Proposed UK Targets for Achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD:

Final Report

Appendix

February 2012

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report Appendix

This report describes expert advice to support the development of proposals for UK targets and indicators of Good Environmental Status, including an initial cost benefit analysis for the implementation of the MSFD. A large number of contributors from the marine science community have helped with the development of these proposals, coordinated by expert panels and the Evidence Groups of the UK Marine Monitoring and Assessment Strategy. Significant input to this Cefas project report (ME5405) has been provided by the HBDSEG Drafting Team and eftec.

February 2012

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Table of Contents

Appendix 1 – Target Templates ...... 4 Descriptor 2 - Non-indigenous species introduced by human activities are at levels that do not adversely alter the ecosystem ...... 4 Descriptor 3 - Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock...... 10 Descriptor 5 - Human-induced eutrophication is minimised, especially adverse effects thereof, such as losses in biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, harmful algal blooms and oxygen deficiency in bottom waters...... 16 Descriptor 7 - Permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions does not adversely affect marine ecosystems ...... 29 Descriptor 8: Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution effects...... 36 Descriptor 9 - Contaminants in fish and other seafood for human consumption do not exceed levels established by Community legislation or other relevant standards) ...... 65 Descriptor 10 - Properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment...... 74 Descriptor 11 - Introduction of energy, including underwater noise, is at levels that do not adversely affect the marine environment ...... 89 Appendix 2 - Target-indicator template ...... 96 Descriptor 2 - Non-indigenous species ...... 96 Descriptor 3 - Commercial fish and shellfish ...... 98 Descriptor 5 - Eutrophication ...... 100 Descriptor 7 – Hydrographical conditions...... 102 Descriptor 8 - Contaminants ...... 104 Descriptor 9 - Contaminants in fish and shellfish ...... 106 Descriptor 10 - Marine litter ...... 108 Descriptor 11 - Underwater noise ...... 110 Appendix 3 - Targets and Potential Management Measures ...... 112 Appendix 4 - Biodiversity components: species & habitat lists ...... 113 Appendix 5 - Supporting information for the Benthic Habitats Section 3.2 ...... 115 Appendix 5A - Distribution of Benthic Habitats throughout UK waters...... 115 Appendix 5B - Relationship between predominant habitats, and Special (listed) habitats and EUNIS habitat classes...... 120

Page 2 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Appendix 5C - Draft Regional Seas (2009)...... 121 Appendix 5D - Summary of the possible baseline-setting and target-setting approaches ...... 122 Appendix 5E - Sensitivity matrix and pressure thresholds ...... 123 Appendix 5F - Background to sensitivity matrix information ...... 126 Appendix 5G – Rock and Biogenic Reef Habitats – Additional detail ...... 131 Appendix 5H – Sediment Habitats – Additional detail ...... 137 Appendix 6 - Pelagic habitats report...... 142 Appendix 7 - Birds report ...... 157 Appendix 8 - Marine mammals report ...... 172 Appendix 9 - Fish report ...... 187 Appendix 10 - Detailed targets and indicators for each biodiversity descriptor ...... 229 Appendix 11 - CBA spreadsheets of biodiversity targets, pressures and measures: ...... 230 Appendix 12 - Background information on Baseline ...... 234 Appendix 13 - Analysis of Impacts of Potential Management Measures ...... 251 Appendix 14 - Method and data used for estimating the economic costs of the potential management measure to ban use of mobile demersal gears (MDGs) ..... 321 Appendix 15 - Analysis of Fuel Tax Subsidies ...... 327 Appendix 16 - UK Marine Valuation Studies ...... 330 Appendix 17 - Note of workshop on Disproportionate Costs Analysis ...... 335

Page 3 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Appendix 1 – Target Templates

Descriptor 2 - Non-indigenous species introduced by human activities are at levels that do not adversely alter the ecosystem

There are some non-indigenous species (NIS) currently present in the marine environment and there are many examples from throughout the world of unsuccessful attempts to remove these. It therefore has to be accepted that for the most part the species already present cannot be eradicated.

