by which to measure change.

Page 57

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Page 58

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Research to improve fisheries management

Research to improve fisheries management was selected for investigation as a case study due to the high percentage (27%) of stakeholders interviewed who identified inadequate fisheries management as one of the main issues facing England’s marine environment today. Improved fisheries management would contribute towards the 25 YEP goals of “thriving plants and wildlife”, “using resources from nature more sustainably and efficiently” and “enhanced beauty, heritage and engagement with the natural environment”.

In total, 11 projects fell into the theme of “research to improve fisheries management” representing a commitment of EMFF funds of £756,240. The average commitment of EMFF funds to these projects was £68,749. Four of the 11 projects within this theme were selected for further investigation (Table 25).

Table 25: Summary of the projects funded in England through the EMFF that were selected for the research to improve fisheries management case study EMFF funding EMFF Project Project title priorities funding code value (£) ENG2395 Atlantic bluefin tuna catch and bycatch in the Union Priority 1 185,629 English Channel and Celtic Sea (Article 40.1.b-g) ENG2755 Supporting sustainable Sepia stocks Hastings Union Priority 4 36,323 (Article 63) ENG3305 North Devon marine Natural Capital plan Union Priority 6 74,957 ENG3590 Evaluation of marine protected area (Article 80.1) 18,742 management measures concerning fishing

This case study includes projects that are predominantly focussed on generating knowledge and understanding of stocks or habitats. ENG2395 intends to deliver a fisheries-dependent baseline understanding of levels of ABFT catch and bycatch within the English Channel and Celtic Sea to allow information of when, where, why and how catches occur. ENG2755 aimed to evaluate the fishing pressure on cuttlefish populations within the English Channel with the goal of developing recommendations to increase stock resilience through increasing rates of egg survival. The goal of ENG3305 is to produce the first Natural Capital plan whilst also (i) demonstrating relationships between ecology, ecosystem services and benefits, (ii) identifying links between Natural Capital and the relevant stakeholders, and (iii) classifying indicators for valuing ecosystem services (in terms of monetary and non-monetary value) and appropriate data sources. Finally, project ENG3590 is focused on the evaluation of Marine Protected Area (MPA) effectiveness and identification of solutions that allow for enhanced compatibility between conservation measures and fishing activities.

Environmental impacts from projects within this case study are indirect, as they focus on developing Human and Social Capital in the first instance. These are developed primarily through advancing the understanding of specific aspects of the marine environment which can later be applied to improve management and conservation measures. This process of generating, sharing and utilising knowledge was used to assess the progress in developing Human and Social Capital, with the expectation that utilising knowledge would represent the link to delivering environmental benefits and changes in Natural Capital. For example, once management plans were developed or stakeholders’ capacity enhanced (e.g., fishers for projects ENG2395 and ENG2755) these would be implemented or used to deliver benefits.

Project progress

Only one of the projects under investigation has reached the impact stage, the remaining projects fall within the activities and output stages as shown on Figure 10.

Page 59

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Figure 10: Progress along the impact pathway of projects within the research for fisheries management case study

Results

The evaluation was divided into two stages. The first stage involved the investigation of the project’s contribution to Human Capital (Table 26). The second stage investigated the observed or expected environmental impacts and contribution to Natural Capital expected from implementation of the knowledge gained during the course of the projects (Table 27).

Table 26: Assessment of the projects within the research to improve fisheries management case study in terms of their contributions to Human Capital Contribution ENG2395 ENG2755 ENG3305 ENG3590 to Human Capital Knowledge Yes; Yes; Modified traps Yes; Stakeholder Yes; evaluations of generated Methods to from which cuttlefish engagement has existing MPAs reduce by- eggs can be easily been conducted to catch removed and allow for collection mortality of returned to the sea of information ABFT have have been regarding Devon’s been developed Natural Capital identified assets Knowledge Yes; Fishers Yes; researchers Yes; stakeholder Not yet; the has been have been have published three workshops have findings will not be shared trained in the detailed reports been held and shared until the methods to conferences have culmination of the reduce been attended project and writing mortality of a final report Knowledge or Uncertain Yes; although no Uncertain; as of yet Uncertain; as of yet skills have formal management there is no there is no been measures have indication that indication that implemented been implemented knowledge has knowledge has the fishers been implemented been implemented associated with the due to the due to the study support use of incomplete state of incomplete state of the adapted traps the project the project

The projects that appear to have the greatest potential environmental benefits are those that focus on researching aspects of the marine environment directly and represent more focused projects (Table 27).

Page 60

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 27: Observed and expected impacts connected with each Natural Capital indicator associated with the research to improve fisheries management case study Natural Expected or Environmental Project Outcomes Capital Indicator observed impact component impact Expected: No evidence of changes in By-catch Mortality mortality have associated with rates of been observed. Pressures ABFT ABFT by- If knowledge is commercial catch (n) applied, a catch reduced bycatch of ABFT is Best practice expected guidelines ENG2395: Expected: shared leading Reduced Atlantic to reduced mortality bluefin tuna capture and Change in Stock size resulting from catches and mortality of Assets quantity of (tonnes) by-catch is bycatch in ABFT while ABFT stock expected to the English fishing increase ABFT Channel and opportunities abundance Celtic Sea: are maintained or enhanced Expected: The effect of ABFT The as a choke frequency species can The potential for of fishing potentially be Flows ABFT as choke ground reduced if maps species contraction showing ABFT due to presence are ABFT used in management Observed and Information on expected: suitable Number of Egg loss due to Increased receptors and Pressures eggs lost fishing activities survival of increased (n) approximately survival 22 eggs per trap ENG2755: methods shared is expected Supporting leading to Observed: Sustainable increased Sepia Stocks survival of eggs Egg survival Hastings stocks at Stocks was shown to sustainable increased as a Egg increase by at Assets levels and result of higher survival (%) least 15% with yields of Sepia egg survival the use of maintained or modified pots. enhanced Effect on stocks not assessable

Page 61

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Natural Expected or Environmental Project Outcomes Capital Indicator observed impact component impact Expected: Increased Sepia survival could Flows Sepia yields landings potentially (tonnes) enhance future landings Develop a Over- natural capital exploitation of Pressures Appropriate plan for the Devon’s marine indicators marine resources should be environment in identified North Devon, Quality of the within the ENG3305: develop The project is marine habitat Natural North Devon outputs that not sufficiently of North Devon Capital Plan Marine can be shared advanced to Natural with other identify Assets Capital Plan coastal impacts Biospheres around the Abundance of Stock size (n world and show stock species or tonnes) how Natural Capital can be used in practice Expected: Reduced Evidence of mortality is successful Exploitation of expected if approaches Pressures marine Fishing improvement relevant to UK resources within mortality in MPA ENG3590 habitats and protected areas management Evaluation of fisheries leads to Marine identified and reduced Protected shared leading exploitation Area to more High quality Management effective marine habitats Expected: Measures Indicators management within protected MPA habitat Concerning should be and balancing areas quality and Fishing developed of conservation stock quantity Assets Higher within and fishing are expected abundance and management interests to increase biomass of and Natural (depending on marine Capital Plans. resources (i.e., MPA context) fishes)

Within ENG2755 over 15% of eggs were able to be safely removed from the modified traps. On average, traps with willow (Salix) egg laying substrates had 220 eggs per trap. Thus, on average, 33 eggs per trap should be recoverable. Sussex IFCA (2018)79 restrict the number of traps that can be deployed when targeting cuttlefish to 300 per vessel. Scaled up, 33 eggs from each of the 300 traps equates to a total of 9,900 eggs per vessel per fishing trip. Within in Sussex alone there are 80 vessels (an estimated 24,000 traps). This means that if each

79 https://www.sussex-ifca.gov.uk/byelaws

Page 62

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) vessel did only one fishing trip per year an additional 792,000 eggs could theoretically be safely removed and returned to the sea.

ENG3590 is likely to be environmentally beneficial by providing new indicators of habitat status that can be use in the management of MPAs. An additional, wider benefit of this project is likely to be the conceptual contribution to the broader body of work on Natural Capital. Such work then will provide a tangible example of how the Natural Capital concept can be translated into practical indicators for developing and monitoring management strategies.

Summary

This case study found that the selected projects have been able to engage with stakeholders to allow for effective research and knowledge sharing. However, to date, there is no empirical evidence of benefits to stocks or key habitats on a large scale. Many of the projects were focused on informing management and had not been fully completed at the time of writing. It is also worth noting that for these projects there will also be an additional time lag between the publishing of recommendations and acceptance/implementation within management plans, further delaying the final benefits. Implementation itself may be affected by other issues (e.g., alternative policy priorities, resources etc.) that affect the degree to which delivering the environmental benefits either occurs, or can be plausibly attributed to the individual projects.

Page 63

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Page 64

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Stock conservation and restoration

The case study evaluates EMFF funded projects that support conservation and/or enhancement of important species and stocks within England. This is an important area of funding given that 67% of the UK’s assessed commercial fish and shellfish stocks are known to fall below the recommendations for good environmental status in either, or both, levels of fishing pressure or reproductive capacity (EEA, 2018)80.

All four projects within the stock conservation and restoration theme contribute to the 25 YEPs goals of "thriving plants and wildlife" and “using resources from nature more sustainably and efficiently” as shown in Annex 13, Table 82. Two of the four projects were selected for evaluation (Table 28). Both projects ENG1400 and ENG1723 aim to increase UK fish stocks through enhancement of Human Capital which, when applied can generate environmental benefits. ENG1400 focuses on the conservation of the European sea bass (Dicentrachus labrax) through enabling development and implementation of local fishery management plans for the stocks in UK waters. Project ENG1723 was funded to support the regeneration and restoration of European eel (Anguilla anguilla) stocks within the River Thames through monitoring, surveys and development of eel passages.

Table 28: Summary of the projects funded in England through the EMFF that were selected for the stock conservation and restoration case study Project EMFF funding EMFF funding Project name code priorities value (£) ENG1400 Sea bass fisheries conservation UK Union Priority 1 166,546 (Articles 40.1b-g ENG1723 Recovering the Thames European eel stock and 44.6) 59,645

Existing indicators that are relevant to these projects through the Common Fisheries Policy and Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) include species biomass (tonnes per km2), and abundance (numbers per km2). Conservation projects could also result in improved fish stock quality and ecosystem functioning through increased species compositions, age or length profiles (Hooper et al., 2019). To assess the projects, indicators were developed to assess progress towards impact along the impact pathway and the environmental benefits that might be generated by the two projects. Information and data to asses this were sought through interviews with project stakeholders, a review of the existing literature and the success of previous, similar projects.

Project progress

Neither of the projects evaluated had reached a stage where it was possible to assess the environmental benefits (Figure 11).

Figure 11: Progress along the impact pathway of projects within the stock conservation and restoration case study

80 Data used to calculate the figure of 67% were obtained from https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and- maps/figures/status-of-fish-stocks-in-5/data/at_download/file

Page 65

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Environmental benefits

Because of the indirect effect of these projects, focusing as they do on developing Human and Social Capital, it was instructive to examine the extent to which the projects had been able to develop these. To do this the study examined the extent to which knowledge (e.g., on the species ecology) had been generated, shared and utilised. The assumption was that the application of knowledge would contribute to better management or stock restoration plans that would generate environmental benefits (Table 29). However, this would depend on the management and restoration plans incorporating the knowledge and being effectively implemented.

Table 29: Assessment of projects within the stock conservation and restoration case study in terms of their contributions to Human Capital Contribution to ENG1400 ENG1723 Human Capital Yes; ecological data on the species Yes; data on migration and the Knowledge has and is being collected, as is ecology of eel population within the generated information regarding management Thames has been and is being issues conducted Yes; engagement with citizen Yes; stakeholder workshops to Knowledge has been scientists and an online presence for disseminate current knowledge shared the project means information is (and collect more) have been held being effectively shared As of yet there is no evidence that According to the online presence Knowledge or skills knowledge has been implemented, knowledge and skills gained are have been however the project is expected to already being implemented through implemented culminate in development of a installation of eel passes in priority management plan areas

Due to both the project progress to date and the less direct nature of the impact pathways, it was not possible to identify any environmental impacts deriving from two projects within this case study. A summary of impacts in relation to the different components of Natural Capital be associated with the projects can be seen in Table 30, which identifies indicators. These are compared to the indicators in the 25 YEP in Table 81 (Annex 12).

Page 66

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 30: Observed and expected impacts connected with each Natural Capital indicator associated with the stock conservation and restoration case study Natural Project Capital Impact Indicator Observed or expected impact component Expected: Mortality is expected to be Reduced sea Sea bass reduced through improved Pressures bass mortality management. The true impacts mortality (n) however cannot be determined at this stage Expected: A better understanding of ENG1400: the ecology of European sea bass Sea bass Increased Abundance stocks allows for appropriate fisheries Assets stocks of sea of sea bass management and regulations to be conservation bass (n) enforced, which is expect to improve UK quantity (abundance) Expected: Better management and an Changes in Number of enhanced stock structure may allow numbers of Flows recreational for more recreational fishing recreational fishers (n) opportunities but this is not currently fishers assessable Expected: It was not possible to calculate dendritic connectivity at this Decreased Dendritic stage as the specific “pass-ability” of Pressures habitat connectivity each of the barriers is unknown. fragmentation km81 However, it is suggested that 134 km of riverine habitat is to be restored due to removal of barriers to migration Expected: Removing barriers to Abundance migration and enhancing an Increased of understanding of the species ecology ENG1723: stocks of Assets European should result in improved quantity recovering European eels (abundance) and quality (age-length the Thames eels (n/tonnes) profiles) of eel populations within the European Thames. eel stock Expected: In the future, increased landings of European eel are expected as mitigation of barriers European preventing migration to spawning Increased eel grounds and other habitats associated Flows landings of landings with various life cycle stages will likely eel (tonnes) allow for enhancement of populations. This is expected to result as European eels will be able to complete their full lifecycle with fewer impediments

Due to the less direct nature of the projects no environmental impacts have been observed at this stage. Both projects are of a focused type and if they result in changes to management and practice this may help restore stocks and provide for increased commercial and recreational catches. In the case of the eels, this could translate to an increased survival and growth of eels and greater eel abundance. It has been calculated that removal of barriers and the additional habitat will allow for an additional 1.22 tonnes of juvenile (silver) eels over ten

81 Dendritic connectivity is the longitudinal connectivity within a Dendritic Ecological Network (e.g., river or stream); the number of barriers along the length of a river network. More detail of this concept can be found within Cote et al., (2009).

Page 67

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) years. At the time the business case was written the price for eel steaks in fishmongers was £22.40 per 320g (equivalent to approximately £68 per kilogram)82. As such, it was calculated the project had the potential to contribute at least £60,20283 to the economy if the eels are caught.

Summary

This case study showed that the selected projects have been able to effectively generate and share knowledge. Due to the more indirect nature of the projects, it is difficult to assess the overall environmental benefits derived from the projects. As a result, the projects highlight the need to capture evidence of the utilisation of knowledge and the translation into action to generate environmental benefits. It is also important to note that for these projects there will be an additional time lag between the implementation within management plans and the final benefits.

82 Price information was obtained from thefishsociety.co.uk (last accessed 22/07/19) 83 £68 per kg with discounting over the 10 year appraisal period, multiplied by the expected (1.22 tonnes) additional juvenile (silver) eels.

Page 68

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Page 69

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Co-management/participatory approaches

This case study evaluated projects funded by the EMFF focused on stakeholder engagement and participation. All projects aim to contribute to Strategic Goal E of Aichi Biodiversity Targets ‘Enhance implementation through participatory planning, knowledge management and capacity building’. They are also consistent with several of the 25 YEP goals, e.g., ‘Enhanced beauty, heritage and engagement with the natural environment’ (Annex 13, Table 82).

This case study has focused on five EMFF funded projects (Table 31), cumulatively representing a commitment of £533,212 of EMFF funds and an average commitment of £106,643.

Table 31: Summary of the projects funded in England through the EMFF that were selected for the Co-management/participatory approach case study EMFF Project Project title EMFF funding priorities funding code value (£) A people and place-based approach to Union Priority 1 (Article ENG1812 eels and communities in the Bristol 103,631 40.1.b-g 44.6) Channel Enhancing stakeholder engagement in Union Priority 6 (Article ENG1964 the development of marine plans in 147,815 80.1.b) England Developing a participatory approach to Union Priority 1 (Article ENG2283 managing fisheries activity in offshore 187,314 40.1.b-g 44.6) MPAs Union Priority 4 (Article ENG2838 Community planning for MPAs 59,183 63) Partnership between scientists and small-scale coastal fishing (SSCF) to Union Priority 1 (Article ENG3055 35,270 create an industry standard in quality 28) and sustainability

Environmental impacts from projects within this case study are indirect, as they focus on developing Human and Social Capital, primarily through processes of stakeholder engagement and participation. Enhanced Human and Social Capital can then be applied to the conservation, restoration, or management of Natural Capital. While stakeholder engagement and participation are widely promoted, it is important to recognise that they can take very different forms, may be complex and contested and may not deliver environmental benefits. This is due, in part, to the more indirect nature of these projects, focusing as they do on Human and Social Capitals in the first instance (Figure 3).

Across several of the projects selected, the intent was to use the participatory approach to develop management plans. Thus, in several cases the intended environmental benefit and contributions to Natural Capital (and associated indicators) would be an output of the process. To reflect this, additional process indicators were developed by MRAG. These were based on the review of stakeholder participation by Reed (2008). Using this review as a basis, indicators of successful stakeholder engagement and meaningful participation were developed for the stages of project implementation along the impact pathway (Table 32).

Page 70

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 32: Indicator framework developed by this study to assess stakeholder engagement and participation Stage of the intervention Positive features of stakeholder engagement Inception (pre-activity) Clear objectives of participation established Activities Systematic stakeholder representation Opportunities for knowledge sharing and co-ownership Outputs Environmental objectives identified Reflection on processes and outcomes Outcomes Environmental objectives identified lead to actions

For initiatives intending to engage stakeholders, i.e., at the stage prior to implementing activities, it is important that the purpose and objectives of stakeholder participation are established. There can be many reasons for engaging stakeholders and various methods for doing so, and awareness of what the objectives are or how they will be developed (e.g., collaboratively) is important. During inception and at the activities stage consideration needs to be given to who is expected to participate and how, including both who will be included and, equally importantly, who will not.

During implementation of activities it is also important that attention is given to how participants can contribute as well as who participates (e.g., Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2010). This includes providing opportunities for information exchange (including different forms of knowledge) on an equitable basis. Where relevant this may extend to institutionalising the process and outputs as forms of co-owned processes and co-management plans. To be effective in delivering benefits, the process should deliver either a plan to achieve environmental improvements or deliver, through collaborative action, some identifiable benefit. At this stage reflection on the process and outcomes is critical. Finally, to complete the link between changes in Human, Social and Natural Capital, actions addressing the environmental objectives identified are an important measure of progress.

Project progress

The complexity of participatory processes means they are often time-consuming. None of the projects have yet reached the stage where impacts can be identified or predicted (Figure 12).

Figure 12: Schematic representation of the progress along the impact pathway of selected projects funded to enhance participation and co-management under the EMFF

Results

The results of the evaluation can be divided into two stages (see Figure 3). Firstly an assessment of stakeholder engagement and participation using the indicator framework in Table 32 to relate the development of Human and Social Capitals to objectives or actions to deliver environmental benefits (Table 33). Secondly, an assessment of the extent to which the

Page 71

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) information shared, and the environmental objectives identified, have been utilised in activities to deliver environmental benefits and changes to Natural Capital.

Table 33: Assessment of the selected participation and co-management projects in terms of stakeholder engagement and participation Key feature of stakeholder ENG1812 ENG1964 ENG2283 ENG2838 ENG3055 engagement Clear objectives of participation Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes established Systematic Yes, through stakeholder Noa Yesb stakeholder No Noc representation mapping Opportunities for No; The purpose Yes; Yes; facilitated Yes; to knowledge was education intended to information develop Yes sharing and co- and awareness share sharing in industry ownership raising knowledge workshops standard Environmental Yes; enhancing objectives European eel Not yetd Not yet Not yet Not yet identified stocks Yes; later Yes; a No; No; phases to commitment to Reflect on evidence of evidence of be informed understand processes and Not yet a a by the participation outcomes commitment commitment results of and related to reflect to reflect Phase I conflict Environmental No; instead objectives objectives were Not yet Not yet Not yet Not yet identified lead to identified at actions inception a) Engagement in this instance was targeted at the local community and a local angling club b) There was an emphasis on engaging ‘hard-to-reach’ stakeholders c) The focus is on collaboration with small-scale fishers. d) At the time of the analysis: 15/06/2019

In all cases there were clear objectives established for the participation. However, these objectives differed and included raising stakeholder awareness (ENG1812), engaging with ‘hard-to-reach’ stakeholders (ENG1964), understanding what industry representatives would like included in local MPA management plans (ENG2283) and collaborating on identifying management priorities (ENG2838). This highlighted that different forms of participation and roles for stakeholders were expected from information recipients (ENG1812) or information sources (ENG2838) to information exchange (ENG1964 and ENG3055).

The objectives also influenced the types of stakeholders engaged and opportunities for information sharing. For example, in project ENG1964 the aim was to encourage those that had been underrepresented in management planning, e.g., recreational fishers, to participate and share their views as to address the disproportionately high representation to date from Planning Authorities and Conservation Bodies that may be influencing the types of plans created. Project ENG2283 also sought to include a wide range of views, to inform management plans for the two project case study sites of the West of Walney Marine Conservation Zone in the Irish Sea and the North Norfolk Sandbanks and Saturn Reef Special Area of Conservation in the Southern North Sea. However, an issue that has been raised at workshops is of how the information from stakeholders is used as fishers suggest they often share their views, but these views are not reflected in the priorities that emerge. The focus is

Page 72

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) instead on aspects such as understanding interactions between species, habitats and fishers that may be of more interest to the researchers and conservation bodies leading the project.

Environmental objectives were generally expected to emerge from the participatory processes, especially those addressing marine plans (e.g., ENG2283 and ENG2838). For example, in the case of ENG2838, suggestions were put forward by fishers for future fishery management plans including control of unlicensed boats within MPAs, a total banning of towed gear within 6 nm and wider distribution of management plans. However, as the management plans have not yet been finalised or implemented, it is not possible to identify concrete environmental objectives and associated Natural Capital indicators. An exception to this was project ENG1812, where there was a clear focus from the outset on improving eel populations, raising awareness and increasing eel production from an aquaponic facility.

Finally, in most of the projects there was a commitment to reflect on the process of engagement and participation and assess how this contributed to informing actions for environmental benefit. For example, project ENG1964 is seeking to develop potential Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for measuring engagement and develop and test alternative methods for stakeholder engagement.

Environmental benefits

With many processes ongoing, objectives and actions related to delivering environmental benefits have not been developed yet in many cases. For example, stakeholder engagement in project ENG2838 had identified fishers’ management priorities but these have not yet been translated into plans or actions that can be related to specific environmental benefits. Two of the projects (ENG1812 and ENG3055) identified environmental benefits at the inception stage and it was therefore possible to identify potential impacts in these cases (Table 34) if not to confirm or quantify them at this stage.

Table 34: Observed and expected impacts connected with each Natural Capital indicator associated with the co-management and participation cast study Natural Natural Environmental Observed or expected Project Capital Capital impact impact component indicator Expected: Mortality from Reduced eel catch and release expected mortality from Fishing to be reduced through Pressure recreational mortality (n) better targeting and catch fishing and release practices by ENG1812 - A local fishers. people and place- Expected: Aiming to based approach to Increased Abundance of increase from 500 elvers eels and Asset European eel European released at the pilot stage communities in the population eels (n) to an expected 30,000 per Bristol Channel year by year 4.

Increased European eel Expected: Expect to Flow European eel production produce some 10 tonnes of production (tonnes) eels annually.

ENG3055 - Partnership Expected: Income expected Increased between scientists to increase as a result of income for Income from and SSCF to create Flow consumers preferring to small-scale fish sales (£) an industry choose fish from a small- fishers standard in quality scale operation. and sustainability

Page 73

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Summary

This case study found that the selected projects have been able to engage with stakeholders and develop participatory approaches and that these have made both focused and cumulative contributions. However, to date, there is no empirical evidence of benefits to stocks or key habitats. It is also worth highlighting that project processes differed and had different objectives. It was only possible in two cases to identify intended environmental change, where these had been specified at the outset. In terms of the likely benefits of realising the intended changes, if project ENG1812 is successful in increasing eel production then this could provide eels for stock enhancement and educational programmes as well as generating 4,000 kg of eels for sale providing an income of £272,00084, equivalent to over 2.5 times the value of EMFF funds allocated to that project.

Many of the projects were focused on informing management plans and had not been completed at the time of writing. It is also worth noting that for these projects there will also be an additional time lag between the finalisation of the plan, its implementation and the realisation of final benefits. Implementation itself may be affected by other issues (e.g., alternative policy priorities, resources etc.) that affect the degree to which delivering the environmental benefits either occurs or can be plausibly attributed to the individual projects.

84 Estimated based on an eel price of £68/kg

Page 74

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Page 75

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

3.5.2 Discussion of impacts

It is clear that the EMFF has supported a wide range of projects that have sought to bring about environmental benefits in different ways and at different scales. While many projects are still ongoing, it has been possible to identify positive outcomes, impacts and likely impacts from many of the projects funded. Projects to remove barriers to migration have the potential to increase biodiversity and help restore stocks of endangered species. In marine fisheries, there are positive gains that can be made from increasing energy efficiency and restoring oyster beds. More difficult to assess are the projects that address environmental concerns in a less direct way, e.g., through research or participatory planning processes. However, these processes can make important contributions to increasing the range of stakeholder views and enabling stakeholders to contribute their knowledge, increasing the legitimacy of planning processes and enhancing our understanding of the natural world in ways that can inform management.

The study found that often change could only be identified to the outcome level (e.g., energy efficiency). This is due to projects making changes to relatively large, complex and dynamic systems. The effects of the outcomes are therefore uncertain. For example, it is intuitively appealing to reduce unintended mortality (e.g., through increasing selectivity or changing fisher behaviour) as these represent pressures on Natural Capital assets with no corresponding flows. Yet, what difference reducing these mortalities makes is not possible to identify, and how worthwhile such changes are depends on the societal value placed on the harm inflicted.

While variance in the stage along the impact pathway achieved to date was one issue in assessing impact, a major impediment to assessing impacts was the availability of data. For those projects that had invested in collecting environmental data, or where this had been a condition placed on the project (e.g., with the aquaculture projects), there was good evidence of the changes attributable to the project. Similarly, where data was collected as part of routine operations (e.g., data on energy consumption and costs) this was also available to assess outcomes. However, for a range of projects, beneficiaries were found not to be collecting relevant data, including data needed to verify targets identified within the project's application. Such lack of suitable data is relevant, as project reporting and post-project assessments may be negatively impacted by the deficiency.

The impact pathway approach was useful in tracking progress towards the ultimate project goals. At the same time, developing Natural Capital indicators for the case study projects highlighted that these could also be used to assess project outcomes and impacts. Furthermore, in some cases, there were common indictors across projects, e.g., for energy efficiency while in others, e.g., stock conservation and restoration, the nature of the individual projects and the ways they bring about change give rise to different indicators. In the potential development of a domestic replacement to the EMFF programme, more explicit attention should be given to establishing the pathway to impact and how beneficiaries and fund managers can measure progress towards expected impact.

The case studies provided an opportunity to learn how projects sought to bring about change. Projects funded under the EMFF included those that sought to achieve impact through a focused approach, those that had a more collective approach and some that sought to combine approaches. For example, looking at projects within the 'research for fisheries management' case study highlights that there were instrumental (e.g., management plans), conceptual (i.e. informed the development of theoretical approaches and frameworks) and capacity changes that were brought about through these Foundational and Enabling interventions.

Focused capacity changes might involve changing particular local fisher behaviours and focused instrumental changes might include modifying a specific management plan (Table

Page 76

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

35). As a case in point, ENG2395 contributes to management plans that aim to reduce catches of Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (instrumental), and works with fishers that might catch them to reduce mortalities (capacity). In comparison, ENG3305 works to develop indicators based on Natural Capital concepts and incorporate these into management plans for the North Devon biosphere. This provides opportunities to change plans in a focused way, but also makes a cumulative conceptual change through the contribution to overall understanding of Natural Capital concepts by influencing discourse at the national level.

Table 35: Approach to achieving impact projects funded under the ‘research for fisheries management’ theme summarised using the Punton matrix Instrumental N/A ENG3590 - ENG2395 - Atlantic Evaluation of Marine bluefin tuna catch and Protected Area bycatch in the English Management Channel and Celtic Sea Measures ENG3305 - North Devon Concerning Fishing Marine Natural Capital Plan ENG2755 - Supporting Sustainable Sepia Stocks Hastings Type of Change Conceptual N/A ENG3305 - North ENG3305 - North Devon Devon Marine Marine Natural Capital Natural Capital Plan Plan Capacity N/A N/A ENG2395 - Atlantic bluefin tuna catch and bycatch in the English Channel and Celtic Sea ENG3305 - North Devon Marine Natural Capital Plan ENG2755 - Supporting Sustainable Sepia Stocks Hastings Symbolic Cumulative Focused How Change Happened

It was found that both focused and cumulative approaches create their own challenges for measuring change and impact. In general, it was more straightforward to find evidence that instrumental outcomes (e.g., changed fishing practices) had been achieved. However, at the same time, the focused nature of the projects typically meant that change was observed on a more limited scale. This meant that impacts were more difficult, and often impossible, to measure. In contrast, those projects that act cumulatively and contribute to larger initiatives, or to processes that draw on multiple sources (e.g., management plans), tend to take longer to bring about changes even to outcomes and it is then more difficult to attribute the resulting change to any particular project. 3.5.3 Potential for upscaling impact

It should be noted that the case studies have shown that many of the projects funded through the EMFF are still at a fairly early stage along the impact pathway and that the full extent of impact is unlikely to be clear within the lifespan of the project. Nevertheless, impacts were identified as having been achieved, or likely to be achieved. For example, projects that improved energy efficiency by changing engines, vessels or lighting, or addressed habitat fragmentation by installing fish passes or removing weirs. Considering the energy efficiency projects, it was estimated that engine upgrades to the remaining English fishing fleet could

Page 77

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) potentially result in a reduction in annual CO2e emissions of around 22,000 tonnes. Facilitating and Enabling projects that have a less direct interaction with Natural Capital also provided examples of changes to fisher behaviour and generation of information to inform management plans that can be expected to result in environmental benefits if effectively implemented.

This study was focused on the environmental benefits generated through EMFF funding, but it is important to remember that projects may be funded for a variety of reasons and environmental benefits may be a secondary consideration. For example, engine replacement can also make important contributions to crew safety through the introduction of newer, more reliable, engines. As the case studies have illustrated, there may be other benefits, even from environmentally-focussed projects that may be as important or more important for fisheries management and environmental conservation than the intended environmental gains. This includes changes in attitudes, and opportunities to engage with the natural world (e.g., through outreach, collaborative, and citizen science initiatives).

Not all projects are suitable for upscaling and/or there may be limits to the potential to scale up. For example, while the projects to develop habitat forming aquaculture were successful in increasing Natural Capital and generating employment and income, the potential to scale up may ultimately be limited by the extent and availability of suitable habitats. 3.5.4 Experiences with using the Natural Capital framework to assess impact

The study has provided an opportunity to identify some of the issues associated with using the Natural Capital framework in measuring project impacts. Such assessments are relevant as the UK moves towards a focus on the goals set out in the 25 YEP and an increased use of Natural Capital in decision making. Objective 1 revealed that the RIs applied by individual MS are not always suitable for the effective benchmarking of environmental impacts. In particular they tend to focus on productivity, for example in terms of yields, incomes, profitability and employment. In Natural Capital terms the focus of the RIs is on the flows, with less attention given to the underlying Natural Capital assets or pressures.

Using the Natural Capital framework to identify indicators for the selected projects to describe, where possible, the environmental impacts in terms of Natural Capital indicators was beneficial in providing a consistent approach that could be used across the case studies. Used in combination with the impact pathway, this revealed a range of changes that could result from the project activities. It was also useful as a means to identify key assumptions that had been made in terms of how projects might deliver environmental benefits. For example, while it is intuitively beneficial to reduce loss of Sepia eggs or improve gear selectivity, developing the Natural Capital indicators reveals that there are assumptions that increasing egg survival will contribute to a larger Sepia stock and that more selectivity is better. Both of which may be questioned (e.g., Garcia et al., 2012).

Developing Natural Capital indicators also highlighted issues associated with scale combined with the challenge of measuring changes in the state of ecological communities in a dynamic environment. The challenge of doing so meant that in the case studies, assessment was focused on the quantity of the asset and not the quality and even this did not provide plausible impacts to be identified. For example, while it is possible to identify reduced egg mortality or increased selectivity (the project outcomes), it is not possible to identify the effect this outcome has on the aggregate stock (the impact). This is because of the relatively small contribution that the project might make combined with uncertainties about stock size and the structure and dynamics of the stock or ecosystem.

The case studies also revealed that different relationships between pressures, assets and flows could be identified. It might be assumed that as pressures are reduced, the assets increase and the flows are enhanced. However, this is not always the case, as density- dependent and resource-limiting effects can also impact on the productivity of the assets. As

Page 78

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Figure 13 shows, for fishing, as pressure increases stocks will decline, but productivity is predicted to increase at first and then decline85. A similar effect will be seen with connectivity (if the flows are in terms of fish yields). For aquaculture, as the asset (i.e., cultured stock) increases, it may at first be beneficial, e.g., through improving water quality. However, intensification leading to an increase in the density of the asset may then create additional density-dependent pressures.

In the first instance this suggests that considering benefits across pressures, assets and flows can be useful in establishing where there might be trade-offs between these components of Natural Capital. Secondly, it illustrates that the selection of the indicator is important and may be value based, i.e., dependent on the type of benefit desired. For example, increasing freshwater connectivity could either generate yields of fish, or could generate income from permitting and licensing recreational fishing. Such differences in the ultimate benefit desired will imply alternative management actions that result in different levels of pressure and stock status (e.g., Caddy and Mahon, 1995).

85 Consistent with the surplus production model.

Page 79

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Finally, the case studies reinforced that the Natural Capital concept is focused on the contribution to human wellbeing and economic development of the natural world and not necessarily the ‘naturalness’ of the environment. In some cases, the two may coincide, e.g., in the restoration of habitats and increasing freshwater connectivity. However, in others they may not. In particular the example of offshore mussel farming, while this had the effect of increasing biodiversity and providing significant flows, it also represents habitat modification and creation of an essentially artificial habitat. 3.6 Objective 6: EMFF Reporting Requirements

Reviewing of the reporting requirements to ensure that projects are adequately supported for their duration.

A review was completed in order to understand EMFF reporting requirements and practices in England. This was supported by stakeholder engagement with MMO staff and project

Page 80

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) beneficiaries. Such engagement was undertaken to understand stakeholder perceptions of project reporting including requirements and targets, guidance and assistance, and required actions to collect data as evidence of progress. This provided an overview of reporting at programme and project levels. 3.6.1 Programme reporting

Article 21 and those Articles under Title Five (Monitoring and Evaluation) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council set out the UKs reporting requirements to the EU as an EMFF participant. The main reporting requirement is the submission of an Annual Implementation Report (AIR) every year from 2016 until, and including, 2023. This should include, from 2017, key information related to EMFF implementation at the MS level, including “financial data, common and programme-specific indicators and quantified target values, including changes in the value of Result Indicators where appropriate, and…the milestones defined in the performance framework”86. Both the 2019 and final AIR, in 2023, should include additional information on, and assess progress towards, achieving the objectives of the EMFF programme and its contribution towards the EU’s strategy for smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth87, 88.

The UK, as a MS, interprets the EMFF’s reporting requirements through the OP, which was developed by Defra. The OP tasks the MMO, as Managing Authority (MA), with responsibility for “overseeing and coordinating activities for the evaluation of the EMFF programme” and “delivering monitoring and evaluation outputs to the Commission”89. The devolved administrations working as IBs around the UK are required to use the online Grant Management Systems (GMS) to manage funding applications throughout their life cycle. GMS have a process for reporting on project-based indicators which can then feed into RI monitoring and evaluation as part of the UKs AIR requirement. However, it is the MMO (the UK’s MA) who are ultimately responsible for collating data on each measure to be reported in the AIRs.

In order to standardise project impact reporting across the UK, RIs were developed by Defra (and agreed with the EC) as a means to measure progress against each of the EMFF Articles and UPs. When a project is granted funding under a specific Article, this provides a shortlist of RIs that can be used to monitor and evaluate project progress and impact. However, the RIs can be impossible to quantify and/or may not be directly relevant to the Article to which they were attached. For example, 1.4.b90 is one of the most commonly applied RIs for environmental projects, but it cannot be quantified without a record of unwanted catch, which does not exist for much of the English fleet. In other cases, for example Article 6991 the attached RIs92 are linked to sales rather than the objective of energy saving or environmental impact. Indeed, the study found that only eight of the RIs (Table 36) have an explicitly environmental measure of change and, of these, only two (1.4 and 1.5) relate directly to wild capture fisheries.

86 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:2020:FIN:EN:PDF 87 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32013R1303 88 COM(2010) 2020 final, Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. https://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:2020:FIN:EN:PDF 89 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund-emff-uk-managing-authority-ukma 90 Change in unwanted catches 91 Processing of fisheries and aquaculture products - energy saving or reductions in environmental impact 92 5.1.a - change in value of first sales in Producer Organisations (PO); 5.1.b - Change in volume of first sales in POs; 5.1.c - Change in value of first sales in non-Producer organisation and 5.1.d - Change in volume of first sales in non-POs

Page 81

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 36: Summary of the EMFF Results Indicators that have an environmental target UK Progress Target value Selected in Towards Targets and UK Result Indicators (UK Annual measurement Operational Implementation unit for 202393 Programme Report 2017)*

1.4.b - Change in unwanted catches -12% Yes 0%

-13 Litres -2.71 litres 1.5 - Change in fuel efficiency of fish fuel/tonnes Yes fuel/tonnes landed capture landed catch catch

1.10.a - Change in the coverage of Natura 2000 areas designated under +25,000 km² Yes 0 km2 the Birds and Habitats Directives 1.10.b - Change in the coverage of other spatial protection measures +10,000 km² Yes 0 km2 under Art. 13.4 of the Directive 2008/56/EC 2.6 - Change in the volume of aquaculture production certified under 0 Tonnes Yes 0 Tonnes voluntary sustainability schemes 2.7 - Aquaculture farms providing 25 (number) Yes 1 (number) environmental services 6.2.a - Change in the coverage of Natura 2000 areas designated under +25,000 km² Yes 0 km2 the Birds and Habitats Directives 6.2.b - Change in the coverage of other spatial protection measures +10,000 km² Yes 0 Km2 under Art. 13.4 of the Directive 2008/56/EC Source: UK OP and UK AIR 2017 *Note: The majority of project reporting toward environmental targets has not yet occurred The nature of the RIs means that it is difficult to use environmental benefits as a justification for funding, or to capture the environmental benefits in reporting. Equally importantly, there is little incentive created within the programme to do so. The Article 97.1 2018 final review, shows that for many projects, including those identified by this study as ‘environmental’, there are no listed “indicative results expected”. This will make any reporting against the “value of result indicator when validated after implementation” even more difficult.

The immediate priority for programme reporting is to show that the spending is on track, that it is in line with the OP, and to ensure that evidence is available for any financial auditing. This has the effect of emphasising the financial aspects over reporting of progress towards goals or impacts. This is reflected in the UK’s annual EMFF Programme Monitoring Committee performance review, which tends to emphasise the financial reporting and progress with fund disbursement. Such emphasis, in reporting financial aspects of projects, was confirmed during stakeholder engagements, in that there is currently no requirement to report against environmental project targets until the post project monitoring (three years after the date of final payment, see Section 3.6.2).

The result is that, at present, it is difficult to attribute environmental impacts/benefits to projects or EMFF funding, in most cases. As such, there is currently very little environmental impact

93 2023 is the end of the reporting period, i.e., three years after the date of final payment for the last project funded under the current round of the EMFF (2014 – 2020).

Page 82

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) reporting within the AIRs and although the OP was before the Fisheries Aquaculture Monitoring and Evaluation (FAME) guidance there is still scope to improve reporting. From these reports it is not possible to identify how funding from the EMFF is helping to address the environmental issues it was awarded to tackle, and the extent to which this funding is delivering environmental benefits in England. For example, the most recent (2018) AIR details the amount of funding committed against each Article but provides no measure of progress towards the six of the eight RIs related to environmental impact Table 36). 3.6.2 Beneficiary reporting requirements

At a Devolved Administration level within the UK each IB is responsible for approving project funding, setting targets and monitoring progress. The MMO, as the IB for England, is responsible for approving project funding in England, setting project targets and the RIs that should be reported against to show progress towards project aims (Figure 14).

Page 83

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Issues with the RIs has meant that in practice they are not especially useful in terms of providing a structure for reporting environmental benefits. To address this the MMO have identified project targets in the selection criteria models and acceptance letters that reflect the environmental goals inferred in the Articles, but have not always included RIs in project reporting requirements; this creates a number of issues. Firstly, it may result in a situation where reporting by project beneficiaries may not be initially compatible with the EMFF reporting required from the MS. Where indicators are used that are similar to, but not consistent with the RIs, it will require time consuming conversion. Secondly, there may be issues of consistency. For example, in the case of energy efficiency seven projects were assessed that had been funded to improve fishing vessel energy efficiency through engine upgrades. However, each were set targets in their respective offer letters that variously included reductions in fuel consumption (%), reduction in fuel consumption (L), reduction in CO2 emissions (%), reduction in emissions (%), increased profit (£) and an increased energy efficiency (%). In some cases, e.g., reduction in emissions (%), it is unclear how these targets are intended to be measured. Lastly, some of the targets may not be effective at capturing the environmental benefits for which the projects were funded: for example, by using cost saving as a measure of energy efficiency, which may be affected by changes in energy costs94. For projects funded under certain Articles, there is a requirement for an assessment to be undertaken by a scientific or technical body. However, there is no accepted definition of a scientific or technical body95 and so this required assessment is usually carried out by the funding beneficiary themselves.

Actual beneficiary reporting requirements within the OP96 are imprecise, and there is ambiguity concerning what project beneficiaries are required to provide. For example, the MMO provide guidance97 stating that successful applicants must provide updates on their projects as outlined in their offer letters. This may be every six months, with one performance report per year for the first three years and a reminder sent when these are due. However, this differs from what is detailed in the offer letters that are sent to successful EMFF applicants within England. Offer letters are accompanied by the “Conditions of European Funding” document that details the reporting requirements (Figure 14). Paragraph 26 of the “Conditions of European Funding” states that “all claims must be accompanied by a progress report” and that after the final payment, six-monthly and annual reports should be submitted for a period of three years.

In practice, the reporting required by the MMO (from successfully funded projects) is closer to the online guidance and operates within the parameters set out in the UK’s OP. Personal communication with the MMO has revealed that the first stage at which successful EMFF projects in England are required to report to the MMO is during their Claims Inspection (Figure 14). These inspections are mandatory for all projects at their (i) first claim, (ii) final claim, (iii) with any claim that consists of 80% or more of the total funds offered under the EMFF, and (iv) for gear replacement applications. Regarding the latter, MMO coastal officers attend on- site meetings with applicants to verify purchases. The MMO’s EGT then assess and record comments made during these meetings before approving, rejecting, or asking for clarification

94 Energy is procured centrally for this project site by the City of London. A new contract came into place around the same time as the project work and this contract was not favourable. As a result, the project was not able to demonstrate significant cost savings. 95 The MMO stated (pers. comm.) that there is no definition of a ‘scientific’ or ‘technical body’. Information regarding the Articles that are required to have this type of assessment can be found via the following link:_https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524800/5 ._The_Marine_environment_and_Inland_Fishing.pdf 96 “Applicants may be asked to complete a progress report when a claim is submitted. For projects lasting more than a year before the final claim is submitted, applicants may be requested to submit progress reports after each year, and this will be the opportunity to review the indicators and targets and if necessary, amend them.” - Operational Programme for the United Kingdom. Version 1.2. https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/docs/body/op-uk_en.pdf 97 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund-emff-successful-applicants

Page 84

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) on claims for payment. Three years after the final claim’s inspection has been made, projects are again required to submit a final report to the EGT detailing, among other things, progress towards the aims set out in their offer letter. However, as noted above, the aims set out in the offer letter are not necessarily related to the RIs but may include targets identified by the project beneficiary in their application.