GES for non-indigenous species (NIS) in UK waters can therefore best be achieved by preventing new introductions. Management-based targets should be set such that the risk from pathways and vectors which facilitate the introduction and spread of NIS have been significantly reduced. The impact from and spread of invasive alien species (IAS, a minority subset of NIS, which are demonstrated to have an adverse effect on biological diversity, ecosystem functioning, socio-economic values and/or human health) will be reduced as a consequence of this approach. This approach also allows for the fact that it is not always possible to predict which NIS will become AIS. Also, management measures will be more effective if they are applied at least at regional seas (if not international) level and so ideally they should be coordinated between Member States.

Although understanding of the main pathways and vectors of introduction are improving, a better assessment of current status is needed to provide a basis for future measures.

There is some uncertainty that targets based on implementing management measures to reduce impacts will be acceptable to the Commission.

Criterion 2.1 - Abundance and state characterisation of non-indigenous species, in particular invasive species Indicator 2.1.1 - Trends in abundance, temporal occurrence and spatial distribution in the wild of non-indigenous species, particularly invasive non indigenous species, notably in risk areas, in relation to the main vectors and pathways of spreading of such species

Type of targets

 It will not be possible to develop robust targets on the basis of numbers and distribution of NIS in UK waters, due to the lack of sufficiently detailed knowledge on current status that arises from the difficulty of obtaining up to date information. Such targets are also constrained by the difficulty of removing these species once they have become established in any location. There will have to be an acceptance that non-indigenous species, including invasive species, will remain in the marine environment and that new introductions will never be entirely prevented.

Page 4 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

 Trend based targets, based on long term monitoring at high risk sites for introduction, for example selected marinas or ports, and in marine protected sites identified as vulnerable to introduction and spread of particular IAS, could be developed.  Pathway / vector management targets to prevent or at least minimise the risk of introduction of new non native species and spread of new and existing non native species should be adopted. Given that only a proportion of new species that are introduced become established and only a very small proportion of these become invasive (IAS) these measures will maximise the potential to reduce adverse impacts and associated costs.

Define the targets

 Reduction in the risk of introduction of non native species through improved management of the main pathways / vectors. o There are several generic routes which are perceived as common pathways for the introduction of non-native species into the marine environment. These are shipping, aquaculture and fisheries, recreational boating, marine industries and ship decommissioning. There is also more direct human mediated spread; this includes deliberate release (mainly live bait, live food and aquarium species) and accidental spread. Various management measures are available, particularly development of mandatory codes of practice, strengthening and better enforcement of existing legislation, including an element of increasing awareness amongst industry, government and the public of the problem, and possibly new legislation. . It is recommended that a thorough review is conducted detailing each of the pathways, together with potential methods of mitigation of the risk of introduction and spread of NIS. Some work has already been carried out in this area, e.g. for Didemnum vexillum, and so the review could build on this. This review should provide recommendations on the measures that should be implemented to significantly reduce the risk of introduction and on means of auditing compliance with these measures. . It is recommended that further public awareness campaigns, similar to the ‘Be Plant Wise’ campaign run by the GB Non Native Species Secretariat (GBNNSS) be initiated. The focus for these campaigns will emerge from the recommendations of the review detailed above.  Reduction in the incidence of severely fouled ship hulls. . It is recommended that support is given to international guidelines on this problem that have been developed by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). Direct monitoring for

Page 5 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

this target would be impractical on any scale, but trend analyses on rate of establishment of new NIS would be a proxy measure. An audit of compliance with the guidelines would also be applicable.  Trend analysis to show a reduction in the rate of establishment of new NIS. . It is recommended that, where feasible, further monitoring studies are conducted, to build on information from previous studies (see below) at high risk sites for introductions (ports and marinas) and in marine protected areas. . It is also recommended that a review is undertaken of all current marine species monitoring programmes in the UK with a view to adapting these programmes to more effectively record and report NIS, to provide data for trend analysis. It will be important to include programmes that examine all habitat types to ensure full coverage of where non-native species may occur. It is probable that some taxonomic training to aid identification on non indigenous species will be required. . It is envisaged that by better co-ordination and collation of data from existing monitoring programmes to report NIS that very little additional monitoring will be necessary to provide data for trend analysis. . It will need to be recognised that secondary spread of species present in neighbouring Member States may occur by natural dispersal.

Baseline for targets

 Lack of data and full understanding of NIS in respect to abundance, distribution, introduction (vectors and timing) and ability to survive in new environments means that assessments have been limited, leading to a lack of baseline information. There is, however, some baseline information from the Aliens I and II programmes in which marinas in the UK were surveyed for NIS. Also, some further secondary spread of these species may occur due to human mediated dispersal via local vectors e.g. regional shipping, shellfish movements or via natural dispersal, facilitated by climate change. An important feature of the above recommendations is that the proposed measures act as a proxy for the Descriptor in that they will help to prevent transfer of all species and this will inevitably lead to a much lower incidence of new introductions of IAS, despite the difficulties in identifying a trend through monitoring.

Scale of targets

 Any targets and/or measures introduced must be considered on a regional seas level to be fully effective. National controls in place in the UK will be less

Page 6 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

effective if operated in isolation, depending on the methods of introduction and international distribution of the species concerned.

Criterion 2.2 - Environmental impact of invasive non-indigenous species Lack of data and understanding of IAS in respect to their abundance, distribution and ability to survive in new environments and ultimately their environmental impact means that assessments have been very limited in the marine environment. It is for this reason that targets that focus on Criteria 2.1 are proposed and that the two Indicators associated with Criteria 2.2 are considered together, below.

Indicator 2.2.1 - Ratio between invasive non-indigenous species and native species in some well studied taxonomic groups (e.g. fish, macroalgae, molluscs) that may provide a measure of change in species composition (e.g. further to the displacement of native species)

Indicator 2.2.2 - Impacts of non-indigenous invasive species at the level of species, habitats and ecosystem, where feasible

Type of targets

 Trend based targets based on the bio-pollution index may be feasible in some cases. Such targets could for example be developed from monitoring at sites of high conservation value (Marine Protected Areas). They are constrained by a limited amount of baseline data, although there is already some species monitoring in a range of programmes, including Marclim, N2K site monitoring and Water Framework Directive (WFD) Water Body Monitoring. There is also some guidance available on assessment of alien species pressures by the UK Technical Advisory Group of the WFD.  Management targets to minimise both the introduction and spread of new NIS (as a consequence this will lead to fewer introductions of IAS and so prevent the impact of these species on the environment) and as described below should be adopted.

Define the targets

 Reduction in the impact of non native species through implementation of effective management measures. o Risk assessments carried out, and species specific management measures implemented where appropriate, for all IAS identified as already present in or likely to be introduced into the UK in place by 2020. This might include control of some species by removal. . Some risk assessments have been carried out by the WFD UKTAG group and by the GBNNSS to determine the potential threat posed by non-native species currently present in GB waters. It is recommended that this process is built on and extended to cover all NIS in UK waters and, where species are

Page 7 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

considered as high risk, extended to suggest potential management measures, where appropriate and feasible. . It is also recommended that a horizon scanning exercise be conducted to identify potential new threats and contingency/rapid response plans developed for species indentified as at high risk of being introduced.  Application of bio-pollution index at selected sites to show a declining rate of increase of impacts. . It is recommended that “fit for purpose” indices for selected species / sites, are developed, using as a basis the bio-pollution index assessment method devised for the EU and building on current species monitoring programmes. It is likely that such work would have to be carried out at sites with long term monitoring data in order for such indices to be effective.

Baseline for targets

 Lack of data and full understanding of NIS in respect of impact in new environments means that assessments have been limited, leading to a lack of baseline information. Management measures based targets may depend on early detection in order to have some chance of success.