To date only one environmental project (as of 30/06/2019) has reached the point where post- project evaluation is required (see Table 76, Annex 6). The MMO have stated that they will wait for “a more substantial portfolio of projects" before undertaking these post-project reviews. MMO also indicate that it is the responsibility of the project beneficiaries to gather the evidence to show their progress towards their stated aims and input this onto the GMS e- system. However, several of the stakeholders consulted were unaware that this was a requirement, and the ability of projects to collect and report meaningful data is uncertain. 3.7 Objective 7: Conclusions and Lessons Learned

Identification and provision of an analysis of the lessons that can be learnt from the English experience of the EMFF in terms of delivering environmental benefits.

The EMFF is a broad programme that is aimed at improving the productivity, performance and environmental impact of the seafood industry and maritime sector more generally, in line with the objectives of the CFP. The programme has had high levels of demand since its launch in 2016, and increasing numbers of projects are being funded. Based on the transparency initiative data provided to the study, a total of 1,172 projects have been funded under the EMFF as of February 2019, of which 396 (representing 23% of the English spend) can be classified as aimed at providing environmental benefits. Other EMFF projects may also contribute towards environmental objectives indirectly and also address other important issues such as safety at sea and adding value to production. However, understanding the scale of investment in environmental projects to date is important when considering the future policy context within which a national replacement scheme would sit, i.e., the FWP, which places an emphasis on protecting and improving the marine environment, in line with the recent 25 YEP. The 396 environmental projects funded to date cover a wide range of issues from improving energy efficiency, impacting fisheries selectivity, to improving freshwater habitats. Based on the review and stakeholder consultations, the issues addressed by the EMFF remain relevant to the challenges facing the environment and are also relevant to the current policy context.

Based on the analysis of reports submitted to MMO and the seven case studies developed, it is apparent that many of the projects funded under the EMFF have been delivering environmental benefits and/or are likely to do so in the future. This includes reducing incidental mortality of commercial and non-commercial fish stocks, improving and connecting habitats, developing skills and knowledge (Human Capital), broadening participation in environmental decision-making (Human and Social Capital), and improving energy efficiency. These projects have been delivered by a wide variety of stakeholders, often working in collaboration.

While the programme was structured according to the OP, in practice the RIs in the OP were not that useful for selecting environmental projects. The RIs were largely focused on flows (in Natural Capital terms), and therefore downplay potential contributions to reducing pressures or enhancing assets. The Selection Criteria under each funding area were not all that effective for assessing projects in terms of their contribution to improving the environment. Projects with environmental objectives have often been scored ‘low’ in selection criteria other than deliverability. In practice, the deliverability criterion has allowed the MMO to be flexible and responsive in how it has selected projects for EMFF support. This has therefore enabled the EMFF programme in England to be responsive to the needs of the sector (e.g., in covering demands from the under 10m fleet for engine replacements to improve efficiency and environmental performance). Developing programme-level results indicators that more

Page 85

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) accurately reflect goals (e.g., reducing pressures and improving the natural world) could make it easier to select projects that are more pragmatically aligned with scheme aims.

A lesson learned from the earlier EFF is that post-project monitoring needs to begin in advance of the end of the programme. Despite this, there is very little data or information being systematically collected or reported by beneficiaries or the MMO relating to project impacts and environmental benefits. This made it impossible, in this study, to establish project progress, or evaluate effectiveness in terms of environmental benefits without doing more in- depth research. Issues were also identified by the EGT with the GMS for managing information and reporting. It is currently not straightforward and can be highly time-consuming to generate information or build datasets from the system.

Reporting is an area that needs to be strengthened. Currently, the emphasis is on tracking expenditure. While this is important factor given the EMFF constitutes public money, it needs to be balanced by stronger reporting and auditing of the change delivered by the programme and progress towards goals and objectives. While there is an intention to report impact three years after projects have been completed, there is no consistent requirement for project beneficiaries to be collecting the evidence that could assist with this process. This created challenges for this study and it was found that outcomes and impacts were clearer where there had been additional monitoring (e.g., aquaculture case study), or where data was collected as part of routine operations (e.g., energy efficiency case study).

On the basis of the programme review, stakeholder consultations and case studies, the following lessons are identified that can inform any comparable future funding scheme. 3.7.1 Lesson 1: The current scheme remains relevant

There is a clear need for EMFF, or equivalent, funding. The EMFF has been critical to many businesses, especially in the post financial crisis context of high demand for, and reduced access to, funding and credit from other sources. While stakeholders such as researchers and NGOs typically could access a range of funding sources, for other stakeholders - particularly fishers, fish farmers and other private sector organisations - it was a particularly important source of funding. In terms of the focus, the EMFF remains relevant, and is addressing key issues as well as being responsive and flexible in adapting to address emerging issues.

The EMFF as a whole supports innovation and delivers environmental benefits. Eligibility for funding cross cuts a wide range of stakeholders, several of whom have limited options for alternative funding. The fund is also available to address a wide range of issues relevant to stakeholder needs, environmental issues, and policy priorities. The EMFF has provided important support for issues such as habitat forming aquaculture, selectivity, and aspects of marine spatial planning that receive less attention under other funding schemes. Where the scheme has perhaps been less successful is in reporting what is being funded, and the subsequent benefits delivered by the programme. This may explain stakeholder perceptions of the EMFF as a fund for fisheries improvement, despite the number of environmental projects funded to address many of the key environmental challenges that these same stakeholders identified. 3.7.2 Lesson 2: Flexibility and responsiveness have been beneficial

Responsiveness has been a key feature of the EMFF, and is likely to remain an important requirement. This allows policy-makers, managers and stakeholders to respond to new environmental challenges and uncertainties created by, for example, a changing climate and EU-exit. This assessment of the EMFF suggests that any future programme should not be too prescriptive but should instead aim to provide opportunities for new ideas and innovations (including innovative partnerships), that can demonstrate environmental benefits.

Page 86

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Flexibility in the EMFF to date has not been due to the structure of the programme (the Articles and RIs) or the way that this has been translated into the selection criteria. Instead, flexibility has been down to the way projects have been approved in practice against the UPs. It is recommended that any future scheme should therefore maintain high level objectives (equivalent to the UPs). For environmental aspects these can be aligned with the 25 YEP goals (e.g., ‘mitigating and adapting to climate change’; ‘increasing the extent and quality of habitats’, ‘using resources from nature more sustainably and efficiently’ etc.) and help to develop additional criteria for assessing projects based on their intended environmental impacts. This would maintain the flexibility of the programme and ensure that it is fairly simple for applicants to understand. Additional, more specific, environmental indicators and criteria could be developed with input from a conservation advisory body. 3.7.3 Lesson 3: The existing application process provides a good basis

A good deal of effort has been invested by the MMO to make the application process more straightforward through use of an electronic system and by working with applicants to ensure that they are submitting applications that have a good chance of being funded. The current application process, whereby funds can be allocated on the basis of an Expression of Interest (EoI) followed by an application through the e-system for sums below £25,000, and a business case requested for those above, appears to work well and means that applicants do not spend large amounts of time where they might otherwise be ineligible. We recommend maintaining a two-stage application process based on an initial EoI. Having more explicit environmental Results Indicators that relate to pressures and assets would probably help applicants to identify how their projects could contribute to the programme goals (see Lesson 1 and Lesson 7). 3.7.4 Lesson 4: Project beneficiaries should explicitly identify the impacts they will achieve

At the same time as providing flexibility, it is important that any future scheme is results-based and able to demonstrate that it is delivering benefits to the environment and society. There is scope to request additional detail about these aspects from potential beneficiaries at the EoI stage. To date the applications have been reviewed by MMO. If more environmental objectives are to be included in the scheme then it may be useful to have conservation and environmental technical specialists involved in the review of proposals and proposed indicators.

Based on the review of applications and the results of the case studies, project beneficiaries should be required at the application stage to explicitly identify the impacts that they intend to achieve through the project in terms of:

• Beneficial changes they expect to the pressures on the environment, stocks or habitats that the project will deliver (equivalent to Natural Capital pressures and assets); • Benefits they expect to productivity, the economy and human wellbeing (including Natural Capital flows).

This approach can help make the types of benefit expected, and how these would be achieved, more explicit. In addition, this approach would ensure consistency with wider efforts to introduce Natural Capital across government (see also Lesson 7 below). Finally, this approach would help reviewers assess benefits and trade-offs, and help with assessing the deliverability of the proposed actions at the EoI evaluation stage. In addition, one lesson highlighted by the energy efficiency case study was that work on any future scheme should incorporate co-designed elements with beneficiaries to ensure that the impact indicators are both robust and verifiable, as well as being consistent both with the 25 YEP and across projects as far as possible.

Page 87

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

3.7.5 Lesson 5: Broad eligibility provides opportunity for innovation

The EMFF currently has an important place in the funding landscape and provides a range of stakeholders with opportunities to fund a wide variety of projects. This is a strength of the programme and is not something that should be changed significantly. However, given that environmental research is a significant cost to the programme (£3 million between 2014 and February 2019), and that researchers potentially have access to a wider range of funds than other stakeholders, additional restrictions (consistent with the point above about ensuring clearer links to impact) could be placed on the type of research that would be eligible to be funded by the scheme. This would ensure that research funded under the scheme would be applied in nature, with a focus on addressing instrumental and/or capacity constraints, with conceptual contributions a secondary concern. Research proposals should also demonstrate how they intend to facilitate the uptake and wider use of knowledge and skills developed. Ideally this would be in the form of collaborative projects with the proposed research users, ensuring that any project output is not solely focused on increasing information, with little impetus to make sure relevant stakeholders are able to apply the results. All of this should strengthen the link between outcomes and impact(s). 3.7.6 Lesson 6: Research successes could be an opportunity to scale up success

Related to Lesson 5, a number of the more focused research projects had generated changes in behaviour and practice at a local scale. These positive outcomes show potential for scaling up that could increase the adoption of good practice and increase the potential for positive environmental benefits on a wider scale. This could be achieved by promoting within the scheme opportunities for translating research into use, in order to scale up promising results and technologies. However, this would require that the programme is able to identify successes, which is not possible with the current beneficiary reporting (see Lesson 8). 3.7.7 Lesson 7: Selecting appropriate indicators

There are a number of lessons that can be learned from the study about the use of environmental indicators for project monitoring and impact assessment. In the first instance, it is important that indicators selected are relevant to the expected impact and the policy context. The EMFF programme RIs and project target indicators were not always useful as environmental indicators. This is because the former were often focused on productivity gains and the latter could vary, even across essentially similar projects, or were too easily affected by outside influences (e.g., cost saving as measure of energy efficiency). At the same time, the indicators in the 25 YEP, while policy-relevant, are often too broad or difficult to use at the project scale because of their composite nature, e.g., percentage of seafood from sustainable sources. This means that they can be sensitive to changes in more than one component of Natural Capital (i.e., pressures, assets and flows). As a result, alternative indicators were developed for each case study that were related to the 25 YEP (Annex 13, Table 82) and based on using a Natural Capital framework. Doing so highlighted a number of useful lessons.

In the first instance, scale had important implications in terms of what could be measured. This meant that while it was possible to quantify change in project outcomes (e.g., decreased mortality, increased energy efficiency), it was not possible to quantify the related impact (effect of the change in outcome on stock quantity and quality, or global climate).

Using the framework to develop case study indicators revealed that while some indicators may be conceptually possible to identify (e.g., stock quality), it was often difficult to identify meaningful yet practicable indicators (i.e., measurable and cost effective). In the case studies this meant that there was an emphasis on asset quantity, not quality. In practice it was also found that the different components (pressures, assets and flows) may all be affected by an

Page 88

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) intervention or may be affected differently. This demonstrated the benefit of developing indicators with a clear understanding of the intended environmental impact. For example, participatory approaches to MPA planning may result in a plan to change from a no-take MPA to a zoned MPA that allows some regulated commercial and recreational fishing. Such a case would represent an increase in flows and pressures, but with some reduction in the quantity and possibly quality of the assets. In this case, setting appropriate indicators will require an understanding of both the intended environmental impacts and their likely scale.

In selecting indicators for the case studies, neutral indicators were selected to measure change as these may be both negative and positive and, where relevant, can be compared with established baselines; for example, stock abundance relative to MSY. Indicators will still need to be quantified because generating evidence of impact requires data. However, data collection can impose costs on the collector and it may be necessary to create a requirement that beneficiaries collect evidence that can be used to assess change. Wherever possible, baseline values should also be provided to ensure that it is possible to interpret whether things have improved or become worse. For example, it is not possible to quantify RI 1.4 (Change in unwanted catches) without baseline information on the level of unwanted catch.

Foundational and Enabling projects had more indirect links to Natural Capital and the delivery of environmental benefits. Developing indicators for these projects revealed three things. Firstly, the impact pathway was useful as it illustrates the importance of being able to describe progress towards the intended impact. It also suggests that it is important to focus on assessing effectiveness at the interface between the outcomes in project applications, i.e. able to provide evidence of planned uptake and utilisation of knowledge in, for example, management plans. The second feature of these projects is that they tend to be quite different. While it was generally possible to identify common indicators for projects such as energy efficiency, aquaculture, selectivity and habitat connectivity, this was not the case for the other case studies. For these, individual projects, project activities and intended outcomes could be quite varied. It may therefore not be possible to identify common indicators and instead be advisable to have a conservation advisory body or other suitable body review proposed indicators for these projects. Finally, these case studies in particular demonstrated that there may be time-lags before the effects of project activities can be identified, with environmental benefits resulting from interventions typically slow to emerge, and often likely to occur beyond the project lifespan. The existing requirement to report impact three years after the end of the project reflects this and should be maintained. 3.7.8 Lesson 8: More systematic reporting is needed

Reporting, aside from reporting expenditure, is currently a weakness of the environmental projects funded by the EMFF and reviewed for this study. The advice to beneficiaries is ambiguous and there is no clear system for managing and using information from beneficiaries. If reporting is not carried out thoroughly and systematically, money may be wasted repeating work, and opportunities to take good ideas forward may be lost. With environmental reporting on impact only required three years after the final payments, even with appropriate indicators the feedback loop to inform progress towards programme goals and delivery on policy objectives, e.g., the 25 YEP, will be subject to a potentially significant time-lag.

A key lesson is that there needs to be clearer advice to beneficiaries on the data that they might need to collect and the reporting that they need to provide. At the programme level, more structured environmental reporting would improve the ability to capture progress, problems and successes and provide a feedback loop to inform future funding decisions, e.g., related to deliverability criteria or opportunities to scale up success. This should take the form of an annual environmental report, as a minimum requirement, so that progress against the intended impacts stated in the application documents can be measured and addressed. This

Page 89

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) would have the additional benefit of requiring beneficiaries to collect data on their impacts. Data collection is currently not happening in all cases, which makes it difficult to assess the impact of the projects funded to date. 3.7.9 Lesson 9: Systems and structures are needed to manage information

The review of reporting highlighted that the programme was effective at reporting expenditure but that there is very little reporting on programme activities (outside of the Transparency Initiative) and progress or success in terms of positive environmental impacts. This aspect of environmental reporting could be strengthened considerably and a requirement to report environmental progress and success at the programme level would also create incentives to strengthen the beneficiary reporting. The scheme should be regularly audited against what it is funding and progress towards impact as well as expenditure. This would provide a clear incentive to strengthen reporting and also to develop the programme in an adaptive manner. To achieve this, a rigorous evaluation framework needs to be in place against which the programme can be audited.

This could produce additional benefits. Analysis showed that the EMFF is addressing many of the key environmental issues that were identified by stakeholders, as well as in the literature, and projects are showing progress towards impact. Despite this, the EMFF was not perceived as being effective in addressing these issues. This suggests that more could be done to raise awareness about what the EMFF is funding and the benefits that are being generated as a result. This might also help create additional demand and new proposals. One possibility is that beneficiary progress reporting and the AIR are used as the basis for developing an annual newsletter, or set of newsletters covering different subjects, that show progress towards impact, highlight notable successes and captures important lessons (as is apparent within certain UK government granting schemes, e.g., Darwin Initiative).

Page 90

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) 4 References

Aarestrup, K. and Koed, A. (2003). Survival of migrating sea trout (Salmo trutta) and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts negotiating weirs in small Danish rivers. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 12(3), pp.169–176.

Aarestrup, K., Lucas, M.C. and Hansen, J.A. (2003). Efficiency of a nature-like bypass channel for sea trout (Salmo trutta) ascending a small Danish stream studied by PIT telemetry. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 12(3), pp.160–168.

Baur, H., Bosch, M., Krall, S., Kuby, T., Lobb-Rabe, A., Schutz, P.-T. and Springer-Heinze, A. (2001) Establishing Plausibility in Impact Assessment. GTZ, Eschborn.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Pimbert, M., Farvar, M.T., Kothari, A. and Renard, Y. (2010). Sharing Power: A Global Guide to Collaborative Management of Natural Resources. Earthscan UK and USA.

Bridges, T. (2017). Crab and Lobster Stock Assessment. Research Report. Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority.

Brown, G., Strickland-Munro, J., Kobryn, H. and Moore, S.A. (2016). Stakeholder analysis for marine conservation planning using public participation GIS. Applied Geography, 67, pp.77– 93.

Browne, D., Oliver, M., McHugh, M., Minto, C. and Cosgrove, R. (2018). Assessment of an Increase in Codend Mesh Size and Reduced Codend Circumference in an Irish Nephrops Fishery. Fisheries Conservation Report. BIM, Ireland’s Seafood Development Agency.

Caddy, J.F. and Mahon, R. (1995). Reference Points for Fisheries Management. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 347. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Carlton J.S. (2019). Chapter 12 - Resistance and Propulsion. In: Marine Propellers and Propulsion (Fourth Edition), Butterworth-Heinemann, pp.313–336.

Carpenter, A., Shellock, R., von Haartman, R., Fletcher, S. and Glegg, G. (2018). Public perceptions of management priorities for the English Channel region. Marine Policy, 97, pp.294–304.

Catchpole, T.L., and Revill, A.S. (2008). Gear technology in Nephrops trawl fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 18(1), pp.17–31.

Coen, L.D., Brumbaugh, R.D., Bushek, D., Grizzle, R., Luckenbach, M.W., Posey, M.H., Powers, S.P., Tolley, S.G. (2007). Ecosystem services related to oyster restoration. Marine Ecology Progress Series 341, pp.303–307.

Costello, M.J and Ballantine, B. (2015). Biodiversity conservation should focus on no-take marine reserves. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 30(9), pp.507–509.

Cote, D., Kehler, D.G., Bourne, C. and Wiersma, Y.F. (2009). A new measure of longitudinal connectivity for stream networks. Landscape Ecology, 24(1), pp.101–113.

Dame, R. (1996). Ecology of Marine Bivalves: An Ecosystem Approach. CRC Marine Science Series, Boca Raton, FL.

Defra (2018). Fisheries White Paper: Sustainable Fisheries for Future Generations. HM Government.

Page 91

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Dunn, K. (2005). Interviewing. In: Hay, I. (ed.). Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography. Oxford University Press, pp.79–105.

EEA (2018). Status of The Assessed European Fish Stocks in Relation to Good Environmental Status Per Regional Sea. Figure: Data and Maps. European Environment Agency. Copenhagen, Denmark.

Environment Agency (2003). Briefing Note: Public Participation and the Water Framework Directive. Environment Agency, Bristol.

European Parliament (2018). European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 2021-2027. Briefing: EU Legislation in Progress 2021-2027 MFF, European Parliament.

Fairbanks, L. (2016). Moving mussels offshore? Perceptions of offshore aquaculture policy and expansion in New England. Ocean & Coastal Management, 130, pp.1–12.

Fjeldstad, H.-P., Barlaup, B.T., Stickler, M., Gabrielsen, S.-E. and Alfredsen, K. (2012). Removal of weirs and the influence on physical habitat for salmonids in a Norwegian river. River Research and Applications 28(6), pp.753–763.

Fodrie, F.J., Rodriguez, A.B., Gittman, R.K., Grabowski, J.H., Lindquist, N.L., Peterson, C.H., Piehler, M. F., Ridge, J.T. (2017). Oyster reefs as carbon sources and sinks. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 284(1859).

Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P. and Norberg, J. (2005) Adaptive governance of social- ecological systems. Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 30, pp.441–473

Garcia S. M., Kolding J., Rice J., Rochet M-J., Zhou S., Arimoto T., Beyer J. E., Borges, L., Bundy, A., Dunn, D., Fulton, E.A., Hall, M., Heino, M., Law, R., Makino, M., Rijnsdorp, A.D., Simard, F. and Smith, A.D.M. (2012). Reconsidering the consequences of selective fisheries. Science, 335, pp.1045–1047.

Gilby, B.L., Olds, A.D., Peterson, C.H., Connolly, R.M., Voss, C.M., Bishop, M.J., Elliott, M., Grabowski, J.H., Ortodossi, N.L. and Schlacher, T.A. (2018). Maximizing the benefits of oyster reef restoration for finfish and their fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 19(5), pp.931–947.

Gowans, A.R.D., Armstrong, J.D., Priede, I.G. and Mckelvey, S. (2003). Movements of Atlantic salmon migrating upstream through a fish-pass complex in Scotland. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 12(3), pp.177–189.

Grabowski, J.H., Brumbaugh, R.D., Conrad, R.F., Keeler, A.G., Opaluch, J.J., Peterson, C.H., Piehler, M.F., Powers, S.P. and Smyth, A.R. (2012). Economic valuation of ecosystem services provided by oyster reefs. BioScience 62(10), pp.900–909.

Helmer, L., Farrell, P., Hendy, I., Harding, S., Robertson, M. and Preston, J. (2019). Active management is required to turn the tide for depleted Ostrea edulis stocks from the effects of overfishing, disease and invasive species, Peer J, pp.e6431.

Holst, R., Madsen, N., Moth-Poulsen, T., Fonseca, P. and Campos, A. (1998). Manual for Gillnet Selectivity. European Commission.

Hooper, T., Ashley, M., Börger, T., Langmead, O., Marcone, O., Rees, S., Rendon, O., Beaumont, N., Attrill, M. and Austen, M. (2019). Application of the Natural Capital Approach to the Marine Environment to Aid Decision-Making. Phase 1 Final Report. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs.

Jefferson, R.L., Bailey, I., Laffoley, D. d′A., Richards, J.P. and Attrill, M.J. (2014). Public perceptions of the UK marine environment. Marine Policy, 43, pp.327–337.

Page 92

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Jones, J., B, L., Tummers, J., Jones, P., Lucas, M., Kerr, J., Kemp, P., Bizzi, S., Consuegra, S., Marcello, L. and Vowles, A., (2019). A comprehensive assessment of stream fragmentation in Great Britain. Science of the Total Environment 673, pp.756-762.

Kamphausen, L.M., (2012). The Reproductive Processes of a Wild Population of the European Flat Oyster Ostrea edulis in the Solent, UK. Ocean and Earth Science, Doctoral Thesis. University of Southampton

Kelleher, K. (2005). Discards in the World’s Marine Fisheries. An Update. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Kummu, M. (2008). Spatio-Temporal Scales of Hydrobiological Impact Assessment in Large River Basins: The Mekong Case. Water & Development Publications, Helsinki University of Technology.

Little, A.S., Needle, C.L., Hilborn, R., Holland, D.S. and Marshall, C.T. (2015). Real‐time spatial management approaches to reduce bycatch and discards: experiences from Europe and the United States. Fish and Fisheries 16, pp.576–602.

MBA and BES (2018). BES and Marine Biological Association Joint Workshop Report: The Marine Environment after Brexit. The British Ecological Society.

Natural Capital Coalition. (2016). Natural Capital Protocol Principles and Framework. Radley Yeldar.

Natural Capital Committee. (2017). How to do it: A Natural Capital Workbook. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs.

Notti, E. and Sala, A. (2014). Information Collection in Energy Efficiency for Fisheries. ICEEF- 3 Final Report. The European Commission.

O’Neill, F.G., Feekings, J., Fryer, R.J., Fauconnet, L., & Afonso, P. (2019). Discard Avoidance by Improving Fishing Gear Selectivity: Helping the Fishing Industry Help Itself. In: The European Landing Obligation, Springer, Cham, pp.279–296.

Öndes, F., Kaiser, M.J., and Murray, L.G. (2017). Fish and invertebrate by-catch in the crab pot fishery in the Isle of Man, Irish Sea. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 98(8), pp.1–13.

Parente, J., Fonseca, P., Henriques, V. and Campos, A. (2008). Strategies for improving fuel efficiency in the Portuguese trawl fishery. Fisheries Research, 93(1-2), pp.117–124.

Pelletier, D. and Laurec, A. (1992). Management under uncertainty: defining strategies for reducing overexploitation, ICES Journal of Marine Science 49(4), pp.389–401,

Penfield, T., Baker, M.J., Scoble, R. and Wykes, M. (2014) Assessment, evaluations and definitions of research impact: a review. Research Evaluation 23(1), pp.21-32.

Peterson, C.H. and Lipcius, R.N. (2003). Conceptual progress towards predicting quantitative ecosystem benefits of ecological restorations. Marine Ecology Progress Series 264, pp.297– 307.

Pimputkar, S., Speck, J.S., DenBaars, S.P., Nakamura, S. (2009). Prospects for LED lighting. Nature photonics, 3(4), pp.180

Pomeroy, R. and Douvere, F. (2008). The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process. The Role of Marine Spatial Planning in Implementing Ecosystem-based, Sea Use Management, 32(5), pp.816–822.

Page 93

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Priestley, S., Ares, E., Giesler, R. and Adcock, A. (2017). UK’s Role in Degradation of the Marine Environment. House of Commons Library.

Priour, D. (2009). Numerical optimisation of trawls design to improve their energy efficiency. Fisheries Research 98(1–3), pp.40–50.

Punton, M. (2014) Getting the World Thinking About Chronic Poverty: A Case Study on How Research Can Lead to Change. Report prepared for UK Department for International Development. DFID Research and Evidence Division.

Reed, M. S. (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation 141 (10):2417–2431.

Shaw, E.A., Lange, E., Shucksmith, J.D. and Lerner, D.N. (2016). Importance of partial barriers and temporal variation in flow when modelling connectivity in fragmented river systems. Ecological Engineering 91, pp.515–528.

Spence, E., Pidgeon, N. and Pearson, P. (2018). UK public perceptions of Ocean Acidification – The importance of place and environmental identity. Marine Policy, 97, pp.287–293.

Tupper, E.C. (2013). Chapter 7 - Resistance. In: Tupper, E. C. (ed.). Introduction to Naval Architecture (Fifth Edition). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp.131–160.

Valentine, G. (2005). Tell Me About . . . Using Interviews as a Research Methodology. In: Flowerdew, R. and Martin, D. (eds.). Methods in Human Geography: A Guide for Students Doing a Research Project. Addison Wesley Longman, pp.110–127.

Valentinsson, D., and Nilsson, H. C. (2015). Effects of gear and season on discard survivability in three Swedish fisheries for Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus). Swedish University Agricultural Sciences, pp.1-11.

Way, H., Michael, F., Hudson, D., Turnock, S. (2018). Assessment of Bulbous Bow Performance Over Operational Profiles Using Full Scale Data. The Royal Institution of Naval Architects.

Weitzman, J. (2019). Applying the ecosystem services concept to aquaculture: A review of approaches, definitions, and uses. Ecosystem Services, 35, pp.194–206.

Welcomme, R.L. (1995). Relationships between fisheries and the integrity of river systems. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 11: pp.121–136.

White, E.M. and Knights, B. (1997). Environmental factors affecting migration of the European eel in the Rivers Severn and Avon, England. Journal of Fish Biology 50(5), pp.1104–1116.

Page 94

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) Annex 1 Detailed case studies

4.1 Connecting freshwater habitats

The importance of projects focused on connecting freshwater habitats was made clear during stakeholder engagement, with 21% (n = 5) identifying degradation of freshwater habitats as a major issue. Fragmentation of freshwater habitats can also carry a high financial cost, especially in cases where emergency assistance is required to assist upstream migration. For example, low water events in 2007, 2011 and 2016 alone cost the Environment Agency (EA) a total of £40,000 in emergency measures to facilitate Atlantic salmon movement.

It is estimated that there are 19,053 man-made barriers to freshwater species migration in the England (Jones et al. 2019). Of these, the EA has identified approximately 115 as having a high impact/priority98. A total of nine projects have been funded by the EMFF in England that address connectivity of freshwater habitats, focusing on the installation of fish passes and removal of weirs. These projects represent a total commitment of EMFF funding of £1,255,733, with an average project commitment of £125,573. All of these projects have addressed Union Priority 1 (Articles 40.1.b-g and 44.6), and contributed to several of the 25 YEP’s goals, especially ‘Thriving plants and wildlife’ (Annex 13, Table 82).Additionally, all projects within this case study stated, in their business cases, that their funding applications came in response to a call, within England, to get projects funded that addressed issues related to Water Framework Directive (WFD) drivers.

Table 37: Summary of the projects funded in England through the EMFF that were selected for the connecting of freshwater habitats case study Funding Funding Project Code Project Title Priorities Value (£) ENG1777 England inland waters migration priorities - Flint Mill weir Union 240,000 ENG2407 Ennerdale Mill weir removal Priority 1 203,731 (Articles ENG2743 Springs of Rivers - Mill Street fish pass 40.1.b-g 103,649 ENG2753 Springs of Rivers - Corve fish pass and 44.6) 89,914

Indicators were developed by MRAG based on the intended change associated with each of the projects, and against the three components of Natural Capital (Table 13). These indicators were the basis of measuring success, or potential success, and environmental benefits delivered by the projects. The indicators also included potential dis-benefits that might result, e.g., increased connectivity allowing invasive species access to more of a river or increased fish mortality from increased recreational fishing opportunities. Environmental benefits of the

98 Pers. comm. with a project stakeholder

Page 95

This section provides a brief description of the aims of the projects selected for the ‘connectivity of freshwater habitats’ case study.

ENG1777: Flint Mill weir

The project taking place at Flint Mill weir (near Boston Spa) on the River Wharfe involves two stages; (i) implementation of a Larinier style fish pass (mainly to increase upstream movement of salmonids) and (ii) development of an eel and lamprey pass. The aim of this project was to increase upstream movement and connectivity of freshwater populations of salmonids, eel and lamprey populations within River Wharfe.

ENG2743 and ENG2753: Springs of rivers – Mill Street and Corve fish passes

Mill Street (ENG2743) and Corve (ENG2753) fish passes are both intended to allow for more effective migration of Atlantic salmon into the upper areas of the Severn catchment (in the Rivers Teme and Corve) and are considered as a project cluster. It was hoped this project cluster would lead to an increased distribution and reproductive capacity of Atlantic salmon in the River Severn. The cluster also aimed to slow the decline of the critically endangered freshwater pearl mussel through enhancement of salmonid populations within the Severn catchment. Salmon and mussels have interacting life cycles (Figure 15). The larval stages of the mussels (known as glochidia) attach to the gills of the juvenile salmon, become encysted and remain that way until the spring when they detach and fall onto the gravel. Enhancing the number of juvenile salmonids increases the number of potential gills for larvae to attach to.

Release of glochidia into the river Detachment of matured glochidia from the gills of the salmon

Attachment of glochidia to the gills Detachment from the gills of the of the juvenile salmon salmon. Now known as spats.

Figure 15: The life cycle of the freshwater pearl mussel demonstrating the symbiotic relationship and importance of juvenile salmon. Adapted from Skinner et al. (2003)

ENG2407: Ennerdale weir removal

The controlled removal of Ennerdale weir (on the River Ehen) was the result of four years of public pressure, following records of fish being unable to migrate upstream, and the result of an environmental assessment that stated the weir was structurally unstable and likely to fail within the near future.

Page 96

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Removal of the weir sought to increase migration of species including Atlantic salmon and European eel and improve and expand the riverine habitat available to species such as trout and lamprey. Reconnection of the upper- and lower-reaches of the river was also expected to benefit the resident populations of salmonid dependent freshwater pearl mussels due to the dependence of their lifecycle of salmonids (Figure 1). 4.1.2 Methods

To enable an evaluation of the expected benefits of the projects in question a literature review of the success of similar, previous projects was undertaken. Stakeholder engagement was also utilised to provide detailed information on project progress, expected and observed environmental outcomes.

Indicators were developed by MRAG based on the intended change associated with each of the projects, and against the three components of Natural Capital (Table 13). These indicators, compared to those in the 25 YEP (Table 81, Annex 12), were the basis of measuring success, or potential success, of these projects using a combination of the feedback from stakeholder engagement (Table 39), and results from the literature review.

Table 38: Possible environmental impacts that could result from connecting freshwater habitats projects and the appropriate Natural Capital indicators to track any change Natural Capital Outcomes Impact Indicator Component Potential spread of non-native Stocks of non-native species species

Decreased habitat 99 Pressures Dendritic connectivity Improved habitat fragmentation connectivity Mortality as a result of Potential increased fishing catches and catch-and- mortality release fishing

Increased stocks Increased stocks of migratory Abundance of migratory species within river systems species

Increased stocks of species Abundance of species

Assets dependent on migratory dependent on migratory Increased sale of species within river systems species fishing permits Increased populations of Abundance of endangered species endangered species Increased income from Income from commercial Flows increased fishable area and recreational fishing

99 Dendritic connectivity is the longitudinal connectivity within a Dendritic Ecological Network (e.g., river or stream); the number of barriers along the length of a river network. More detail of this concept can be found within Cote et al., (2009).

Page 97

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 39: Project stakeholders contacted for engagement Project Success in contacting Organisation Interview date Reference stakeholder? Yorkshire Dales Rivers Trust Yes 28/05/2019 ENG1777 Environment Agency Yes 03/06/2019 The Rivers Trust No n/a Environment Agency Yes 23/05/2019 ENG2743 & Severn Rivers Trust Yes 30/05/2019 ENG2754 FiskTek Yes n/a ENG2407 West Cumbria Rivers Trust Yes 24/05/2019

4.1.3 Results

Based on the indicators identified for each Natural Capital aspect (Table 13) individual projects’ progress and success in generating environmental benefits were assessed. Dis- benefits (pressures) were also evaluated (e.g., spread of non-native species).

Project progress

Projects evaluated differed with regards to their progress (Table 16) with only one reaching the stage where it has been possible to assess environmental benefits.

Figure 16: Progress along the impact pathway of projects within the connecting freshwater habitats case study.

ENG1777: Flint Mill Weir

The project is in the first of two phases (Larinier fish pass implementation), and is due to be completed in July 2019. As of the 28th of May 2019, the construction of the Larinier style fish pass, designed by FishTek, had been completed but had not yet been broken through into the river. As the project activities are ongoing and the fish pass has not been completed the outcomes and impacts are not yet visible, as the project has not reached the output stage. The evaluation for this project is therefore to be based on perceptions of the likely impacts supported by existing literature.

ENG2743 and ENG2753: Springs of rivers – Mill Street and Corve fish passes

The Mill Street project (ENG2743) was completed in November of 2018, with the construction of a Larinier fish pass to enhance migration of Atlantic salmon (Figure 17a), with a specific design to incorporate a secondary pass to allow effective migration of eels and lampreys. During construction of the fish pass on the River Corve (EMG2753) it was discovered that the weir was unstable (Figure 17b) and as such, was not a suitable site for fish pass construction. The feasibility of weir removal was investigated and is planned for the summer of 2019.

Page 98

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

a b

No environmental outcomes or impacts have been observed for either project due to (i) the only recent completion of the fish pass (ENG2743), and lack of progress from the activities phase due to construction complications (ENG2753).

ENG2407: Ennerdale weir removal

Following preliminary feasibility studies (not part of EMFF funding), the removal project was completed in July of 2018. The project is now in the impact stage, with a variety of environmental changes being reported as a result of the weir removal.

Environmental benefits

The primary aims of the projects are to reduce fragmentation of freshwater populations by increasing the potential for connectivity within the river. Increasing connectivity is suggested to increase the value of the habitat and according to the National Water Environment Benefit Survey (NWEBS); the annual value of each kilometre of river restored is approximately £3,500 (Environment Agency, 2013)100. In addition, the estimated value expected to be generated annually from increasing the habitat extent within each projects based on the extent of river restored can be seen in Table 40. NB. It is not possible to evaluate the actual value of increased connectivity because none of the projects have been completed for more than a year.

Table 40: Estimated value as a result of reduced fragmentation and river restoration for each project Value over the River restored Annual Value Project assumed 30 year (km) (£)101 appraisal period (£) ENG2407: Ennerdale weir removal 16 56,000 1,050,535 ENG1777: Flint Mill weir fish pass 33 115,500 2,166,730 ENG2743: Springs of Rivers – Mill 50 175,000 3,282,924 Street fish pass ENG2753: Springs of Rivers – Corve 20 75,000 1,406,967 fish pass

100 The value of £3,500 per km or river restored was provided in the business case for ENG1777 which stated “To assess the benefits of fish passage the NWEB values were divided by six in order to reflect the fact the WFD ‘good’ classification is derived from six core parameters of which ‘fish’ are just one. These methods are quite crude and in most cases will significantly under value the wider benefits of improving fish passage. Nonetheless the conclusion is that the annual benefits could be valued at approximately £3,500 for each km of river restored”. 101 Ibid

Page 99

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Dendritic connectivity (longitudinal connectivity of a river or stream) is improved more by weir removal (ENG2407 and ENG2573) than implementation of fish passes. This is because weir removal restores the natural connective properties of the river entirely. However, both methods mitigate the anthropogenic barriers to the migration of a range of species, such as Atlantic salmon and trout.

Removing the barriers to migration within the rivers can potentially increase the risk that invasive non-native species (e.g., signal crayfish) may migrate and start to inhabit upstream areas. This was a risk highlighted by stakeholders from the Springs of Rivers projects ENG2743 and ENG2753. However, monitoring to assess the risk of non-native species presence suggested that the risk, according to the stakeholders, is minimal. For project ENG1777 stakeholders reported that signal crayfish are already present throughout the River Wharfe, with populations both upstream and downstream of the weir site. Furthermore, risk assessments were conducted prior to project implementation that examined the distribution of signal crayfish prior to fish pass construction. These assessments suggested that no change is expected in the non-native populations of signal crayfish following weir removal.

Increased fishing effort due to an increase in fishing permit sales could influence stock numbers due to increased landings (e.g., eel), or increased mortality resulting from catch-and- release fishing (e.g., salmon). Stakeholders indicated that increased fishing is expected upstream of the weirs following fish pass construction (contributing to increased environmental services). The survival of salmon, following catch and release, is important in maintaining an effective spawning stock. However, survival to spawning will differ according to the method used in recreational fishing, and can be as low as 55% for fish caught using lures but increases to 98% for fly caught fish (Gargan et al., 2015). Following release and survival, the risk to the health of the fish is low (in terms of breeding performance), with minimal sub-lethal impacts associated with catch and release (Cowx et al., 2017). Effective fisheries management should mitigate the risk an increase in recreational angling will bring.

Only one of the projects in question has passed the output stage (ENG2407: Ennerdale weir removal). Anecdotal evidence provided during stakeholder interviews suggested that the removal of the weir in July 2018 resulted in increased catches of Atlantic salmon, with observations of fish higher upstream than in preceding years. Unfortunately, no specific monitoring studies have been conducted and 2018 catch and release figures (from the Environment Agency) are currently unpublished. The positive feedback from the local fishers’ organisations is encouraging and sightings of Atlantic salmon upstream of the former weir suggests that the Natural Capital value of stocks in the River Ehen is increasing.

The observed increased in Atlantic salmon upstream of the former Ennerdale weir is consistent with the published literature, which has demonstrated that following removal of barriers to migration the juvenile Atlantic salmon numbers upstream can increase significantly. For example, following weir removal in the River Nidelva in Norway, the density of juvenile salmon in upstream areas rose from three individuals per 100 m3 to 28 individuals per 100 m3 (Fjeldstad et al., 2012). Fish passes have also been demonstrated to mitigate barriers to salmon and allow for a significantly greater proportion of individuals to progress further upstream (White and Knights, 1997; Aarestrup and Koed, 2003; Guiny et al., 2005; Fjeldstad et al., 2012).

For the River Teme (ENG2743) stakeholders reported that they expect an increased abundance of Atlantic salmon upstream of the weir after September 2019. Based on stakeholder engagement feedback and the existing literature, it can be expected that for this river there will also be an increase in salmon reaching upstream habitats and an overall increase in the number of salmon.

Removing barriers to migration and enhancing habitat is one of the major goals of the ‘Salmon Five Point Approach’ (The Angling Trust, n.d.) and will directly feed into one of the most

Page 100

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) important benefits expected from the increase in riverine connectivity: the enhancement of at- risk populations. It is important to note that Atlantic salmon is not the only species that will benefit from the increased habitat connectivity. Consultation with stakeholders indicated the critically endangered populations of freshwater pearl mussels within the Rivers Ehen, Clun (Teme catchment, upstream of the Mill Street weir) and the Teme are also expected to benefit. However, it is relatively difficult to predict the extent of such benefits, while there may also be a substantial time lag between enhancement of salmon populations and benefits to mussel populations. However, encystment surveys (looking for encysted larvae on the gills of juvenile salmonids) are currently underway on the River Ehen to identify if salmon upstream of the weir are carrying mussel larvae.

All four of the selected projects are expected to enhance populations of the critically endangered European eel, through increasing the habitat available to them. The two weir removal projects allow complete restoration of original river connectivity within those regions. The two fish pass projects (ENG1777 and ENG2743) include specific adaptions to effectively allow eel passage. Other species can also benefit from increased connectivity and a project stakeholder involved in ENG1777 reported that similar projects in the Yorkshire area has seen over 20 species of fish, otters, herons and kingfishers in restored river sections.

An increased income through an increase in permit and fishing gear sales is expected as a result of the increased fishable area following restoration. This will contribute towards the estimated annual value of £3,500 per kilometre of restored river which is expected to be generated (Environment Agency, 2013); each additional m2 of nursery habitat available is valued at £1 and each additional salmon smolt within the river is estimated to be worth £26 (Butler et al., 2009). In a study conducted on the River Spey, Butler et al. (2009) demonstrated this economic benefit increases with age as adult rod-caught salmon are calculated to be worth £970 per individual. In addition, consultation with stakeholders from the projects in question confirmed that an increase in the number of anglers is also expected.

Discussions with project stakeholders from ENG1777 emphasised the range of benefits brought on by fish pass implementation. In the 1970s river pollution and fragmentation caused the number of fish species present within the Ouse system to drop from 35 to around 5. Recently, with the implementation of fish passes and improvement in water quality between 25 and 30 fish species have now been observed. Such increase in fish biodiversity within this system has resulted in an increase in local fishing being observed, with fishers opting to fish within the local river rather than travelling to distant river systems102. The increased popularity of local fishing is likely to draw other recreational anglers to the area, further contributing to increasing economic benefits for local tackle shops and permit dispensers.

The presence of endangered species within a river system also potentially provides an additional cultural ecosystem service, with the presence of the species potentially increasing both educational and recreational attraction (Hooper et al., 2019). 4.1.4 Summary

The timeframe of the projects in question has limited the evaluation of the environmental benefits. Table 41 provides an overview of the environmental impacts associated with each of the Natural Capital indicators associated with this case study. Observed and expected impacts were identified through stakeholder engagement and a review of the existing literature.

102 Pers. comm. with a project stakeholder

Page 101

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 41: observed and expected impacts connected with each Natural Capital indicator associated with the connecting freshwater habitats case study Natural Natural Capital Capital Impact Observed or Expected Impact Indicator Component Stocks of non- Expected: Monitoring and risk Potential spread of native species assessments for signal crayfish non-native species (n) suggest risk is minimal Observed and expected: Stakeholders report that fishing effort is expected to increase upstream. This has been observed on the Ouse River system Potential mortality as with improvements to river quality and a result of catches Fishing mortality connectivity encouraging anglers to and catch-and- (n) fish locally. release fishing

No information on fish mortality as a result of changes in effort was Pressures available. Observed: Weirs have been successfully removed and fish passes installed, successfully increasing connectivity 16 km of additional habitat has been made available to migratory Dendritic species. Decreased habitat Connectivity fragmentation Expected: A further 103 km of river will Index be available on completion of the remaining projects. The Dendritic Connectivity Index (DCI) value for the River Ehen was 38.5. Following removal this would increase to the maximum value of 100 Increased stocks and Observed: Information only available Stocks of distribution of for ENG2407 where fishers report migratory migratory commercial increased salmon catches upstream of species (n) fish the former weir site No evidence available to assess; however, it is expected that with increased abundance of migratory Increased Stocks of species (e.g., salmon), populations populations of species dependant on these (i.e., freshwater species dependent dependent on pearl mussels) will benefit. Assets on migratory species migratory within river systems species (n) Expected: In the case of pearl mussels it is unclear if the populations will increase or simply decline at a reduced rate. Expected: No specific monitoring has Increased been conducted; however, Increased populations of stakeholders associated with all four populations of endangered projects indicated that they expected endangered species species (n) eel populations to increase within the rivers Increased income Commercial and No evidence of increased income to Flows from increased recreational date as projects still ongoing or only fishable area catches (n) recently completed.

Page 102

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Of the 115 high priority barriers in England, approximately 50% have already been altered to mitigate the barrier to migration through projects such as those investigated in this case study. Targeting the remaining 58 high priority barriers would restore an estimated additional 1,725.5 km. Based on figures in the NWEBS published by the Environment Agency (2013) that were used in the business cases for the four projects assessed, this would result in benefits, services and flows with the equivalent Natural Capital value of £6,039,250103 annually. Possible dis-benefits associated with restoring habitat connectivity could be increased human disturbance of the natural environment (Welcomme, 1995; Kummu, 2008). This introduces another pressure which may affect some of the species (including herons, kingfisher and otters) that otherwise benefit from restoration of the habitat.

103 This is valued at £113 million over the assumed 30 year appraisal period for projects of this kind.

Page 103

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) 4.2 Energy efficiency

Projects funded under the EMFF that address energy efficiency all aim to address the global need to mitigate climate change and the UK government’s commitment to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2015104. They aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing fuel consumption105, thereby contributing to climate change and ocean acidification mitigation; key targets of the 25 YEP106 (Annex 13, Table 82).

The EMFF has funded a variety of projects to increase energy efficiency through vessel and on-land facility modifications. Overall, 59 projects were identified, representing a total value of £862,946, with an average project value of £14,626. Projects typically sought to improve energy efficiency through engine upgrades107, hull modifications, propeller and gearbox upgrades or the implementation of green technology. For this case study, projects from three impact sub-themes were evaluated: engine upgrades, hull modifications and the implementation of green technology.

Twelve English EMFF funded projects (Table 15) were selected for the case study, across three sub-themes: engine upgrades108, hull modifications109 and green technology110. These projects represent a cumulative commitment of £272,612 in EMFF funds; representing an average commitment of £22,718.

104 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-announcement-to-end-uks-contribution-to-climate-change 105 The UK government’s emission conversion factors for 2018 greenhouse gas reporting were used as a reference to convert energy consumption (e.g., kWh) to carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). This enables an assessment to be made of the change in CO2e emissions. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas- reporting-conversion-factors-2018 106https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/693158/25- year-environment-plan.pdf (last accessed 29/04/2019) 107 Replacing older less efficient engines with newer more efficient engines of lesser or equal power output. 108 Replacing older less efficient engines with newer more efficient engines of lesser or equal power output. EU fishing fleets consume significant volumes of fuel and it is now understood that the implementation and modernisation of engine systems could potentially achieve a reduction in fuel consumption by up to 20% (https://energyefficiency-fisheries.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=e4c681d4-c0a8-475b-aa64- 5be91c43dbb9&groupId=12762). 109 The retrofitting of bulbous bows on previously traditionally-shaped fishing vessel hulls. A bulbous bow is a protruding ‘bulb’ on the bow of a ship that sits just below the waterline. This protrusion modifies how water flows around the hull and can reduce frictional resistance, wave making resistance, and thereby increase fuel efficiency (https://www.dnvgl.com/maritime/energy-efficiency/efficiency-finder.html) 110 For this case study ‘green technology’ can be defined as technology that significantly increases energy efficiency. This sub-theme will focus on light emitting diode (LED) lighting, which provides an opportunity to reduce energy consumption on land.

Page 104

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 42: Summary of the projects funded in England through the EMFF that were selected for the energy efficiency case study EMFF Case study Project Funding funding Project title sub-theme code priority value (£) Replacement of old Ford Dover engine Union Priority 1 ENG2471 with new more efficient and economical 2,418 (Article 41.2) Ford engine Replace current old Ford Sabre engine Union Priority 1 ENG2677 with new more economic less HP (Article 41.2) 3,109 Engine Union Priority 1 ENG2678 Modernisation of main engine 1,839 (Article 41.2) Engine Engine modification and overhaul to Union Priority 1 upgrades ENG3082 2,228 increase efficiency (Article 41.2) Replacement of current engine for less Union Priority 1 ENG3118 1,452 power and increased efficiency (Article 41.2) Engine replacement and efficiency Union Priority 1 ENG3291 41,884 improvements (Article 41.2) Replacement of current engine to Union Priority 1 ENG3399 increase efficiency and reduce oil 1,963 (Article 41.2) consumption Improving fuel efficiency of MFV ‘Lloyd Union Priority 1 ENG1479 26,400 Hull Tyler’ (Article 41.1.a-c) modification Improving fuel efficiency through Union Priority 1 ENG3061 15,900 bulbous bow modification (Article 41.1.a-c) Boilers, LED lighting, lock knuckle Union Priority 1 ENG2004 116,054 Green fendering, fish market (Article 43.1) technology Union Priority 1 ENG2235 Billingsgate LED light retrofit 24,715 (Article 43.1)

Indicators for each of the components of Natural Capital for each case study sub-theme were identified (Table 16), and compared to those in the 25 YEP (Table 81, Annex 12). However, because of the scale of the projects and the issue of attributing change at a global level (e.g., global CO2 emissions) to individual projects, indicators were developed for the possible project outcomes rather than impacts.

Table 43: Possible environmental impacts that could result from energy efficiency projects and the appropriate Natural Capital indicators to track any change Natural Possible Case study Outcome Capital environmental Indicator** sub-theme component impact* Reduction in the rate Change in annual Reduction in Pressure of climate change energy/fuel consumption Engine greenhouse Reduction in the rate (litres / kWh) and CO2 upgrades & gas emissions of ocean acidification equivalent hull Change in number of modifications Increased Increased fishing Pressure gear-hours fished fishing effort mortality (unintended) (hours) Reduction in the rate Change in annual Reduction in Green of climate change energy/fuel consumption greenhouse Pressure technology (litres / kWh) and CO2 gas emissions Reduction in the rate of ocean acidification equivalent * based on project documents and information from project stakeholders

Page 105

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

** identified by authors based on Natural Capital component 4.2.1 Project progress

In order to assess progress towards impacts across the three sub-themes, the case study relied on stakeholder engagement, review of literature and information provided by the MMO (including offer letters, selection matrixes and business cases). Stakeholder engagement111 highlighted the extent of progress along the impact pathway for each (Figure 18).

Figure 18: Progress along the impact pathway of projects examined within the energy efficiency case study; where it was possible to establish 4.2.2 Results

This section provides a summary of the main results for each of the case study sub-themes.

Engine upgrades

In order to evaluate the success of projects within this sub-theme all seven of the projects funded by the EMFF were selected for further investigation. All projects were contacted using the information provided by the EGT, and were also contacted directly by the EGT on behalf of this study. Subsequently, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the stakeholders that responded (Table 44). This evaluation, examines the benefits that have occurred through engine upgrade projects in terms of Natural Capital focusing on a reduction in a pressure; CO2 and other pollutant gas emissions.

Table 44: Project stakeholders contacted for engagement Project reference Success stakeholder engagement? Interview date ENG2471 Yes 29/05/2019 ENG2677 No n/a ENG2678 No n/a ENG3082 No n/a ENG3118 Yes 30/05/2019 ENG3399 Yes 04/06/2019 ENG3291 No n/a

The following sections describe the impacts of Engine Upgrade projects, shown in Table 16, in terms of Natural Capital components.

Despite the similarity in the impact mechanism of each project (replacing an engine to increase fuel efficiency), targets were found to vary significantly between projects (Table 45). Project

111 11 project beneficiaries were contacted and followed up by the MMO. In the end, five projects agreed to take part.

Page 106

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) impacts were assessed through the appropriate Natural Capital indicators developed and applied to each case study sub-theme (Table 16).

Table 45: Engine upgrade projects, their environmental claims, and targets Claim (set in Natural Capital indicator Project Target (offer letter) business case) (produced by this study) Increase profit by Pressure: Annual energy/fuel ENG2471 n/a £20,000 consumption (L / kWh) 15% reduction in fuel Pressure: Annual energy/fuel consumption consumption (L / kWh) ENG2677 n/a 16% reduction in CO2 Pressure: Annual energy/fuel emissions. consumption (L / kWh) Increase net profit by Pressure: Annual energy/fuel ENG2678 n/a £2,500 consumption (L / kWh) Reduce fuel Pressure: Annual energy/fuel consumption by 200L consumption (L / kWh) ENG3082 n/a Reduce CO2 emissions Pressure: Annual energy/fuel by 10% consumption (L / kWh) Reduce fuel Pressure: Annual energy/fuel consumption by 60L per consumption (L / kWh) ENG3118 n/a month Reduce emissions by Pressure: Annual energy/fuel 20% consumption (L / kWh) Reduce average Reduce average monthly fuel monthly fuel Pressure: Annual energy/fuel consumption from consumption from consumption (L / kWh) 15,000 to 12,500 litres 15,000 to 12,500 litres Reduce carbon Reduce carbon Pressure: Annual energy/fuel ENG3291 emissions by 16.6% emissions by 16.6% consumption (L / kWh) Reduce lost fishing Reduce lost fishing days days due to Pressure: Change in number of due to unforeseen unforeseen gear-hours fished (hours) maintenance on engine maintenance on engine Increase energy Pressure: Annual energy/fuel ENG3399 n/a efficiency by 10% consumption (L / kWh)

Pressure: Reduction in the rate of climate change and ocean acidification Projects ENG2471 and ENG3118 replaced engines in Spring and Summer 2018 (respectively), which has resulted in a reduction in fuel consumption, related to a commensurate increase in fuel efficiency. In one case, there was a reported reduction in fuel consumption of 30 to 70 litres per week (representing between 15 and 32% of fuel used). Taking the average value, this represents an annual reduction of around 7 tonnes of CO2e from this one project, or an ongoing annual reduction of 4.81kg CO2e for every £1 of EMFF funding112. This result is broadly consistent with the literature, which indicates that engines upgrades can lead to decreased fuel consumption and increased efficiency; circa 20% (Notti and Sala, 2014).

Using the UK Government’s greenhouse gas reporting conversion factors (2018)113, any decrease in fuel consumption will lead to a commensurate decrease in emissions, such as CO2, a known greenhouse gas that is also a leading cause of ocean acidification. Therefore,

112 50L x 52 = 2600L (diesel saved annually). 2600L x 2.68779 (kg CO2e produced per L of diesel). This is an annual project reduction of 6,988kg CO2e from EMFF funding at 4.81kg CO2e for every £1 of EMFF funding allocated. 113 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2018

Page 107

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) both the information collected from project participants and the existing literature suggests decreases in fuel use will lead to decrease in the pressures caused by the emissions from fossil fuel combustion (climate change and ocean acidification).

The seven projects captured in the Engine Upgrade sub-theme represent 0.5% of the 1,375114 active fishing vessels in England built before 2009115. These seven received funding from the EMFF to improve fuel efficiency by replacing their engines (Table 45). The total cost to the EMFF of this work was £54,892.42, an average of £7,841.77 per vessel. This means the cost to increase the fuel efficiency of the entire active English fishing fleet by upgrading their engines, minus the 7 already upgraded by the EMFF, could be achieved for around £17,338,163 (equivalent to about 23% of the £77 million of EMFF funding allocated to England; 2014 - 2020). Assuming a conservative 10% decrease in overall fuel consumption, 116,117 annual fleetwide savings would be in the region of £5million and CO2e emissions would fall by around 22,000 tonnes (Table 46). This would represent savings of around 0.009% of the UK 2018-2022 emissions target118, valued at £280,720119 or £4,087,321 over the assumed 20 year appraisal period for these projects.

Table 46: Scaling potential for engine upgrades to the English fishing fleet120. Number of active Average Fuel Annual emissions Fuel used Vessels English fishing annual use per (Tonnes)121 per year category vessels built days at day (litres) before 2009 sea (litres) CO2e CH4 N2O Under 1114 135 133 19,948,294 52,403 8 741 10m Over 10m 261 175 1,400 63,809,960 167,625 27 2,372 Total 1375 83,758,253 220,028 35 3,113 10% reduction in fuel consumption 8,375,825 22,003 4 311

114Vessel numbers, and years of construction, were taken from the UK vessel registry (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/vessel-lists-10-metres-and-under and https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/vessel-lists-over-10-metres). Vessel nationality was determined by ‘Administrative Port’. This gave 1797 under 10m and 421 over 10m vessels in England that were built after 2009. 2009 was chosen as a cutoff date for engines potentially in need of modernisation. The total number of vessels meeting the criteria (2218) was then divided by 0.62 to give the proportion of vessels believed to be ‘active’ according to a recent Seafish report - https://www.seafish.org/media/publications/Quay_Issues_- _Economics_of_UK_Fishing_Fleet_-_2016_interactive_version.pdf 115 Lacking more detailed information it was decided that vessels over 10 years of age could be categorised as in potential need of an engine upgrade. 116 Based on a per litre price of diesel (for fishers) of 60p. 117 Over the assumed 20 year case study appraisal period, cost saving to fishers as a result of decreased fuel purchasing would be in the region of £94 million. 118https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-greenhouse-gas- emissions/2010-to-2015-government-policy-greenhouse-gas-emissions 119 Social cost of carbon, given as £12.76 per tonne of CO2e - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/updated-short-term-traded-carbon-values-used-for-uk-policy- appraisal-2018 120Vessel numbers, and years of construction, were taken from the UK vessel registry (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/vessel-lists-10-metres-and-under and https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/vessel-lists-over-10-metres). Vessel nationality was determined by ‘Administrative Port’. This gave 1797 under 10m and 421 over 10m vessels in England that were built after 2009. 2009 was chosen as a cutoff date for engines potentially in need of modernisation. The number of vessels in each category, 1797 under 10m and 421 over 10m, was then divided by 0.62 to give the proportion of vessels believed to be ‘active’ according to a recent Seafish report - https://www.seafish.org/media/publications/Quay_Issues_-_Economics_of_UK_Fishing_Fleet_- _2016_interactive_version.pdf 121Number of liters used multiplied by the UK Governments 2018 conversion factors - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2018

Page 108

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Pressure: Increased fishing effort One of the disbenefits identified as having the potential to emerge from fishing vessel engine upgrades is an increasing Natural Capital Pressure, fishing effort (Table 43). As fishing vessels upgrade their engines, they should become more efficient and more reliable, which means fishers may feel be able to fish more often and/or for longer periods of time. This was reported by one of the two project stakeholders and meant their overall rate of fuel consumption did not drop as much as their target. Unfortunately, without more information on catch rates, days at sea, etc., it is not possible to quantify the effect of this increased fishing pressure on the Natural Capital asset (fish stocks).

Other benefits: Pollution Stakeholder engagement highlighted one benefit not previously considered, a decrease in oil consumption and leakage. Oil loss through leakage was reported to have reduced to negligible levels since the new engines were installed in both projects that had the time to observe outcomes. In one case leakage reportedly dropped by around one litre per week. This will affect the water quality of the sea (a Natural Capital asset) and could be captured by the Natural Capital Indicator, Nutrient & Chemical status (Hooper et al., 2019).

If engine upgrades took place at the scale discussed in the section above (i.e., across the 1,375 fishing English active fishing vessels >10 years old) then the potential effect on oil leakage could also be significant. If vessels reduced their oil leakage by an average of 0.5L per week, half that reported by project stakeholders, then annually around 36,000L could be prevented from entering the marine environment. This is several times the seven tonnes needed to classify a single oil leak as a medium spill122.

Hull modifications

A semi-structured interview was successfully conducted with project ENG1479 (Table 47). Project staff were able to provide information to support offer letters, business cases and selection matrixes provided by the MMO (projects >£25,000). However, project ENG3061 was unable to engage with this evaluation.

Table 47: Project stakeholders contacted for engagement Project Reference Success Stakeholder Engagement? Interview Date ENG1479 Yes 12/06/2019 ENG3061 No n/a

Pressure: Reduction in the rate of climate change and ocean acidification Project ENG1479 successfully completed all intended work in late 2017. Project stakeholders reported that the retrofit of a bulbous bow resulted in a reduction in fuel consumption, although evidence is anecdotal. The vessels refit, when the bulbous bow was attached, was extensive and changed “nearly all the vessels machinery”123. Therefore, it is difficult to assess the bulbous bows contribution to the overall reduction in fuel consumption, but total fuel consumption is circa 15% less. A review of literature revealed broadly consistent trends in line with project targets (Table 48) and the information being reported by project ENG1479, that a bulbous bow can improve fuel efficiency in the region of 5% (Way et al., 2018; Carlton, 2019). Reports suggest that while bulbous bows primarily increase efficiency at higher speeds, they can also be effective at lower speeds, i.e., such as those often used while fishing (Way et al., 2011; Carlton, 2019).

122 https://www.itopf.org/knowledge-resources/data-statistics/statistics/ 123 Personal communication with a project stakeholder.

Page 109

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Improvements in naval architecture have seen increased efficiencies for slower moving ships by reducing ‘frictional resistance’, as well as reducing wave making resistance (Tupper, 2013). Using the UK Government’s greenhouse gas reporting conversion factors (2018)124, estimates of the average days at sea (141.5) for a trawler in Southwest England and the average fuel consumption (1,859L) per day for this type of vessel (Lawrence et al., 2017), it is possible to estimate that a 5% fuel use reduction will be in the region of 13,152 litres annually. This is 125 equivalent to an annual saving of 34.5 tonnes of CO2e . Pressure: Increased fishing effort One potential disbenefit that could emerge from fishing vessel hull modifications is an increasing Natural Capital Pressure, fishing effort (Table 16). As fishing vessels upgrade their hulls, they should reduce wave making resistance (Tupper, 2013). This could allow fishers to operate in rougher conditions and spend more time at sea. Unfortunately, this could not be explored further as it is beyond the scope of this study.

Table 48: Hull modification projects, their environmental claims, and targets Natural Capital indicator Project Claim (set in business case) Target (offer letter) (produced by this study) Reduce fuel consumption by 5 Pressure: Annual – 9% Reduction CO2 ENG1479 energy/fuel consumption (L emissions by 5-9% Reduce CO2 emissions by 5 – / kWh) 9% Pressure: Annual Reduced fuel ENG3061 8% reduction in fuel usage energy/fuel consumption (L consumption / kWh)

Green technology A semi-structured interview was successfully conducted with project ENG2235 (Table 49). Project staff were able to provide information to support offer letters, business cases and selection matrixes provided by the MMO (projects >£25,000). However, project ENG2004 was unable to engage with this evaluation.

Table 49: Case study sub-theme green technology project stakeholders contacted for engagement Project Reference Success Stakeholder Engagement? Interview Date ENG2004 No n/a ENG2235 Yes 30/05/2019

Both projects selected for review in this sub-theme were set financial targets (Table 51) as a means of demonstrating project effectiveness; increased energy efficiency. Unfortunately, cost saving in energy overheads is not a useful metric for success. This was highlighted during stakeholder engagement, where project ENG2235 explained that their energy is procured centrally by the City of London, a new contract came into place around the same time as the retrofit and this contract was not favourable. As a result, the project was not able to demonstrate significant cost savings, it was however able to show a reduction in energy use. Therefore, the following sections asses the impacts of Green Technology projects, in terms of the appropriate Natural Capital components developed for this sub-theme (Table 51)

124 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2018 125 UK Governments 2018 conversion factors - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas- reporting-conversion-factors-2018

Page 110

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Pressure: Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions Project ENG2235 was funded (75%) by the EMFF to retrofit five floodlight towers with LED lighting, replacing a total of 36 incandescent lights; work was completed in December 2017. This resulted in a 12% (8,473 kWh) decrease in energy consumption in 2018 (Table 50), equivalent to 2.4 tonnes of CO2e, or an ongoing annual reduction of 70g CO2e for every £1 of EMFF funding.

Table 50: Project ENG2235 Energy usage before (2017) and after (2018) the facilities LED lighting retrofit. Energy Usage (kWh) Percentage Change from Previous Quarter Year (Comparing Like for Like 2017 2018 quarters) Q1 19,550 18,640 -5% Q2 14,307 11,671 -18% Q3 16,663 13,619 -18% Q4 22,420 20,537 -8% Average % change -12% Total kWh saved 8473

The decrease in energy consumption, or increase in efficiency, demonstrated by project ENG2235, as a result of replacing incandescent lights with LEDs, is consistent with existing literature. Figure 19 shows the disparity in efficiency between these two light‐source technologies and Bergesen et al. (2016) explains that LEDs, as “efficient light‐source technologies”, can increase the energy efficiency of lighting.

Page 111

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 51: Green technology retrofit projects, their environmental claims, and targets Claim (set in Project Target (offer letter) Natural Capital indicator business case)

Reduced annual energy consumption Pressure: Annual energy/fuel estimated at 27,436 consumption (L / kWh) kWh Estimated electricity ENG2335 cost savings of £2,100 per annum. Estimated electricity Pressure: Annual energy/fuel cost savings of £2,100 consumption (L / kWh) per annum.

There is an indicative Cost saving (energy Pressure: Annual energy/fuel ENG2004 saving of 3,842 kWh cost) £348 consumption (L / kWh) (1.6 tonnes CO2)

The evidence from ENG2335 shows that energy consumption, and therefore CO2 emissions, have decreased since the projects LED retrofit. This suggests that this project has made progress towards reaching the broad environmental aims under which projects in this sub- theme were funded – “Energy efficiency and mitigation of climate change”126.

4.2.3 Summary

The results suggest that projects have made progress towards the broad environmental aims under which they were funded – “Energy efficiency and mitigation of climate change. There was evidence of reductions in fuel use and energy consumption across projects within the three-case study sub-themes127 (Table 17). From the projects sampled, investments at sea appeared to deliver increased gains in efficiency and CO2e reductions. However, this is based on a limited number of projects. It is also worth highlighting that the lack of data collection by individual project beneficiaries has made it difficult to quantify progress towards either the targets set by the MMO as a condition of funding or the Natural Capital indicators. This possibly due, in part, to the fact that in some of the targets may not be effective at capturing the environmental benefits for which the projects were funded: for example, cost saving is not a particularly good measure of energy efficiency as it may be affected by changes in energy costs.

126 Article 41.2 Energy efficiency and mitigation of climate change - Replacement or modernisation of main or ancillary engines - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/706976/Operat ional_programme.pdf 127 Article 41.2 Energy efficiency and mitigation of climate change - Replacement or modernisation of main or ancillary engines - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/706976/Operat ional_programme.pdf

Page 112

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 52: Observed and expected impacts connected with each Natural Capital indicator associated with the energy efficiency case study Natural Natural Case study Observed or expected Capital Impact Capital sub-theme impact component indicator Reduction in the Change in Observed: All projects that rate of climate annual had reached the outcome change energy/fuel stage have reported a consumption decrease in fuel consumption. Engine Reduction in the (litres / kWh) Reductions were between 5% Pressure upgrades & rate of Ocean and CO2 (hull modification) and 15-35% hull Acidification equivalent (engine replacement)

The nature and scale of the individual projects also create challenges when attempting to assess impacts in terms of Natural Capital, in particular in establishing the plausible contribution of the projects, individually or collectively, to climate change mitigation. As seen in Table 16, ‘Assets’ and ‘Flows’ under Natural Capital component have been excluded because of the difficulty in measuring or attributing change.

Page 113

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) 4.3 Habitat forming aquaculture

Habitat forming aquaculture will contribute toward the 25 YEP goal of ‘clean air’, through the processes of carbon sequestration and low carbon protein production (Fodrie et al., 2017) and to the goals "thriving plants and wildlife"128, and “using resources from nature more sustainably and efficiently”129. Bivalve molluscs, such as native oysters, are known to play a critical role in estuarine health. The restoration or development of these colonies can restore, modify or enhance ecosystem services such as water quality through filtration contributing to the 25 YEP goal of ‘clean and plentiful water’. Additionally through benthic-pelagic coupling (Coen et al., 2007) as well as providing protection from predators and encourage fish diversity, biomass and abundance (Peterson et al., 2003; Gilby et al., 2018).

Thirteen aquaculture projects were identified as ‘habitat forming’, which typically sought to implement, research or scope the feasibility of mussel, native oyster, or seaweed aquaculture. Collectively, these projects represent a total allocation of EMFF funds of £1,043,305, with an average commitment of EMFF funds of £80,254. Five projects were selected for this case study (Table 19) from two impact sub-themes: ‘restoration of native oyster beds’ and ‘development of offshore mussel culture’.

Table 53: Summary of the projects funded in England through the EMFF that were selected for the habitat forming aquaculture case study Case study Project EMFF funding Project title Funding priority sub-theme code value (£) The Solent native oyster Priority 1 (Articles 180,619.47 ENG1980 Restoration restoration project 40.1 b-g 44.6) of native Recovering native oyster beds 83,199.73 oyster beds ENG2157 in Essex Offshore mussel farm Priority 2 (Articles 87,478 ENG1210 floatation 48.1 a-d, f-h) Development of offshore Increasing mussel farm 187,500 ENG1318 mussel production capacity 1 culture Increasing production capacity 110,156 ENG2153 of mussel farm

4.3.2 Project backgrounds

The following section provides a background to all projects evaluated within this case study under the theme of habitat forming aquaculture.

Restoration of oyster beds: ENG1908 – The Solent Oyster restoration project

In 2017, employing valuable knowledge and experience gained from its project in Lyme Bay, The Blue Marine Foundation (BLUE) spearheaded a coalition of stakeholders, including

128https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/693158/25- year-environment-plan.pdf 129 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/25-year-environment-plan

Page 114

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) fishers, marine and local authorities, scientists and conservationists to launch the long-term Solent Oyster Restoration Project, in order to restore the native oyster beds of the Solent and facilitate a sustainable native oyster fishery.

The Solent oyster fishery was at its peak in the 1980s. In 1978 450 vessels were registered between Weymouth and Chichester with at least 700 fishers relying on oysters for a substantial part of their income32. Highest landings were recorded in the 1979 – 1980 season with 840 tonnes (15 million oysters) landed, worth over £2M (Key and Davidson 1981). As a result of habitat destruction, disease mortality, water quality issues, over fishing, and the interplay between these factors, the Solent has experienced a drastic decline in the native oyster (Ostrea edulis) population. This has resulted in a socio-economic knock-on effect for both commercial and recreational fishers. In 2013, the Southern IFCA revealed the annual landings to have dropped from 200 to 20 tonnes over a five-year period, resulting in the complete closure oyster fishing within the wider Solent area32. In 2018, native oyster landings in the Hampshire and Isle of Wight region totalled around 1 tonne, equating to a value of £2,500130. This demonstrates a significant decline in the flow (in terms of goods and services) coming from the degraded Natural Capital asset that is the Solent’s oyster population.

This decline was influential to the native oyster’s designation as a priority species in the UK’s Biodiversity Action Plan. This plan contributes to the global biodiversity targets set by the UN Convention for Biological Diversity131. Native oyster restoration is now a high conservation priority at both a regional, national and European level.

The EMFF provided £180,619.47 to the project, run by the Blue Marine Foundation, to facilitate the following deliverables:

• Source and grow four million native oysters to 50mm for reseeding between 2017 – 2018; • Introduce cage systems in Solent marinas; • Reseed five million oysters across Solent protected seabed sites by 2021.

Restoration of oyster beds: ENG2157 – Recovering native oyster beds in Essex

The Kent and Essex region has a historic record of large and widespread native oyster populations and associated habitats throughout. However, a survey conducted in by Essex Wildlife Trust and Blackwater Oystermen’s Association 2012, found that native oyster beds were present in only four remaining locations across the Kent and Essex region; St Lawrence Bay, The Nass and Ray Sand channels, and the mouth of the Colne. There was a significant lack of <40 mm individuals and low concentrations of larvae in the water column during the breeding season (May – October), which may prevent recovery of populations. Survey results additionally revealed oyster beds to be scarce of cultch132. As a result of the study, in 2013, a total of 284km2 known as the Blackwater, Colne, Crouch & Roach (BCCR) Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) was designated, and a recommendation was made to set the conservation objectives from ‘maintain’ to ‘recover’, which still remain as ‘recover’ today.

The Essex Native Oyster Restoration Initiative (ENORI), chaired by the Zoological Society London (ZSL), encompasses oystermen, academic institution, governmental bodies and environmentally focused conservation groups. The aim of this groups is for the Essex region to have self-sustaining populations of native oysters that provide ecosystem services, sustainable fisheries and increased biodiversity whilst recognising their cultural importance. ENORI’s work delivers on the conservation objectives of the BCCR MCZ, which

130https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/uk-and-foreign-vessels-landings-by-uk-port-and-uk- vessel-landings-abroad 131 https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-10/cop-10-dec-02-en.pdf 132 old shell and gravels

Page 115

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) is the only protected area in the UK for native oyster beds and at 284km2, it is the largest protected area for native oysters in Europe.

The EMFF provided a total of £83,199.73 in funding to facilitate the following deliverables:

• Creation of up to 500 ha (km2? As well as you interchange between units) of suitable habitat to support self-sustaining oyster beds through the deposition of shell cultch within the Blackwater Conservation Box by June 2018; • Creation of a brood stock sanctuary within the Blackwater Conservation Box by the translocation of at least 25,000 mature native oysters by July 2018; • Knowledge sharing through communicating the findings from assessing the recovery of the oyster beds to inform further restoration projects both in the MCZ and around the UK/Europe; • Produce a report to detail the success and learns of the project. Also, future plans moving forward with this project.

Development of off-shore mussel culture; ENG1210 – Offshore mussel farm floatation, ENG1318 – Increasing mussel farm production capacity and ENG2153 – Increasing production capacity of mussel farm

Offshore Shellfish Ltd is a family run business developing England’s first large offshore rope cultured mussel farm. The development uses specially designed technology to cultivate the native blue mussel, Mytilus edulis, on suspended ropes at three sites between 3 – 6 miles offshore in Lyme Bay133. These three projects form part of an overall staged plan to develop the infrastructure required to support a commercially viable mussel farm in the region. This is partially a response to a decline in the fishery of more than 100,000 tonnes since 1999134, leading to increased imports from beyond the EU to make up the shortfall.

The EMFF provided £385,143.38 of funding to Offshore Shellfish Ltd (across their three projects) to facilitate the following deliverables:

ENG1210 – Offshore mussel farm floatation: • Add floats to headline; • Harvest 1st crop of 2,500 tonnes; • Employ two full time employees.

ENG1318 – Increasing mussel farm production capacity: • Sustain six full time employees and create a further four full time employees; • After 1st year of 2,500 tonnes of mussels, increase to 10,000 tonnes per year; • Transfer Spat to new growing lines by December 2016; • Produce a report from studies with University of Plymouth regarding the effects of the farm in terms of increasing biodiversity and improving other fisheries in the area by the end of 2020.

ENG2153 – Increasing production capacity of mussel farm: • Add floats to headlines; • Harvest crop of 2,000 tonnes; • Create a further three full time employees and sustain ten full time employees upon project completion; • Increase annual turnover by £2 million from May 2018.

133 https://www.offshoreshellfish.com/ 134 According to Offshore Shellfish Ltd in the business case submitted as part of their EMFF application.

Page 116

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

4.3.3 Methods

Indicators were developed by MRAG based on the intended outcomes associated with each of the projects, and against the three components of Natural Capital (Table 54). These indicators (compared to those set out in the 25 YEP in Table 81; Annex 12) formed the basis of measuring success, or potential success, and environmental benefits delivered by the projects. The indicators also included potential dis-benefits that might result, e.g., change in available commercial and recreational fishing grounds.

Table 54: Possible environmental impacts that could result from habitat forming aquaculture projects and the appropriate Natural Capital indicators to track any change Case study Natural Capital Potential Outcomes Indicator* sub-theme component impact Increased Change in number of gear-hours fishing fished (hours) Increased mortality Pressures fishing effort Enhanced habitat Change in turbidity (NTU) quality Increased Change in species abundance stocks (n) Restoration Spatial coverage of habitat of native forming species (ha) oyster beds Enhanced Enhanced habitat extent Assets habitat extent Change in MPA area designated and quality (ha) Enhanced habitat Change in species richness (n) quality Increased Increased Volume of shellfish production oyster Flows oyster (tonnes) production production Reduced Reduction in Change in area (ha) of available capture wild fish fishing grounds to both Pressure fishing capture commercial and recreational opportunities opportunity fishers Spatial coverage of habitat Increase in Increase forming species (ha) Development mussel farm size Change in species abundance of offshore stocks (n) mussel Assets culture Enhance Enhanced biodiversity habitat Change in species richness (n) and water quality quality Increase Increase in Volume of shellfish production mussel Flows mussel (tonnes) production landings * identified by authors based on Natural Capital component

Page 117

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

4.3.4 Results

Project progress

The development of offshore mussels has moved from a trial to full production with support from a series of EMFF projects and evidence of impact or likely impact is becoming available. Work on oysters is ongoing in both Solent and Essex. For example, the Solent Native Oyster Restoration Project is due to finish in 2021 but has already reached several milestones and recorded evidence of environmental impacts, placing it at the outcomes stage (Figure 22).

ENG1210 ENG1980 ENG1218 ENG2157 ENG2153

Figure 8: Progress along the impact pathway of projects within the habitat forming aquaculture case study.

Environmental benefits

Environmental benefits of projects were assessed through interviews with project stakeholders and a literature review of the success of similar projects. Individual projects within each sub- theme have been evaluated independently of one another.

Restoration of oyster beds: ENG1980 - The Solent Oyster restoration project

A known pressure of oyster restoration projects is competition from the invasive slipper limpet (Crepidula fornicate), through benthic habitat modification. The slipper limpet produces mucoidal pseudo faeces, which changes previously sandy sediments into muddy sediments with a high organic content. These sediments quickly turn anoxic and unsuitable for species like the native oyster (Streftaris and Zenetos 2006). BLUE have been able to avoid disbenefits through strategic selection of re-seeding sites known to be absent from C. fornicate species.

Utilising a team of volunteers, BLUE has filled cage-like structures with oysters suspended underneath the pontoons in four MDL Marinas; Hamble Point, Port Hamble, Sparkes and Saxon Wharf. Additionally, oyster-containing cages were also hung under pontoons at the University of Portsmouth and the Land Rover BAR headquarters. This increased the number of sites housing the innovative broodstock cages across the Solent from six to ten. Each site is able to hold up to 15 cages, and each cage up to 120 oysters. The project, therefore, has been able to place up to 18,000135 mature oysters across a total network of 150 cages. The caged mature oysters are reported to have spawned every summer for the last three years. The results, gathered through monthly spot sampling, reveal that an estimated total of 900,000,000 larvae have been released into the Solent since project inception.

Through mechanisms of fish aggregation and provision of a rich food source for marine benthic fauna, the implementation and expansion of this cage network has resulted in an increased abundance and distribution of both oysters and fish, which is a known indicator of increasing overall ecosystem productivity (Dame 1996). In total, 96 different species (e.g., Anguilla anguilla (European eel), Dicentrarchus labrax (European sea bass) and Labrus bergylta

135 This number can fluctuate due to the dynamic nature of the sea and resultant mortalities.

Page 118

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

(Ballan wrasse)) have been reported within the immediate vicinity of oyster cages, suggesting an increase in biodiversity136.

Biodiversity is expected to increase further with increasing coverage of oyster bed habitat. BLUE has successfully re-seeded 69,000 native oysters across two sites and an additional 45,000 oysters in new trial sea-bed locations. This will increase habitat complexity through the provision of hard structures for the settlement of sessile marine fauna and cryptic habitat that can act as nursery grounds for juvenile fish.

If, as reported by BLUE, spat is settling and populating the wild beds137 that serve the oyster fishery, it is possible that Solent oysters can once more provide flows of goods and ecosystem services to commercial and recreational fishermen (Kamphausen, 2012). For example, Grabowski et al., 2012 reports high density, pristine oyster-beds to have an average of value of £11,000138 per hectare per annum and gives evidence that this can cover average restoration costs this within 2-14 years.

In comparison to the United States, oyster restoration projects and associated research within the EU is costly due to a lower amount of funding and public support. BLUE highlighted that this has restricted their ability to collect empirical evidence against all known environmental benefits. BLUE states that oyster restoration activities provide habitat regulating services focused on water quality maintenance, carbon sequestration and protection of shorelines and sediment stabilization. As active filter-feeders, oysters remove organic material from the water column such as phytoplankton, bacteria and particulate detritus (Grabowski and Peterson 2007). Filtering large volumes of water, up to 200L per day2, also reduces water turbidity and allows greater light penetration, increasing primary production (Grabowski and Peterson 2007). The external shell of the native oyster is constructed of calcium carbonate. Oysters sequester carbon from the surrounding water column for shell production which then acts as a carbon sink, and storage mechanism (National Research Council 2010). This helps to reduce atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations (Peterson and Lipcuis 2003). Oyster- beds can help reduce shoreline erosion through the reduction of coastal wave energy due to the increased friction between the water column and oyster bed habitat139. This can be important when considering estuarine habitats such as saltmarshes.

ENG2157 – Recovering native oyster beds in Essex

ZSL has successfully created a 200ha voluntary no-take zone called the Blackwater Conservation Box. Beginning in 2019, ZSL have begun restoring the native oyster beds in this area by adding 240 tonnes of cultch to the seabed, creating a new 6.5ha native oyster bed. Literature suggests that the most successful oyster restoration programmes have included the incorporation of shell cultch to sea-bed sites (Krasny et al., 2014; Sawusdee et al., 2015; Smyth et al., 2016). An example of this includes Chesapeake Bay, Maryland (Coen et al., 2007). In addition, ZSL have used ‘chinese hat’140 spat collectors, which in combination with the addition of cultch material to the sea-bed provides a more complex habitat that allows juvenile oyster spat to settle and grow into mature oysters.

The creation of a ‘Mother Oyster’ broodstock sanctuary within the Blackwater Conservation Box, which currently hold 150,000 mature oysters, allows oysters to be translocated once they are a certain size and can then settle on the improved seabed substrate.

For the remaining 282km2 of the BCCR MCZ, ZSL is adopting an adaptive management approach that focuses on the population of native oysters. In 2018, the native oyster recovery

136 https://noraeurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/NORA-Berlin-Poster-Portsmouth-Blue-Marine.pdf 137 Native oyster beds are defined by OSPAR as comprising >5 individuals per m2 (Saunders et al., 2015) 138 Converted $17,072 value to GBP using 2012 exchange rate. 139 https://secure.toolkitfiles.co.uk/clients/25364/sitedata/files/PC-SolShellfish-val-mod-007-April-2018.pdf 140 http://godeepaquaculture.com/oysters/oyster-seed-collection/

Page 119

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) management plan was formalised within the 2018 Native Oyster Fishery Flexible Permit Byelaw. This not only provided the mechanism to create the Blackwater Conservation Box, but will also allow a sustainable oyster fishery when the oysters have recovered sufficiently. This has been developed in dialogue with industry, scientists and nature conservation authorities. Kent and Essex IFCA make annual assessments of the oyster stock in public grounds and undertake a Habitat Regulations Assessment. If stock levels meet specified criteria (based around tonnage) and show evidence of stability and increasing stock for three consistent years the fishery will re-open.

Development of offshore mussel culture: ENG1210 – Offshore mussel farm floatation, ENG1318 – Increasing mussel farm production capacity and ENG2153 – Increasing production capacity of mussel farm

Offshore Shellfish Ltd were unable to engage with this evaluation. In combination with the lack of publicly available information online, this evaluation was unable to pinpoint these projects’ progress along the impact pathway. Furthermore, the identification of impacts and environmental benefits of this project cluster relies primarily on evidence from literature and anecdotal evidence from the University of Plymouth.

The 15.4 km2 covered by the mussel farm reduces available fishing grounds, and acts as a de facto marine reserve. This may negatively affect fish landings for commercial and recreational fishers. However, population spill-over from the enhanced biomass inside the farm area could have the opposite effect, resulting in higher Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) outside the farm (Özgül and Angel 2013).

The University of Plymouth has been monitoring the effects of the Offshore Shellfish Ltd mussel farm on the surrounding ecosystem since the beginning of its development in 2013. Preliminary results suggest the project has led to an increase in stock of both farmed mussels and associated fin fish and crustaceans. The vertically hanging rope droppers and elevated biomass of mussels reported to be acting as a Fish Aggregation Devices (FADs) providing a temporary habitat (Murray et al., 2007; D’Amours et al., 2008; Wilding and Nickell 2013; Nielson et al., 2016), attracting large shoals of Atlantic horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus). Larger fish including European bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) and Grey mullet (Chelon labrosus) have also been reported. Underneath the ropes, commercially important Brown crab (Cancer pagurus) have been observed feeding on the mussel clumps that fall to the seabed. This increase in biodiversity represents an improvement in overall habitat quality.

Project documents, preliminary results from Plymouth University, and supporting literature all suggests that shellfish aquaculture products provide the human population with a protein-rich food source (Golden et al., 2017). The increase in mussel production, as a result of this project will increase the annual income of offshore mussel farmers. There is also the potentially for economic gain of regional fishers (Machias et al., 2006) as the farmed mussels seed surrounding areas and enhance local biodiversity and species abundance (Costa-Pierce and Bridger 2002; Machias et al. 2006, Dempster et al. 2009).

Shellfish aquaculture products are known to provide regulating services such as nutrient extraction, denitrification and water filtration (Peterson et al., 2019). These processes contribute to improved water quality that can lead to an associated increase in human use and enjoyment of the marine environment (Peterson et al., 2019). Mussels are able to cycle nutrients through the trapping of suspended particles in the water column, known as suspension-feeding, and their excretion as waste product called faecal pellets or pseudo faeces (Prins and Smaal 1994; Erler et al., 2017). This water filtration process may mitigate the effects of excess nutrient loading through the removal of phytoplankton (Cranford et al., 2014; Neilson et al., 2016). As phytoplankton concentration often serves as an indicator for overall ecosystem health water filtration is an important service provided by bivalves.