Scale of targets

 Any targets and/or measures introduced must be considered at the scale of habitats, particularly sensitive areas, usually of designated high conservation value, e.g. marine protected areas.

Evaluation

Evaluate each indicator against all the criteria in the attached spreadsheet.

MSFD GES indicator assessment template.

Page 8 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Criteria Targets Commission Indicator Management Indicator Measures thresholds based on initial assessment

Prevalence Abundance and Trends in abundance, Reduction in the risk Trend analysis of invasive state temporal occurrence and of introduction of to show non- characterisation spatial distribution in the non native species reduction in the of non- indigenous wild of non-indigenous through improved rate of indigenous species species, in species, particularly management of the establishment particular invasive non indigenous main pathways / of new IAS invasive species, notably in risk vectors, including species (2.1) areas, in relation to the human mediated main vectors and spread and ship hull pathways of spreading of fouling such species (2.1.1) This is the main indicator for invasive non indigenous species. Effects of Environmental Ratio between invasive Reduction in the Application of invasive impact of non-indigenous species impact of non native bio-pollution non- invasive non- and native species in species through index at indigenous indigenous some well studied implementation of selected sites species (2.2) species taxonomic groups (e.g. effective to show a fish, macroalgae, management declining rate molluscs) that may measures, including of increase of provide a measure of reducing the risk of impacts change in species introduction and composition (e.g. further spread (as for 2.1.1) to the displacement of native species) (2.2.1) AND Impacts of non- indigenous invasive species at the level of species, habitats and ecosystem, where feasible (2.2.2)

Page 9 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Descriptor 3 - Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock.

“Commercially exploited fish and shellfish stocks” - is interpreted as applying to the finfish and Nephrops stocks currently managed within the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and also stocks of fin and shellfish that would be included on the basis of their socio-economic importance. The latter comprise stocks managed within UK inshore waters (e.g. cockle, lobster) and also shared offshore stocks (e.g. crab, scallops).

Fish stock management within the CFP currently utilises “safe biological limits” within the Precautionary Approach (PA). They are defined in terms of thresholds for the upper level of fishing mortality and lower level of spawning stock (adult) biomass. Scientific evaluation of each stock’s status relative to its safe biological limits is published annually by scientific organisations such as the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). With relatively minor adjustment the Precautionary Approach framework is appropriate for the definition of GES under MSFD. Apart from Nephrops stocks, which have defined safe levels, shellfish stocks would require the development and adoption of stock specific safe limits.

There is no scientific agreement on whether “exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock” can be defined. Size distribution indices have been developed to provide advice on the status of ecosystems containing a range of species and size groups, but they have not been developed for single species/stocks in isolation. Their utility for stock specific management advice and their response time following management actions is unknown. This part of the GES definition may be redundant as the protracted low rates of fishing required to achieve “safe biological limits” will invariably result in a “healthy” age and size distribution.

Types of targets

Data rich stocks

In general MSFD targets will be based on avoidance of thresholds. Two forms of threshold are currently used to define the PA safe biological limits:

1. Fishing mortality or exploitation rate thresholds – rates which exceed the thresholds will eventually reduce the stock to levels at which its reproductive potential is impaired

2. Spawning stock (adult) biomass thresholds - below which the reproductive potential of the stock is considered to be impaired

To be within the PA safe biological limits the fishing mortality imposed on the stock must be below and the spawning biomass above their respective thresholds. The status of stocks relative to their individual thresholds is reported annually by ICES.

Page 10 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

ICES and others are continually undertaking research into stocks which do not currently have defined thresholds and also alternative metrics (e.g. survey indices) for stocks which have limited information on the fishery and biomass.

In addition to defining the PA limits which prevent reproductive failure, ICES has also agreed stock specific targets for fishing mortality rates that are likely to achieve high levels of average yield (maximum sustainable yield, MSY). It has been suggested that achieving this lower level of fishing mortality for all stocks is equivalent to “ecosystem safe biological limits” and it is suggested that they should therefore be linked to GES. While moving towards MSY fishing mortality targets is appropriate, their use as thresholds is not currently advisable. The current values are derived on a single stock basis, they have not been calculated taking into account species interactions; for instance the maximum yield from a prey species will be dependent on the rate at which its predators are exploited.