Page 120

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

4.3.5 Summary

The observed and expected environmental benefits and Natural Capital indicators identified for native oyster restoration and offshore mussel culture projects are summarised in Table 21.

Table 55: Observed and expected impacts connected with each Natural Capital indicator associated with the habitat forming aquaculture case study Natural Case study Natural Capital Observed or expected Outcomes Capital sub-theme indicator impact component Change in Observed: No evidence of Increased number of gear- Pressures any changes in effort at this fishing effort hours fished stage (hours) Expected: Literature Enhanced Change in suggests that bivalves can Pressure habitat quality turbidity (NTU) play role in reducing turbidity so is expected to reduce. Change in area (ha) of available Reduced Observed: 200 ha has been fishing grounds to capture fishing Pressure set aside in Essex as a both commercial opportunities conservation area and recreational fishers Observed: 6.5 ha of native oyster bed created in Essex Observed: 69,000 native Change in oysters re-seeded in Solent Assets species Observed: 900,000,000 Restoration abundance (n) larvae released from caged of native mature native oysters in oyster beds Solent Spatial coverage Observed: 6.5 ha of native of habitat forming oyster bed created in Essex species (ha) Assets Observed: Creation of 200 Enhanced Change in MPA ha voluntary no-take zone habitat extent area designated (Blackwater Conservation and quality (ha) Box) in Essex Observed: While it is not possible to directly attribute Change in an increase to the project, 96 species richness different species have been (n) reported within the Assets immediate vicinity of native oyster cages in the Solent Expected: This is not Change in expected unless/until the turbidity (NTU) native oyster fishery is fully recovered

Page 121

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Natural Case study Natural Capital Observed or expected Outcomes Capital sub-theme indicator impact component Not possible to identify at this Volume of stage as this is not expected Increased shellfish to be observed until native oyster Flows production oyster stocks are replenished production (tonnes) and the fishery is fully recovered Change in area Observed: Offshore mussel (ha) of available Reduced farm now covers 1,540 ha. fishing grounds to capture fishing Pressure No reports of changes in both commercial opportunities landings from commercial or and recreational recreational fisheries fishers Spatial coverage of habitat forming Expected: No stock figures species (ha) available but at full capacity Increase farm Assets Change in the farm will have over Development size species 10,000 tonnes of mussels on of offshore abundance site mussel (n/tonnes) culture Observed: Monitoring is ongoing but sightings of Enhance Change in Atlantic horse mackerel, biodiversity and Assets species richness European sea bass, Grey water quality (n) mullet, and Brown crab reported Volume of Increase shellfish Expected: Annual production mussel Flows production of 2000 tonnes is expected production (tonnes)

In conclusion, both the Solent Oyster Restoration Project and the Essex Native Oyster Restoration Initiative have shown evidence of milestone achievements within the remit of their deliverables. A total network of 150 cages cumulatively holding 18,000141 mature native oysters has been implemented across The Solent. The results of which, gathered through monthly spot sampling, reveal that an estimated total of 900,000,000 larvae have been released since project inception. If, as reported by BLUE, spat is settling and populating the wild beds142 that serve the native oyster fishery, it is possible that due to this EMFF funding, the Solent native oysters could provide flows of goods and ecosystem services to commercial and recreational fishermen (Kamphausen, 2012). For example, Grabowski et al., 2012 reports high density, pristine oyster-beds to have an average of value of £11,000143 per hectare per annum. This would give the 6.5ha of native oyster bed created in Essex a value of £71,500144 per annum, covering the cost of EMFF funding in just over a year.

There has also been success in the development of Offshore Shellfish’s offshore mussel farm in Lyme Bay where there are now seven full-time employees. Once fully developed across

141 This number can fluctuate due to the dynamic nature of the sea and resultant mortalities. 142 Native oyster beds are defined by OSPAR as comprising >5 individuals per m2 (Saunders et al., 2015) 143 Converted $17,072 value to GBP using 2012 exchange rate. 144Total value of £1,041,049.68 over the assumed 10 year appraisal period for the project

Page 122

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) three sites the farm has the capability to produce 10,000 tonnes annually. However, the potential for upscaling is likely to be constrained by the identification and availability of a sheltered sited that boast good water flow and quality.

It is clear, that the strategy of collaboration with academic research institutes (e.g., Portsmouth and Southampton University) across both sub-themes of projects provides the ability to collect and analyse robust empirical data that can demonstrate environmental benefits.

Page 123

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) 4.4 Selectivity

Page 124

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 56: Summary of the projects funded in England through the EMFF that were selected for the selectivity case study Case study Project Funding Funding Project title sub-theme code priorities value (£) Union Priority ENG1462 Nephrop cod-ends 617 1 (Article 38) Union Priority Increase in ENG1369 Farne Deep cod-ends new 1,538 1 (Article 38) selectivity: Union Priority Cod-ends ENG1215 96mm cod-end regulations 724 1 (Article 38) Union Priority ENG1372 New prawn cod-ends 469 1 (Article 38) Replacement gill nets to enhance Union Priority ENG1468 23,452 selectivity and minimise discards 1 (Article 38) Union Priority ENG1103 Fishing nets 14,250 1 (Article 38) Increase in Union Priority selectivity: ENG1842 Improving the selectivity of netting 2,390 1 (Article 38) Static nets Improving the sustainability and selectivity Union Priority ENG2911 7,954 of gill netting for hake 1 (Article 38) Improving the selectivity and sustainability Union Priority ENG3121 6,480 of inshore gill net fishing 1 (Article 38) Transfer from mono tangle netting to Union Priority ENG1822 26,805 sustainable pots 1 (Article 38) Union Priority ENG2107 Improved selectivity of fishing 19,836 1 (Article 38) Improving the sustainability and selectivity Union Priority ENG2214 32,893 of offshore pot fishing 1 (Article 38) Improve selectivity, sustainability and Union Priority ENG2245 45,401 environmental impact of pot fishing 1 (Article 38) Improving the sustainability and selectivity Union Priority ENG2292 26,466 of pot fishing 1 (Article 38) Union Priority ENG2358 Pot replacement 27,193 1 (Article 38) Increase in Improving the sustainability and selectivity Union Priority selectivity: ENG2781 56,250 of shellfish pot fishing 1 (Article 38) Pots Union Priority ENG2856 pot selective 25,642 1 (Article 38) Improving the selectivity and sustainability Union Priority ENG3063 33,209 of pot fishing 1 (Article 38) Improving the selectivity and sustainability Union Priority ENG3165 56,250 of offshore crab & lobster pot fishing 1 (Article 38) Union Priority ENG3227 Pots 53,100 1 (Article 38) Union Priority ENG3231 Pots 24,091 1 (Article 38) Improving the selectivity and sustainability Union Priority ENG3576 35,428 of pot fishing off North Devon 1 (Article 38)

This evaluation of funded projects under the theme of selectivity could be used to inform the allocation of future funding through the investigation of the theme’s relative successes in terms of environmental benefits. This evaluation highlights some of the approaches and methods that have been effective at improving gear selectivity and identifies ways in which selectivity could contribute to improved stock health, leading to enhanced Natural Capital, including marine habitat quality, and stock quantity and quality. This is important as improvements to selectivity can lead to measurable reductions in catch rates of undersized target species or catch rates of non-target species / choke species and subsequent discarding of these individuals. For example, separator grids used in the Swedish nephrops trawl fishery reduced

Page 125

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) the weight of undersized fish caught by 30-65% (Valentinsson and Ulmestrand, 2008). Selectivity mechanisms can therefore enhance stock health in terms of both age structure and recruitment. Improved selectivity can, for example, decrease the catch rate of juvenile fish, potentially leading to increased survival to adulthood.

Natural Capital indicators for each of the three Natural Capital components were developed for each of the projects (Table 23), and compared to those in the 25 YEP (Table 81, Annex 12). Information was sought through project documentation, stakeholder engagement and from the literature to assess the environmental benefits that they have achieved in each case, or that they might be likely to deliver.

Table 57: Possible environmental impacts that could result from selectivity projects and the appropriate Natural Capital indicators to track any change Case Natural study sub- Capital Potential impact* Indicator* theme component Decrease in capture and mortality Change in the proportion of rate of non-target individuals unwanted catch Reduction in the rate of climate Pressure change Change in annual energy/fuel consumption (litres/kWh) and Reduction in the rate of Ocean CO2 equivalent Increase in Acidification selectivity Stock size of affected species Asset Increased stock abundance (numbers or tonnes)

Maintenance of annual Flow Maintena nce of landings landings of target species (tonnes) * Identified from project documents and stakeholder engagement

Page 126

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

4.4.1 Project progress

All projects, for which sufficient information was available, had either reached or passed the outcomes stage along their impact pathway.

Figure 20: Progress along the impact pathway of projects examined within the selectivity case study. 4.4.2 Results

Page 127

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 58: Observed and expected impacts connected with each Natural Capital indicator associated with the selectivity case study Case Natural Environmental Natural Capital Observed or expected impact study sub- Capital impact indicator theme component Increase in Pressure Decrease in Change in the Expected: Results from the selectivity: capture and proportion of literature review suggest that Cod-ends mortality rate of unwanted catch the changes made will have a non-target positive effect; reducing individuals unwanted catch and the associated mortality of these individuals

Increase in Pressure Reduction in Change in annual Expected: Results from the selectivity: greenhouse energy/fuel literature review suggest that Nets gas emissions consumption increasing mesh size could (litres / kWh) and potentially reduce overall fuel CO2 equivalent consumption by around 18% Increase in Pressure Decrease in Change in the Observed: Projects are likely to selectivity: capture and proportion of have resulted in a reduction in Pots mortality rate of unwanted catch unwanted catches, where non-target selectivity upgrades have been individuals made. Expected: However, this is unlikely to have a significant effect on the pressure; rate of mortality Increase in Asset Increased Stock size of Expected: The literature selectivity stock affected species suggests that reducing (all sub- abundance (numbers or mortality can have benefits for themes) tonnes) the stock abundance of unwanted catch species. For example, O’Neill et al., (2019) suggest that improving size and species selectivity can positively impact population abundance Flow Maint ain Maintenance of Observed and Expected: None landings annual landings of the stakeholders contacted of target species reported a decrease in landings (tonnes) as a result of their new gear, and if this more selective fishing gear allows smaller individuals (of target species) to survive until they are larger, then these modifications could be expected to increase flows in the short to medium term

Projects sought to improve size and species selectivity by either increasing mesh size (static nets and cod-ends) or introducing escape gaps (pots). In all cases where these modifications have been made, selectivity has been or is likely to have been improved. Beneficiaries who had replaced pots with new designs, that incorporated escape hatches, claimed that unwanted catches had been reduced, either in line with, or beyond, the targets set in their offer letters (i.e., between 10 – 15%). However, the environmental benefits/impacts of this are less clear than for cod-end and static net sub-themes. Brown crabs (Cancer pagurus), European lobster (Homarus gammarus), and velvet crabs (Necora puber) the main target species in the pots

Page 128

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) sub-theme, and other non-target species, have high discard survival rates (Bridges, 2017; Valentinsson and Nilsson, 2015; Öndes et al., 2017) so avoiding the need for post-capture release is likely to have little environmental impact/benefit.

Cod-end projects were allocated EMFF funds to increase cod-end mesh size to >95mm in the nephrop trawl fishery. This is a multi-species fishery known to catch quota species such as cod (Gadus morhua), haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), whiting (Merlangius merlangus) et cetera, and so can be affected by choke species issues. Selectivity improvements in this fishery are especially important as it is known to have a high discard (Catchpole and Revill, 2008) and associated mortality rate for unwanted catches (Valentinsson and Nilsson, 2015). Studies have found that significant reductions in the amount of unwanted catch can result from increasing cod-end mesh size in this fishery (e.g., Browne et al., 2018).

Funding for static net selectivity was based on increasing mesh size, and cross-cut a number of fisheries around England. Size selectivity in static nets can be effectively regulated through mesh size, as the modal size of fish caught generally increases with increases in mesh size (e.g., Holst et al., 1998). However, projects did not state the intention behind selectivity modifications (e.g., targeting size or species), making the potential environmental benefits of these changes unclear. It could be possible, for example, that new nets will simply shift the size selectivity bracket of the fishes caught, with potentially environmentally damaging consequences (Garcia et al, 2012).

The outcomes for both cod-end and static net sub-themes are both likely to reduce the mortality of unwanted individuals, which is aligned with many of the project targets explicitly mentioned in the offer letters (Table 59). For example, increased selectivity is expected to help to ‘reduce unwanted catch’ and ‘reduce juvenile nephrop catches’.

In addition, reducing mortality at size can have benefits for the stock abundance and structure of unwanted catch species. For example, O’Neill et al., (2019) suggest that improving size and species selectivity can positively impact recruitment and population abundance. However, it could also be argued that target species size selectivity, is simply changing the size at which individuals recruit to the fishery. The benefit of this to stock structure and the wider ecosystem is less clear. There are also differing opinions about the ecosystem impacts of catching smaller rather than larger fish, and the desirability of more selective forms of fishing (e.g., Garcia et al., 2012).

This study also identified that trawl modifications may result in increased energy efficiency. While it was, again, not possible to quantify these benefits, results from literature review suggested increasing mesh size could potentially reduce overall fuel consumption by around 18% (e.g., Parente et al., 2008; Priour, 2009). The Project target set by the MMO was lower, at 7%, but if this was achieved it would equate to a saving of 6.5CO2e tonnes annually or 3.34kg per £1 of EMFF funding.

Page 129

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 59: Selectivity projects, their environmental claims, and targets Case Claim (set study Natural Capital indicator Project in business Target (offer letter) sub- (produced by this study) case) theme Reduce unwanted catch Reduced proportion of from 20% to 5%. unwanted catches. Reduction in fuel Reduced average monthly consumption from 3,000L to ENG1215 n/a fuel consumption. 2,800L per month Create a more sustainable Decreased proportion of nephrop fishery through juvenile nephrops among decrease juvenile catches. the catch Increase Decreased proportion of in Reduced juvenile nephrop juvenile nephrops among selectivity: ENG1369 catches n/a the catch Cod-ends Reduced proportion of A better bycatch rate unwanted catches. Reduce unwanted catch Reduced proportion of ENG1372 n/a from 20% to 5%. unwanted catches. Decreased proportion of Reduced juvenile nephrop juvenile nephrops among catches ENG1462 n/a the catch Reduced proportion of A better bycatch rate unwanted catches. Nets to be more selective Reduced proportion of and reduce unwanted unwanted catches. ENG1103 n/a catches by 25% Reduce fuel consumption Reduced average monthly by 10% fuel consumption. Increased Reduce unwanted catches Reduced proportion of ENG1468 selectivity by 15% unwanted catches. Replace nets with those with an increased mesh Increase size to reduce unwanted Reduced proportion of ENG1842 n/a in catch. unwanted catches. selectivity: Reduce unwanted catch by Static 14% nets Increase mesh size of gillnets by 8% Reduce unwanted catch by Reduced proportion of ENG2364 Reduce 8% (15 tonnes pa) unwanted catches. unwanted catch by 8% (15 tonnes pa) Reduce discards of sole Reduced proportion of ENG3121 n/a and plaice by 10% unwanted catches. Reduce unwanted catch Reduced proportion of Increase from 15% to 5% of total in Bycatch unwanted catches. ENG1822 catch. selectivity: reduction Pots Reduce monthly fuel Reduced average monthly consumption by 750L fuel consumption.

Page 130

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Case Claim (set study Natural Capital indicator Project in business Target (offer letter) sub- (produced by this study) case) theme Reduction of waste of crab from 1 tonne to 0 Reduce discards by 20%, Reduced proportion of ENG2107 Fit pots with from 20% to 0%. unwanted catches. escape hatches to limit bycatch in pots Reduce discards by 10% by number pa Reduce unwanted catch by Reduced proportion of ENG2214 Increase the selectivity of 10% unwanted catches. pot fishing for crustacean shellfish Reduce discards by 10% by number pa Reduce unwanted catch by Reduced proportion of ENG2245 Increase the selectivity of 10% unwanted catches. pot fishing for crustacean shellfish Reduce discards by Reduce unwanted catch by 10% by 15% number pa Reduced proportion of ENG2292 Increase the selectivity of unwanted catches. Replace 400 pots with more pot fishing selective pots with escape for hatches crustacean shellfish Reduce discards by Reduce unwanted catch by 10% by 15% number pa Reduced proportion of ENG2781 Increase the selectivity of unwanted catches. pot fishing 1130 selective pots with for escape hatches crustacean shellfish Reduce Replace 400 pots with more Reduced proportion of ENG2856 bycatch of selective pots with escape unwanted catches. juveniles hatches

Page 131

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Case Claim (set study Natural Capital indicator Project in business Target (offer letter) sub- (produced by this study) case) theme Reduce unwanted catch by 20% Reduce Replace 500 pots with more discards by selective pots with escape 10% by hatches number pa Reduced proportion of ENG3063 Increase the Reduce unwanted catch by selectivity of 10% unwanted catches. pot fishing for Remove old pots from the crustacean fishing effort and evidence shellfish disposal Reduce Replace 2000 pots with discards by more selective pots with 11% by escape hatches number pa Reduced proportion of ENG3165 Increase the Increase selectivity of pot selectivity of fishing for crustacean unwanted catches. pot fishing shellfish for crustacean Reduce discards by 11% in shellfish number Replace 800 pots with more selective pots with escape Improve pot Reduced proportion of ENG3227 hatches selectivity unwanted catches. Reduce unwanted catch by 5% Replace 800 pots with more selective pots with escape Increase Reduced proportion of ENG3231 hatches profitability unwanted catches. Reduce unwanted catch by 5% Reduce Replace 500 pots with more discards by selective pots with escape 10% by hatches number pa Reduced proportion of ENG3576 Increase the selectivity of unwanted catches. pot fishing Reduce unwanted catch by for 10% crustacean shellfish

4.4.3 Summary

All projects contacted by this study (in the pots sub-theme), that purchased gear with modifications to improve selectivity, reported a decrease in the proportion of their catch deemed ‘unwanted’ as a result of this new gear (Table 58). Results from the literature review substantiate this finding and also suggest that the changes made by cod-end and static net projects will have a similar effect; reducing unwanted catch.

Page 132

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Generally, selectivity is considered to be environmentally beneficial but this should be confirmed on a case by case basis. For example, modifications to pots have resulted in a decrease in unwanted catches that is in line with project targets (Table 59). However, the actual environmental benefits of this outcome are thought to be low because survival rates are expected to remain relatively stable. Considering projects are funded, at least in part, with public money, there is a real need to ensure that funding allocated on environmental grounds produces tangible environmental benefits, rather than just modernising existing fishing gear.

This study also found that framing impacts in terms of Natural Capital is useful for environmental accounting and serves to highlight systemic issues that arise in programme fundamentals, i.e., projects targets that include “a better bycatch rate” (Table 59), which for example, is neither objective nor specific. In order to fully assess project efficacy it is necessary to have clear and objective targets with specific metrics by which to measure change.

Page 133

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) 4.5 Research to improve fisheries management

In total 11 projects fell into the theme of “research to improve fisheries management” with a total commitment of EMFF funds of £756,240. The average commitment of EMFF funds to these projects was £68,749. Four of the 11 projects within this theme were selected for further investigation (Table 25).

Table 60: Summary of the projects funded in England through the EMFF that were selected for the research to improve fisheries management case study Project Funding Project title Funding priorities code value (£) Atlantic bluefin tuna catch and bycatch in the Union Priority 1 ENG2395 185,629 English Channel and Celtic Sea (Article 40.1.b-g) Union Priority 4 ENG2755 Supporting sustainable sepia stocks Hastings 36,323 (Article 63) ENG3305 North Devon marine Natural Capital plan Union Priority 6 74,957 Evaluation of marine protected area (Article 80.1) ENG3590 18,742 management measures concerning fishing

Page 134

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

4.5.1 Project Background

A brief description of each project, including the aims and progress of the projects, are provided below.

ENG2395: Atlantic bluefin tuna (ABFT) catch and bycatch in the English Channel and Celtic Sea

The project is being implemented by the University of Exeter and Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas) and aims to generate new information on: (i) catch of ABFT, (ii) ABFT bycatch levels and, (iii) the distribution of ABFT (in terms of stock origin and migration behaviour). The project intends to deliver a baseline understanding (fisheries- dependent) of levels of ABFT catch and bycatch within the English Channel and Celtic Sea to allow information of when, where, why and how catches occur.

The overall goal is to work with the commercial and recreational fishing sectors to ensure compliance with the Landing Obligation and minimise catch-induced mortality of this species. This project is potentially highly important in terms of ABFT conservation as numbers of this species have recently returned to English waters (Faillettaz et al., 2019).

The project involves three stages:

• Compilation of existing fisheries dependent data. This includes stakeholder engagement through workshops and working with the MMO to collect data related to fishing effort, ABFT catch, ABFT bycatch, Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) and Automatic Identification Systems (AIS) data; • Generation of fisheries independent data, by using satellite tracking technology to generate data on spatiotemporal movements and provide post-release mortality estimates; and • Development and application of ‘best practices’, through training and enhanced information sharing, in order to minimise bycatch and catch induced mortality.

The final outcomes will be provision of training to both commercial and recreational sectors, sharing of data with the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) to aid recovery of ABFT and determination of a baseline to inform the MMO and Defra. This should aid these organisations in assessing whether diversification of English catch and release recreational fisheries should include ABFT.

ENG2755: Supporting sustainable Sepia stocks Hastings

Project ENG2755 was implemented through a collaboration between Sussex IFCA, the University of Brighton, Hastings Fisherman's Protection Society and the small-scale cuttlefish trap fishers based in Hastings. Cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis), once a low-value non-target species, has in recent years increased in value. Concerns over a lack of management and uncertainty about the impact of fishing on stocks led to the development of the project.

The project aimed to evaluate the fishing pressure on cuttlefish populations within the English Channel with the goal of developing recommendations to increase stock resilience through increasing rates of egg survival.

The project was structured around three parts, each of which has been summarised in reporting from funding beneficiaries (Davies and Nelson, 2018a; 2018b; 2018c):

• A review of the species biology and ecology, the impact of fisheries (both local and commercial), and methods to improve the success of cuttlefish egg laying, while also identifying the viability of different egg receptor options;

Page 135

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

• Investigation of the impact of trap fishing on cuttlefish eggs in order to identify actions that could reduce negative impacts and improve egg survival by >15%. Through engagement with members of the fishing industry, this involved data collection on the number of eggs attached to traps and experimental egg laying substrates; and • Assessment of S. officinalis egg quality and survival rate under laboratory conditions. This was intended to provide an understanding of the potential survival rate of eggs deposited in different conditions on removable receptors of various materials.

ENG3305: North Devon marine Natural Capital plan

Project ENG3305 is being implemented by the North Devon Biosphere Reserve and delivered through the North Devon Marine Pioneer programme. The goal is to produce the first Natural Capital plan specifically for marine resources. The Marine Pioneer programme aims to generate a Marine Natural Capital Plan through:

• Generating a plan for increasing investment in the marine environment; • Expanding the South West Marine Plan to allow for local, spatially explicit marine Natural Capital plans; • Identifying implications and lessons to feed into the delivery of the UK Marine Strategy whilst working to achieve ‘good environmental status’; • Pioneering an integrated governance approach for the marine environment with a spatial Marine Natural Capital Plan; • Trialling different approaches to support the development of a Marine Natural Capital Plan; • Identifying areas constraining sustainable development of maritime sectors; • Encouraging assessment of the North Devon Marine Natural Capital Plan by key policy markers; • Incorporating local knowledge; • Ensuring stakeholder engagement; and • Developing a methodology and lessons learned toolkit to allow development of similar Natural Capital plans in other regions.

Overall, the project aims to (i) demonstrate relationships between ecology, ecosystem services and benefits, (ii) identify links between Natural Capital and the relevant stakeholders, and (iii) classify indicators for valuing ecosystem services (in terms of monetary and non- monetary value) and appropriate data sources.

ENG3590: Evaluation of Marine Protected Area management measures concerning fishing

Project ENG3590 is focused on the evaluation of Marine Protected Area (MPA) effectiveness and identification of solutions that allow for enhanced compatibility between conservation measures and fishing activities. Project coordinators aim to collate information on management measures which apply to fisheries within MPAs, ensuring they are relevant to UK habitats and fisheries. This project also considers other experiences and identifies non- UK examples of best practice. The project will evaluate approaches to managing fisheries within marine protected areas and assess whether they may improve the UK’s management effectiveness. This information will then be used to provide recommendations for appropriate approaches to be taken into account during decision making.

This project will take part in three phases:

• Assessing the needs of MPAs in terms of fisheries management through stakeholder engagement and a literature review to generate a prioritised set of requirements for management of MPAs and fisheries;

Page 136

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

• A review of the global management measures relevant to habitats and species that are at risk in England and the challenges encountered during management of the English fishing fleet; and • Produce as final deliverables a report and a meeting with MMO and relevant stakeholders. 4.5.2 Methods

Due to the indirect nature of the impacts on Natural Capital when assessing the four projects within this case study, the impact pathway has been divided in two stages, and the case studies assessed, through two questions:

• To what extent has the research project achieved its outcomes and developed Human Capital (i.e., successfully generated new information and effectively shared it)? • To what extent have the information and skills (i.e., learnt under Question 1 (above)) been applied, and what impact has this achieved in terms of management, conservation and restoration of natural capital?

These two questions are distinct but related. Central to the relationship between the two are assumptions about how ‘management’ and ‘policy’ operate and about how research can influence these. Such assumptions can give rise to an essentially linear model of research and policy, founded on the belief that delivering scientific information and recommendations (i.e., answering of Question 1) will lead to better policy and practice outcomes. The risk, from an impact perspective, is that research may be focused simply on generating new information and skills, often measured in terms of peer-reviewed papers, academic awards and academic qualifications, while paying less attention to the wider impacts and changes that the development of knowledge and skills may bring about.

The EMFF is intended to contribute to the CFP objectives of better managed fisheries and the human and societal benefits that can be derived from these. It is therefore legitimate to examine research projects, as far as it is possible to do so, not only in terms of Question 1, but also in terms of Question 2. In doing so, the case study also seeks to examine the way that each project was intended to influence change (i.e., was it focused or intended to contribute to a wider body of work). This could provide useful lessons on research approaches, partnerships, and approaches to enhance uptake that could inform future impact-oriented fisheries research.

To answer Questions 1 and 2 there was a review of all the available and accessible project documents, utilising semi-structured interviews (Table 61) and a review of available peer- reviewed and grey literature.

Table 61: Project stakeholders contacted for engagement Success in Project Organisation145 contacting Interview date Reference stakeholder ENG2395 University of Exeter Yes 04/06/19 ENG2755 Sussex Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority Yes 23/05/19 ENG3305 North Devon Biosphere Yes n/a146 ENG3590 Marine Management Organisation Yes 11/06/19

145 In some cases more than one stakeholder was contacted 146 NB. Stakeholders within this project were unavailable to discuss their work in the time frame of the current study.

Page 137

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

The intended outcomes and impacts for each of the selected projects are shown in Table 62. Impacts were developed based on the stated outcomes. Impact indicators were structured around the three elements of Natural Capital; pressures, assets and flows.

Table 62: Summary of intended outcomes and associated impacts in terms of Natural Capital Components within projects under the ‘Research for improving fisheries management’ case study Natural Environmental Project Outcomes Capital Indicator impact component By-catch Mortality rates of associated with Pressures ABFT by-catch ABFT commercial ENG2395: (n) Best practice guidelines catch Atlantic bluefin shared leading to Change in tuna catches reduced capture and Stock size Assets quantity of ABFT and bycatch in mortality of ABFT while (tonnes) stock the English fishing opportunities are Channel and The frequency maintained or enhanced The potential for Celtic Sea: of fishing ground Flows ABFT as choke contraction due species to ABFT

Information on suitable Egg loss due to Number of eggs Pressures receptors and increased fishing activities lost (n) ENG2755: survival methods Supporting shared leading to Stocks increased Sustainable increased survival of as a result of Sepia Stocks eggs stocks at Assets Egg survival (%) higher egg Hastings sustainable levels and yields of Sepia survival Sepia landings maintained or enhanced Flows Sepia yields (tonnes) Develop a natural Over-exploitation capital plan for the Pressures of Devon’s marine Appropriate marine environment in resources indicators North Devon, develop ENG3305: North should be outputs that can be Devon Marine Quality of the identified within shared with other Natural Capital marine habitat of the Natural coastal Biospheres Assets Plan North Devon Capital Plan around the world and show how Natural Capital can be used in Abundance of Stock size (n or practice. stock species tonnes) Exploitation of Pressures marine resources Evidence of successful Fishing mortality within protected ENG3590 approaches relevant to areas Evaluation of UK habitats and fisheries identified and High quality Marine marine habitats Protected Area shared leading to more Indicators effective management within protected Management areas should be Measures and balancing of developed within Assets Concerning conservation and Higher management Fishing fishing interests. abundance and and Natural biomass of Capital Plans. marine resources (i.e., fishes)

Page 138

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

4.5.3 Results

Due to the nature of the research projects not directly enhancing Natural Capital, this evaluation starts by assessing project progress and considering the extent to which the research project has developed Human Capital. Next came an evaluation of how this might influence actions and, as a result, the Natural Capital aspects identified (Table 62).

Project progress

Only one of the projects under investigation has reached the impact stage, the remaining projects fall within the activities and output stages as shown on Figure 10.

Figure 21: Progress along the impact pathway of projects within the research for fisheries management case study

ENG2395 was due to finish December 2019. To date, stakeholder engagement has been conducted with multiple workshops taking place, with the initial satellite tagging program complete. Project officers are awaiting the first sightings of ABFT this year (2019) to complete this stage of the project. Development of best practice guidelines are underway, but will depend on the availability of final data being provided from stakeholder and satellite studies; it is unknown when those final data will be made available to the project.

ENG2755 was completed in 2018, the final reports have been published and a seminar has been held to disseminate the information generated and seek future funding. As such, it is expected this project is in the impact stage.

Neither ENG3305 nor ENG3590 are completed, though are due to finish in March 2020 and July 2019, respectively. Due to the current lack of outputs within both projects, no outcomes or impacts are expected to be assessable.

Enhancement of Human Capital

Page 139

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 63: Assessment of the projects within the research to improve fisheries management case study in terms of their contributions to Human Capital Contribution to Human ENG2395 ENG2755 ENG3305 ENG3590 Capital Yes; Stakeholder Yes; Modified traps engagement has Methods to from which eggs been conducted reduce by-catch can be easily to allow for Knowledge Yes; evaluations mortality of ABFT removed and collection of generated of existing MPAs have been returned to the sea information identified have been regarding Devon’s developed Natural Capital assets Yes; Fishers have been trained in Not yet; the the methods to Yes; stakeholder findings will not Yes; researchers Knowledge reduce mortality workshops have be shared until have published has been through been held and the culmination of three detailed shared stakeholder conferences have the project and reports workshops and been attended writing of a final online sharing of report information Yes; although no Uncertain; as of Uncertain; as of Uncertain; formal yet there is no yet there is no although management indication that indication that Knowledge or stakeholder measures have knowledge has knowledge has skills have workshops have been implemented been been been been held there is the fishers implemented due implemented due implemented no indication that associated with the to the incomplete to the incomplete the skills have study support use state of the state of the been implemented of the adapted project. project. traps

ENG2395: Atlantic bluefin tuna catch and bycatch in the English Channel and Celtic Sea

At present Project ENG2395 appears to have been effective at enhancing Human Capital, in terms of generating as well as sharing new information. To date there have been two stakeholder engagement workshops. The first workshop introduced the concept of the project, encouraging stakeholders (i.e., local fishers and Producer Organisations) to get involved, and provided these stakeholders with the most recent techniques to reduce handling mortality. Techniques to reduce mortality were demonstrated using case studies, to illustrate the effectiveness of using (or ineffectiveness of not using) recommended release methods for bycatch animals.

The second stakeholder engagement workshop updated fishers and other stakeholders on the progress of the research project, giving them the latest ABFT sightings and all bycatch data. All talks are available online147, demonstrating project beneficiaries’ efforts to disseminate project information and data. Engagement with a project stakeholder highlighted that this information has also been distributed (via email) to the >100 people and organisations subscribed to the project's contact list; stakeholders include naturalists, conservationists, sports fishers, recreational fishing societies/groups, lobbyists, regulatory bodies (IFCAs),

147 https://www.thunnusuk.org/events-1

Page 140

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Defra and Cefas members, members of the Welsh government, members of Marine Scotland, Producer Organisations and museums responsible for British fish collections.

Due to the legal complexity associated with fishing ABFT, many fishers are reluctant to report either catches or by-catch. This makes it difficult to evaluate whether the advice on releasing ABFT and by-catch in the correct manner is effective. Once the results of the satellite tagging studies have been analysed, it will be possible for the researchers to advise government and regulatory bodies about areas where ABFT may be highly exposed to commercial fishers (e.g., through comparison of tagged individual’s satellite tracks with available VMS data). This may substantially reduce commercial catch and by-catch (e.g., through restriction of fishing in certain areas), enhancing the Natural Capital asset of a population of ‘at-risk or endangered species’. By avoiding by-catch, mortalities and mis-reporting may be reduced, increasing the accuracy of stock assessments (i.e., those conducted by ICCAT148).

ENG2755: Supporting sustainable Sepia stocks Hastings

Project ENG2755 has published detailed reports to enable greater understanding (amongst stakeholders and policy makers) of the status of cuttlefish stocks within English waters. The first report provides a detailed insight into the biology and ecology of the species (Davies and Nelson, 2018a). The second details the history and activities of the cuttlefish fisheries within the UK to date (Davies and Nelson, 2018b). The third report publishes data collected throughout the process of the study, focusing on the success of egg survival associated with structures or netting experimentally provided within cuttlefish traps, including recommendations for increasing egg survival (Davies and Nelson, 2018c). However, it has not been possible to quantifiably assess the impact of all three reports, as citation data is not available. However, due to their presence in the public domain it is likely the reports are being read.

As of yet the findings have not been implemented in formal management. Engagement with local fishers within the project showed that there was a willingness for the new traps, which may increase egg survival, rolled out across the fleet to allow sustainable use of the stock (Davies and Nelson, 2018c).

ENG3305: North Devon marine Natural Capital plan

The North Devon Marine Natural Capital plan is being conducted through a pre-existing programme run by the North Devon Biosphere called the Marine Pioneer programme. Sharing of information generated has been highly successful within this project so far, with four stakeholder workshops to date (March 2017, November 2017, February 2018 and September 2018). The Marine Pioneer programme was also involved in the South West Marine Natural Capital conference in July 2017, which over 150 people attended149.

Stakeholder consultation was not possible due to stakeholders within this project being unavailable to discuss their work in the time frame of the current study. As a result, it has been difficult to separate specific actions for the North Devon Marine Natural Capital project from activities for the Marine Pioneer programme150.

Project ENG3305 is still underway and not due to complete until 2020. As such, no impacts are expected to have resulted from the project in terms of altered policy or management. The

148 An example of a stock assessment conducted by ICCAT can be found here: https://www.iccat.int/Documents/SCRS/DetRep/BFT_SA_ENG.pdf (last accessed 05/06/2019). 149 More information on the stakeholder events can be found at https://www.northdevonbiosphere.org.uk/marinepioneerevents.html. (Accessed 06/06/2019). 150 The outcome of the identification of assets and risks can be found at https://www.northdevonbiosphere.org.uk/uploads/1/5/4/4/15448192/natural_capital_asset_and_risk_register_wor kshop_mwg_sept_19.pdf. (Accessed 06/06/19).

Page 141

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) project has most recently worked with stakeholders to identify the Natural Capital assets within North Devon and the potential risks these assets face.

ENG3590: Evaluation of Marine Protected Area management measures concerning fishing

Project ENG3590 will culminate in a final report combining the evaluation of current and potential MPA management measures with the outcomes of stakeholder engagement. It will provide recommendations for appropriate management measures for MPAs and MPA associated fisheries. This report will enhance Human Capital through increased and shared knowledge on the best management strategies for marine protected areas. This report may be beneficial for reducing conflict between MPA stakeholders and local fisheries while enhancing Human Capital.

The role of the MMO as a governing body in the marine sector means that the project could result in altered management of MPAs through introduction of the recommendations, leading to effective management mechanisms. These management mechanisms could lead to an increase in Natural Capital associated with an MPA through a number of means, for example increased tourism and recreational use.

Environmental benefits

ENG2395: Atlantic bluefin tuna catch and bycatch in the English Channel and Celtic Sea

Stakeholder engagement highlighted that once tagging data have been returned and analysed in combination with the VMS data, recommendations on areas where the risk of bycatch is increased can be determined. These hotspots will be avoidable once known, which should reduce the fishing pressure on ABFT by reducing the likelihood of being caught as by-catch.

The main aim of the project is to enhance the stocks (quantity) of ABFT, through bycatch reduction and increased post-catch survival, in both recreational and commercial fisheries. A number of factors will make it difficult to quantify whether the project’s objectives have benefitted the English ABFT stock, these include:

• A reluctance of fishers to report catches or releases (due to legality issues); • The number of factors that can impact stock status (e.g., natural mortality); and, • The incomplete status of the project.

The reduction in by-catch which can result from spatial management (e.g., in terms of restricted fishing areas) will likely reduce the role of ABFT as a choke species. If fishers are able to reduce the likelihood of catching ABFT, it reduces the risk that they would need to stop fishing due to reaching ABFT quota limits. Reduction in ABFFT by-catch can also benefit fishers through a reduction in associated storage/disposal costs of the by-catch.

ENG2755: Supporting sustainable Sepia stocks Hastings

A 2014 stock assessment concluded that overexploitation of Sepia is not occurring within the English fleet (Gras et al., 2014). However, during the last decade exploitation of cuttlefish within the English Channel has almost doubled, due to a shift in effort away from finfish (Payne et al., 2006; Molfese et al., 2014; Davies and Nelson, 2018c). This is concerning as there are little management measures for the Sepia stock, and no Total Allowable Catch (TAC) quota or minimum conservation reference size value (Davies and Nelson, 2018c). Reduced fishing pressure on early life stages (reduced egg mortality as a result of traps) could help enhance the stock.

Page 142

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Increased knowledge on the biology and ecology of Sepia stocks within England can help produce greater efficacy in management. Egg survival for adapted traps increased by over 15% (Davies and Nelson, 2018a). Increased egg survival through implementation of the adapted traps is anticipated to allow for increased annual recruitment, with more individuals surviving to reproductive maturity.

The cuttlefish fishery is of great economic importance to England, with a revenue of approximately £26 M in 2017 alone (Davies and Nelson, 2018b). If effort levels are kept within sustainable limits, this could be an ongoing high value fishery for the English fleet.

ENG3305: North Devon marine Natural Capital plan

The Natural Capital plan should help to control the pressure of development on marine habitats and resources by identifying and valuing key assets and the flow of goods and services from these that require effective, appropriate management.

The project aims to demonstrate the relationship between ecology, ecosystem services and benefits to humans, and is therefore likely to be environmentally beneficial in a number of ways. Primarily, it is likely to identify natural habitats that require protection, potentially influencing policy makers to advocate investment in conservation. Investment in conservation and environmental protection is likely to enhance habitat quality through restoration of natural habitat features and services.

One of the project’s major goals is to provide a tool kit to allow assessment of Natural Capital in other areas and to provide guidance for the development of Natural Capital plans. If successful, these will be highly beneficial in supporting the identification of ecological factors that provide ecosystem services and human benefits. Such guidance will be necessary to help local business dependent on the marine environment to capitalise on ecosystem services, whilst allowing for sustainable resource use and development.

ENG3590: Evaluation of Marine Protected Area management measures concerning fishing

This project aims to enhance the quality of MPAs through improved management. Although this does not necessary impact the extent of the MPAs, it is likely to increase the quality. Regulations and effective management of fishing associated with MPAs will also help to increase the quality of the habitats within MPAs through effective management of stocks. For example, an ecosystem-based approach to MPA management accounts for all aspects within the MPA and allows for greater recovery (REF).

More effective management of MPAs will enhance the habitat quality, which may subsequently enhance the abundance and or diversity of the commercial marine species within the habitat, context depending. For example, commercial species are likely to increase in abundance in habitats where fishing pressure is reduced (or stopped), with increased population abundance of such species then potentially resulting in a spill-over effect, as larger adult abundances (and potentially the increased numbers of larvae produced by larger adult abundances) spilling out of the MPA boundaries. Such spill-over may lead to increased landings for fishers in habitats adjacent to the MPA (Weigel et al., 2014). 4.5.4 Summary

Page 143

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) is also worth noting that for these projects there will also be an additional time lag between the publishing of recommendations and acceptance/implementation within management plans, further delaying the final benefits. Implementation itself may be affected by other issues (e.g., alternative policy priorities, resources etc) that affect the degree to which delivering the environmental benefits either occurs or can be plausibly attributed to the individual projects.

Page 144

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 64: Observed and expected impacts connected with each Natural Capital indicator associated with the research to improve fisheries management case study Project Outcomes Natural Environmental Indicator Expected or Capital impact observed component impact ENG2395: Best practice Pressures By-catch Mortality Expected: No Atlantic guidelines associated with rates of evidence of bluefin tuna shared leading ABFT ABFT by- changes in catches and to reduced commercial catch (n) mortality have bycatch in capture and catch been observed. the English mortality of If knowledge is Channel and ABFT while applied, a Celtic Sea: fishing reduced by- opportunities catch of ABFT is are maintained expected or enhanced Assets Change in Stock size Expected: quantity of (tonnes) Reduced ABFT stock mortality resulting from by-catch is expected to increase ABFT abundance Flows The potential for The Expected: The ABFT as choke frequency effect of ABFT species of fishing as a choke ground species can contraction potentially be due to reduced if maps ABFT showing ABFT presence are used in management ENG2755: Information on Pressures Egg loss due to Number of Observed and Supporting suitable fishing activities eggs lost expected: Sustainable receptors and (n) Increased Sepia Stocks increased survival of Hastings survival approximately methods shared 22 eggs per trap leading to is expected increased survival of eggs Assets Stocks Egg Observed: stocks at increased as a survival (%) Egg survival result of higher sustainable was shown to egg survival levels and increase by at yields of Sepia least 15% with maintained or the use of enhanced modified pots. Effect on stocks not assessable

Page 145

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Project Outcomes Natural Environmental Indicator Expected or Capital impact observed component impact Flows Sepia yields Sepia Expected: landings Increased (tonnes) survival could potentially enhance future landings ENG3305: Develop a Pressures Over- Appropriate North Devon natural capital exploitation of indicators Marine plan for the Devon’s marine should be Natural marine resources identified Capital Plan environment in Assets Quality of the within the North Devon, Natural marine habitat develop Capital Plan of North Devon The project is outputs that not sufficiently can be shared advanced to with other identify coastal Abundance of Stock size (n impacts Biospheres stock species or tonnes) around the world and show how Natural Capital can be used in practice. ENG3590 Evidence of Pressures Exploitation of Fishing Expected: Evaluation of successful marine mortality Reduced Marine approaches resources within mortality is Protected relevant to UK protected areas expected if Area habitats and improvement Management fisheries in MPA Measures identified and management Concerning shared leading leads to Fishing to more reduced effective exploitation management Assets High quality Indicators and balancing marine habitats should be Expected: of conservation within protected developed MPA habitat and fishing areas within quality and interests. Higher management stock quantity abundance and and Natural are expected biomass of Capital Plans. to increase marine (depending on resources (i.e., MPA context) fishes)

The projects that appear to have the greatest potential environmental benefits are those that focus on researching aspects of the marine environment directly (Table 27). For example, ENG2395 is likely to reduce ABFT by-catch and increase individual survival, potentially helping the population status of this at-risk species.

Page 146

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) traps that can be deployed when targeting cuttlefish to 300 per vessel. Scaled up, 33 eggs from each of the 300 traps equates to a total of 9,900 eggs per vessel per fishing trip. Within in Sussex alone there are 80 vessels (an estimated 24,000 traps). This means that if each vessel did only 1 fishing trip per year an additional 792,000 eggs could theoretically be safely removed and returned to the sea.

Page 147

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) 4.6 Stock conservation and restoration

The case study evaluates EMFF funded projects that support conservation and/or enhancement of important species and stocks within England. This is an important area of funding given that 67% of the UK’s assessed stocks are known to fall below the recommendations for good environmental status in either, or both, levels of fishing pressure or reproductive capacity (EEA, 2018)151.

All four projects within the stock conservation and restoration theme contribute to the 25 YEPs goals of "thriving plants and wildlife" and “using resources from nature more sustainably and efficiently” as shown in Annex 13, Table 82 (Defra, 2018). Two of the four projects were selected for evaluation (Table 28). Both projects ENG1400 and ENG1723 aim to increase UK fish stocks through enhancement of Human Capital which, when applied can generate environmental benefits. ENG1400 focuses on the conservation of the European sea bass (Dicentrachus labrax) through enabling development and implementation of local fishery management plans for the stocks in UK waters. Project ENG1723 was funded to support the regeneration and restoration of European eel (Anguilla anguilla) stocks within the River Thames through monitoring, surveys and development of eel passages.

Table 65: Summary of the projects funded in England through the EMFF that were selected for the stock conservation and restoration case study EMFF Funding Value of Reference Description Priorities funding (£) ENG1400 Sea bass fisheries conservation UK Union Priority 1 166,546 (Articles 40.1b-g ENG1723 Recovering the Thames European eel stock and 44.6) 59,645

Existing indicators that are relevant to these projects through the Common Fisheries Policy and Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) include species biomass (tonnes per km2), and abundance (numbers per km2). Conservation projects could also result improved fish stock quality and ecosystem functioning through increased species compositions, age or length profiles (Hooper et al., 2019). Additional indicators were developed to assess progress along the impact pathway and the environmental benefits that might be generated by the two projects. Information and data to asses this were sought through interviews with project stakeholders, a review of the existing literature and the success of previous, similar projects. 4.6.1 Project background

This section provides a brief description of the aims and progress of the projects selected for the ‘stock conservation and restoration’ case study.

ENG1400: Sea bass fisheries conservation UK

The goal of project ENG1400, which was due to finish in December of 2019 but that has now been extended to March 2020, is to enable development and implementation of local fishery management plans for European sea bass stocks (Dicentrarchus labrax) in UK waters. Key priorities in this project include:

• Collection of data regarding fish migration, habitat preference and food resource use; • Resolving existing impediments to management; • Equitably meeting the needs of the different fishing sectors which utilise European sea bass as a resource;

151 Data used to calculate the figure of 67% were obtained from https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and- maps/figures/status-of-fish-stocks-in-5/data/at_download/file associated with

Page 148

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

• Reducing conflicts between sectors over the resource; • Taking account of the impacts and benefits (social and economic); • Promoting good fishery practices and stewardship of the resource; • Allowing for accurate information on the activities of recreational and commercial fishers; and, • Evaluation of the success of management measures.

The combination of research and stakeholder engagement is expected to culminate in the production of two regional action plans (for the east coast and south west regions). The action plans and recommendations on how to best manage the fisheries in terms of stock conservation and enhancement will be passed onto government bodies (e.g., Defra) and to relevant stakeholders. The major aims of the conservation measures are to:

• Improve stock conservation; • Improve fish welfare and handling techniques; • Reduce wasteful discards of European sea bass; and to • Reduce mortality of European sea bass.

To date, workshops with stakeholders have been carried out, engaging local stakeholders in both target areas. Cefas is now in the process of working with fishers to collect data on discard and survival of sea bass and implement the tagging phase of the project.

ENG1723: recovering the Thames European eel stock

Project ENG1723 aims to restore the populations of the European eel within the River Thames catchment, a commercially exploited yet critically endangered species (ICES, 2006). The project activities aiming to aid stock conservation and restoration include:

• Conducting a survey to allow for identification and prioritisation of barriers to the migration of European eels and obstructions to the connectivity of marshes linked to the Thames Estuary in North Kent; • Installation/improvement of eel passages at 9 priority sites (identified by the Eel Management Plan) to restore 134 km of riverine habitat; and, • Build on an existing eel monitoring programme and continue to gather data to enable informed decisions within the Eel Management Plan. 4.6.2 Methods

The projects selected for evaluation have two distinct components: (i) management through alteration of policy or removal of physical barriers and; (ii) a research component focussed on identifying effective conservation mechanisms. These projects are complex and, in the case of ENG1400 have less direct environmental benefits. Instead, these projects focus on enhancement of Human and Social Capital, primarily in terms of increased knowledge and skills and collaboration. To evaluate these projects’ impact, the impact pathway was considered in three distinct stages that assessed:

(i) The extent to which Human Capital has been enhanced, i.e., has new knowledge been contributed to the existing pool?; (ii) The extent to which the knowledge and/or skills generated in (i) have been utilised to manage, enhance and/or conserve natural capital; and, (iii) The impact of using knowledge and skills in management, enhancement and conservation to deliver the impacts based on Natural Capital.

The impacts and potential indicators of change for the selected projects based on following this impact pathway are shown in Table 66.

Page 149

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 66: Impacts associated with the Natural Capital components expected to arise from the conservation projects evaluated Outcomes Natural Capital Project Impact Indicator component Implementation of new/improved local, Reduced sea Sea bass Pressures co-operative based bass mortality mortality (n) management initiatives (through Increased stocks Abundance of Assets development of of sea bass sea bass (n) regional action ENG1400: Sea plans) bass fisheries conservation UK Implementation of Changes in Number of new data collection numbers of Flows recreational methods recreational fishers (n) fishers Increased sustainable use of stock Installation of eel passages within Dendritic Decreased habitat nine major barriers Pressures connectivity fragmentation to migration within km152 the Thames RBD

ENG1723: Abundance of Increased stocks recovering the Engage >120 citizen Assets European eels of European eels Thames scientists and (n) European eel empower them to stock contribute to the existing pool of data regarding eel Increased European eel Flows recruitment, eel landings of eel landed (tonnes) riverine ecology and priority barriers to migration

To enable a better understanding of the projects' progress and potential success beyond what was in the project, peer reviewed and grey literature, engagement from project stakeholders was sought (Table 67).

Table 67: Project stakeholders contacted for engagement

Success in Project Organisation Interview date contact? ENG1400 Cefas Yes 07/06/2019 ENG1723 Zoological Society of London (ZSL) No n/a

152 Dendritic connectivity is the longitudinal connectivity within a Dendritic Ecological Network (e.g., river or stream); the number of barriers along the length of a river network. More detail of this concept can be found within Cote et al., (2009).

Page 150

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

4.6.3 Results

This section assesses the progress of the selected projects and their contributions towards environmental benefits.

Project progress

Neither of the projects evaluated were in a stage where it was possible to assess the environmental benefits as they are both at a fairly early stage (Figure 22).

Figure 22: Progress along the impact pathway of projects within the stock conservation and restoration case study

Enhancement of Human Capital

Due to the complex nature of stakeholder engagement and the possible conflict that may arise environmental benefits may not always be achieved. This is due, in part, to the more indirect nature of these projects, focusing as they do on Human and Social Capitals in the first instance (Table 3). Table 68 summaries the success of stakeholder engagement in the context of the projects under investigation.

Table 68: Assessment of projects within the stock conservation and restoration case study in terms of their contributions to Human Capital Contribution to ENG1400 ENG1723 Human Capital Knowledge Yes; ecological data on the species Yes; data on migration and the generated has and is being collected, as is ecology of eel population within the information regarding management Thames has been and is being issues conducted Knowledge has been Yes; stakeholder workshops to Yes; engagement with citizen shared disseminate current knowledge scientists and an online presence for (and collect more) have been held the project means information is being effectively shared Knowledge or skills As of yet there is no evidence that According to the online presence have been knowledge has been implemented, knowledge and skills gained are implemented however the project is expected to already being implemented through culminate in development of a installation of eel passes is priority management plan areas

ENG1400: Sea bass fisheries conservation UK

Project ENG1400 is working to enhance Human Capital by providing a more in-depth understanding of the management issues facing European sea bass stocks in the UK. More knowledge should contribute towards better management of stocks and a reduction in conflict between different sectors and regions that depend on sea bass.

Page 151

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Because the project is not yet complete, the action plans that should culminate from the fieldwork and stakeholder engagements have not yet been completed nor acted upon. The action plans, once complete, will be passed on to Defra. If the first two stages of the impact pathway are successfully completed then a number of environmental benefits may result. These are further discussed in Section 4.6.3.3.

ENG1723: Recovering the Thames European eel stock

Enhancement of Human Capital is a large part of this project with engagement of over 900 citizen scientists and 29 partner organisations involved with European eel conservation efforts currently led by ZSL. In this project ZSL aim to get a minimum of 120 volunteers involved with conservation and monitoring of eel in the Rivers Medway, Mole and Cray. The educational aspect involved with training of volunteers to help with data collection provides them with new skills and knowledge.

There is a strong web presence of the programme with which project ENG1723 is associated. Project data will also feature in ZSL's annual report on their work in the Thames and there is an intention to present findings at the Institute of Fisheries Management conference and through social and print media, providing the potential to reach a wide variety of people.

Part of the project involves identifying further priority barriers to the migration of the European eel and incorporating these into an action plan. Once identified these will be targeted for removal by another European eel conservation project that ZSL are running153.

Environmental benefits

Overall, it seems that increasing Human Capital in terms of knowledge regarding the management and ecology of the species in question could be beneficial in enhancing stocks of both sea bass and European eels if the appropriate management mechanisms are put in place. Due to the timeframe involved with both the projects and the less direct nature of the impact pathways (relying initially on enhancement of Human Capital (Table 68), it is not currently possible to identify any environmental impacts deriving from two projects within this case study.

ENG1400: Sea bass fisheries conservation UK

Measures introduced as a result of the action plans for sea bass fisheries in the east coast and south west regions of the England could reduce mortality rates through a reduction in fishing pressure. Pelletier and Laurec (1992) describe that a reduced TAC can allow for a reduction in fishing mortality. Little et al. (2014) highlighted that improved management with the appropriate enforcement can reduce discards. However, improved management of sea bass could also result in a shift of fishing effort onto other (sometimes less-fished) species, increasing the pressure on these stocks.

The research and stakeholder engagement conducted within this study are likely to provide a better understanding of the ecology of European sea bass within England with specific knowledge currently being generated on the species movement, diet and habitat use. An understanding of these factors allows for appropriate management and regulations to be enforced (e.g., fishing exclusion zones for protection of nursery habitats).

Improved management will likely allow for an enhancement in both the quantity and quality of the stock in English waters. Stock quantity could be increased as a result of management. Such management, for example, may prevent the catch of individuals under a certain length, allowing for more individuals to reach maturity. More individuals achieving reproductive

153 More information on the European eel conservation programme can be found at https://www.zsl.org/conservation/regions/uk-europe/eel-conservation. (Accessed 07/06/19).

Page 152

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) maturity could potentially contribute to an increased future recruitment. Guidelines for fishers that can help reduce incidental mortality will also contribute to allowing stocks to rebuild.

Improved management may provide for increased commercial and recreational catches, potentially increasing yields, income and revenue from the sea bass stock. Better management allowing for an increase in recreational angling will also result in an increased income through increased gear and fishing license sales.

ENG1723: Recovering the Thames European eel stock

Dendritic connectivity (longitudinal connectivity of a river or stream) will be improved by the installation of eel passes. Due to the lack of data on the specific number of weirs and barriers to migration available and the “pass-ability”154, the exact value for the dendritic connectivity index for the Thames could not be calculated at this stage but should be possible after the next phase of the project.

Similar projects (ENG2407, ENG1777, ENG743 and ENG2753) funded under the EMFF have calculated that each km of river restored is worth £3,500 annually (see below), based on figures from the National Water Environment Benefit Survey (Environment Agency, 2013). Restoration of connectivity through creation of eel passes theoretically achieves the same goal; restoration of natural river processes. Consequently, the 134 km of river habitat made available should be worth an additional £469,000 for the economy annually; £8,798,237 over the assumed 30 year project appraisal period.

Reducing the number of barriers to migration within the Thames increases the connectivity between different regions of the catchment. Weirs and other anthropogenic structures act as barriers to both the upstream migration (as juveniles enter rivers to mature) and downstream migration of eels (as they embark on their spawning migration to the Sargasso Sea (White and Knights, 1997; Piper et al., 2017)). Removal of these barriers can allow for successful migration of a larger number of individuals, allowing more individuals to spawn and resulting in a greater recruitment of juveniles in following years. Increased spawning could potentially enhance the fishable stock of adult eels in the future but it is important to note that the migrating stocks will also be affected by pressures outside English waters.

If increased survival and growth of eels leads to greater eel abundance and catches, the flows from the stock in the Thames may be increased. It has been calculated that removal of barriers and the additional habitat will allow for an additional 1.22 tonnes of juvenile (silver) eels over 10 years.

The volunteer programme with which the project is associated also has a financial gain in terms of volunteer time. Based on the Heritage Lottery Fund's value of volunteer time equating to £150 per day it is calculated that £13,500 of in-kind volunteer time will be generated. This is assuming volunteer time equates to 90 person days over two years155. This free skilled work benefits the research laboratory, but also provides skills to the volunteers. 4.6.4 Summary

This case study showed that the selected projects have been able to engage with stakeholders to allow for effective data collection and distribution. Due to the more indirect nature of the projects, it is difficult to assess the overall environmental benefits derived from the projects, however the literature studied gives the impression that a greater understanding of ecology and removal of barriers to migration can provide environmental benefits to stocks, resulting in

154 A value reflecting the proportion of eels able to pass through existing barriers 155 More information on the calculation of volunteer time rates can be found at https://www.heritagefund.org.uk/discussions/how-calculate-volunteer-time. (Accessed 07/06/2019).

Page 153

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) an enhancement of Natural Capital. It is important to note that for these projects there will be an additional time lag between the implementation within management plans and the final benefits. A summary of impacts in relation to the different components of Natural Capital be associated with the projects can be seen in Table 69, which identifies indicators. These are compared to the indicators in the 25 YEP in Table 81 (Annex 12).

Table 69: Observed and expected impacts connected with each Natural Capital indicator associated with the stock conservation and restoration case study Project Natural Impact Indicator Observed or expected impact Capital component ENG1400: Pressures Reduced sea Sea bass Expected: Mortality is expected to Sea bass bass mortality mortality (n) be reduced through improved fisheries management. The true impacts conservation however cannot be determined at UK this stage Assets Increased Abundance Expected: A better understanding of stocks of sea of sea bass the ecology of European sea bass bass (n) stocks allows for appropriate management and regulations to be enforced, which is expect to improve quantity (abundance) Flows Changes in Number of Expected: Better management and numbers of recreational an enhanced stock structure may recreational fishers (n) allow for more recreational fishing fishers opportunities but this is not currently assessable ENG1723: Pressures Decreased Expected: It was not possible to recovering habitat Dendritic calculate dendritic connectivity at the Thames fragmentation connectivity this stage as the specific “pass- European km156 ability” of each of the barriers is eel stock unknown. However, it is suggested

that 134 km of riverine habitat is to be restored due to removal of barriers to migration Assets Increased Abundance Expected: Removing barriers to stocks of of European migration and enhancing an European eels (n) understanding of the species eels ecology should result in improved quantity (abundance) and quality (age-length profiles) of eel populations within the Thames. Flows Increased European eel Expected: In the future, increased landings of landed landings of European eel are eel (tonnes) expected as mitigation of barriers preventing migration to spawning grounds and other habitats associated with various life cycle stages will likely allow for enhancement of populations. This is expected to result as European eels will be able to complete their full lifecycle with fewer impediments

156 Dendritic connectivity is the longitudinal connectivity within a Dendritic Ecological Network (e.g., river or stream); the number of barriers along the length of a river network. More detail of this concept can be found within Cote et al., (2009).

Page 154

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Due to the nature of the projects relying initially on enhancement of Human Capital before any environmental benefits are to be seen as of yet there are no impacts to be observed or lessons to be learnt. Both projects are focused in nature and can reasonably be expected to result in changes to management and practice that may help restore stocks and provide for increased commercial and recreational catches. In the case of the eels, this could translate to an increased survival and growth of eels and greater eel abundance. It has been calculated that removal of barriers and the additional habitat will allow for an additional 1.22 tonnes of juvenile (silver) eels over 10 years. At the time the business case was written the price for eel steaks in fishmongers was £22.40 per 320g (equivalent to approximately £68 per kilogram)157. As such, it is calculated that, as a result of the project, the goods (fish for human consumption) flowing from the asset (eel stock) has a potential value of around £60,202158.

157 Price information was obtained from thefishsociety.co.uk (last accessed 22/07/19) 158 £68 per kg over the 10 year appraisal period, multiplied by the total expected 1.22 tonnes of additional juvenile (silver) eels.

Page 155

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) 4.7 Co-management and participation

This case study evaluated projects funded by the EMFF focused on stakeholder engagement and participation. Participation or stakeholder engagement can involve those at a local, national, regional and international level and takes an array of forms e.g., presentations, workshops, online videos or semi-structured interviews. Increased participation is widely promoted as a means to improve the legitimacy and performance of marine resource management, including MPAs (Ferse et al., 2010), coral reefs (Cinner et al., 2012) and fisheries (Jentoft and McCay 1995; Nielson and Vedsmand 1999).

All projects aim to contribute to Strategic Goal E of Aichi Biodiversity Targets ‘Enhance implementation through participatory planning, knowledge management and capacity building’. They are also consistent with several of the 25 YEP goals, e.g., ‘Enhanced beauty, heritage and engagement with the natural environment’ (Annex 13, Table 82).

This case study has focused on five EMFF funded projects (Table 70), cumulatively representing a commitment of £533,212 of EMFF funds and an average commitment of £133,303.

Table 70: Summary of the projects funded in England through the EMFF that were selected for the Co-management/participatory approach case study Reference Project title EMFF funding priorities Funding (£) A people and place-based approach to Union Priority 1 (Article ENG1812 eels and communities in the Bristol 103,631 40.1.b-g 44.6) Channel Enhancing stakeholder engagement in Union Priority 6 (Article ENG1964 the development of marine plans in 147,815 80.1.b) England Developing a participatory approach to Union Priority 1 (Article ENG2283 managing fisheries activity in offshore 187,314 40.1.b-g 44.6) MPAs Union Priority 4 (Article ENG2838 Community planning for MPAs 59,183 63) Partnership between scientists and small-scale coastal fishing (SSCF) to Union Priority 1 (Article ENG3055 35,270 create an industry standard in quality 28) and sustainability

4.7.1 Project backgrounds

The following section describes the projects in more detail.

ENG1964 - Enhancing stakeholder engagement in the development of marine plans in England.

The Marine Planning Team of the Marine Management Organisation were the recipient of funding for this project. They are responsible for policy formulation and the implementation of Marine Plans. The project is centred on the development and implementation of marine policy and involves both internal and external targets; for example, the collection and analysis of stakeholder data. Other targets include the delivery of communication and engagement plans to aid the delivery of integrated marine policies with input from stakeholders in England’s cross-border areas with Scotland and Wales.

Page 156

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

ENG2283 - Developing a participatory approach to managing fisheries activity in offshore MPAs.

The Joint Nature Conservation Committee were the recipient of funding for this project. The project aims to collaboratively develop a framework for delivering an adaptive approach to MPA management, ensuring fair and effective fisheries management in the face of uncertainty. Full implementation of the approach will be tested using real-world situations in offshore MPAs, focusing on fishing activity on sedimentary habitats. The project will seek to increase environmental awareness and foster greater understanding of the need for protection of marine biodiversity amongst fisheries stakeholders through direct involvement in the management process. This project is centred around promoting environmentally sustainable, resource efficient, innovative, competitive, knowledge-based fisheries.

ENG2838 – Community planning for MPAs.

The recipient of funding for this project was the Dorset Wildlife Trust, in partnership with Southern IFCA and the Dorset Coast Forum. The project has four targets that focus on producing a series of fishery management plans through engagement with local fishermen for the marine protected areas within the Dorset and East Devon FLAG area: Studland to Portland SAC, Lyme Bay and Torbay SAC, Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges MCZ, and Chesil and the Fleet SAC. In addition, the project aims to provide accessible data and information, enabling a wider understanding of the fisheries and marine environment.

ENG1812 – A people and place-based approach to eels and communities in the Bristol Channel.

The Bristol Fish Project were the recipient of funding in relation to this project. The project has six targets with the core vision of sustaining healthy eel populations, distributed through their natural range, fulfilling their role in the aquatic environment and supporting sustainable use for the benefit of communities, local economies and traditions.

ENG3055 – Partnership between scientists and small-scale fishers to create an industry standard in quality and sustainability.

The recipient of EMFF funding in the case of this project the Sole of Discretion. The project focuses on determining the feasibility of creating an industry standard in quality and sustainability. A collaboration between scientists and small-scale fishers, in the pilot phase, will scope out a way to formalise a code of conduct within inshore waters for the inshore fleet. The focus of this project is the environment, scientific data collection, product quality, ethics, and traceability. 4.7.2 Methods

Page 157

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) review of stakeholder participation by Reed (2008). Using this review as a basis, indicators of successful stakeholder engagement and meaningful participation were developed for the stages of project implementation along the impact pathway (Table 32).

Table 71: Indicator framework developed by this study to assess stakeholder engagement and participation Stage of the intervention Key feature of stakeholder engagement Inception (pre-activity) Clear objectives of participation established Activities Systematic stakeholder representation Opportunities for knowledge sharing and co-ownership Outputs Environmental objectives identified Reflect on processes and outcomes Outcomes Environmental objectives identified lead to actions

Project progress

The complexity of participatory processes means they are often time-consuming. None of the projects have yet reached the stage where impacts can be identified or predicted (Figure 12).

Figure 23: Schematic representation of the progress along the impact pathway of selected projects funded to enhance participation and co-management under the EMFF

The results of the evaluation can be divided into two stages (see Figure 3). Firstly an assessment of stakeholder engagement and participation using the indicator framework in

Page 158

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 32 to relate the development of Human and Social Capitals to objectives or actions to deliver environmental benefits (Table 33). Secondly, an assessment of the extent to which the information shared, and the environmental objectives identified, have been utilised in activities to deliver environmental benefits and changes to Natural Capital.

Table 72: Assessment of the selected participation and co-management projects in terms of stakeholder engagement and participation Key feature of stakeholder ENG1812 ENG1964 ENG2283 ENG2838 ENG3055 engagement Clear objectives of participation Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes established Systematic Yes; through stakeholder Noa Yesb stakeholder No Noc representation mapping Opportunities for No; The purpose Yes; Yes; facilitated Yes; to knowledge was education intended to information develop Yes sharing and co- and awareness share sharing in industry ownership raising knowledge workshops standard Environmental Yes; enhancing objectives European eel Not yetd Not yet Not yet Not yet identified stocks Yes; later Yes; a No; No; phases to commitment to Reflect on evidence of evidence of be informed understand processes and Not yet a a by the participation outcomes commitment commitment results of and related to reflect to reflect Phase I conflict Environmental No; instead objectives objectives were Not yet Not yet Not yet Not yet identified lead to identified at actions inception a) Engagement in this instance was targeted at the local community and a local angling club b) There was an emphasis on engaging ‘hard-to-reach’ stakeholders c) The focus is on collaboration with small-scale fishers. d) At the time of the analysis: 15/06/2019

Page 159

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Area of Conservation in the Southern North Sea. However, an issue that has been raised at workshops is of how the information from stakeholders is used as fishers suggest they often share their views, but these views are not reflected in the priorities that emerge. The focus is instead on aspects such as understanding interactions between species, habitats and fishers that may be of more interest to the researchers and conservation bodies leading the project.

Environmental objectives were generally expected to emerge from the participatory processes, especially those addressing marine plans (e.g., ENG2283 and ENG2838). For example, in the case of ENG2838, suggestions were put forward by fishers for future fishery management plans including control of unlicensed boats within MPAs, a total banning of towed gear within 6nm and wider distribution of management plans. However, as the management plans have not yet been finalised or implemented, it is not possible to identify concrete environmental objectives and associated Natural Capital indicators. An exception to this was project ENG1812, where there was a clear focus from the outset on improving eel populations, raising awareness and increasing eel production from an aquaponic facility.

Page 160

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Table 73: Observed and expected impacts connected with each Natural Capital indicator associated with the co-management and participation cast study Natural Natural Environmental Observed or expected Project Capital Capital impact impact component indicator Expected: Mortality from Reduced eel catch and release expected mortality from Fishing to be reduced through Pressure recreational mortality (n) better targeting and catch ENG1812 - A fishing and release practices by people and local fishers. place-based Expected: Aiming to approach to eels Increased Abundance of increase from 500 elvers and Asset European eel European eels released at the pilot stage communities in population (n) to an expected 30,000 per the Bristol year by year 4. Channel Increased European eel Expected: Expect to Flow European eel production produce some 10 tonnes of production (tonnes) eels annually.

ENG3055 - Partnership Expected: Income expected Increased between scientists to increase as a result of income for Income from and SSCF to Flow consumers preferring to small-scale fish sales (£) create an industry choose fish from a small- fishers standard in quality scale operation. and sustainability

This case study found that the selected projects have been able to engage with stakeholder and develop participatory approaches and that these have made both focused and cumulative contributions. However, to date, there is no empirical evidence of benefits to stocks or key habitats. It is also worth highlighting that project processes differed and had different objectives. It was only possible in two cases to identify intended environmental change, where these had been specified at the outset. In terms of the likely benefits of realising the intended changes, if project ENG1812 is successful in increasing eel production then this could provide eels for stock enhancement and educational programmes as well as generating annual income flows equivalent to 77% of the total EMFF funds allocated.

Many of the projects were focused on informing management plans and had not been completed at the time of writing. It is also worth noting that for these projects there will also be an additional time lag between the finalisation of the plan, its implementation and the final benefits. Implementation itself may be affected by other issues (e.g., alternative policy priorities, resources etc) that affect the degree to which delivering the environmental benefits either occurs or can be plausibly attributed to the individual projects.

Page 161

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) 4.8 References

Angling Trust (n.d.) UK Atlantic Bluefin Tuna: Too Valuable to Catch Just Once. Bluefin Tuna UK.

Armitage, D. (2008). Governance and the commons in a multi-level world. International Journal of the Commons 2(1), pp.7–32

Arthur, R.I., Friend, R.M. and Marshke, M. (2011). Fostering Collaborative Resilience Through Adaptive Co-Management: Reconciling Theory and Practice in The Management of Fisheries in The Mekong Region. In: B. Goldstein (Ed.) Collaborative Resilience: Moving Through Crisis to Opportunity. MIT Press.

Ayaz, A., Altinagac, U., Ozekinci, U., Cengiz, O. and Oztekin, A. (2010). Effects of hanging ratio on gill net selectivity for annular sea bream (Diplodus annularis) in the Northern Aegean Sea, Turkey. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 9(7), pp.1137–1142.

Bergesen, J.D., Tähkämö, L., Gibon, T. and Suh, S. (2016). Potential long-term global environmental implications of efficient light-source technologies. Journal of Industrial Ecology 20(2), pp.263–275.

Berkes, F. (2006). From community-based resource management to complex systems. Ecology and Society 11(1), pp.45.

Blaikie, P. (2006) Is small really beautiful? Community-based natural resource management in Malawi and Botswana. World Development 34(11), pp.1942–1957.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Pimbert, M., Farvar, M.T., Kothari, A. and Renard, Y. (2010). Sharing Power: A Global Guide to Collaborative Management of Natural Resources. Earthscan UK and USA.

Bridges, T. (2017). Crab and Lobster Stock Assessment. Research Report. Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority.

Butler, J.R.A., Radford, A., Riddington, G. and Laughton, R. (2009). Evaluating an ecosystem service provided by Atlantic salmon, sea trout and other fish species in the River Spey, Scotland: The economic impact of recreational rod fisheries. Fisheries Research 96(2), pp.259–266.

Carlton J.S. (2019). Chapter 12 - Resistance and Propulsion. In: Marine Propellers and Propulsion (Fourth Edition), Butterworth-Heinemann, pp.313–336.

Catchpole, T. L., & Revill, A. S. (2008). Gear technology in Nephrops trawl fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 18(1), pp.17-31.

Cinner, J.E., McClanahan, T.R., MacNeil, M.A., Graham, N.A.J., Daw, T.A., Mukminin, A., Feary, D.A., Rabearisoa, A.L., Wamukota, A., Jiddawi, N., Campbell, S.J., Baird, A.H., Januchowski-Hartley, F.A., Hamed, S., Lahari, R., Morove, T. and Kuange, J. (2012). Co- management of coral reef social-ecological systems. PNAS 109(14), pp.5219–5222.

Page 162

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Clucas, I. (1997). A Study of the Options for Utilization of Bycatch and Discards from Marine Capture Fisheries. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Coppe, A., Pujolar, J., Maes, G., Larsen, P., Hansen, M., Bernatchez, L., Zane, L. and Bortoluzzi, S. (2010). Sequencing, de novo annotation and analysis of the first Anguilla anguilla transcriptome: EeelBase opens new perspectives for the study of the critically endangered European eel. BMC Genomics, 11(1), pp.635.

Costa-Pierce, B.A. and C.J. Bridger. (2002). The Role of Marine Aquaculture Facilities as Habitats and Ecosystems. In: R. Stickney and J. McVey (Eds.) Responsible Marine Aquaculture. CABI Publishing Co., Wallingford, U.K. pp.105–144.

Costello, M.J and Ballantine, B. (2015). Biodiversity conservation should focus on no-take marine reserves. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 30(9), pp.507–509.

Cote, D., Kehler, D.G., Bourne, C. and Wiersma, Y.F. (2009). A new measure of longitudinal connectivity for stream networks. Landscape Ecology 24(1), pp.101–113.

Cowx, I.G., Angelopoulos, N., Dodd, J.D. and Nunn, A.D. (2017). Evidence: Impact of Catch and Release Angling Practices on Survival of Salmon. Environment Agency.

Cranford, P.J., Duarte, P., Robinson, S.M.C., Fernández-Reiriz, M.J. and Labarta, U. (2014). Suspended particulate matter depletion and flow modification inside mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis) culture rafts in the Ría de Betanzos, Spain. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 452, pp.70–81.

D’Amours, O., Archambault, P., Mckindsey, C. and Johnson, L. (2013). Local enhancement of epibenthic macrofauna by aquaculture activities. Marine Ecology Progress Series 371, pp.73–84.

Dalton, T, Forrester, G. and Pollnac, R. (2012). Participation, process quality, and performance of marine protected areas in the wider Caribbean. Environmental Management 49(6), pp.1224–1237.

Dame, R. (1996). Ecology of Marine Bivalves: An Ecosystem Approach. CRC Marine Science Series, Boca Raton, FL.

Davies, D. and Nelson, K. (2018a) The Biology and Ecology of The Common Cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis). Sussex Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority.

Davies, D. and Nelson, K. (2018b) The English Channel Fishery for Common Cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis). Sussex Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority.

Davies, D. and Nelson, K. (2018c) Assessing the Efficacy of Egg Receptors Within Fishing Traps Used to Target Common Cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis). Sussex Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority.

Defra (2018). A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment. HM Government.

Dempster, T., Uglem, I., Sanchez-Jerez, P., Fernandez-Jover, D., Bayle-Sempere, J., Nilsen, R. and Bjørn, P. (2009). Coastal salmon farms attract large and persistent aggregations of wild fish: an ecosystem effect. Marine Ecology Progress Series 385, pp.1–14.

Page 163

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

EEA (2018). Status of the Assessed European Fish Stocks in Relation to Good Environmental Status per Regional Sea. Figure: Data and Maps. European Environment Agency. Copenhagen, Denmark.

Environment Agency (2003). Briefing Note: Public Participation and the Water Framework Directive. Environment Agency, Bristol.

Environment Agency (2013). Updating the National Water Environment Benefit Survey Values: Summary of the Peer Review.

Environment Agency (2014). The Derwent Humber Management Catchment: A Summary of Information about the Water Environment in the Derwent Humber Management Catchment. Environment Agency, Bristol.

Erler, D., Welsh, D., Bennet, W., Meziane, T., Hubas, C., Nizzoli, D. and Ferguson, A. (2017). The impact of suspended oyster farming on nitrogen cycling and nitrous oxide production in a sub-tropical Australian estuary. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 192, pp.117–127.

Faillettaz, R., Beaugrand, G., Goberville, E. and Kirby, R.R. (2019). Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillations drive the basin-scale distribution of Atlantic bluefin tuna. Science Advances 5(1), pp.eaar6993.

Ferse, S.C.A., Máñez Costa, M., Máñez, K.S., Adhuri, D.S. and Glaser, M. (2010). Allies, not aliens: increasing the role of local communities in marine protected area implementation. Environmental Conservation 37(1), pp.23–34.

Garcia S. M., Kolding J., Rice J., Rochet M-J., Zhou S., Arimoto T., Beyer J. E., Borges, L., Bundy, A., Dunn, D., Fulton, E.A., Hall, M., Heino, M., Law, R., Makino, M., Rijnsdorp, A.D., Simard, F. and Smith, A.D.M. (2012) Reconsidering the consequences of selective fisheries. Science, 335, pp.1045–1047.

Gargan, P.G., Stafford, T., Økland, F. and Thorstad, E.B. (2015). Survival of wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) after catch and release angling in three Irish rivers. Fisheries Research 161, pp.252–260.

Golden, C.D., Seto, K.L., Dey, M.M., Chen, O.L., Gephart, J.A., Myers, S.S., Smithm M., Vaitla, B and Allison, E.H. (2017). Does aquaculture support the needs of nutritionally vulnerable nations? Frontiers in Marine Science 4(159), pp.1–7.

Grabowski, J.H. and Peterson, C.H. (2007). Restoring Oyster Reefs to Recover Ecosystem Services. In: Cuddington, K., Byers, J., Wilson, W. and Hastings, A. (eds.). Ecosystem Engineers: Plants to Protists. Academic Press.

Page 164

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Gras, M., Roel, B.A., Coppin, F., Foucher, E. and Robin, J.-P. (2014). A two-stage biomass model to assess the English Channel cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis L.) stock. ICES Journal of Marine Science 71(9), pp.2457–2468.

Grati, F., Bolognini, L., Domenichetti, F., Fabi, G., Polidori, P., Santelli, A., Scarcella, G. and Spagnolo, A. (2015). The effect of monofilament thickness on the catches of gillnets for common sole in the Mediterranean small-scale fishery. Fisheries Research, 164, pp.170–177.

Guiny, E., Ervine, D.A. and Armstrong, J.D. (2005). Hydraulic and biological aspects of fish passes for Atlantic salmon. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 131(7), pp.542–553.

Hardin, G. 1968. Tragedy of the commons. Science 162, pp.1243–1248.

Holst, R., Madsen, N., Moth-Poulsen, T., Fonseca, P. and Campos, A. (1998). Manual for Gillnet Selectivity. European Commission.

ICES (2006). Report of the 2006 Session of the Joint EIFAC/ICES Working Group on Eels. Rome: European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission & ICES Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management.

Jentoft, S. and McCay, B.J. (1995). User participation in fisheries management: Lessons drawn from international experiences. Marine Policy 19, pp.227–246.

Kamphausen, L.M., (2012). The Reproductive Processes of a Wild Population of the European Flat Oyster Ostrea edulis In the Solent, UK. Ocean and Earth Science, Doctoral Thesis. University of Southampton.

Kelleher, K. (2005). Discards in the World’s Marine Fisheries. An Update. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Key, D. and Davidson, P.E. (1981). A review of Development of the Solent Oyster Fishery. Laboratory Leaflet., MAFF Directorate of Fisheries Research Lowestoft, 52, pp.1–33.

Kim, S., Lim, J., Lee, K. and Park, S. (2016). Effect of twine thickness on size-selectivity of driftnet for the yellow croaker Larimichthys polyactis in southwestern Sea of Korea. Chinese Journal of Oceanology and Limnology, 34(6), pp.1199–1208.

Krasny, M.E., Crestol, S.R., Tidball, K.G. and Stedman, R.C. (2014). New York City's oyster gardeners: Memories and meanings as motivations for volunteer environmental stewardship. Landscape and Urban Planning 132, pp.16–25.

Kummu, M. (2008). Spatio-Temporal Scales of Hydrobiological Impact Assessment in Large River Basins: The Mekong Case. Water & Development Publications, Helsinki University of Technology.

Page 165

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Lawrence, S., Quintana, M.M. and Motova, A. (2017). Quay Issues: 2016 Economics of the UK Fishing Fleet. Seafish.

Lewis, D. (Ed.) (1988). Predator-prey relationships, population dynamics and fisheries productivities of large African lakes. CIFA Occasional Paper, 15, pp.154.

Liu, Y., Zhang, L.S., Sun, L.P. and Li, B. (2014). Numerical Study on Effects of Buffer Bulbous Bow Structure in Collisions. Recent Advances in Structural Integrity Analysis - Proceedings of the International Congress (APCF/SIF-2014), Woodhead Publishing pp.168-172.

Machias, A., Giannoulaki, M., Somarakis, S., Maravelias, C., Neofitou, C., Koutsoubas, D., Papadopoulou, K. and Karakassis, I. (2006). Fish farming effects on local fisheries landings in oligotrophic seas. Aquaculture, 261(2), pp.809–816.

Mahmood, S., Huang, D., (2012). Computational fluid dynamics based bulbous bow optimization using a genetic algorithm. Journal of Marine Science and Application 11(3), pp.286-294.

Maliaoa, R.J., Pomeroy, R.S. and Turingana, R.G. (2009). Performance of community-based coastal resource management (CBCRM) programs in the Philippines: A meta-analysis. Marine Policy 33(5), pp.818–825.

Molfese, C., Beare, D. and Hall-Spencer, J.M. (2014). Overfishing and the replacement of demersal finfish by shellfish: An example from the English Channel. PLOS ONE 9(7), pp.e101506.

Murray, L.G., Newell, C.R. and Seed, R. (2007). Changes in the biodiversity of mussel assemblages induced by two methods of cultivation. Journal of Shellfish Research 26, pp.153−162.

National Research Council (2010). Chapter 7: Ecosystem services of Bivalves: Implications for Restoration. In: Ecosystem Concepts for Sustainable Bivalve Mariculture. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Nielsen, J.R. and Vedsmand, T. (1999). User participation and institutional change in fisheries management: a viable alternative to the failures of ‘top-down’ driven control? Ocean and Coastal Management 42(1), pp.19−37.

Nielsen, P., Cranford, P.J., Maar, M. and Petersen, J.K. (2016). Magnitude, spatial scale and optimization of ecosystem services from a nutrient extraction mussel farm in the eutrophic skive fjord, Denmark. Aquaculture Environment Interactions 8, pp.311−329.

Notti, E. and Sala, A. (2014). Information Collection in Energy Efficiency for Fisheries. ICEEF- 3 Final Report. The European Commission.

Özgül, A. and Angel, D. (2013). Wild fish aggregations around fish farms in the Gulf of Aqaba, Red Sea: implications for fisheries management and conservation. Aquaculture Environment Interactions, 4(2), pp.135−145.

Page 166

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Parente, J., Fonseca, P., Henriques, V. and Campos, A. (2008). Strategies for improving fuel efficiency in the Portuguese trawl fishery. Fisheries Research, 93(1-2), pp.117–124.

Payne, A.G., Agnew, D.J. and Pierce, G.J. (2006). Trends and assessment of cephalopod fisheries. Fisheries Research 78(1), pp.1–3.

Pelletier, D. and Laurec, A. (1992). Management under uncertainty: defining strategies for reducing overexploitation, ICES Journal of Marine Science 49(4), pp.389–401,

Petersen J.K., Holmer M., Termansen M., Hasler B. (2019). Nutrient Extraction Through Bivalves. In: Smaal A., Ferreira J., Grant J., Petersen J. and Strand Ø. (Eds) Goods and Services of Marine Bivalves. Springer, Cham.

Peterson, C.H. and Lipcius, R.N. (2003). Conceptual progress towards predicting quantitative ecosystem benefits of ecological restorations. Marine Ecology Progress Series 264, pp.297– 307.

Peterson, C.H., Grabowski, J.H. and Powers, S.P. (2003). Estimated enhancement of fish production resulting from restoring oyster reef habitat: quantitative valuation. Marine Ecology Progress Series 264, pp.249–264.

Pimputkar, S., Speck, J.S., DenBaars S.P. and Nakamura, S. (2009). Prospects for LED lighting. Nature Photonics 3(4), pp.180–182.

Pinkerton, E. (1992). Translating legal rights into management practice: Overcoming barriers to the exercise of co-management. Human Organization 51, pp.330–341.

Piper, A.T., Svendsen, J.C., Wright, R.M. and Kemp, P.S. (2017). Movement patterns of seaward migrating European eel (Anguilla anguilla) at a complex of riverine barriers: implications for conservation. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 26(1), pp.87–98.

Prins, T. and Smaal, A. (1994). The role of the blue mussel Mytilus edulis in the cycling of nutrients in the Oosterschelde estuary (The Netherlands). Hydrobiologia, 282-283(1), pp.413- 429.

Priour, D. (2009). Numerical optimisation of trawls design to improve their energy efficiency. Fisheries Research 98(1–3), pp.40–50.

Reed, M. S. (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation 141 (10):2417–2431.

Saunders, G., Gubbay, S., Tyler-Walters, H., Dankers, N., Otero-Ferrer, F., Forde, J., Fürhaupter, K., and Sanders, N. (2015). Ostrea edulis Beds on Shallow Sublittoral Muddy Mixed Sediment. European Red List of Habitats. The Marine Habitat Group.

Sawusdee, A., Jensen, A.C., Collins, K.J., and Hauton, C. (2015). Improvements in the physiological performance of European flat oysters Ostrea edulis (Linnaeus, 1758) cultured on elevated reef structures: Implications for oyster restoration. Aquaculture 444, pp.41–48.

Skinner, A., Young, M. and Hastie, L. (2003). Ecology of the Freshwater Pearl Mussel Margaritifera margaritifera. Conserving Natural 2000 Rivers. Ecology Series No. 2, pp.20.

Smyth, D., Mahon, A.M., Roberts, D. and Kregting, L. (2018). Settlement of Ostrea edulisis determined by the availability of hard substrata rather than by its nature: implications for stock

Page 167

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) recovery and restoration of the European oyster. Aquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 28(3), pp.662–671.

Spencer, P.D. and Collie, J.S. (1995). A simple predator–prey model of exploited marine fish populations incorporating alternative prey. ICES Journal of Marine Science 53, pp.615–628.

Streftaris, N. and Zenetos, A. (2006). Alien marine species in the Mediterranean - the 100 ‘worst invasives’ and their impact. Mediterranean Marine Science 7(1), pp.87–118.

The Angling Trust. (n.d.). Salmon Five Point Approach - Restoring Salmon in England. The Environment Agency.

Tupper, E.C. (2013). Chapter 7 - Resistance. In: Tupper, E.C. (Ed.). Introduction to Naval Architecture (Fifth Edition). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp.131–160.

Valentinsson, D. and Ulmestrand, M. (2008). Species-selective Nephrops trawling: Swedish grid experiments. Fisheries Research 90(1–3), pp.109–117.

Way, H., Michael, F., Hudson, D. and Turnock, S. (2018). Assessment of Bulbous Bow Performance Over Operational Profiles Using Full Scale Data. The Royal Institution of Naval Architects.