Data limited/ data poor stocks

For the many fish stocks and the majority of shellfish stocks there are currently no agreed indices of exploitation rate and biomass status due to limited data availability. Studies are being conducted to derive the required proxy indicators and the level of their targets/thresholds but it will take time and resources to evaluate, test and agree their use for the determination of GES.

Scale of targets

The number of stocks

Stock specific targets will be required for the assessment of GES status in each sea area. For example, thresholds for the rate of fishing and the minimum spawning stock biomass for the North Sea cod are related to the productivity and geographic extent of that stock and therefore would not be suited to other cod stocks. For the UK, which utilises many fish and shellfish stocks, this could imply monitoring of a large number of GES indicators (>100), dependent on the interpretation of “all commercially exploited populations”. The list of stocks expands as less abundant, but still commercially valuable, by-catch species (e.g. lemon sole, turbot, brill) and numerous inshore shellfish stocks (cockles) are included. It is reduced by assuming that species which are caught when targeting others in mixed fisheries achieve GES when the target species achieve GES.

It is obviously both impractical and too costly to monitor all of the fish stocks exploited by UK fisheries, consequently criteria such as the following could be adopted to define stocks that will be monitored to determine GES for each fisheries region and make the process practicable:

1) GES status will be determined for predefined finfish and Nephrops stocks of importance to the UK based on ICES annual scientific advice.

Page 11 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

2) Other fish stocks that are caught in association with the stocks in (1) will be assumed to be at GES when specified indicator species in (1) achieve GES unless they are highlighted by scientific advice as having particular issues that require individual attention (e.g. vulnerable species such as skates and rays). 3) Eight areas with crab and lobster “stocks” that have regional differences and the major scallop stocks would have GES thresholds for exploitation rate developed and where required agreed internationally. 4) The major cockle stocks would have GES thresholds determined and monitored by the UK.

Spatial scale

The large spatial range of fish stocks, which often overlaps the Economic Zones of other Member States, ensures that information to determine GES status and management actions to achieve it will be required at the international level. Internationally agreed data sets and corresponding indicators will be required to avoid confusion and conflicting interests. Management actions to achieve GES by one Member State are unlikely to be effective for a stock with a wide geographic distribution if other fisheries do not impose similar or equivalent measures.

GES targets should be derived and applied at the scale of the stock spatial distribution. In the majority of cases for finfish this applies to the current management units. For shellfish there are management units that contain several biological stocks (e.g. Nephrops) and status will be derived for each of the specific stocks, contributing to the GES status of the management unit. This may require stronger global management action than if areas were considered in isolation, due to the requirement to protect the most vulnerable components.

Inshore shellfish stocks would be controlled to a greater extent by unilateral UK management action.

Temporal scale

Finfish and Nephrops stock management under the CFP follows an annual cycle of adjustments to the fishing mortality rate by regulating landings to achieve target levels. Current CFP management requires achievement of the fishing mortality corresponding to MSY (the likely candidate for the GES status) for managed finfish and Nephrops stocks by 2015.

Crab and lobster stock management is carried out multi-annually, during which minimum sizes and gear selection characteristics are adjusted.

Criterion 3.1 - Level of Pressure of Fishing Activity Stock specific, quantitative targets: Fishing mortality [or an agreed proxy] is at the level that is likely to achieve maximum yield in the long-term.

Page 12 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Indicator 3.1.1 - Fishing mortality (F)

Type of targets

Within the CFP quantitative fishing mortality rates are currently specified as maximum thresholds below which damage to a stock’s reproductive potential is avoided and targets for achieving optimum yield from the stock. Similar stock specific criteria would be required to define GES and for many of the finfish and Nephrops stocks they could be translated directly from current management metrics. ICES provides annual advice on the status of the stocks relative to management indicators which once agreed as the basis for GES, would also establish the stock’s relative status.