Weigel, J.-Y., Mannle, K.O., Bennett, N.J., Carter, E., Westlund, L., Burgener, V., Hoffman, Z., Simão Da Silva, A., Kane, E.A., Sanders, J., Piante, C., Wagiman, S. and Hellman, A. (2014). Marine protected areas and fisheries: bridging the divide. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 24(S2), pp.199–215.

Welcomme, R.L. (1995). Relationships between fisheries and the integrity of river systems. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 11: pp.121–136.

White, E.M. and Knights, B. (1997). Environmental factors affecting migration of the European eel in the Rivers Severn and Avon, England. Journal of Fish Biology 50(5), pp.1104–1116.

Wilding, T.A. and Nickell, T.D. (2013). Changes in Benthos Associated with Mussel (Mytilus edulis L.) Farms on the West-Coast of Scotland. PLOS ONE 8(7), pp.e68313.

Page 168

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) Annex 2 Key stakeholders identified and their response to the request for interview

Table 74: Key stakeholders identified and their response to the request for interview Sector Stakeholders identified Response Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Interview not possible Research bodies Aquaculture Science Joint Nature Conservation Committee Interview not possible Advisory body Natural England Interview held Association of Inshore Fisheries and Interview held Management body Conservation Authorities Environment Agency Interview held Regulatory government body Marine Management Organisation Interview held World Wide Fund for Nature Interview not possible Zoological Society of London Interview not possible NGO with a marine focus Marine Conservation Society Interview not possible Institute of Fisheries Management Interview held University of York Interview held Universities with active marine University of Plymouth Interview held research departments Newcastle University Interview held Seafish Interview not possible Worshipful Company of Fishmongers Interview held National Federation of Fishermen's Interview held Fishing industry organisations Organisations Shellfish Association of Great Britain Interview not possible New Under Ten Fishermen’s Association Interview held British Ports Association Interview held Seabed User Development Group Interview not possible Marine industry organisations British Marine Interview not possible Royal Yachting Association (the Green Interview not possible Blue) Recreational Angling Trust Interview held

Page 169

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) Annex 3 Stakeholder engagement information pack

The EMFF is one of five European Structural and Investment (ESI) that aim to promote a growth and job-based recovery across Europe. It is the principle financial instrument for implementing objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and supporting development and structural reform of the fisheries and aquaculture sectors more broadly. The EMFF has six key priorities, the first to two of which are:

1. Environmentally sustainable, resource efficient, competitive fisheries which are more selective, produce less discards, and do less damage to marine ecosystems. EMFF support under this priority will thus focus on innovation and added value that can make the fisheries sector economically viable and resilient to external shocks and to competition from third countries. 2. Environmentally sustainable, resource efficient, competitive aquaculture to make this industry green, economically viable and competitive, while providing EU consumers with healthy and highly nutritional products. EMFF funding is available to stakeholders in the fisheries/aquaculture/marine sector including; fishers, NGOs, government bodies, research organisations, fish farmers and community- based organisations. Funding opportunities for the protection of the environment is achieved through measures to support of fisheries resources management, including the transition to Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY), the introduction of landing obligations, and the adoption of Long Term Management Plans. The EMFF will support, for example:

• The reduction of the impact of fisheries/aquaculture on the environment, including through support for low impact gear. • Measures to facilitate the introduction of the gradual discard ban, such as more selective fishing gears and techniques; or investments in equipment on board and port facilities necessary to use the unwanted catches. • Management, restoration and monitoring of Natura 2000 sites and of other marine protected areas. • Permanent cessation of fishing activities to reduce the fishing pressure from fleet segments in overcapacity. • Climate change mitigation measures in particular through energy audits and changes of fishing vessels engines to increase energy efficiency and to reduce emissions. • Marketing measures and promotion campaigns in support of sustainable fishing and aquaculture products

Page 170

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) Annex 4 Data consent form

Consent statement

Please can you sign below to confirm that you give consent for MRAG ltd of 18 Queen Street, London, W1J5PN, UK to collect this information and provide it to our client Defra. The information collected will be used solely for the purposes of this study, a review of the environmental benefits delivered through the EMFF. All information received will be used anonymously. You can withdraw your consent at any time, in which case please contact the MRAG data protection officer at [email protected] quoting reference GB2644

Name: Date:

Page 171

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) Annex 5 Stakeholder questionnaire

Table 75: Stakeholders questionnaire used during interviews as part of Objective 4 Interviewer: Date: Time: Interviewee: Organisation: Email: Additional details:

Could you please outline your organization’s interaction with EMFF within England?

In your opinion, what are the main issues facing the marine (and freshwater) environment at the moment?

Did the project have any environmental effects (what were these)?

Follow up – what are you basing this assessment on? What evidence, engagement, facts, perception?

Are you familiar with the criteria used to allocate EMFF funding? If not please read this list (Provide list).

In your opinion, are the criteria used to allocate funding appropriate to address these issues?

Are there any criteria that are currently missing, but that you feel could be used to allocate EMFF funding more effectively to projects that are likely to bring about environmental benefits?

Do you feel that the projects that have received funding are likely to address the criteria by which they were funded?

Considering the future prospects for the Fund, in your opinion, what kinds of projects should receive funding?

What selection criteria might be appropriate to allocate funding to projects such as these?

Are you aware of any other sources of funding for fishery/aquaculture specific projects that could be used to address the main issues facing the marine environment?

For those that stakeholders that received EMFF funding: Are reporting requirements for environmental impact evident when projects are awarded?

Are reporting requirements clear now? If not – have they received clarification – have they challenged – what have they done about this? If yes – what did they find clear/helpful?

Are they burdensome? And in what way, time, money, complexity, lack of assistance in interpretation, confusing? Also why do you think that they are burdensome?

Page 172

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

What are they comparing it to – other grant schemes, expectations?

Is support for impact reporting provided by MMO? If so – what support, do they know what support is available – do we know what support is supposed to be available?

For the MMO and Defra, Natural England etc: Is information from project reporting fully utilised at a higher level?

Follow up - And at what level. Is there a feedback loop?

For the MMO:

Does reporting use standardised indicators (i.e., the MMO’s result indicators) for impact and for measuring success?

Is there an appropriate quality assessment of reporting, feedback to beneficiaries and is reporting consistent across projects?

Follow up - How does MMO assess this quality, benchmark it or chase up for quality to be improved?

For all: Is there anything else you would like to share regarding the EMFF in England?

Page 173

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Annex 6 Typology of EMFF projects within England that have an environmental aspect

In total 1,173 projects have been funded in England from 2014 to February 2019159. To develop a typology of environmental projects from the February 2019 transparency initiative dataset, it was necessary to filter out all those projects (n=777) that were not funded under an overtly environmental Article. This was done by excluding those projects that did not have any terminology in their title that provided insight into any potential environmental effect, and therefore were not likely to have an environmental impact as a project outcome160. For example, Article 38 (Limiting the impact of fishing on the marine environment and adapting fishing to the protection of species (+ art. 44.1.c Inland fishing)) is overtly environmental, but projects (n=8) were filtered out where title terminology made likely environmental effects opaque, e.g., ENG1165, entitled “Golden Opportunity”. This approach varied by Article and to some extent relied on expert judgment. For example, where projects under Article 38 (including all projects in the selectivity case study) had titles were related to fishing gear (e.g., ENG1360, entitled Cod Ends) it was judged that these projects were likely to relate to selectivity enhancements, or some type of environmental benefits, and were included in the Typology. This approach was validated by specific project information provided by the MMO that revealed that the projects in question did indeed have environmental targets.

Table 76: Typology of EMFF projects with an environmental aspect Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£) Partnership between Co- Co- scientists and SSCF to ENG3055 28 Priority 1 management/participatory management/participatory Unknown create an industry standard 35,271 approach approach in quality and sustainability Co- Co- Community Planning for ENG2838 63 Priority 4 management/participatory management/participatory Unknown MPAs 59,183 approach approach Co- Co- Developing a participatory 40.1.b- ENG2283 Priority 1 management/participatory management/participatory Unknown approach to managing g 44.6 187,314 approach approach

159 This includes support to the Data Collection Framework (DCF), funded under UP 3 of the EMFF. “The European Commission’s DCF establishes a European Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). It seeks to provide scientists and others responsible for making decisions on the management of fisheries with the information they need. One significant area of the DCF is the setting out of the scientific data that are needed as inputs into the annual assessments of fish stocks.” - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/data-collection-framework 160 This approach may have resulted in some projects with environmental benefits being excluded. However, the majority are likely to have been picked up and therefore the general picture is likely to have been captured. One potential limitation of this is that due to the fact that some projects with environmental benefits were likely not included in this study, the environmental benefits delivered by the EMFF are also likely underestimated.

Page 174

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£) fisheries activity in offshore MPAs A people and place-based Co- Co- approach to eels and 40.1.b- ENG1812 Priority 1 management/participatory management/participatory Unknown communities in the Bristol g 44.6 103,631 approach approach Channel Enhancing Stakeholder Co- Co- Engagement in the ENG1964 80.1.b Priority 6 management/participatory management/participatory Unknown development of marine 147,815 approach approach plans in England England inland waters 40.1.b- Connecting freshwater Connecting freshwater ENG1774 migration priorities Priority 1 29/09/2017 g 44.6 habitats habitats 240,000 Tadcaster England inland waters 40.1.b- Connecting freshwater Connecting freshwater ENG1777 migration priorities - Flint Priority 1 31/08/2017 g 44.6 habitats habitats 240,000 Mill weir Restore European eel 40.1.b- Connecting freshwater Connecting freshwater ENG2130 Priority 1 Unknown migration routes g 44.6 habitats habitats 159,788 Ennerdale Mill Weir 40.1.b- Connecting freshwater Connecting freshwater ENG2407 Priority 1 Unknown Removal g 44.6 habitats habitats 203,731 The Brue Valley Eel 40.1.b- Connecting freshwater Connecting freshwater ENG2682 Priority 1 Unknown Improvement Project g 44.6 habitats habitats 61,211 Springs of Rivers - Mill 40.1.b- Connecting freshwater Connecting freshwater ENG2743 Priority 1 Unknown Street Fish Pass g 44.6 habitats habitats 103,649 Springs of Rivers - Corve 40.1.b- Connecting freshwater Connecting freshwater ENG2753 Priority 1 Unknown Fish Pass g 44.6 habitats habitats 89,914 Hogsmill Sewage 40.1.b- Connecting freshwater Connecting freshwater ENG2795 Treatment Works Fish Priority 1 Unknown g 44.6 habitats habitats 119,239 Passage Improvements 40.1.b- Connecting freshwater Connecting freshwater ENG2920 Shotley Grove Fish Pass Priority 1 Unknown g 44.6 habitats habitats 218,951 Connecting Priority 40.1.b- Connecting freshwater Connecting freshwater ENG2985 Priority 1 Unknown Tributaries in the Ribble g 44.6 habitats habitats 26,229

Page 175

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£) Crumpwood Weir Fish Pass 40.1.b- Connecting freshwater Connecting freshwater ENG3087 Priority 1 Unknown Project g 44.6 habitats habitats 165,986 Glaisdale Ford Rock Ramp 40.1.b- Connecting freshwater Connecting freshwater ENG3099 Priority 1 Unknown Project g 44.6 habitats habitats 26,823 Boilers, LED Lighting, Lock Knuckle Fendering, Implementation of 'green ENG2004 43.1 Priority 1 Energy efficiency 31/12/2018 Fishmarket Cladding, technology' 116,054 Washrooms Billingsgate LED light Implementation of 'green ENG2235 43.1 Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown retrofit technology' 24,715 Solar Panels To Power Fish Implementation of 'green ENG3436 43.1 Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown Markets technology' 40,013 Ice Machine and Solar Implementation of 'green ENG2586 Panels for Osborne cockle 69 Priority 5 Energy efficiency Unknown technology' 12,819 sheds The modernisation of Reduced energy

ENG2769 onshore aquaculture units 51 Priority 2 Energy efficiency consumption: equipment Unknown 22,500 including energy efficiency upgrades Reduced energy

ENG1102 New Eco Van 69 Priority 5 Energy efficiency consumption: equipment 28/02/2017 7,238 upgrades Renew existing equipment to increase efficiency, Reduced energy

ENG1935 health and safety and 69 Priority 5 Energy efficiency consumption: equipment Unknown 9,356 employee working upgrades conditions the replacement of existing Reduced energy equipment to increase fish ENG2347 69 Priority 5 Energy efficiency consumption: equipment Unknown quality and increase 1,665 upgrades efficiency of business PROCESSING Reduced energy

ENG2528 EFFICIENCY 69 Priority 5 Energy efficiency consumption: equipment Unknown 36,438 IMPROVEMENTS upgrades

Page 176

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£) Reduced energy Updating refrigeration consumption: ENG1345 42 Priority 1 Energy efficiency 31/05/2017 System Fridge/Freeze/Ice 4,983 equipment Reduced energy consumption: ENG2068 ice machine upgrade 43.1 Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown Fridge/Freeze/Ice 9,424 equipment Reduced energy Upgrade of Ice Making consumption: ENG3219 43.1 Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown Facilities Fridge/Freeze/Ice 167,979 equipment Improving chilled logistics Reduced energy to enable business growth consumption: ENG1333 69 Priority 5 Energy efficiency 30/06/2017 and reduce environmental Fridge/Freeze/Ice 32,794 footprint equipment Improving refrigerated Reduced energy logistics to enable business consumption: ENG2256 69 Priority 5 Energy efficiency Unknown growth and reduce Fridge/Freeze/Ice 25,445 environmental footprint equipment Improving fuel efficiency Reduced fuel use: ENG2662 and reducing carbon 41.2 Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown efficiency improvements 1,672 emissions Reduced fuel use: ENG2912 Atlantic Lass - Efficiency 41.2 Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown efficiency improvements 1,534 Improving fuel efficiency Reduced fuel use: ENG2664 and reducing carbon 41.2 Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown efficiency improvements 1,102 emissions Reduced fuel use: ENG3210 Upgrade of Fuel System 43.1 Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown efficiency improvements 1,806 Improving fuel efficiency of Reduced fuel use: ENG1897 41.1.a-c Priority 1 Energy efficiency 29/10/2017 beam trawler efficiency improvements 5,344 Propulsion Gear Energy Reduced fuel use: ENG1904 41.1.a-c Priority 1 Energy efficiency 31/07/2017 Efficient Upgrade efficiency improvements 1,451

Page 177

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£) Reduced fuel use: ENG1920 Trevessa IV fuel efficiency 41.1.a-c Priority 1 Energy efficiency 25/09/2017 efficiency improvements 30,900 Reduced fuel use: ENG1982 St Georges fuel efficiency 41.1.a-c Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown efficiency improvements 24,000 Reduced fuel use: ENG2054 Twilight III Fuel Efficiency 41.1.a-c Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown efficiency improvements 26,850 Improving fuel efficiency of Reduced fuel use: ENG2580 41.1.a-c Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown inshore scalloper efficiency improvements 5,718 Improving fuel efficiency on Reduced fuel use: ENG2609 41.1.a-c Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown inshore potter efficiency improvements 3,161 Improving fuel efficiency on Reduced fuel use: ENG2707 41.1.a-c Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown scallop dredger efficiency improvements 10,485 Improving fuel efficiency of Reduced fuel use: ENG2835 41.1.a-c Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown N Devon potter efficiency improvements 3,725 Improving fuel efficiency of Reduced fuel use: ENG2936 41.1.a-c Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown SW England based trawler efficiency improvements 7,021 REPLACEMENT OF CURRENT AUXILIARY GENERATOR DUE TO Reduced fuel use: ENG3006 41.1.a-c Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown EXCESSIVE FUEL efficiency improvements 4,978 CONSUMPTION AND MAINTENANCE Reduced fuel use: ENG3013 Kathleen Energy Efficiency 41.1.a-c Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown efficiency improvements 3,802 Reducing fuel use and Reduced fuel use: ENG3038 carbon emissions of 41.1.a-c Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown efficiency improvements 2,903 offshore gill netter Mystique - Energy Reduced fuel use: ENG3071 41.1.a-c Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown Efficiency efficiency improvements 1,035 Improving fuel efficiency of Reduced fuel use: ENG3196 41.1.a-c Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown inshore static gear vessel efficiency improvements 870 replacement of old Ford Reduced fuel use: engine ENG2471 41.2 Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown dover engine with new upgrades 2,418

Page 178

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£) more eficient and economical ford engine replace current old ford sabre engine with new Reduced fuel use: engine ENG2677 41.2 Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown more economic less HP upgrades 3,109 Engine Modernisation of Main Reduced fuel use: engine ENG2678 41.2 Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown Engine upgrades 1,839 ENGINE MODIFICATION Reduced fuel use: engine ENG3082 AND OVERHAUL TO 41.2 Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown upgrades 2,228 INCREASE EFFICIENCY REPLACEMENT OF CURRENT ENGINE FOR Reduced fuel use: engine ENG3118 41.2 Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown LESS POWER AND upgrades 1,452 INCREASED EFFICIENCY Engine replacement and Reduced fuel use: engine ENG3291 41.2 Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown efficiency improvements upgrades 41,884 replacement of current engine to increase Reduced fuel use: engine ENG3399 41.2 Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown efficiency and reduce oil upgrades 1,963 consumption Improving fuel efficiency of Reduced fuel use: ENG2581 41.2 Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown gearbox gearbox upgrades 8,762 Improving fuel efficiency of Reduced fuel use: ENG2708 41.2 Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown gearbox gearbox upgrades 10,787 Improving fuel efficiency through gearbox Reduced fuel use: ENG3131 41.2 Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown replacement on inshore gearbox upgrades 7,049 trawler INCREASED EFFICIENCY Reduced fuel use: ENG3604 41.2 Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown OF GEARBOXES gearbox upgrades 1,286 Improving fuel efficiency of Reduced fuel use: hull ENG1479 41.1.a-c Priority 1 Energy efficiency 31/03/2017 MFV "Lloyd Tyler" modification 26,400

Page 179

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£) Improving the use of fuel on Reduced fuel use: hull ENG1482 41.1.a-c Priority 1 Energy efficiency 01/11/2017 MFV "Lloyd Tyler" modification 34,650 TwinSeas 6.9 Stability and Reduced fuel use: hull ENG1577 41.1.a-c Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown Efficency modification 3,300 addition of trim tabs to increase efficiency, reduce Reduced fuel use: hull ENG2156 41.1.a-c Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown fuel consumption and modification 824 increase stability Improving fuel efficiency Reduced fuel use: hull ENG3061 through bulbous bow 41.1.a-c Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown modification 15,900 modification Improving fuel efficiency Reduced fuel use: more ENG2610 through change of fishing 41.1.a-c Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown efficenet fishing gear 12,750 gear REMOVAL OF ANTI FOULING AND REPLACEMENT WITH Reduced fuel use: more ENG2652 41.1.a-c Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown COPPER COAT TO efficient antifouling 1,793 INCREASE VESSEL EFFICIENCY Reduced fuel use: more ENG2654 COPPERCOAT 41.1.a-c Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown efficient antifouling 1,824 Reduced fuel use: more ENG3028 True Grit hull coating 41.1.a-c Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown efficient antifouling 3,692 Renewal of Propellor from Bronze to stainless, Reduced fuel use: ENG1704 41.1.a-c Priority 1 Energy efficiency 03/07/2017 reducing cathodic action propeller modification 823 and improve efficiency replacement of current propeller to increase Reduced fuel use: ENG2058 41.1.a-c Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown efficiency of vessel and propeller modification 818 engine Reduced fuel use: ENG2625 propellor shaft 41.1.a-c Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown propeller modification 1,475

Page 180

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£) REPLACEMENT OF SHAFTS, SEALING Reduced fuel use: ENG3070 ARRANGEMENTS AND 41.1.a-c Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown propeller modification 14,348 REFURB OF PROPELLORS Improving fuel efficiency of Reduced fuel use: ENG3132 inshore trawler through 41.1.a-c Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown propeller modification 5,610 prop and shaft upgrade INCREASED EFFICIENCY Reduced fuel use: ENG3605 PROPELLERS AND 41.1.a-c Priority 1 Energy efficiency Unknown propeller modification 6,188 SHAFT ARRANGEMENTS Implementation of a tele- declaration system to reach 40.1.b- ENG2031 Priority 1 Fisheries management Traceability 31/08/2018 full traceability of UK glass g 44.6 51,750 eel fisheries Offshore Mussel Farm 48.1.a- Habitat forming Habitat forming ENG1210 Priority 2 31/03/2017 Flotation d,f-h aquaculture aquaculture: Mussels 87,478 Increasing Mussel Farm 48.1.a- Habitat forming Habitat forming ENG1318 Priority 2 31/12/2016 Production Capacity 1 d,f-h aquaculture aquaculture: Mussels 187,500 48.1.a- Habitat forming Habitat forming ENG1788 Labrador Bay Mussels Priority 2 Unknown d,f-h aquaculture aquaculture: Mussels 5,459 Increasing production 48.1.a- Habitat forming Habitat forming ENG2153 Priority 2 Unknown capacity of mussel farm d,f-h aquaculture aquaculture: Mussels 110,156 New Blue Mussel 48.1.a- Habitat forming Habitat forming ENG2525 Priority 2 Unknown Harvesting System d,f-h aquaculture aquaculture: Mussels 28,007 Increasing Mussel Farm 48.1.a- Habitat forming Habitat forming ENG2775 Priority 2 Unknown Capacity 2 d,f-h aquaculture aquaculture: Mussels 122,354 48.1.a- Habitat forming Habitat forming ENG2797 Offshore Mussel Flotation 2 Priority 2 Unknown d,f-h aquaculture aquaculture: Mussels 89,625 The Solent Oyster 40.1.b- Habitat forming Habitat Forming ENG1980 Priority 1 07/05/2019 Restoration Project g 44.6 aquaculture aquaculture: oysters 126,911 Recovering Native Oyster 40.1.b- Habitat forming Habitat forming ENG2157 Priority 1 Unknown Beds in Essex g 44.6 aquaculture aquaculture: oysters 83,200

Page 181

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£) Scoping for seaweed Habitat forming Habitat forming ENG2477 47 Priority 2 Unknown aquaculture in Yorkshire aquaculture aquaculture: Seaweed 389 Seaweed farming feasibility Habitat forming Habitat forming ENG2805 within the Dorset and East 63 Priority 4 Unknown aquaculture aquaculture: Seaweed 11,508 Devon FLAG area Establishing environmentally and 40.1.b- Habitat forming Habitat forming ENG3418 commercially sustainable Priority 1 Unknown g 44.6 aquaculture aquaculture: Seaweed 187,336 techniques for farming seaweed 48.1.a- Habitat forming Habitat forming ENG1100 Seaweed cultivation Priority 2 27/10/2017 d,f-h aquaculture aquaculture: Seaweed 3,380 Sustainable harvesting of a Alien species ENG1820 non-native seaweed 47 Priority 2 Invasive species 30/09/2018 management 52,389 resource Partnership led strategy to monitor and manage 40.1.b- Alien species ENG2307 Priority 1 Invasive species Unknown spread of Pacific oyster g 44.6 management 66,111 populations Replacement of back ropes ENG1313 38 Priority 1 Marine plastics Reducing fishing gear loss 02/08/2016 to minimise pot losses 2,861

ENG2635 Buoys 38 Priority 1 Marine plastics Reducing fishing gear loss Unknown 1,299

ENG3288 New retrieval marker bouys 38 Priority 1 Marine plastics Reducing fishing gear loss Unknown 900 Improving visibility of gear

ENG3304 markers to reduce lost 38 Priority 1 Marine plastics Reducing fishing gear loss Unknown 789 fishing gear REPLACEMENT OF MARKERS AND BUOY ENG3626 38 Priority 1 Marine plastics Reducing fishing gear loss Unknown LINES TO REDUCE 1,184 GHOST FISHING Fishing for Litter South 40.1.b- ENG1272 Priority 1 Marine plastics Removing litter Unknown West - Cornwall Area 2017 g 44.6 14,185

Page 182

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£) 40.1.b- ENG1359 Fishing 4 Litter Priority 1 Marine plastics Removing litter 31/12/2018 g 44.6 11,811 Fishing for Litter South 40.1.b- ENG1863 Priority 1 Marine plastics Removing litter Unknown West Devon Area 2017 g 44.6 14,728 Damage reduction Lobster Physical impact of fishing Reduced habitat damage ENG2051 38 Priority 1 31/05/2018 pots gear of fishing gear (pots) 5,998 Change fishing gear to reduce environmental Reduced habitat damage Physical impact of fishing ENG2063 impact and fuel use and 38 Priority 1 of fishing gear 16/01/2018 gear 7,575 improve sustainability of (unspecified) scallops Reducing seabed impact Reduced habitat damage Physical impact of fishing ENG2887 and improving selectivity of 38 Priority 1 of fishing gear Unknown gear 7,041 demersal trawl gear (unspecified) ROPE - Response Of Habitat forming ENG3420 predators to Protection and 39 Priority 1 Research Unknown aquaculture 187,545 Enhancement Identification of marine non- licensable activities and 40.1.b- ENG1579 Priority 1 Research Research Unknown their potential impact on g 44.6 49,134 MPAs MPA Mapping for Fishermen: A consolidated, 40.1.b- ENG2414 Priority 1 Research Research Unknown simplified and practical view g 44.6 184,744 of the UK's MPA network English Marine Spatial 40.1.b- ENG2767 Planning and the Ocean Priority 1 Research Research Unknown g 44.6 186,153 Health Index Environmental Data ENG2651 63 Priority 4 Research Effective data coordination Unknown Coordinator Role 17,358 The Sustainability of Research: Fisheries ENG3518 European Eel Stocks in the 27 Priority 1 Research Unknown Management 21,299 Thames River Basin

Page 183

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£) The Live Wrasse Fishery – ecological and fishery Research: Fisheries ENG2309 37 Priority 1 Research Unknown considerations for our Management 59,264 inshore reef ecosystems Greater Thames Estuary Research: Fisheries ENG2045 37 Priority 1 Research Unknown Fish Migration Roadmap Management 59,551 Supporting Sustainable Research: Fisheries ENG2755 63 Priority 4 Research Unknown Sepia Stocks Hastings Management 36,323 I-BASS Immature Bass 40.1.b- Research: Fisheries ENG1389 Priority 1 Research 01/10/2019 Acoustic Stock Surveillance g 44.6 Management 187,151 Filling the knowledge gap - 40.1.b- Research: Fisheries ENG1451 Priority 1 Research Unknown whelk populations g 44.6 Management 8,851 Supporting sustainability in 40.1.b- Research: Fisheries ENG1614 English shark, skate and Priority 1 Research 01/04/2020 g 44.6 Management 57,928 ray fisheries Understand the Eel Ecology of a Norfolk River 40.1.b- Research: Fisheries ENG2083 Priority 1 Research 30/06/2019 Catchment to inform Eel g 44.6 Management 72,473 Management Plans Atlantic bluefin tuna catch 40.1.b- Research: Fisheries ENG2395 and bycatch in the English Priority 1 Research Unknown g 44.6 Management 185,630 Channel and Celtic Sea Risk Assessment and Mitigation Against 40.1.b- Research: Fisheries ENG3313 Unexpected Paralytic Priority 1 Research Unknown g 44.6 Management 186,670 Shellfish Toxins in Eastern England ICEGRAPH: Increasing Confidence in Evaluating

ENG3003 GES for Regional 80.1.b Priority 6 Research Research: GES Unknown 95,060 Assessments of Pelagic Habitats Assessing and mitigating ENG2360 37 Priority 1 Research Research: HABs Unknown the future risks of harmful 186,733

Page 184

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£) algal blooms to wild fisheries and aquaculture Assessing and mitigating

ENG3103 the future risks of harmful 37 Priority 1 Research Research: HABs Unknown 76,265 algal blooms (AMHABs 2) Plastic Plankton – Prevalence of micro 40.1.b- ENG2954 Priority 1 Research research: Microplastics Unknown plastics in the Dove Time g 44.6 187,477 Series

ENG2162 MARMATE 39 Priority 1 Research Research: Monitoring Unknown 165,000 ASMIAE - Automated Sampling and Models for 40.1.b- ENG2288 Priority 1 Research Research: Monitoring Unknown Improving Assessments of g 44.6 98,411 Ecosystems RETURN (Reserve Effects 40.1.b- ENG1388 Tested and Understood to Priority 1 Research Research: Monitoring 28/09/2019 g 44.6 122,567 validate ReturN) A new approach to 40.1.b- ENG3022 monitoring nearshore Priority 1 Research Research: Monitoring Unknown g 44.6 43,041 MPA's North Devon Marine ENG3305 80.1.b Priority 6 Research Research: Natural Capital Unknown Natural Capital Plan 74,957 The Socio-Economic Research: Socio- ENG3303 Analysis of the English 80.1.b Priority 6 Research Unknown economics 18,664 Solway (SEAES) Project Discard survival and 40.1.b- ENG1395 movements of starry Priority 1 Research Research: Survivability 31/03/2019 g 44.6 94,006 smooth-hound Shark catch and release 40.1.b- ENG2757 survivability in recreational Priority 1 Research Research: Survivability Unknown g 44.6 186,039 fisheries Determining the potential of 40.1.b- ENG1937 Priority 1 Research Research: Traceability 31/10/2018 otolith and tissue g 44.6 56,843

Page 185

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£) microchemistry for the traceability of glass eels 2 Innovation in forensic 40.1.b- ENG3487 Priority 1 Research Research: Traceability Unknown fisheries science g 44.6 41,522 non-lethal deterrents 40.1.b- ENG2832 suitable for control of seals Priority 1 Selectivity Bycatch Mitigation Unknown g 44.6 90,725 from fishing vessels

ENG2923 Fishing Gear 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Gear replacement Unknown 36,608

ENG2961 Gear Replacement 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Gear replacement Unknown 40,488

ENG3026 Gear Replacement 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Gear replacement Unknown 6,590

ENG3067 Gear Replacement 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Gear replacement Unknown 4,865 Limitation of the impact of

ENG2111 fishing to protection of 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch 13/12/2017 14,940 species Reducing the impact of ENG2383 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch Unknown netting on bass stocks 4,141 Reduced bycatch ENG1215 96mm codend regulations 38 Priority 1 Selectivity 30/09/2016 (codend) 724 Reduced bycatch ENG1360 Cod Ends 38 Priority 1 Selectivity 05/09/2016 (codend) 849 Reduced bycatch ENG1361 Cod ends 38 Priority 1 Selectivity 12/12/2016 (codend) 630 Reduced bycatch ENG1369 Farne Deep Cod Ends New 38 Priority 1 Selectivity 30/12/2016 (codend) 1,538 New prawn Cod Ends Reduced bycatch ENG1372 38 Priority 1 Selectivity 16/10/2016 (ENG1311) (codend) 469 Reduced bycatch ENG1462 Nephrop Codends 38 Priority 1 Selectivity 28/02/2017 (codend) 617

Page 186

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£)

ENG1103 Fishing nets 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (nets) 28/02/2017 14,250 Replacement gill nets to

ENG1468 enhance selectivity and 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (nets) 31/05/2017 23,452 minimise discards Improving selectivity of pot ENG1841 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (nets) 17/11/2017 fishing 8,196 Improving the selectivity of ENG1842 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (nets) 31/10/2017 netting 2,390 Improve the selectivity of ENG2143 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (nets) Unknown gill net fishing 19,888

ENG2316 Kimmeridge nets 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (nets) Unknown 1,638 Improving the selectivity

ENG2364 and sustainability of 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (nets) Unknown 20,006 offshore gill net fishing Improving the selectivity

ENG2368 and sustainability of inshore 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (nets) Unknown 1,530 gill net fishing replacement of current nets with increased mesh size, ENG2482 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (nets) Unknown to reduce bycatch and 4,853 damage to sea bed REPLACEMENT OF NETS ENG2774 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (nets) Unknown TO REDUCE BYCATCH 1,313 Improve sustainability of ENG2836 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (nets) Unknown drift net fishing 3,441 Improving the selectivity

ENG2911 and sustainability of gill 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (nets) Unknown 7,954 netting for hake

ENG2953 ecological net up grade 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (nets) Unknown 1,318

Page 187

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£)

ENG2990 Sustainable Netting 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (nets) Unknown 799 REPLACEMENT OF CURRENT NETS ENG3024 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (nets) Unknown INCREASING MESH SIZE 948 TO REDUCE BYCATCH REDUCTION IN BYCATCH

ENG3114 DUE TO THE INCREASE 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (nets) Unknown 2,564 IN CURRENT MESH SIZE Improving the selectivity

ENG3116 and sustainability of gill net 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (nets) Unknown 15,000 fishing Improving the selectivity

ENG3117 and reducing discards of 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (nets) Unknown 7,659 offshore gill-netting for hake Improving the selectivity

ENG3121 and sustainability of inshore 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (nets) Unknown 6,480 gill net fishing Improving the selectivity

ENG3143 and sustainability of inshore 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (nets) Unknown 7,484 static gear fishing

ENG3459 Replacement nets and bins 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (nets) Unknown 8,016 Improving the selectivity

ENG3496 and sustainability of static 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (nets) Unknown 6,300 netting for hake Improving the sustainability

ENG3500 and selectivity of offshore 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (nets) Unknown 8,400 gill netting for hake

ENG3534 Sustainable Nets 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (nets) Unknown 2,964

ENG1007 LOBSTER POTS 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 06/10/2016 9,382

Page 188

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£)

ENG1084 Crab pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 30/11/2017 10,774

ENG1131 Whelk Pot Project 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 01/12/2016 14,138 Diversification into lobster ENG1288 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 31/07/2017 and crab potting 1,980 Improved shellfish ENG1334 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 31/12/2016 selectivity 4,183 Improving selectivity of ENG1379 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 30/04/2017 shellfishing 4,974

ENG1422 Fe4 potting fit up 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 01/09/2017 15,674

ENG1425 fe382 pot setup 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 01/09/2017 15,194

ENG1524 Replacement pots v2 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 31/01/2017 3,390 Improving the selectivity

ENG1531 and sustainability of lobster 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 30/06/2017 2,584 pot fishing Renew lobster pots and new cuttlefish traps to

ENG1537 increase efficiency and 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 29/07/2017 6,993 reduce damage to environment Replace fishing gear to target higher demanded ENG1538 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 30/06/2017 brown crabs whilst reducing 18,335 discarded spider crab Replace fishing gear to target higher demanded ENG1539 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 23/06/2017 brown crabs whilst reducing 14,604 discarded spider crab

Page 189

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£) Replacement of pots with

ENG1545 pots fitted with escape 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 28/05/2017 8,292 hatches.

ENG1551 SELECTIVE POTS 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 30/04/2017 7,753

ENG1553 shell fish pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 31/08/2017 4,780 Improved catch quality by

ENG1565 use of improved creel 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 01/02/2017 8,295 design

ENG1638 Sustainable Lobster Pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 29/08/2017 2,000

ENG1640 New pots 2017 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 31/03/2017 8,425

ENG1646 Cuttle Traps 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 01/07/2017 3,036 Improving selectivity of pot ENG1657 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 15/09/2017 fishing 7,572 Improving selectivity of pot ENG1659 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 16/09/2017 fishing 4,950 Replace Spider Pots with Pots that catch Edible crabs ENG1666 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 31/07/2017 and Lobsters and minimise 13,835 Spider Crab by-catch

ENG1672 Sustainable Crab Pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 29/01/2018 18,540 replacement of pots and ropes to better target crab, ENG1683 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 31/03/2017 minimizing spider crab 9,624 catch Replace current 10" Top

ENG1684 Entry Pots with 8" Top 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 30/10/2017 6,900 Entry pots to reduce

Page 190

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£) bycatch and increase efficiency Fishing sustainably - Cuttle ENG1694 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 31/12/2017 Traps Breaking Dawn 8,346

ENG1716 Crabpots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 07/08/2017 1,469 Replacement of existing top entry pots to more ENG1721 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 31/12/2017 sustainable catch selective 14,723 soft eye entry Improving selectivity and ENG1722 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 23/11/2017 sustainability of pot fishing 8,593

ENG1730 replacement pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 01/08/2017 4,892 Escape gap Lobster pot ENG1757 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 24/06/2017 project 1,727 Exchange of current old fishing pots with newer, ENG1762 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 02/07/2017 more efficient and catch 11,460 selective pots Exchange of Fishing equipment to become more ENG1775 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 03/07/2017 sustainable and reduce 1,913 bycatch/discards Selective and sustainable ENG1779 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 03/11/2017 pot fishing 3,151 Improving the sustainability

ENG1781 and selectivity of pot fishing 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 31/07/2017 8,724 in Cornwall Improving the sustainability and selectivity of pot fishing ENG1782 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 30/06/2017 from Cadgwith Cove, 4,190 Cornwall

Page 191

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£) Transfer from mono tangle ENG1822 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 27/04/2017 netting to sustainable pots 26,805 Replacement of current fishing pots with new, ENG1854 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 24/12/2017 efficient and catch selective 6,581 pots that reduce damage Replacement of existing pots with more efficient ENG1856 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 31/12/2017 catch selective and 6,897 sustainable pot

ENG1860 Parlor pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 04/08/2017 14,288 Little Sister Sustainable ENG1894 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 31/12/2017 traps 3,977 Improving selectivity of

ENG1896 lobster fishing from N 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 25/10/2017 7,357 Devon Replacement of Pots for more efficient, catch ENG1899 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 20/02/2018 selective gear to reduce 12,025 bycatch and ghost pots

ENG1900 Lobster creels 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 06/01/2018 4,863 Replacement pots with ENG1905 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 07/12/2017 escape hatches 1,721 Improving selectivity of

ENG1915 inshore lobster and cuttle 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 30/11/2017 14,963 fishing

ENG1942 Reduced Discard Pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 01/03/2018 4,288 Improving the selectivity of ENG1994 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 31/10/2017 pot fishing 14,850 Improving selectivity and ENG2014 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 31/12/2017 sustainability of pot fishing 12,068

Page 192

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£) Improving the selectivity

ENG2022 and sustainability of pot 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 23/12/2017 7,457 fishing Improving the selectivity,

ENG2060 sustainability and safety of 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 18/01/2018 12,547 whelk pot fishing Improving the sustainability, selectivity and ENG2078 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 08/01/2018 environmental impact of pot 10,696 fishing Improving sustainability, selectivity and ENG2080 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 03/04/2018 environmental impact of pot 5,018 fishing Replacement pots, St ENG2081 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 29/08/2017 Ruan. 1,456 Improving the selectivity of

ENG2095 crab / lobster potting and 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) 28/03/2018 7,020 cuttlefish trapping

ENG2096 Lobster Pots and Sole Nets 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 5,480 Improved selectivity of ENG2107 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown fishing 19,836 Improving the selectivity

ENG2171 and sustainability of crab 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 6,257 and lobster pot fishing

ENG2181 Replacement pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 9,049 Improving the sustainability

ENG2192 and selectivity of shellfish 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 14,999 pot fishing Replacement of 50% of ENG2203 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown nets for sustainable pots 13,586

Page 193

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£) due to bass regulations and spider crab bycatch Improving the sustainability

ENG2214 and selectivity of offshore 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 32,893 pot fishing CUTTLE TRAPS - ENG2219 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown IMPROVE SELECTIVITY 4,139

ENG2223 cuttletraps 1066 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 14,234 Improve selectivity, sustainability and ENG2245 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown environmental impact of pot 45,401 fishing exchange 250 top entry plastic parlours with

ENG2268 hardeye catch selective 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 13,484 side entry pots reduce bycatch Improving the sustainability ENG2292 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown and selectivity of pot fishing 26,466 replacement of existing pots to increase efficiency, ENG2297 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown reduce bycatch and 13,773 increase selectivity Improving the selectivity

ENG2317 and sustainability of pot 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 14,990 fishing

ENG2326 Fishing pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 1,235

ENG2342 New pots for 3 wishes 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 5,047

ENG2358 Pot Replacement 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 27,193

Page 194

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£)

ENG2363 Pot Replacement 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 28,523 Sterina Replacement ENG2369 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown Creels 3,285 replacement of current fishing pots with new, catch ENG2370 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown selective pots to reduce 8,463 damage to environment replacement of exisiting pots, to increase efficiency ENG2378 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown reduce bycatch and reduce 10,291 affect on environmen Improving the selectivity

ENG2427 and sustainability of pot 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 7,806 fishing from S Devon

ENG2457 Pot Replacement 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 12,462 Improving the selectivity

ENG2484 and sustainability of whelk 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 1,555 pot fishing

ENG2488 Jay Jay Replacement Pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 7,920

ENG2532 Crab and Lobster Pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 3,713 REPLACE 500 LOBSTER POTS WITH POTS THAT TARGET BROWN CRAB ENG2539 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown ON FV TREVOSE DUE TO 14,925 RECENT CHANGE IN LAWS Gear replacement to better

ENG2543 target brown crab and 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 14,174 reduce spider crab catches

Page 195

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£) replacement of current fishing gear to reduce ENG2545 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown bycacth and reduce ghost 4,692 fishing crab pots

ENG2567 Pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 10,503 replacement of current fishing pots with more ENG2603 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown selective entrances to 11,644 reduce bycatch REPLACE OF CURRENT FISHING POTS TO

ENG2619 CHANGE FROM 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 14,903 TARGETTING LOBSTERS TO BROWN CRABS FV Isaac Edward Pot ENG2634 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown Replacement 4,569 Improving the selectivity

ENG2650 and sustainability of pot 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 1,920 fishing

ENG2666 pot selectivity ida may 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 2,397 Replacement Pots and ENG2773 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown Nets (2nd application). 2,080 Improving the selectivity

ENG2780 and sustainability of pot 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 10,200 fishing in N Cornwall Improving the sustainability

ENG2781 and selectivity of shellfish 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 56,250 pot fishing GEAR SELCTIVITY FOR ENG2785 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown SHELLFISH 16,810

Page 196

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£) replacement of pots to

ENG2800 become more efficient and 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 6,401 reduce ghost fishing

ENG2844 Sustainable Lobster Creels 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 842 Standsure Replacement ENG2855 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown Pots 16,536

ENG2856 pot selective 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 25,642

ENG2859 FV Trust Replacement Pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 10,746

ENG2869 Replacement nets 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 899

ENG2880 Pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 13,796 Improving the selectivity

ENG2882 and sustainability of potting 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 3,464 from Salcombe

ENG2896 Pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 15,768 New crab pots with escape ENG2915 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown hatch 8,339

ENG2930 Pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 14,550 Blue Moon sustainable ENG2943 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown traps 3,252

ENG2944 Crab and lobster pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 7,097

ENG2956 Pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 14,161

ENG2970 Britannia Replacement Pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 10,500

Page 197

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£) Restless Wave Pot ENG2971 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown Replacement 11,168

ENG3032 replacement pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 3,207 Improving the selectivity

ENG3053 and sustainability of pot 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 11,010 fishing Improving the selectivity

ENG3063 and sustainability of pot 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 33,209 fishing Replacement of Current ENG3083 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown Pots 3,007

ENG3086 Holy Island Shellfish 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 11,374 replacement of pots to

ENG3120 decrease bycatch and 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 2,370 improve catch selectivity

ENG3135 Replacement Pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 16,350 replacement of 25 top entry pots with 25 soft eye ENG3139 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown entrance pots with escape 1,566 panels

ENG3152 crab pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 2,162 Improving the selectivity and sustainability of ENG3165 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown offshore crab and lobster 56,250 pot fishing Improving the selectivity

ENG3195 and sustainability of pot 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 11,749 fishing on Isle of Wight

ENG3227 Pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 53,100

Page 198

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£)

ENG3231 Pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 24,091

ENG3236 Unity Pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 11,772 REPLACEMENT OF CURRENT POTS TO ENG3237 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown REDCUE SPIDER CRAB 8,993 CATCHES

ENG3260 Crab and lobster pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 14,983

ENG3287 Our Katie - Pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 3,237 Improving the selectivity

ENG3312 and sustainability of pot 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 8,928 fishing in NE England

ENG3333 Replacement Fishing Pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 11,029

ENG3368 Pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 17,818

ENG3374 fiona rose shellfish pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 5,327 Replacement of Pots to

ENG3375 more specifically target 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 7,859 spider crab and lobster MORE EFFICIENT AND ENG3391 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown SELECTIVE POTS 3,248 CHANGE OF USE OF VESSEL. REPLACEMENT ENG3405 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown OF GILL NETS WITH 14,969 BROWN CRAB POTS

ENG3415 Economic crab pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 9,413

Page 199

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£) Improving the selectivity

ENG3453 and sustainability of potting 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 4,500 in Norfolk

ENG3480 Lobster pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 6,102 replacment of metal pots to

ENG3486 plastic pots with escape 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 3,556 panels

ENG3544 Crab and lobster pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 4,896 Reducing fishing pressure on bass through ENG3553 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown diversification into cuttle 12,446 trapping Improving sustainability through diversification from ENG3554 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown bass netting to crab / 14,970 lobster potting

ENG3566 New Lobster pots 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 839 Improving the selectivity

ENG3576 and sustainability of pot 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Reduced bycatch (pots) Unknown 35,428 fishing off N Devon mackerel strippers to target Reduced bycatch (Rod ENG3504 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Unknown sustainable line caught fish and line) 888 Reduced bycatch ENG1037 More selective gear 38 Priority 1 Selectivity 31/01/2017 (unspecified) 2,153 Reduced bycatch ENG1075 more selective fishing gear 38 Priority 1 Selectivity 30/06/2016 (unspecified) 1,854 Reduced bycatch ENG1125 Selective fishing gear. 38 Priority 1 Selectivity 31/12/2016 (unspecified) 7,575 SELECTIVE GEAR Reduced bycatch ENG1147 38 Priority 1 Selectivity 02/08/2016 IMPROVEMENTS (unspecified) 13,260

Page 200

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£) Change from non- sustainable method of Reduced bycatch ENG1164 38 Priority 1 Selectivity 02/09/2016 fishing to more sustainable (unspecified) 4,289 method of fishing Reduced bycatch ENG1190 SELECTIVITY 38 Priority 1 Selectivity 31/12/2016 (unspecified) 7,590 Improvements to gear Reduced bycatch ENG1192 38 Priority 1 Selectivity 31/12/2016 selectivity (unspecified) 11,449 Berlewen sustainable and Reduced bycatch ENG1245 38 Priority 1 Selectivity 03/11/2016 selective fishing project (unspecified) 36,920 Reduced bycatch ENG1292 Gear selectivity 38 Priority 1 Selectivity 28/02/2017 (unspecified) 10,081 Reduced bycatch ENG1304 Serene gear replacement 38 Priority 1 Selectivity 28/02/2017 (unspecified) 10,500 Reduced bycatch ENG1307 Sea breeze selective gear 38 Priority 1 Selectivity 30/04/2017 (unspecified) 4,910 Reduced bycatch ENG1329 Improved selectivity 38 Priority 1 Selectivity 31/03/2017 (unspecified) 11,336 GOLDEN LANCER Reduced bycatch ENG1347 SELECTIVITY 38 Priority 1 Selectivity 07/04/2017 (unspecified) 20,776 IMPROVEMENTS fishing gear that reduces Reduced bycatch ENG1454 discards, catches from 38 Priority 1 Selectivity 03/04/2017 (unspecified) 14,850 predators, more selective repacement gear for less by Reduced bycatch ENG1509 38 Priority 1 Selectivity 30/07/2017 catch (unspecified) 4,315 Improve environment and Reduced bycatch ENG1540 38 Priority 1 Selectivity 01/06/2017 bycatch (unspecified) 1,199 Reduced bycatch ENG1559 Replacement Gear1 38 Priority 1 Selectivity 01/09/2016 (unspecified) 2,992 Improving selectivity of ring- Reduced bycatch ENG1612 38 Priority 1 Selectivity 31/01/2018 net (unspecified) 43,511

Page 201

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£) Anna marie selectivity Reduced bycatch ENG1647 38 Priority 1 Selectivity 30/06/2017 improvements (unspecified) 3,668 Gear replacement to reduce damage to the Reduced bycatch ENG1662 38 Priority 1 Selectivity 30/04/2017 environment and increase (unspecified) 12,978 sustainable fishing methods Reduced bycatch ENG1731 Selective Fishing Gear 38 Priority 1 Selectivity 13/07/2017 (unspecified) 7,884 'Ajax' Gill Net Selectivity Reduced bycatch ENG1734 38 Priority 1 Selectivity 28/09/2017 Enhancement Project (unspecified) 7,964 EXCHANGE OF FISHING GEAR TO A MORE SUSTAINABLE Reduced bycatch ENG1819 38 Priority 1 Selectivity 01/07/2017 SELECTIVE GEAR TO (unspecified) 1,545 REDUCE BYCATCH AND DISCARDS GALATEA SELECTIVITY Reduced bycatch ENG1846 38 Priority 1 Selectivity 30/06/2017 IMPROVEMENT (unspecified) 1,089 New or innovative fishing gear on board fishing Reduced bycatch ENG1892 38 Priority 1 Selectivity 31/08/2017 vessels which helps to (unspecified) 9,900 reduce unwanted catches Sustainability on fishing and Reduced bycatch ENG1943 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Unknown the environment (unspecified) 1,154 Improving the environment Reduced bycatch ENG1995 38 Priority 1 Selectivity 25/01/2018 - Floatline and leadline (unspecified) 2,928 gear selectivity and by Reduced bycatch ENG2019 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Unknown catch deduction (unspecified) 12,313 REPLACEMENT OF CURRENT FISHING NETS TO INCREASE MESH Reduced bycatch ENG2119 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Unknown SIZE, REDUCING (unspecified) 16,103 BYCATCH AND DISCARDS

Page 202

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£) LEONORA SELECTIVITY Reduced bycatch ENG2148 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Unknown IMPROVEMENT (unspecified) 4,253 Gear selectivity Reduced bycatch ENG2205 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Unknown improvements (unspecified) 6,205 Improving the selectivity Reduced bycatch ENG2209 and sustainability of pot 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Unknown (unspecified) 32,893 fishing Reduced bycatch ENG2280 Selectivity improvements 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Unknown (unspecified) 1,465 GEAR SELECTIVITY Reduced bycatch ENG2335 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Unknown IMPROVEMENTS (unspecified) 9,895 Reduced bycatch ENG2422 Gear Replacement 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Unknown (unspecified) 33,020 Gear selectivity Reduced bycatch ENG2452 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Unknown improvements (unspecified) 18,298 Reduced bycatch ENG2469 GEAR SELECTIVITY 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Unknown (unspecified) 2,372 Gear selectivity Reduced bycatch ENG2479 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Unknown improvements (unspecified) 11,936 IMPROVEMENTS TO Reduced bycatch ENG2494 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Unknown GEAR SELECTIVITY (unspecified) 3,543 Reduced bycatch ENG2570 Gear Replacement 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Unknown (unspecified) 21,109 Gear replacement for Reduced bycatch ENG2595 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Unknown improved selectivity (unspecified) 28,462 Reduced bycatch ENG2631 Gear Replacement 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Unknown (unspecified) 21,584 Reduced bycatch ENG2663 Gear Replacement 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Unknown (unspecified) 11,964 selective fishing gear Reduced bycatch ENG2860 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Unknown improvements (unspecified) 5,075 northern lights gear Reduced bycatch ENG2867 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Unknown selectivity (unspecified) 21,446

Page 203

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£) Gear selectivity Reduced bycatch ENG2902 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Unknown improvements (unspecified) 15,741 Increasing selectivity of species avoiding unwanted Reduced bycatch ENG2978 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Unknown by-catch, Improving Quality (unspecified) 2,183 of retained catch. Improving the selectivity of Reduced bycatch ENG3048 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Unknown static gear fishing (unspecified) 6,108 Reduced bycatch ENG3162 CATCH SELECTIVITY 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Unknown (unspecified) 6,845 Reducing seabed impact, Reduced bycatch ENG3174 improving selectivity and 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Unknown (unspecified) 4,146 improving sustainability Increasing net size to Reduced bycatch ENG3230 minimise bycatch of 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Unknown (unspecified) 3,806 unwanted species Reduced bycatch ENG3243 Rose - Gear Selectivity 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Unknown (unspecified) 2,040 LAURA JANE DECREASE Reduced bycatch ENG3320 BYCATCH, INCREASE 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Unknown (unspecified) 9,581 SELECTIVITY Reduced bycatch ENG3345 Static gear fishing 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Unknown (unspecified) 7,410 Change to more selective Reduced bycatch ENG3361 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Unknown fishery (unspecified) 38,220 Reduced bycatch ENG3371 Gear selectivity 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Unknown (unspecified) 2,565 Improving the selectivity Reduced bycatch ENG3599 and sustainability of inshore 38 Priority 1 Selectivity Unknown (unspecified) 5,192 fishing Mapping sea angling in ENG3522 80.1.b Priority 6 Spatial planning Enhanced understanding Unknown English waters 33,623

Page 204

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£) Evaluation of Marine Protected Area ENG3590 80.1.b Priority 6 Spatial planning Enhanced understanding Unknown Management Measures 18,743 Concerning Fishing Supporting implementation ENG1466 80.1.b Priority 6 Spatial planning Marine planning Unknown of marine plans 18,000 Modelling to identify sites of

ENG3584 marine aquaculture 80.1.b Priority 6 Spatial planning Modelling Unknown 30,494 potential in England Plymouth Sound National ENG3783 27 Priority 1 Spatial planning Spatial planning Unknown Marine Park 74,993 Improvements to Acoustic 40.1.b- Special feature/species Special feature/species ENG1346 Seabed Mapping Priority 1 31/12/2020 g 44.6 mapping mapping 15,380 Capabilities The location, condition and features of significant sites 40.1.b- Special feature/species Special feature/species ENG1584 Priority 1 Unknown for habitat creation or g 44.6 mapping mapping 51,615 restoration Mapping Invasive Alien Species in intertidal 40.1.b- Special feature/species Special feature/species ENG2578 Priority 1 Unknown habitats within Natura 2000 g 44.6 mapping mapping 49,464 sites in the Solent MSFD SUBTIDAL ROCK AND MUD INDICATORS 40.1.b- Special feature/species Special feature/species ENG2731 AND MONITORING Priority 1 Unknown g 44.6 mapping mapping 165,541 PROTOCOLS IN THE NORTH SEA Mapping sites for Special feature/species Special feature/species ENG3603 alternative use of dredge 80.1.b Priority 6 Unknown mapping mapping 7,903 material (MMO1190) Seascape Character Special feature/species Special feature/species ENG2825 Assessment for all Marine 80.1.b Priority 6 Unknown mapping mapping 32,745 Plan Areas

Page 205

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£) Spatial identification and categorisation of essential Special feature/species Special feature/species ENG2889 80.1.b Priority 6 Unknown fish habitat for use in mapping mapping 74,755 marine planning. Sea Bass Fisheries 40.1.b- Stock conservation and ENG1400 Priority 1 Stock management Unknown Conservation UK g 44.6 restoration 166,546 Recovering the Thames 40.1.b- Stock conservation and ENG1723 Priority 1 Stock management 31/12/2019 European Eel Stock g 44.6 restoration 59,645 Effective management of 40.1.b- Stock conservation and ENG3089 Priority 1 Stock management Unknown river lamprey stocks g 44.6 restoration 179,968 Sustainability Training for ENG1557 29.1-2 Priority 1 Sustainability Training Sustainability training 31/07/2018 Fishermen in England 45,693 Cornwall Good Seafood ENG2979 27 Priority 1 Sustainable Seafood Consumer awareness Unknown Guide 70,442

ENG1378 Sustainable Fish Cities 68 Priority 5 Sustainable Seafood Consumer awareness 31/12/2019 97,412 MSC Accreditation of ENG2114 63 Priority 4 Sustainable Seafood Seafood certification Unknown Thames Estuary Cockles 16,406 Full Assessment Shrimp ENG1160 68 Priority 5 Sustainable Seafood Seafood certification Unknown MSC 25,425 Complete ISEAL membership and 40.1.b- ENG1568 Priority 1 Sustainable Seafood Seafood certification Unknown accreditation of the SEG g 44.6 109,905 Eel Standard Project UK Fisheries 40.1.b- ENG1934 Priority 1 Sustainable Seafood Seafood certification 01/02/2020 Improvements g 44.6 169,248 Reduced reliance on wild ENG1989 Devon Scallop Initiative 47 Priority 2 Aquaculture Unknown marine resources 8,639 Black Soldier Fly as bio- converters of 2 food wastes Reduced reliance on wild ENG2496 47 Priority 2 Aquaculture Unknown to create commercial marine resources 12,374 alternative to fish meal

Page 206

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Value of Reference Description Article UP Theme Sub-theme Project end date funding (£) Devon Scallop Initiative Reduced reliance on wild ENG2820 47 Priority 2 Aquaculture Unknown Phase 2 marine resources 52,500

Page 207

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) Annex 7 Grants through which EMFF funding can be applied for in England

Grant 1: Fishing vessel energy improvements

This grant is for energy efficient fishing gear, energy efficiency audits and schemes, or studies of alternative propulsion systems and hull designs161. This grant supports two Articles, though only one (detailed below) has an environmental aspect.

- Article 41.1 Energy efficiency and mitigation of climate change, eligible projects include; • Equipment aimed at reducing the emission of pollutants or greenhouse gases; • Projects that improve the hydrodynamics or propulsion system of vessels, thus increasing energy efficiency; • New fishing gear that contributes to energy efficiency, as long as it does not undermine selectivity of that gear; • Projects that aim to reduce electrical or thermal energy consumption; and • Energy efficiency audits and schemes.

However, projects and equipment must not increase a vessels capacity to find, catch or store fish, and funding must not be used for general maintenance, refits or renovations.

Grant 2: Investments on board fishing vessels

This grant supports investments on board fishing vessels for projects relating to; innovation in fisheries; health and safety; added value; product quality; and use of unwanted catches162. It supports four Articles, but only one has an environmental aspect.

- Article 38 Limitation of the impact of fishing on the marine environment and adaptation of fishing to the protection of species, eligible projects include; • Equipment that improves the size or species selectivity; • Equipment that eliminates discards by avoiding and reducing unwanted catches of commercial stocks, or that deals with unwanted catches to be landed; • Equipment that limits and, where possible, eliminates the physical and biological impacts of fishing on the ecosystem or the sea bed (excluding pulse trawling); and • Equipment that protects gear and catches from mammals and birds.

However, support for equipment will only be granted where it has a demonstrably better size- selection or demonstrably lower impact on the ecosystem and non-target species than standard gear or other equipment permitted under EU law. Furthermore, it will not fund ‘less impactful’ gear, if that gear is a requirement of law and byelaws.

Grant 3: Shore-based improvements

This grant supports improvements to shore-based facilities163. It supports five Articles in total and two of them include eligible costs that have an environmental aspect.

- Article 43 Fishing Ports, landing sites, auction halls and shelters, relevant eligible projects include; • Investments that contribute to environmental protections; and

161https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/691052/Sup port_fo__fishing_vessel_energy_improvements_2018.pdf 162https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/691053/Support_for_Investment s_on_Board_Fishing_Vessels.doc 163https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/691056/Sup port_for_Improvements_to_Shore-Based_Facilities_2018.pdf

Page 208

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

• Investments improving the infrastructure of fishing ports, auction halls, landing sites and shelters, including investments in facilities for waste and marine litter collection.

- Article 69 Processing of fishery and aquaculture products, relevant eligible projects include; • Contributions to energy saving or reducing the impact on the environment, including waste treatment.

Importantly, funds under this grant can be used to improve existing shore-based facilities, but cannot be used to cover the costs for construction of new ports, landing sites or auction halls.

Grant 4: Partnerships, information sharing, advisory services, job creation and training

This grant is to support projects related to partnerships and information sharing, including advisory services, job creation, innovation, training and diversification, and increasing environmental awareness164. It supports five Articles in total, with one of them including eligible costs that have an environmental aspect.

- Article 27 Advisory services, relevant eligible projects include; • The provision of professional advice on environmental sustainability, with a focus on limiting and, where possible, eliminating the negative impact of fishing activities on marine, terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems.

Grant 5: The marine environment and inland fishing

This grant provides support to projects related to the marine environment and inland fishing, taking place in England.165 It supports six Articles in total and five of them include eligible costs that have an environmental aspect, one of them (Article 38) is also included within Grant 2.

- Article 37 Support for the design and implementation of conservation measures and regional cooperation, eligible projects include; • Design, development and monitoring of technical and administrative means necessary for the development and implementation of conservation measures and regionalisation, including direct re-stocking only when it is provided for as a conservation measure in an EU legal act; and • Stakeholder participation and cooperation between MS in designing and implementing conservation measures and regionalisation. - Article 38 Limitation of the impact of fishing on the marine environment and adaptation of fishing to the protection of species, eligible projects include; • Equipment improving size selectivity or species selectivity of gear; • Equipment that eliminates discards by avoiding and reducing unwanted catches of commercial stocks; • Equipment that deals with unwanted catches; • Equipment that limits and, where possible, eliminates the physical and biological impacts of fishing on the ecosystem or the sea bed; and • Equipment that protects gear and catches from mammals and birds. - Article 39 Innovation linked to the conservation of marine biological resources, eligible projects include; • Projects aimed at developing or introducing new technical or organisational knowledge that reduces the impact of fishing activities on the environment, including improved

164https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/691057/Sup port_for_partnerships__information_sharing__advisory_services__job_creation_and_training_applications_2018. pdf 165https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/691058/The _Marine_environment_and_Inland_Fishing_2018.pdf

Page 209

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

fishing techniques and gear selectivity, or aimed at achieving a more sustainable use of marine biological resources and coexistence with protected predators. - Article 40 Protection and restoration of marine biodiversity and ecosystems in the framework of sustainable fishing activities, eligible projects include; • Collection of waste from the sea by fishers, such as the removal of lost fishing gear and marine litter; • Construction, installation or modernisation of static or movable facilities intended to protect and enhance marine fauna and flora, including their scientific preparation and evaluation; • Contributions to a better management or conservation of marine biological resources; • Preparation, including studies, drawing-up, monitoring and updating of protection and management plans for fishery-related activities relating to NATURA 2000 sites and spatial protected areas referred to in Directive 2008/56/EC and relating to other special habitats; • Management, restoration and monitoring of NATURA 2000 sites in accordance with Directives 92/43/EEC and 2009/147/EC, in accordance with prioritised action frameworks established pursuant to Directive 92/43/EEC; • Management, restoration and monitoring of marine protected areas with a view to the implementation of the spatial protection measures referred to in Article 13(4) of Directive 2008/56/EC; • Increasing environmental awareness, involving fishers, with regard to the protection and restoration of marine biodiversity; • Schemes for compensation for damage to catches caused by mammals and birds protected by Directives 92/43/EEC and 2009/147/EC; and • Participation in other actions aimed at maintaining and enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem services, such as the restoration of specific marine and coastal habitats in support of sustainable fish stocks, including their scientific preparation and evaluation. - Article 44.6 Inland fishing and inland aquatic fauna and flora – protect and develop aquatic fauna and flora, eligible projects include; • Management, restoration and monitoring of NATURA 2000 sites which are affected by fishing activities, and the rehabilitation of inland waters in accordance with Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (30), including spawning grounds and migration routes for migratory species, without prejudice to point (e) of Article 40(1) of this Regulation and, where relevant, with the participation of inland fishers; and • Construction, modernisation or installation of static or movable facilities intended to protect and enhance aquatic fauna and flora, including their scientific preparation, monitoring and evaluation.

Grant 6: Support for Aquaculture, Processing and Marketing

This grant provides support for aquaculture, processing and marketing projects in England166. Support will not be granted to aquaculture projects in MPAs, if the MMO determines the operation could generate negative environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated. This grant supports eight articles and six of them support projects that have an environmental aspect.

- Article 47 Innovation (in aquaculture), relevant eligible projects include; • Projects developing technical, scientific or organisational knowledge in aquaculture farms, which, in particular, reduces the impact on the environment, reduces dependence on fish meal and oil, fosters a sustainable use of resources in aquaculture, improves animal welfare or facilitates new sustainable production methods.

166https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/691060/Sup port_for_Aquaculture__Processing_and_Marketing_2018.pdf

Page 210

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

- Article 50 Human Capital and networking in aquaculture, relevant eligible projects include; • Acquisition of new professional skills in aquaculture with regard to the reduction of the environmental impact of aquaculture activities. - Article 51 Increasing the potential of aquaculture sites, relevant eligible projects, include; • Reductions in the negative environmental impact of aquaculture, including investments in land consolidation, energy supply or water management. - Article 54 Aquaculture providing environmental services, eligible projects include; • Methods compatible with specific environmental needs and subject to specific management requirements resulting from the designation of NATURA 2000 areas in accordance with Directives 92/43/EEC and 2009/147/EC; • Participation, in terms of costs directly related thereto, in ex-situ conservation and reproduction of aquatic animals, within the framework of conservation and biodiversity restoration programmes developed by public authorities, or under their supervision; and • Projects which include conservation and improvement of the environment and of biodiversity, and management of the landscape and traditional features of aquaculture zones. Funding will be granted to applicants who commit themselves for a minimum period of five years to aqua-environmental requirements that go beyond the mere application of Union and national law. The environmental benefits of the project must be demonstrated by a prior assessment conducted by competent bodies designated by the MS, unless the environmental benefits of that project are already recognised. - Article 68 Marketing measures, relevant eligible projects include; • Fishery and aquaculture products obtained using methods with low impact on the environment; and • Certification and the promotion of sustainable fishery and aquaculture products, including products from small–scale coastal fishing, and of environmentally-friendly processing methods. - Article 69 Processing of fishery and aquaculture products, relevant eligible projects include; • Contributions to energy saving or reductions in the impact on the environment, including waste treatment.

Projects funded under Article 68, must not be aimed at commercial brands, and those funded under Article 69 must not cover running costs of processing.

Page 211

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present) Annex 8 EMFF Article specific selection criteria

Table 77: EMFF Article specific selection criteria, taken directly from a UK government document.167 Union Article and measure Specific objective as set Specific Result Priority out in the UK OP Indicators as set out in the UK OP (unit) 1 Article 27: Advisory Enhancement of the 1.3 - change in net profits services competitiveness and (€ ‘000) viability of fisheries 1.5 – change in fuel enterprises, including of efficiency of fish capture small-scale coastal fleet, (litre fuel/ tonnes landed and the improvement of fish) safety or working 1.8 - employment conditions maintained in the fisheries sector or complementary activities (FTE) 1.9 a or b - change in the number or % of work- related injuries and accidents (number/%) Article 37: Support for the Reduction of the impact 1.4b - change in design and of fisheries on the marine unwanted catches (%) implementation of environment, including Or conservation measures the avoidance and 1.5 - change in fuel and regional cooperation reduction, as far as efficiency of fish capture possible, of unwanted (litres fuel/ tonnes landed catches fish) Article 38: Limiting the Reduction of the impact 1.4b - change in impact of fishing on the of fisheries on the marine unwanted catches (%) marine environment and environment, including Or adapting fishing to the the avoidance and 1.5 - change in fuel protection of species reduction, as far as efficiency of fish capture possible, of unwanted Article 39: Innovation (litres fuel/ tonnes landed catches linked to the conservation fish) of marine biological resources Article 40: Protection and restoration of marine biodiversity – collection of lost fishing gear and marine litter Article 40: Protection and Protection and restoration 1.5 - change in fuel restoration of marine of aquatic biodiversity and efficiency of fish capture biodiversity – contribution ecosystems (litres fuel/ tonnes landed to a better management fish)1.10a or conservation, Or construction, installation 1.10b - change in the or modernisation of static coverage of other spatial or movable facilities, protection measures preparation of protection under Art. 13.4 of the and management plans

167https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/490778/EM FF_UK_Selection_Critieria.pdf

Page 212

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Union Article and measure Specific objective as set Specific Result Priority out in the UK OP Indicators as set out in the UK OP (unit) related to NATURA 2000 Directive 2008/56/EC sites and spatial (km2) protected areas, management, restoration and monitoring marine protected areas, including NATURA 2000 sites, environmental awareness, participation in other actions aimed at maintaining and enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem services Article 40 Protection and Enhancement of the 1.3 - change in net profits restoration of marine competitiveness and (€ ‘000) biodiversity – schemes for viability of fisheries 1.5 - change in fuel the compensation of enterprises, including of efficiency of fish capture damage to catches small-scale coastal fleet, (litres fuel/ tonnes landed caused by mammals and and the improvement of fish) birds safety or working 1.8 - employment conditions maintained in the fisheries sector or complementary activities (FTE) 1.9 a or b - change in the number or % of work- related injuries and accidents (number/%) Article 41.1 Energy Provision of support to 1.3 - change in net profits efficiency and mitigation strengthen technological (€ ‘000) of climate change – on development and board investments; innovation, including energy efficiency audits increasing energy and schemes; studies to efficiency, and knowledge assess the contribution of transfer alternative propulsion systems and hull designs Article 43 Fishing ports, Reduction of the impact 1.4b - change in landing sites, auction of fisheries on the marine unwanted catches (%) halls and shelters – environment, including Or investments to facilitate the avoidance and 1.5 - change in fuel compliance with the reduction, as far as efficiency of fish capture obligation to land all possible, of unwanted (litres fuel/ tonnes landed catches catches fish) 2 Article 47 Innovation Provision of support to 2.1 - change in volume of strengthen technological aquaculture production development, innovation (tonnes) and knowledge transfer 2.2 - change in value of aquaculture Production (€ ‘000) Or 2.3 - change in net profit (€ ‘000)

Page 213

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Union Article and measure Specific objective as set Specific Result Priority out in the UK OP Indicators as set out in the UK OP (unit) Article 50 Promoting Development of 2.9 - employment Human Capital and professional training, new maintained (FTE) networking professional skills and lifelong learning Article 51 Increasing the Protection and restoration 2.4 - change in the potential of aquaculture of aquatic biodiversity and volume of production sites enhancement of organic aquaculture ecosystems related to (tonnes) aquaculture and 2.5 - change in the promotion of resource- volume of production efficient recirculation system aquaculture (tonnes) 2.6 - change in the volume of aquaculture production certified under voluntary sustainability schemes (tonnes) Or 2.7 - aquaculture farms providing environmental services (number) Article 54 Aquaculture Promotion of aquaculture 2.1 - change in volume of providing environmental having a high level of aquaculture Production services environmental protection, (tonnes) and the promotion of 2.2 - change in value of animal health and welfare aquaculture and of public health and Production (€ ‘000) safety 2.4 - change in the volume of production organic aquaculture (tonnes) 2.5 - change in the volume of production recirculation system (tonnes) 2.6 - change in the volume of aquaculture production certified under voluntary sustainability schemes (tonnes) 2.7 - aquaculture farms providing environmental services (number) 5 Article 68 Marketing Improvement of market 5.1a - change in value of measures organisation for fishery first sales in Producer and aquaculture products organisations (€ ‘000) 5.1b - change in volume of first sales in Producer organisations (tonnes) 5.1c - change in value of first sales in non-

Page 214

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Union Article and measure Specific objective as set Specific Result Priority out in the UK OP Indicators as set out in the UK OP (unit) Producer organisations (€ ‘000) Or 5.1d - change in volume of first sales in non- Producer organisations (tonnes) Article 69 Processing of Encouragement of 5.1a - change in value of fisheries and aquaculture investment in the first sales in Producer products processing and marketing organisations (€ ‘000) sectors 5.1b - change in volume of first sales in Producer organisations (tonnes) 5.1c - change in value of first sales in non- Producer organisations s (€ ‘000) Or 5.1d - change in volume of first sales in non- Producer organisations (tonnes)

Page 215

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Annex 9 Summary of the results of the scoring of projects against selection criteria by MMO

Table 78: Results of the MMO selection criteria for a sample of 53 projects provided by MMO and listed by EMFF Article number. The table shows number of projects and their scores against the four scoring criteria. Total Number Specific objective Specific RI Other objectives Deliverability of EMFF (score) (score) and RIs (score) (score) Number of projects Total EMFF EMFF projects funded in funding Article for which England, for allocated (2014 number selection each Article – February criteria models Low Med High Low Med High Low Med High Low Med High (2014 – 2019) were assessed February 2019) Art. 27 6 2 £304,092 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 Art. 37 4 2 £381,813 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 Art. 38 254 23 £2,574,883 19 3 1 20 2 1 22 1 0 0 2 21 Art. 39 2 1 £352,545 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Art. 40 51 13 £5,594378 13 0 0 13 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 13 Art. 31 3 £269,468 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 41.1 Art. 43 87 3 £9,628,133 2 1 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 Art. 47 7 2 £168,237 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 Art. 51 1 1 £22,500 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Art. 68 10 1 £335,096 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Art. 69 85 2 £4,937,782 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 Total 538 53 £24,568,925.63 47 5 1 49 3 1 52 1 0 0 3 50

Page 216

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Annex 10 Evaluation of the selection criteria implementation

Table 79: Details of the project scoring against the four scoring criteria for individual projects in the sample provided by MMO Specific Specific Other objectives Project Deliverability Comments by MMO objective RIs* and RIs** Article 27: Advisory services (+ Art. 44.3 Inland fishing) Feasibility study into the sustainability of European eel stocks. This study was considered to increase the knowledge surrounding eel stocks and help the fishing industry as a whole to manage this better. ENG3518 Low Low Low High Deliverability considered high, no concerns raised and felt it may have positive implications stating "the work will enable all stakeholders of the area to [be] better informed as to the impact of their actions in terms of management, development and ongoing and future use." Feasibility study into establishing the best route in developing Britain's first National Marine Park. The ultimate aim is to create a means of protecting and ENG3783 Low Low Low High enriching the marine environment in the UK. Deliverability is high, while no concerns were raised on the coastal appraisal. Article 37: Support for the design and implementation of conservation measures and regional cooperation Study to address the lack of an integrated approach and process by looking at migratory routes and using the data to produce a "roadmap", as well as ENG2045 Low Low Low High disseminating and exchanging knowledge with others in the industry. While a genuine article 37 project, the focus is research and dissemination of knowledge and therefore the specific result indicators are not met. Article 38: Limiting the impact of fishing on the marine environment and adapting fishing to the protection of species (+ Art. 44.1.c Inland fishing) Project will contribute to a sustainable Nephrops fishery for years to come as ENG1215 Medium High Low High the smaller Nephrops can escape the larger mesh size. Also this project will reduce discards. Applicant wishes to be more selective with 300 new pots. Current pots catch varied species and one of them is spider crab. Wishes to target brown crab ENG1292 Medium Medium Low High only with new pots. 1.4b currently applicant has approx. 30% unwanted catch and with these new pots this will be reduced to 0%.

Page 217

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Specific Specific Other objectives Project Deliverability Comments by MMO objective RIs* and RIs** Replacement of back ropes for lobster and crab strings with “superior rope” - less pot losses whilst fishing. Higher probability of recovering strings of pots ENG1313 Medium Low Low High that get towed by trawlers. This project aims to reduce the amount of pots lost at sea through replacing the back rope. Project ensures compliance with new technical measures to recover Farne Deep Nephrops stocks, preventing species below a minimum size from being ENG1360 High Medium Medium High caught and thus reducing the impact of fishing on this particular fishery. High deliverability. Coastal appraisal has confirmed that new nets have now been purchased, so no deliverability concerns. Project to replace existing cod-ends to ensure compliance with new legislation. The new codends are 95mm and above this is to allow juvenile Nephrops to ENG1462 Low Low Low High escape and increase their rate of survival. The new cod-ends will reduce discards and allow for juvenile Nephrops to escape. Project to improve selectivity of fishing gear by replacing current gills and wreck nets with nets of a larger mesh size. These measures will reduce ENG1468 Low Low Low Medium unwanted catch and minimise the impact on the marine environment. Deliverability is medium, due to relatively high project costs. No deliverability concerns emerging from Coastal Appraisal. Project to replace the current spider crab pots with 2 different types of pots, these are both hard eye pots which will reduce spider crab catch by 75%, increasing the efficiency of the pots, reducing bycatch and allowing stocks to ENG1666 Low Low Low High increase Easy project to deliver with no troublesome factors to consider. No Issues Raised by Coastal. Project to improve selectivity of fishing gear, by replacing current gills and tangle nets with nets of a larger mesh size. These measures will reduce ENG1842 Low Low Low High unwanted catch and minimise the impact on the marine environment. Deliverability is high, due to only being one supplier. No deliverability concerns emerging from Coastal Appraisal. ENG2107 Low Low Low Medium Project to move away from a pressure stock species by replacing 120 Nets with 300 Crab pots to target a more non pressure stock. The pots will be

Page 218

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Specific Specific Other objectives Project Deliverability Comments by MMO objective RIs* and RIs** designed with a 38” double eye parlour, with escape hatches, so are designed to catch crab and allow other species to escape. Easy project to deliver. Replace old steel based pots with more selective double eye parlour pots with 5 " ring entrance which have a plastic base and escape hatches. ENG2111 Low Low Low High A relatively straightforward project. Pots to be purchased from a single supplier. I have no issues around the deliverability of this project. Project seeks to replace current fishing nets which are triple walled with new single walled nets of increased mesh size which will increase selectivity. Additionally the project will replace current bass nets with pots fitted with escape hatches. This will allow the applicant to reduce the percentage of bycatch. ENG2119 Low Low Low High Deliverability is High. Coastal Appraisal raised few concerns which have been addressed by amending the special conditions of article 38 to better target the concerns, and by reiterating in the body of email to applicant if project is approved that the current gear must be available should coastal want to view it, and evidence of its removal from fishing effort should also be available. Targets and benefits should be achievable. Project to replace 1,130 traditional lobster/crab pots with more selective pots, fitted with escape hatches to allow for juveniles to escape and to reduce the ENG2781 Low Low Low High impact of fisheries on the marine environment. Deliverability is high. No affordability concerns and no issues highlighted in coastal appraisal. The project seeks to replace 400 of the Sukat 3's current pots with pots that are more selective and reduce the number of juveniles caught through a larger ENG2856 Low Low Low High mesh size and fitted escape gaps. Deliverability is high. Reduce the amount of unwanted bycatch from 50% to 20%, by purchasing a bigger net. Applicant targets to fish red mullet, and therefore a bigger net will allow smaller fish to escape, improving the quality of catch. Funding will also ENG3024 Low Low Low High provide buoy ropes with leaded rope to successfully retrieve gear, by preventing fouling of propellers. Deliverability is high.

Page 219

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Specific Specific Other objectives Project Deliverability Comments by MMO objective RIs* and RIs** Replace 500 pots in order to improve selectivity. This will be achieved through the use of escape hatches, side entries and increased net mesh. ENG3063 Low Low Low High Deliverability is high. There is a single, well-established supplier and coastal appraisal raised no deliverability concerns. Project to replace 100 fishing pots with newer, more selective pots. This will contribute to a 30% reduction in bycatch, as the new pots have escape panels that allow juvenile species to escape. The new pots have rubber bottoms, ENG3162 Low Low Low High reducing its impact on the seabed. Deliverability is high. Targets throughout project seem achievable. Coastal appraisal raised no concerns. Project to improve the environmental performance of fishing vessel (a crab fishing vessel operating out of Salcombe) by improving selectivity of pots in order to minimise discards, improve sustainability of shellfish stocks and enable the vessel to adapt to the EU landing obligation without suffering undue economic consequences. The project involves replacing 2000 traditional pots with innovative new pots with soft-eye creels with escape hatches and ENG3165 Low Low Low High purchase of new abrasion resistant back-ropes and buoy ropes. This project appears to fulfil the aims of Article 38 and in particular objective 2 - Reduction of the impact of fisheries on the marine environment, including the avoidance and reduction, as far as possible, of unwanted catches. This is a straightforward project with few risks and therefore there is a high probability of successful completion. Replace 800 old pots with a newer design of pot. The new pots are more selective, and are fitted with escape hatches that will allow juvenile species to ENG3227 Low Low Low High escape, and reduce the impact they have on the marine environment. No deliverability concerns, the targets and benefits for this project seem realistic and feasible. No concerns raised on the coastal appraisal. Replace 360 pots with more selective gear. This will reduce the number of juveniles caught through the use of escape hatches in the new pots. ENG3231 Low Low Low High Deliverability is high. Coastal raised no deliverability concerns and are in support of the project which will see a reduction in bycatch and impact on the marine environment.

Page 220

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Specific Specific Other objectives Project Deliverability Comments by MMO objective RIs* and RIs** Replace 200 pots to improve selectivity. This will be achieved through the purchasing of 140 small entrance parlour pots and 60 cuttle fish pots. The pots will have escape hatches to allow juveniles to escape and targeting cuttle fish ENG3237 Low Low Low High will reduce pressure on the crab / lobster stocks. Deliverability is high. There is a single, well-established supplier and coastal appraisal raised no deliverability concerns. Applicant seeks to replace their buoy lines with high visibility buoy lines. This will minimise the number of fishing pots lost, and elicit a reduction in ghost fishing. This will also mean a reduction of the impact lost pots have on the sea bed. ENG3304 Low Low Low High While not meeting a specific result indicator there will be a reduction of lost or damaged gear and as a result, less of an impact on the marine environment and less time spent at sea trying to creep and retrieve gear. Deliverability is high. Coastal appraisal raised no concerns and applicant has chosen a well-established supplier for the project. The applicant aims to replace nets with thicker, larger nets. The increased net size will allow for a 20% reduction in the amount of unwanted catch and the ENG3320 Low Low Low High bycatch of other species. Deliverability is high. Project has relatively low costs, the pots supplier is well established. The coastal appraisal raised no concerns. The project aim is to replace 500 of the applicant’s current 2000 pots with more selective gear, so that only a certain size of lobster and crab are retained ENG3576 Low Low Low High through a different design of pot that offers better selectivity. Deliverability of the project is high. Coastal appraisal raised no deliverability concerns. Article 39: Innovation linked to the conservation of marine biological resources The overall goal of ROPE is to understand the movement of predatory commercial species in response to the protection and habitat enhancement that the Lyme Bay mussel farm provides. Specifically, the project will assess ENG3420 Low Low Low High the movement of these species in comparison to the nearby MPA to determine how offshore aquaculture installations affect European fisheries. The project may be able to help inform future aquaculture developments and the potential habitat enhancement that may arise. If the outcomes suggest positive results on commercial fisheries from interactions with offshore Marine culture

Page 221

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Specific Specific Other objectives Project Deliverability Comments by MMO objective RIs* and RIs** developments, then expansion of the industry could result in potential co- location, an increase in jobs for fishers looking to change jobs and or for aquaculture graduates. Further, the result of sites not having to be located far from fishing ports would consequently reduce fuel use. I believe that this project should be assessed under the following - Article 40.1.b-g, I Protection and restoration of marine biodiversity – contribution to a better management or conservation, construction, installation or modernisation of static or movable facilities, preparation of protection and management plans related to NATURA2000 sites and spatial protected areas, management, restoration and monitoring marine protected areas, including NATURA 2000 sites, environmental awareness, participation in other actions aimed at maintaining and enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem services and not Article 39 as stated above. In particular 1. – Promoting environmentally sustainable, resource efficient, innovative. However, the specific results indicators associated with this Article are not appropriate measures to assess this project. This doesn’t quite fit in with the SRIs but does fit in with EMFF objectives by contribution knowledge regarding the impact of mussel farms. It may be possible to assess this project against Article 48 Productive investment in aquaculture and specifically 1. Fostering environmentally sustainable, resource friendly, innovative, and competitive and knowledge- based aquaculture. Though again the specific results indicators are not relevant measure to assess this project. The tags will emit a unique signal which will be recorded and monitored by static receivers. The tag batteries have a life span of 1.5 to 2.5 years. The static receivers will be complemented by mobile tracking receivers towed from a vessel. The receivers placed around the farm will be attached to existing ropes and buoys, whilst those located in the control area (within the MPA) will be fitted with an acoustic release anchor retrieval system which will allow the retrieval of the receivers. Article 40: Protection and restoration of marine biodiversity and ecosystems and compensation regimes in the framework of sustainable fishing activities This project aims to remove litter from the sea in the Cornwall area. This will ENG1272 Low Low Low High be done by providing participating fishing vessels with bags to deposit litter in from the catches they land. These bags are then deposited on the quayside and they will then be moved to a dedicated skip on the harbour. The applicant

Page 222

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Specific Specific Other objectives Project Deliverability Comments by MMO objective RIs* and RIs** hopes that as well as being a practical exercise in removing litter it also educates and raises awareness of the problem in the fishing industry. Although this doesn't hit specific results indicators, the project currently has 165 vessels wishing to participate in the scheme and they expect to have another 50 joining during the project and believe they could remove 25 tonnes of litter from Cornwall by July 2018. The project also provides a vehicle for monitoring the types of waste collected by fishermen at sea. The waste will be monitored yearly to provide policy makers with the type, and if possible, the state of origin of litter. It’s monitored using OSPAR guidelines and this data is submitted annually to OSPAR, via the MMO/Defra (Marine Strategy Framework team). Deliverability is high the applicant has run similar projects in the past and the infrastructure seems to be in place to be a viable project. Coastal are in support of this application stating that any campaign to help promote looking after our seas by reducing litter as well as actually removing the litter is a great idea and givers better prospects to the future of our seas. Project is to purchase hardware and upgrade current systems, allowing NIFCA to accurately map the Northumberland coastline seabed and monitor seabed habitats in MPAs, supporting their effective and sustainable management of marine environment within their district. ENG1346 Low Low Low High While this is a legitimate Article 40 project, it does not relate to any specific results indicators. Deliverability is high. NIFCA are a public body receiving 75% EMFF funding. Confidence is high that deliverables have been appropriately scoped and are achievable. No coastal appraisal concerns highlighted. This application would continue and extend the remit of a previous pilot Fishing 4 Litter scheme. The scheme has been well received by local authorities, fishermen and all associated Harbour Commissioners. It will make a significant ENG1359 Low Low Low High contribution to reducing the impact of fishing waste and litter on the marine environment. While the results indicators are not relevant to this type of project. It does make a significant contribution to the Union Priority and Specific Objective

Page 223

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Specific Specific Other objectives Project Deliverability Comments by MMO objective RIs* and RIs** Deliverability is high. This application has the benefit of previous experience and considerable local agency backing. Coastal appraisal states that based on previous model, future projections are reasonable and achievable. The goal of this project is to improve the stock of the European eel in the Thames River Basin District by removing nine barriers to migration and making at least 134 km (80ha) more river habitat available to the eel, where it will grow to maturity (silver eel) before escaping to join the Sargasso spawning biomass. There is a total 394km of river tributaries in the Tidal Thames. This project would open up 38% of this largely unavailable habitat, in addition to the 30km (8%) previously opened up by ZSL. The results indicators stipulated for this Article are not applicable to this project. However, the project does meet the objectives of Article 40 in particular the Protection and restoration of marine biodiversity – contribution to ENG1723 Low Low Low High a better management or conservation, construction, installation or modernisation of static or movable facilities. 2. Protection and restoration of aquatic biodiversity and ecosystems Specific indicators 1.5; 1.10a and 1.10b are not applicable to the outputs of the proposed work. This project does not appear to meet the indicators specified, but does meet the aims as set out in Article 40.1. ZSL has a good track record in delivering conservation projects and is working with experienced partners and capable contractors. There is a high probability that the projects will be delivered on time and to standard. The project seems well presented by a group with a proven track record. The project looks deliverable and the applicant, on behalf of the ZSL, has got the experience to deliver the project. This project will construct one technical fish pass solution at Tadcaster weir (UK Grid Ref SE4851843726), one of three priority sites selected through a competitive process against Water Framework Directive priorities (Directive 2000/60/EC). A larinier style fish pass will be designed and constructed during the 2017 in river working window, which will allow the greatest restoration of ENG1774 Low Low Low High fish migration allowable under site constraints. This project meets the objectives of Article 40.1.b-g, specifically Protection and restoration of marine biodiversity – contribution to a better management or conservation, construction, installation or modernisation of static or movable facilities. In particular the following: Protection and restoration of aquatic biodiversity and ecosystems. However, the specific results indicators