There is a direct linkage between the fishing mortality targets and the SSB targets described in the next section, they must be estimated simultaneously if used together to manage a stock. For some stocks fishing mortality targets and thresholds can be used for management without biomass thresholds, and very occasionally vice versa.

If fishing mortality is at a level consistent with its target over the long-term then that should be sufficient to define GES for species where biomass estimates are impractical, for instance the less abundant but commercially important finfish species and the majority of widely distributed shellfish stocks.

There are knowledge gaps concerning the current status of many stocks for instance, the less abundant but commercially important finfish species and the majority of shellfish stocks. Consequently although a range of suitable fishing mortality targets can be suggested, the lack of information for many species will delay the assessment of GES for these species. The majority of the stocks would fall within the ICES remit, others the remainder (mostly inshore shellfish stocks) would require UK monitoring and determination of status.

Define the targets

Given the variability inherent in the targets and the difficulty (impossibility!) of simultaneously maintaining all stocks at their optimum target exploitation rate, a range within which the exploitation rate is maintained is considered appropriate rather than using the target values as a specific threshold.

It is proposed that the target would be the exploitation rate is within +/- x% (25%?) of the agreed management target mortality rate that will achieve long term maximum yield. Exploitation rate is used in the definition rather than fishing mortality to allow for the use of proxies.

Baseline for targets

Stocks with analytical estimates of fishing mortality:

Page 13 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

 The agreed management plan long-term target fishing mortality/exploitation rate

 The ICES estimate of Fmsy or optimum exploitation rate

Stocks without analytical estimates of fishing mortality:

 An agreed proxy for exploitation rate derived from the stock age/length structure

Criterion 3.2 - Reproductive capacity of the stock Stock specific, quantitative targets: Spawning biomass [or an agreed proxy] is above the threshold that defines safe biological limits.

Indicator 3.2.1 - Spawning stock biomass (SSB)

Type of targets

Spawning stock (adult) biomass (SSB) thresholds have been used to define unsafe biomass levels in terms of reduced reproductive capacity since the introduction of the Precautionary Approach in 2005. For Nephrops stocks estimates of total stock abundance (TSB) are used. There is also the potential to use other proxies such as survey catch rates to define reference levels of spawning or total biomass.

As with the fishing mortality reference levels the current weakness of the thresholds is that they have been defined on the basis of single species stock theory, without including predator-prey interactions or linkages to ecosystem productivity; consequently they are unlikely to be stable in the long-term and will require recalculation as stocks rebuild and the balance of predators and prey change over time.

There is a direct linkage between the fishing mortality targets defined previously and the SSB targets described in this section, they are coupled and must be estimated and applied simultaneously, if used together to manage a stock.

There are knowledge gaps concerning the total size of the less abundant but commercially important finfish species and the widely distributed shellfish stocks which makes estimation of a biomass threshold impractical. However, the lack of an SSB or TSB threshold should not prevent the definition of GES for a stock. If fishing mortality is at a level consistent with its target over the long-term then that should be sufficient to define GES for species where total biomass or proxy estimates are impractical, for instance the less abundant but commercially important finfish species and the majority of shellfish stocks.

Define the targets

It is proposed that the target would be the spawning stock biomass / total biomass/ biomass proxy is above the agreed stock specific threshold.

Page 14 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Baseline for targets

Stocks with analytical estimates of spawning/total biomass or proxies for them the base line would be the agreed, stock specific management threshold. Currently

ICES uses the threshold Btrigger in association with the FMSY target value outlined in the previous section.