Page 224

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Specific Specific Other objectives Project Deliverability Comments by MMO objective RIs* and RIs** associated with this article ate not relevant to the project under consideration.. This project does not appear to meet the indicators specified, but does meet the aims as set out in Article 40.1. The Rivers Trust and its partner organisations such as the Environment Agency have a good track record in the delivery of large scale projects such as that outlined in the current application. The Rivers Trust has successfully managed several large-scale projects funded through national and EU resources, including the Defra funded River Improvement Fund (RIF), and has an extensive network of professional partners with a good track record of delivery. I have every expectation that this project can be delivered to a good standard and in a timely manner. The project looks deliverable and the applicants have got the experience to deliver the project. Key project aim: to build a detailed knowledge of the ecology of the eel in the River Glaven, to improve understanding and provide better management advice for eel management plans. The project builds on existing data from previous research by the project partners in the River Glaven, Norfolk). The project focuses on all age classes of European eel (elvers to silver eels) and comprises 3 elements: 1) Mapping distribution over the catchment from sea to headwaters and ENG2083 Low Low Low High backwaters to floodplain ponds and lakes with variable connectivity 2) Determine movements and passage through the catchment across barriers and between flowing and still waters 3) Determine habitat use and preferences at different spatial scales. None of the specific result indicators hit as the project provides a unique opportunity to understand catchment-scale eel distribution, passage and habitat use Easy project to deliver with no troublesome factors to consider. This project will attempt to identify low-cost measures to maximise passage around pumping stations, thus minimising passage through pumps, and directly contributing to the conversation of this critically endangered species. ENG2130 Low Low Low High The results indicators stipulated for this Article are not applicable to this project. However the project does meet the objectives of Article 40 in particular the Protection and restoration of marine biodiversity – contribution to a better management or conservation, construction, installation or

Page 225

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Specific Specific Other objectives Project Deliverability Comments by MMO objective RIs* and RIs** modernisation of static or movable facilities. 2. Protection and restoration of aquatic biodiversity and ecosystems Specific indicators 1.5; 1.10a and 1.10b are not applicable to the outputs of the proposed work.. Although the project doesn’t exactly meet the specific result indicators it is in line with promoting environmentally sustainable, resource efficient, innovative, competitive and knowledge-based fisheries.. The University of Hull (Hull International Fisheries Institute) has been involved in research into eel migration for several years and is working with an experienced partner in The Zoological Society of London, and with capable organisations such as the Environment Agency. There is a good probability that the projects will be delivered on time and to standard. The Institute claims a long history (more than 25 years) of meeting research and report deadlines.. The risks are discussed in the application and there is nothing to suggest this project would not be delivered. . The aim of the project is to collaboratively develop a framework for delivering an adaptive approach to MPA management, ensuring fair and effective fisheries management in the face of uncertainty. Full implementation of the approach will be tested using real-world situations in offshore MPAs, focusing on fishing activity on sedimentary habitats. The project will seek to increase environmental awareness and foster greater understanding of the need for protection of marine biodiversity amongst fisheries stakeholders by their direct involvement in the management process. The project strongly aligns with 1/10a and b. Although the project its self may ENG2283 Low Low Low High not change the spatial management exiting within MPAs it does give a framework which could influence management. The results indicators stipulated for this Article are not applicable to this project. However the project does meet the objectives of Article 40 in particular the Protection and restoration of marine biodiversity – contribution to a better management or conservation, construction, installation or modernisation of static or movable facilities preparation of protection and management plans related to NATURA2000 sites and spatial protected areas, management, restoration and monitoring marine protected areas, including NATURA 2000 sites, environmental awareness, participation in other actions aimed at maintaining and enhancing.. Not affected by 1.5, but I understand that both other SRIs are

Page 226

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Specific Specific Other objectives Project Deliverability Comments by MMO objective RIs* and RIs** encompassed within the remit of this project. It certainly sits within the EMFF overall aims. JNCC have delivered similar projects before. The Marine Conservation Team within the MMO who will be the end users of the work are supportive and will be acting as an intelligent customer throughout. This is a well-presented application with clear statements on project management and project governance. A comprehensive list of milestones is included in the application, along with a commitment to publish regular progress updates on the JNCC website. I consider that the project has a good prospect of delivery although I am concerned that the level of non-government/public body stakeholder engagement will be insufficient. The project partners are currently heavily weighted towards conservation interests, with only NFFO representing the fishing sector. It would be beneficial to the project outcomes to have a more balanced partnership if this is at all possible. The project aims seem to be deliverable within the timeframe suggested by organisations with the capacity to deliver the work. Yes I believe this is deliverable within the context set out in the application. This research project will investigate the role wrasse play on the reef, and the details of the live wrasse fishery that is taking place in Dorset. Through improving collaboration between science and fisheries, the project will bring local stakeholders together. It will work with and encourage active collaboration between local fishermen from Devon and Dorset, public bodies (Natural England, Southern IFCA, MMO), and fish ecology specialists from University of Exeter. Data will be collected to better understand the ecology of wrasse on our local reefs, in order to inform development of best practice, ENG2309 Low Low Low High knowledge sharing and ultimately a sustainable fishery over the short and long-term. Through engaging all areas it will increase stakeholder buy-in, which will improve the chances of management being successful. This project will aim to fill the information gaps in both the ecology of wrasse, and the fishery in order to better inform management that allows the fishery to become sustainable, safe-guarding the jobs of the fishermen who have invested into it. This project aims to provide evidence in order to promote and foster an environmentally sustainable, efficient, and knowledge based fishery. Relatively low project costs for improved knowledge of the fishery involved

Page 227

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Specific Specific Other objectives Project Deliverability Comments by MMO objective RIs* and RIs** The project seeks to identify future work that can be undertaken to maximise eel productivity in the Brue Valley, filling in gaps in knowledge of eel populations and their habitats. The project will utilise interpretation panels, a short video, and social media to promote eel populations in this area and to ENG2682 Low Low Low High promote the project. While the project is in line with the specific objective, there is no measurable output in regard to the specific result indicators. Project deliverability is high. Coastal appraisal raised no deliverability concerns, and the applicant has experience managing EMFF grants. The goal of this project is to improve Salmon and Sea Trout stocks in the River Derwent, which runs through County Durham and Northumberland by supporting the Salmon Five Point Approach – Restoring Salmon in England. More specifically, the project provide fish passage over a top priority physical barrier to fish migration, hence addressing pillar 3 of the Salmon Five Point Approach – ‘Remove Barriers to Migration and Enhance Habitat’. This project meets the objectives of Article 40.1.b-g, specifically Protection and restoration of marine biodiversity – contribution to a better management or conservation, construction, installation or modernisation of static or movable facilities: In particular the following: 2. Protection and restoration of aquatic biodiversity and ecosystems. However, the specific results indicators associated with this article are not ENG2920 Low Low Low High relevant to the project under consideration. This fits in with EMFF aims though the SRIs are not directly appropriate. No comment. The Tyne Rivers Trust have submitted an exceptionally comprehensive consultation and feasibility report on the various options available to implement mitigation measures at Shotley Grove weir, River Derwent, Durham in order to facilitate the migration of fish. This report is extremely thorough and documents the advantages and disadvantages of the ten options available (including do nothing) in relation to the potential works on the weir. Tyne Rivers Trust has past experience in the delivery of similar engineering works on the River Derwent, as this this the fourth fish pass to be installed on the river. The Trust was involved in the construction of a similar type of rock pool/rock ramp fish pass at Lintzford on the River Derwent in 2016. In addition, it appears that extensive advice has been taken from the Environment Agency

Page 228

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Specific Specific Other objectives Project Deliverability Comments by MMO objective RIs* and RIs** (who are co-funding the project) and other Rivers Trusts on the most appropriate solution for the location and this weir. The timetable of works appears to be reasonable, and permissions for access are in place. Therefore, I conclude that there is a high probability that this project will be delivered in a timely manner and to a high standard. Significant input from EA, the Rivers Trust is highly experienced in delivering similar projects. Yes this is deliverable. This proposal is seeking support for a program of research and development into the sustainable cultivation of seaweed and monitoring the effects on the local environment. The funds requested will allow the University of Exeter (UoE) to support the Cornish Seaweed Company (CSC) to trial methods of rope-grown cultivation of Sugar Kelp (Saccharina latissima), including integration into shellfish farm activities. The goal of this project is to develop an approach for the sustainable cultivation of seaweed and measurement of the associated impacts on the environment. Results will support development of a commercially sustainable industry by guiding developers in maximising positive outcomes for productivity as well as local biodiversity and ecosystems. The results will provide a guide to regulators and licensees when dealing with seaweed cultivation, for which practical information is scarce. Importantly, the project will also give the commercial partners knowledge and experience in support of their goal of establishing seaweed cultivation that is sustainable ENG3418 Low Low Low High both environmentally and commercially, in order to respond to the growing domestic and international demand. Yes this fits in with EMFF and SRIs. Whilst it may well be appropriate to consider this application under Article 40.1 the specific results indicators are not at all relevant to this project. Not affected by 1.5, but I understand that both other SRIs are encompassed within the remit of this project. No comment. This project led by the University of Exeter, brings together a number of partners with relevant and specialist experience in environmental research and monitoring, marine aquaculture, and seaweed farming. The project is well presented and comprehensively documented with a good risk register, and a clear project plan. The project appears to be well thought through, achievable and has the potential to provide important data for the further expansion of seaweed farming in the south-west. I consider that there is a high probability that this project can be delivered in a timely manner and to a good standard.

Page 229

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Specific Specific Other objectives Project Deliverability Comments by MMO objective RIs* and RIs** No comment. Deliverables are well justified in this application. Costs and choice of suppliers seems well justified. Costs are clearly set out at all levels. This application for funding to support a native oyster regeneration programme appears to meet the requirements of Article 40.1.b-g – Protection and restoration of marine biodiversity; and specifically objective 2. Protection and restoration of aquatic biodiversity and ecosystems. The applicant has stated that EMFF funding will cover eligible costs for projects promoting conservation measures to protect and conserve flora and fauna, including the re-introduction of or stocking with native species’. The specific results indicators cited under these objectives are not applicable to this project and do not provide suitable metrics for assessing the value of ENG1980 Low Low Low High the work. The Solent Oyster Restoration project has a lot of support from conservation bodies and other sponsors including the Southern IFCA, and so it is reasonable to assume that sufficient expertise in oyster biology is available. Blue Marine Foundation appear to have a great deal of experience in managing and delivering projects, so there is confidence that the project can be administered effectively. The applicant seems to have suitable experience to deliver this project, and have a support network of stakeholders that would improve the likelihood of a successful delivery of the project. Article 41.1: Energy efficiency and mitigation of climate change – on board investments; energy efficiency audits and schemes; studies to assess the contribution of alternative propulsion systems and hull designs (+ Art. 44.1.d Inland fishing) This project aims to design and fit a bulbous bow in order to make the vessel as fuel efficient as possible which is vital to the economic viability of the business ENG1479 Low Low Low High The applicant claims to reduce the vessel fuel costs by £6.3k per year which will contribute to an increase in Net Profit. Easy project to deliver with no troublesome factors to consider. Project seeks remove current antifouling on hull of fishing vessel Happy Days and replace with non-toxic copper coating. This will increase vessel efficiency ENG2652 Low Low Low High and reduce operating costs. 1.3, increase annual net profit by £1,400.

Page 230

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Specific Specific Other objectives Project Deliverability Comments by MMO objective RIs* and RIs** Deliverability is high. Relatively low project costs so no affordability issues. No deliverability concerns highlighted in coastal appraisal. This project aims to replace the current propeller with a more efficient one. Also replace the current paint scheme on the bottom of the vessel with a copper coat that will prevent marine growth on the Hull which increased drag. This will improve the efficiency of the vessel moving through the water more ENG2654 Low Low Low High freely. 1.2 The applicant claims to reduce the vessels fuel consumption and emissions. The profit will remain the same for the first year. Easy project to deliver with no troublesome factors to consider. Article 43: Fishing ports, landing sites, auction halls and shelters This project is to replace a number of existing items/facilities that are no longer fit for purpose at Sutton Harbour lock, fish market and fisheries complex. Improving working conditions and providing modern facilities for users will help the applicant to remain competitive with neighbouring harbours. Will contribute to specific results indicator 1.8. It may also contribute to 1.3, 1.9a, 1.9b. ENG2004 Low Low Low High 1.8, maintain employment in the fisheries sector for 33 staff. The targets of the project seem to be deliverable within the timeframe. The works proposed include consultancy and project management fees. None of the works appear to present particular risks in relation to their completion, as all are refurbishments of existing facilities. In that respect I consider that there is a good probability that the project will be completed to standard. This project seeks to upgrade the existing external floodlights at Billingsgate Market which will minimise energy costs and modernise the site. ENG2235 Medium Low Low High Coastal did not highlight any issues with this project and I do not see any issues around deliverability. Project predicted to take only 5 days to carry out. The project seeks funding to upgrade and modernise the current fuel system (Fuel Wizard). The current system will become redundant shortly so the need ENG3210 Low Low Low High to install a new system is required to carry on controlling and keeping track of fuel usage.

Page 231

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Specific Specific Other objectives Project Deliverability Comments by MMO objective RIs* and RIs** Deliverability is high. Project costs are low and coastal appraisal raised no concerns. Article 47: Innovation This project will examine the feasibility of establishing a commercial scallop hatchery in south Devon. Its specific goals are to conduct market research through travelling to established hatcheries, compare the requirements of these hatcheries with the availability of the same features in the south Devon area, and ascertain the feasibility of creating a scallop hatchery in south Devon. Coastal appraisal noted that that the southwest has proven successful ENG1989 Low Low Low High in similar ventures, such as mussels and oysters. While this project does not meet specific result indicators as this is a feasibility project, if successful the UK scallop industry could profit from the information gathered here which will be disseminated through a report. Deliverability is high. The project is a partnership between the National Marine Aquarium and Plymouth Marine Laboratory, both well established, respectable companies that contribute a lot to UK aquaculture. This project is a feasibility study which seeks to demonstrate the benefits of using Black Soldier Flies as bio converters of food waste, which is estimated at 10-14 million tonnes per year in the UK. Specifically, the project seeks to demonstrate the performance of Sugar Beet Pulp and Fish Waste as feedstock for Black Soldier Fly larvae, and the reduction in waste volumes using Black ENG2496 Low Low Low High Soldier Flies while also creating valuable protein, oil, chitin, and other compounds. Deliverability is high. Project has the support of Skretting and British Sugar who have provided free of charge contributions and the project will be handled by University of Liverpool, a respected institution with a history of handling large projects. Coastal appraisal raised no concerns. Article 51: Increasing the potential of aquaculture sites The applicant wishes to modernise his aquaculture premises by updating the offices, changing rooms, toilets and canteen facilities. The current unit is in a ENG2769 Low Low Low High very bad state of repair. The applicant believes that the new unit would provide a better working environment for his staff and potentially attract more applicants for any future job vacancies they may have. A better insulated will require less heating and therefore more energy efficient. They also want to

Page 232

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Specific Specific Other objectives Project Deliverability Comments by MMO objective RIs* and RIs** purchase a new fork lift to reduce the risk of injury due to excessive manual labour moving the catch around the site. it should also increase the efficiency of moving and grading the catch. Deliverability is high, the applicant is having the construction work carried out by a single supplier. They are purchasing the fork lift form a reputable supplier. No concerns raised on the coastal appraisal who had no objections and believed that the targets and benefits were realistic. Article 68: Marketing measures The project is to allow for a full assessment for the MSC for the Shrimp fishery in the Wash area Eastern England. This will allow the applicant's a sustainable fishery that will continue to land catch to the existing markets and explore new opportunities of marketing to local markets. ENG1160 Low Low Low Medium No directly measurable impact on any specific result indicators although there are several benefits to sustain the fishery in the area. Deliverability of this project is medium. Only one supplier involved and no concerns from coastal. But there is a risk of the applicant's not achieving this accreditation. Article 69: Processing of fisheries and aquaculture products Purchase of a van to transport a larger amount of shellfish to customers to keep up with the increasing demand. The van will help lead the company towards the secure future they strive for as it will enable them to process a higher quantity. ENG1102 Medium Medium Low High The applicant will be able to process ¾ more whelks/ cockles. This should lead to a 15% increase in profit. No issues regarding the deliverability of this project. There is only 1 item to be purchased from a single supplier. Project seeks to install solar panel and ice machine at Osborne and Son's cockle shed facility. The ice machine will ensure the enterprise is able to retain ENG2586 Low Low Low High the optimum storage temperature for the product and solar panels will ensure adequate energy supply throughout the year. 5.1c, Increase annual value of first sales by £1,900.

Page 233

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Specific Specific Other objectives Project Deliverability Comments by MMO objective RIs* and RIs** Deliverability is high. No affordability concerns and applicant has a proven delivery record in previous projects. No deliverability concerns highlighted in coastal appraisal. * This is the Result Indicator related to the Article under which the project is being appraised. ** This is the score against other Results Indicators

Page 234

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Annex 11 Funding schemes available in England that were examined to better understand their similarity to the EMFF

Table 80: Information on funds available and funding schemes in England that could be similar to the EMFF Spatial and Eligible Funding EMFF UP Funding scheme geographical Research themes Website stakeholders available (£) alignment extent Biotechnology Aquaculture; £6.8M, United New facilities and technologies for UP 1 and 2 https://bbsrc.ukri.org/innovation and Biological Academia across three Kingdom; predicting risks and enhance /collaboration/collaborative- Sciences streams 2014 to 2017 capacity; programmes/uk-aquaculture- Research Council Sustainable, nutritional feedstock; initiative/ (BBSRC)/ Natural Understanding and managing the Environment effects of aquaculture on the Research Council environment; (NERC), UK Aquaculture Data sharing and management; Initiative Breeding and genetics approaches for stock enhancement; Safe food for human consumption. British Marine, SME marine £250k England Marine and maritime businesses UP 4 https://www.britishmarine.co.uk Marine and and maritime (Solent and /Services/Growth/Funding Maritime Small to businesses New Forest) Medium-sized and new start- Currently Enterprise (SME) ups in the closed Growth Fund Solent and New Forest district Coastal Voluntary or £90M from United Promoting sustainable economic UP 4 https://www.tnlcommunityfund. Community Fund community 2017 to 2021 Kingdom growth and jobs in coastal org.uk/funding/programmes/co organisations; £50 - 300k 2012 to 2021 communities. astal-communities-fund Public sector per project Round 5 now organisations; closed Private sector organisations

Page 235

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Spatial and Eligible Funding EMFF UP Funding scheme geographical Research themes Website stakeholders available (£) alignment extent Defra, Litter Innovative £450k, England New ways of reducing and UP 1 http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/ Innovation Fund research (<£10k per Currently preventing litter/littering through litter-innovation-fund projects project) closed new methods and interventions Defra, Water Charities, No United Funding for organisations and land UP 6 https://www.gov.uk/government Environment including not- minimum, Kingdom managers to improve the water /publications/water- Grant for-profit maximum Currently environment in rural England environment-grant-weg- organisations; grant of £2 closed (estuaries and coastal waters). handbooks-guidance-and- Land M per Funding comes from the European forms managers; project. Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) Public bodies Esmee Fairbairn Private sector £2k to £1.5M United Nature conservation on land and at UP4 and https://esmeefairbairn.org.uk/cu and public (average Kingdom sea; Marine projects which work UP 6 rrent-grants--environment sector £141k), with Ongoing alongside coastal communities and organisations support restore people’s connection to the Charities, lasting 1 - 5 sea including not- years for-profit organisations; Academia Funding Fish Cross-section Unknown Europe Supports project focused on UP 1 and https://fundingfish.eu/ of stakeholders Ongoing implementing the reformed UP 3 Private sector Common Fisheries Policy (CFP); and public Drafting management plans sector Facilitating change organisations Working with buyers Charities, including not- for-profit organisations; Heritage Lottery Non-profits; £3k – 5M, United Anything from the past that you UP 1 and https://www.heritagefund.org.uk Fund Private non-profits; Kingdom value and want to pass on to future UP 4 /funding/check-what-we-fund owners; Ongoing generations, including:

Page 236

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Spatial and Eligible Funding EMFF UP Funding scheme geographical Research themes Website stakeholders available (£) alignment extent Partnerships <£100k, Nature led by private; natural and designed landscapes commercial £250k – 5M, organisations commercial Innovate UK Academia and Low Carbon United Moving to a low-carbon, more UP 1 and https://www.gov.uk/government (industrial Private sector £102.5M Kingdom resource-efficient economy UP 2 /collections/industrial-strategy- decarbonisation) organisations Food 2017 to 2021 Transforming food production challenge-fund-joint-research- and-innovation production Ongoing £90M Lloyds Register Academia Unknown Worldwide To secure high technical standards UP 4 https://www.lrfoundation.org.uk/ Foundation Private sector of design, manufacture, en/funding/grant-application- and public construction, maintenance, process/ sector operation and performance for the organisations purpose of enhancing the safety of life and property, at sea, and on

land and in the air. Sea Changers Marine Marine litter United Root causes of marine UP1 https://www.sea- conservation fund £20k Kingdom conservation threats and changers.org.uk/grants charities 2019 challenges in the UK; Prevent or reduce negative impacts on UK coastal and marine environments and/or species; Add to the body of knowledge about marine conservation threats and challenges in the UK; and Marine Litter fund. Seafish, funding Only available Unknown United Support experienced commercial UP 4 https://www.seafish.org/article/f for safety training for new Kingdom fishermen undertaking training to unding-for-safety-training entrants and Ongoing develop their knowledge, skills and experienced qualifications above and beyond

commercial minimum legal requirements. fishers who are fully compliant

Page 237

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Spatial and Eligible Funding EMFF UP Funding scheme geographical Research themes Website stakeholders available (£) alignment extent with Basic Safety Training.

Page 238

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Annex 12 Case studies, the indicators developed to chart their impact/outcomes and how these compare to the indicators in the 25 Year Environment Plan

Table 81: A comparison of the case studies’ indicators (developed to chart their impact/outcomes) and how these compare to the indicators in the 25 Year Environment Plan

Relevant Natural Capital Comparable Natural Capital Case study outcome indicators in indicators developed by this Comment the 25 YEP study Pressures: Distribution of The indicator from the 25 YEP (H2) and from this report are broadly the invasive non-native Pressure: Abundance of non- same. The one from this study allows for a measure of the extent as well species and plant pests native species (n168) as the magnitude of the pressure and diseases (H2) Asset: Natural functions of The indicator from the 25 YEP is focused on change to an interconnected Pressure: Dendritic water and wetland asset, this study focused on a change in the one pressure acting upon this connectivity169 (km) ecosystems (B6) asset that was affected by the projects under this case study

Asset: Abundance of migratory The difference between the 25 YEP indicators and those used in this study species (n) is scale. The 25 YEP is assessing an asset on a watershed scale, this Connecting Asset: Health of study broke the same asset down into some of its most significant freshwater Asset: Abundance of species freshwaters assessed components. These finer scale species level indicators developed by this habitats dependant on migratory through fish stocks (B7) species (n) study built on the recommendations set out by the 25 YEP, that “further work is required to develop an indicator based on these data and to include Asset: Abundance of other assessed species” endangered species (n) Asset: Quantity, quality The indicator from the 25 YEP is focused on change to an interconnected Pressure: Dendritic and connectivity of asset, this study focused on a change in the one pressure acting upon this connectivity (km) habitats (D1) asset that was affected by the projects under this case study Asset: Conservation This study did not assess this asset because attributing change in the status of our native N/A conservation status to key species as a result of individual projects is not species (D5) possible

168 Number 169 Dendritic connectivity is the longitudinal connectivity within a Dendritic Ecological Network (e.g., river or stream); the number of barriers along the length of a river network. More detail of this concept can be found within Cote et al. (2009).

Page 239

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Relevant Natural Capital Comparable Natural Capital Case study outcome indicators in indicators developed by this Comment the 25 YEP study

Asset: Abundance of migratory The difference between the 25 YEP indicators and those used in this study species (n) is scale. The 25 YEP is assessing an asset on a watershed scale, this Asset: Abundance and study broke the same asset down into some of its most significant distribution of priority component parts. These finer scale species level indicators developed by Asset: Abundance of species species in England (D6) this study built on the recommendations set out by the 25 YEP, that dependant on migratory “further work is required to develop an indicator based on these data and species (n) to include other assessed species.” Asset: Abundance of endangered species (n) Asset: Enhancement of This study did not assess this asset because this has a mainly social green/blue infrastructure N/A dimension and this study was focused on environmental benefits (G3) Natural Capital thinking is “not always straightforward since the condition of one natural capital asset (e.g., air quality) may place a pressure on another (e.g., wildlife habitat)”171 or one flow (e.g., engagement with the natural Pressure: Mortality170 (n) environment) may increase a pressure (e.g., fishing effort)” Flow: Engagement with This study is focused on environmental impact and so looked at the dis- the natural environment intended pressures that an enhanced ‘engagement with the natural (G4) environment’ could have The indicator from the 25 YEP is focused on change to an interconnected Flow: Commercial and flow, this study focused on a change in one part of that flow that could be recreational catches (n) affected by the projects under this case study The 25 YEP indicators are focused on change to the emissions of key air Pressure: Change in annual pollutants. This is important at a macro scale but at a project level it is Energy Pressure: Emissions for energy/fuel consumption more practical to determine the change in fuel consumption (as a proxy for efficiency five key air pollutants (A1) (litres/kWh) and CO2 emissions) and from that calculate the change in pollutant gas emissions equivalent using accepted conversion factors172

170 As a result of capture and catch-and-release fishing 171 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/802094/25-yep-indicators-2019.pdf 172 UK Governments 2018 conversion factors - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2018

Page 240

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Relevant Natural Capital Comparable Natural Capital Case study outcome indicators in indicators developed by this Comment the 25 YEP study There does not appear to be an indicator in the 25 YEP related to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from industry or an indicator to capture the global effects this can have in terms of both climate change and ocean acidification Pressure: Change in annual

energy/fuel consumption N/A (litres/kWh) and CO2 The indicator produced by this study can act as a proxy for emissions equivalent (using accepted conversion factors173) that can be applied at a project level. Cumulatively, project information against this indicator could inform scheme wide, or nationwide, impact on greenhouse gas emissions and the global environmental impacts these pollutants have (i.e., climate change and ocean acidification) Pressure: Change in annual The 25 YEP indicator is composite, it is a measure of raw material energy/fuel consumption (litres consumption (e.g., diesel) per unit of Gross Value Added (e.g., fish). For / kWh) and CO2 equivalent the purpose of this study, working at an individual project level, it has been Pressure: Raw material more practical two use individual indicators; a Pressure: annual energy/fuel consumption (J2) Pressure: Change in number consumption, and a Flow: annual landings. The results given will allow of gear-hours fished (hours) scheme wide analysis of the change in raw material consumption (e.g., diesel) per unit of Gross Value Added (e.g., fish) An unintended consequence of improvements to energy efficiency, Pressure: Change in number discovered by this study, was an increase in fishing effort. In order to N/A of gear-hours fished (hours) capture the full environmental impacts of projects it will be necessary to monitor all impacts, including those that are unintended The indicator from the 25 YEP is focused on change to an interconnected Pressure: State of the Pressure: Change in turbidity pressure, this study focused on a change in one pressure acting upon the water environment (B3) (NTU) asset (water quality) Habitat Pressure: Change in area (ha) The 25 YEP indicator was setup to track changes in disturbance and forming of available fishing grounds to intensity of human activity on the seabed. Projects under this case study aquaculture Pressure: Seabed subject both commercial and theme can reduce human pressure on the seabed by either excluding to high pressure from recreational fishers fishing from an area due to the designation of a mussel farm, or an MPA to human activity (C2) protect native oysters. Therefore, this study used the change in spatial Pressure: Change in number coverage of fishing grounds to show the areas of habitat (asset) within of gear-hours fished (hours) which the pressure of human activity should be reduced to negligible

173 UK Governments 2018 conversion factors - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2018

Page 241

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Relevant Natural Capital Comparable Natural Capital Case study outcome indicators in indicators developed by this Comment the 25 YEP study levels. This study also assessed the level of fishing pressure on the seabed by selecting an indicator that looked at the change in the gear- hours fished Asset: Species richness (n) The difference between the 25 YEP indicator (C4) and those used in this Asset: Diverse seas: Asset: Spatial coverage of study is scale. The 25 YEP is assessing an asset on a broad scale, condition of seafloor habitat forming species (ha) encompassing habitat extent and condition. This study broke the same habitats (C4) asset down into some of its most significant parts, and used these as Asset: Coverage of Marine indicators of the condition and extent of the habitat Protected Areas (ha) Asset: Species richness (n) The difference between the 25 YEP indicator (C9) and those used in this study is scale. The 25 YEP is assessing the condition of the asset (seabed Asset: Healthy seas: habitat) as a whole. For the purposes of this study, the assumption is that seafloor habitats Asset: Spatial coverage of native oyster beds and mussel raft represent healthy seas and function functioning (C9) habitat forming species (ha) seafloor habitats. This is reflected in the indicators that have been selected to highlight project level environmental impact and benefits Asset: Species richness (n) Asset: Spatial coverage of The difference between the 25 YEP indicators and those used in this study Asset: Productive seas: sensitive habitat forming is scale. The 25 YEP is assessing an asset on a broad scale (i.e., fish and status of sensitive fish species (ha) shellfish), this study broke the same asset down into more specific units and shellfish stocks (C11) Asset: Change in species (i.e., mussel and oyster stocks) abundance (n) Asset: Spatial coverage of priority habitat forming species The difference between the 25 YEP indicators and those used in this study Asset: Abundance and (ha) is scale. The 25 YEP is assessing an asset on a broad scale (i.e., priority distribution of priority Asset: Species richness (n) species), this study broke the same asset down into more specific units species in England (D6) Asset: Change in species (i.e., oyster distribution and density) abundance (n)

Asset: Species supporting Asset: Spatial coverage of ecosystem functions (D7) habitat forming species (ha)

Page 242

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Relevant Natural Capital Comparable Natural Capital Case study outcome indicators in indicators developed by this Comment the 25 YEP study Asset: Change in species As the 25 YEP indicator states “All species have a functional role within abundance (n) ecosystems”174. For the purposes of this study, the assumption is that native oysters and mussels represent species that support ecosystem functioning. This is reflected in the specific species level indicators that Asset: Species richness (n) have been selected to highlight project level environmental impact and benefits Flow: Percentage of our Asset: Species richness (n) The 25 YEP indicator is composite and includes production, management seafood coming from and environmental impact. This is a large-scale national indicator. For the healthy ecosystems, Flow: Volume of shellfish purpose of this study indicators were developed that were both more produced sustainably (E9) production (tonnes) specific and operational on a finer scale Pressure: Change in annual An increase in energy efficiency as a result of fishing gear selectivity Pressure: Emissions for energy/fuel consumption modifications is a potential unintended environmental benefit of this case five key air pollutants (A1) (litres/kWh) and CO2 study theme, that emerged from this study. Although it could be an equivalent additional benefit it was not possible to quantify in this study Pressure: Change in the The difference between the 25 YEP indicators and those used in this study proportion of unwanted catch is scale. The 25 YEP indicator is focused on the change in status of Asset: Diverse seas: species in terms of distribution, population and size and condition. It is not status of mammals, birds possible for this study to attribute this kind of change on a project or and fish (C3) Asset: Stock size of affected scheme wide level. This study has selected indicators on a finer scale with species (n or tonnes) the assumption that a decrease in the mortality of unwanted individuals will Selectivity positively affect the stock to which these species belong Pressure: Change in the The difference between the 25 YEP indicators and those used in this study proportion of unwanted catch is scale. The 25 YEP indicator is focused on the change at a stock wide Asset: Healthy seas: fish level. It is not possible for this study to attribute change on that scale, at a and shellfish populations project or scheme wide level. This study has selected indicators on a finer (C7) Asset: Stock size of affected species (n or tonnes) scale with the assumption that a decrease in the mortality of unwanted individuals will positively affect the stock to which these species belong Asset: Productive seas: Pressure: Change in the The difference between the 25 YEP indicators and those used in this study fish and shellfish stocks proportion of unwanted catch is scale. The 25 YEP indicator is focused on the change at a stock wide safe and environmentally Asset: Stock size of affected level. It is not possible for this study to attribute change on that scale, at a sustainable (C10) species (n or tonnes) project or scheme wide level. This study has selected indicators on a finer

174 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/802094/25-yep-indicators-2019.pdf

Page 243

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Relevant Natural Capital Comparable Natural Capital Case study outcome indicators in indicators developed by this Comment the 25 YEP study scale with the assumption that a decrease in the mortality of unwanted individuals will positively affect the stock to which these species belong Flow: Percentage of our The 25 YEP indicator (E9) is concerned with harvest rates and overall Flow: Maintenance of annual seafood coming from stock sustainability. Selectivity can play a part in helping to maintain stock landings of target species healthy ecosystems, health, but is only one part of a management plan that would contribute to (tonnes) produced sustainably (E9) the 25 YEP indicator (E9) Research to improve The nature of projects under this case study sub-theme means that the N/A N/A fisheries indicators are tied to project objectives, and these vary widely management Asset: Natural functions of The indicator from the 25 YEP is focused on change to an interconnected Pressure: Dendritic water and wetland asset, this study focused on a change in the one pressure acting upon this connectivity175 (km) ecosystems (B6) asset that was affected by one of the projects under this case study The difference between the 25 YEP indicators and those used in this study is scale. The 25 YEP indicator (B7) is assessing an asset on a watershed Asset: Health of scale, this study broke the same asset down into some of its components; Asset: Abundance of freshwaters assessed those affected by projects in this case study. These finer scale species European eels (n) through fish stocks (B7) level indicators, developed by this study, built on the recommendations set out by the 25 YEP, that “further work is required to develop an indicator Stock based on these data and to include other assessed species.” conservation The difference between the 25 YEP indicators and those used in this study and restoration Asset: Abundance of European eels (n) is scale. The 25 YEP indicator (C3) is focused on the change in status of species in terms of distribution, population and size and condition. It is not Asset: Diverse seas: possible for this study to attribute this kind of change on a project or status of mammals, birds scheme wide level. This study has selected indicators on a finer scale with and fish (C3) Asset: Abundance of sea bass the assumption that an increased abundance of a species, as a result of (n) more effective management, will positively affect the stock to which these species belong Asset: Abundance of The difference between the 25 YEP indicators and those used in this study European eels (n) is scale. The 25 YEP indicator is focused on the change at a stock wide level. It is not possible for this study to attribute change on that scale, at a

175 Dendritic connectivity is the longitudinal connectivity within a Dendritic Ecological Network (e.g., river or stream); the number of barriers along the length of a river network. More detail of this concept can be found within Cote et al. (2009).

Page 244

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Relevant Natural Capital Comparable Natural Capital Case study outcome indicators in indicators developed by this Comment the 25 YEP study project or scheme wide level. This study has selected indicators on a finer Asset: Healthy seas: fish Asset: Abundance of sea bass scale with the assumption that an increased abundance of a species, as a and shellfish populations (n) result of more effective management, will positively affect the stock to (C7) which these species belong Asset: Abundance of The difference between the 25 YEP indicators and those used in this study European eels (n) is scale. The 25 YEP indicator is focused on the change at a stock wide Asset: Productive seas: level. It is not possible for this study to attribute change on that scale, at a fish and shellfish stocks project or scheme wide level. This study has selected indicators on a finer safe and environmentally Asset: Abundance of sea bass scale with the assumption that an increased abundance of a species, as a sustainable (C10) (n) result of more effective management, will positively affect the stock to which these species belong Asset: Abundance of The difference between the 25 YEP indicators and those used in this study European eels (n) is scale. The 25 YEP indicator is focused on the change at a stock wide Asset: Productive seas: level. It is not possible for this study to attribute change on that scale, at a status of sensitive fish project or scheme wide level. This study has selected indicators on a finer and shellfish stocks (C11) Asset: Abundance of sea bass scale with the assumption that an increased abundance of a species, as a (n) result of more effective management, will positively affect the stock to which these species belong Asset: Conservation This study did not assess this asset indicator (D5) because attributing status of our native N/A change in the conservation status to key species as a result of individual species (D5) projects is not possible The difference between the 25 YEP indicator (D6) and those used in this Pressure: Dendritic study is scale. The 25 YEP indicator is assessing an asset on a broad connectivity176 (km) scale (i.e., priority species), this study broke the same asset down into Asset: Abundance and more specific units (i.e., European eels). It would be beyond the scope of distribution of priority this study to assess change in distribution of UK European eels, however species in England (D6) there is an assumption that a decrease in a pressure (habitat Asset: Abundance of fragmentation) through an increase in dendritic connectivity will increase European eels (n) the habitat available to European eels allow the species to increase its distribution

176 Dendritic connectivity is the longitudinal connectivity within a Dendritic Ecological Network (e.g., river or stream); the number of barriers along the length of a river network. More detail of this concept can be found within Cote et al. (2009).

Page 245

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Relevant Natural Capital Comparable Natural Capital Case study outcome indicators in indicators developed by this Comment the 25 YEP study Flow: Percentage of our The 25 YEP indicator (E9) is concerned with harvest rates and overall seafood coming from Flow: Tonnes of European eel stock sustainability. Improved stock conservation and restoration can play healthy ecosystems, landed (tonnes) a part in helping to improve stock health, but is only one part of a produced sustainably (E9) management plan that would contribute to the 25 YEP indicator (E9) Co- management / The nature of projects under this case study sub-theme means that the N/A N/A participatory indicators are tied to project objectives, and these vary widely approaches

Page 246

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Annex 13 Case studies and how these relate to the 25 Year Environment Plan

Table 82: The case studies cross referenced with the goals of the 25 YEP, to show how the case study themes address these goals

Case Study Theme Research to Stock Co- Connecting Habitat 25 YEP goal Energy improve fisheries conservation management / freshwater forming Selectivity efficiency and marine and participatory habitats aquaculture management restoration approach 1. Clean Meeting legally binding targets to air reduce emissions of five damaging air pollutants. This should halve the ✔ effects of air pollution on health by 2030. Ending the sale of new conventional petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2040. Maintaining the continuous improvement in industrial emissions by building on existing good practice and the successful regulatory framework. 2. Clean Reducing the damaging abstraction of and water from rivers and groundwater, plentiful ensuring that by 2021 the proportion water of water bodies with enough water to

support environmental standards increases from 82% to 90% for surface water bodies and from 72% to 77% for groundwater bodies. Reaching or exceeding objectives for rivers, lakes, coastal and ground waters that are specially protected,

whether for biodiversity or drinking water as per our River Basin Management Plans. Supporting OFWAT’s ambitions on leakage, minimising the amount of water lost through leakage year on

year, with water companies expected to reduce leakage by at least an average of 15% by 2025

Page 247

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Case Study Theme Research to Stock Co- Connecting Habitat 25 YEP goal Energy improve fisheries conservation management / freshwater forming Selectivity efficiency and marine and participatory habitats aquaculture management restoration approach Minimising by 2030 the harmful bacteria in our designated bathing waters and continuing to improve the cleanliness of our waters. We will make sure that potential bathers are warned of any short-term pollution risks. 3. Thriving Reversing the loss of marine plants and biodiversity and, where practicable, ✔177 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ wildlife restoring it. Increasing the proportion of protected and well-managed seas, and better ✔ ✔ managing existing protected sites. Making sure populations of key species are sustainable with ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ appropriate age structures. Ensuring seafloor habitats are productive and sufficiently extensive 178 to support healthy, sustainable ✔ ✔ ✔ ecosystems. Restoring 75% of our one million hectares of terrestrial and freshwater protected sites to favourable ✔ ✔ ✔ condition, securing their wildlife value for the long term. Creating or restoring 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat outside the protected site network,5

focusing on priority habitats as part of ✔ ✔ a wider set of land management changes providing extensive benefits. Taking action to recover threatened,

iconic or economically important ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

177 This relates to anadromous and catadromous species such as salmon, sea-trout, eel and shad 178 In relation to the conservation on benthic habitat forming fauna, such as the native oyster

Page 248

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

by 2060: this would involve planting 180,000 hectares by end of 2042. 4. A Making sure everyone is able to reduced access the information they need to risk of assess any risks to their lives and

harm from livelihoods, health and prosperity environme posed by flooding and coastal ntal erosion. hazards Bringing the public, private and third such as sectors together to work with

flooding communities and individuals to and reduce the risk of harm. drought Making sure that decisions on land use, including development, reflect

the level of current and future flood risk. Ensuring interruptions to water supplies are minimised during prolonged dry weather and drought. Boosting the long-term resilience of our homes, businesses and infrastructure. 5. Using Maximising the value and benefits we resources get from our resources, doubling ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ from resource productivity by 2050. nature Improving our approach to soil more management: by 2030 we want all of sustainably England’s soils to be managed and sustainably, and we will use natural efficiently capital thinking to develop appropriate

Page 249

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

sustainably and profitably. ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 6. Safeguarding and enhancing the Enhanced beauty of our natural scenery and beauty, improving its environmental value heritage while being sensitive to and considerations of its heritage. engageme Making sure that there are high nt with the quality, accessible, natural spaces natural close to where people live and work, environme particularly in urban areas, and ✔181 ✔ nt encouraging more people to spend time in them to benefit their health and wellbeing. Focusing on increasing action to improve the environment from all ✔ sectors of society. 7. Continuing to cut greenhouse gas Mitigating emissions including from land use, and land use change, the agriculture and

adapting to waste sectors and the use of ✔ climate fluorinated gases. The UK Climate change Change Act 2008 commits us to

179 This type of aquaculture can act as nursery ground for many species, helping to improve juvenile survival rates, when many species are at their most vulnerable. This can, if there are other complimentary factors are in place, lead to more individuals reaching maturity and breading. This increasing recruitment can help to increase stock abundance. 180 Increased selectivity will lead to lower catch, and mortality of juveniles. This can (if other complimentary factors are in place) lead to more individuals reaching maturity and breading, increasing recruitment and growing stock abundance. 181 Connecting freshwater habitats can help to restore freshwater, anadromous and catadromous species, providing angling opportunities. Some of these freshwater, anadromous and catadromous species are highly prized by recreational fishers such as salmon, sea-trout.

Page 250

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

Minimising avoidable waste by 2050 waste Working to a target of eliminating avoidable plastic waste by end of 2042 Meeting all existing waste targets – including those on landfill, reuse and

recycling – and developing ambitious new future targets and milestones. Seeking to eliminate waste crime and illegal waste sites over the lifetime of this Plan, prioritising those of highest risk. Delivering a substantial reduction in litter and littering behaviour. Significantly reducing and where possible preventing all kinds of marine plastic pollution – in particular material that came originally from land. 9. Seeking in particular to eliminate the Managing use of Polychlorinated Biphenyls exposure (PCBs) by 2025, in line with our to commitments under the Stockholm chemicals Convention.

Page 251

Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits Delivered via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) In England (2014 – To Present)

irreversibly transformed by 2030, to make sure there are negligible emissions to the environment. Fulfilling our commitments under the Stockholm Convention as outlined in

the UK’s most recent National Implementation Plan. 10. Managing and reducing the impact of Enhancing existing plant and animal diseases;

biosecurity lowering the risk of new ones and ✔ tackling invasive non-native species. Reaching the detailed goals to be set out in the Tree Health Resilience Plan of 2018. Ensuring strong biosecurity protection at our borders, drawing on the opportunities leaving the EU provides. Working with industry to reduce the

impact of endemic disease.

Page 252