Criterion 3.3 - Population age and size distribution. Type of targets

Indices that track the structure of the age and size distribution of fish and shellfish stocks have been published, reviewed and have been used to provide qualitative advice on trends in the state of the ecosystem; examples are provided in the EU suggested descriptors e.g.:

1. The proportion of fish older/larger than the mean age/size of first sexual maturity

2. The mean maximum length across all species found in research vessel surveys

3. The 95th percentile of the length distribution observed in research vessel surveys

4. Size at first sexual maturation

Unfortunately, the indicators have not been evaluated for stock specific advice and the process has not been carried forward to the development of linked operational reference levels for stock/fisheries management.

The process requires further work to select and define indicators and associated reference levels that respond to changes in populations subject to fishing. Simulation studies are required to ensure that such indicators provide suitable sensitivity in the time-scales required for management and that they are robust to variation in natural processes such as recruitment variability, regional and seasonal variation in the spatial distribution of juveniles, adults, small and large species.

An area that has not been explored in detail, but is highly likely, is whether meeting criterion 3.1 and 3.2 would lead to fulfilment of 3.3 after a time lag, thereby making 3.3 redundant. This would depend on the definition of “population and age structure that is indicative of a healthy stock”.

Page 15 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Descriptor 5 - Human-induced eutrophication is minimised, especially adverse effects thereof, such as losses in biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, harmful algal blooms and oxygen deficiency in bottom waters.

‘Human-induced eutrophication is minimised’ is interpreted as being the equivalent of achieving Non Problem Area status, as described in the OSPAR Common Procedure, at the scale of the sub-region.

It is widely agreed that Non-Problem Areas status is the equivalent of Good Environmental Status under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) (and also Water Framework Directive (WFD) Good Ecological Status with respect to nutrient enrichment). The characteristics of good environmental status are set out in the Final Policy Position paper. On that basis, and taking account of the OSPAR Common Procedure (OSPAR Agreement 2005 -3), the WFD CIS guidance of eutrophication (CIS Guidance Document No. 23) and relevant European Case Law (ECJ, 2009), the following overall target is proposed

 there should be no undesirable disturbance [adverse effects] at the scale of the (sub) region resulting from anthropogenic nutrient inputs.

This is in line with our current assessments under which both nutrient enrichment and accelerated growth may occur but undesirable disturbance to the balance of organisms or to the quality of the water is not acceptable. This is aligned with the definition of eutrophication (UWWTD, 1991; OSPAR, 2005) and the ECJ judgement (ECJ, 2009) makes it clear that all four criteria have to be met to diagnose eutrophication.

The OSPAR Common Procedure (including Screening and Comprehensive procedures), as modified to support the MSFD, is the best available method used to diagnose the eutrophication status of the marine environment. Assessments of ecological status (resulting from nutrient pressure) in coastal waters covered by the WFD will need to be taken into account. Consideration should be to be given to the use of relevant WFD classification tools where these can be shown to be the most suitable methods available for application to the waters covered by MSFD.

Type of targets

The MSFD (Article 10) requires that environmental targets are set ‘on the basis of the initial assessment’. This implies a need to set different types of targets with respect to Non-Problem Areas (equivalent of good status) and Problem Areas. In essence, the target for Non-Problem Areas will be the maintenance of non-problem status and for Problem Areas it will be to achieve non-problem area status. In the case of Non-Problem Areas, it may be appropriate to consider pressure targets (i.e. relating to nutrient inputs) as part of a risk based approach but prudent also to collect information about environmental status (such as nutrient concentrations and

Page 16 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

chlorophyll) where this can be done cost effectively. In the case of Problem Areas, it is also necessary to provide indicators and targets that allow for the tracking of progress towards Good Environmental Status. It is therefore proposed to set targets for each of the Commission Criteria and the relevant supporting parameters.

The targets are quantitative and are both trend and state based. However, none of these targets, for Non-Problem or Problem areas, can be seen as stand-alone elements which should be tracked in their own right, or assessed on the basis of a one out- all out principle, as the essence of good assessment and management of eutrophication is the combination of information that allows a robust evidence based conclusion about eutrophication status.

Scale of targets

Assessment of eutrophication status is carried out on water bodies that are defined largely by physical factors such as depth, stratification and salinity. This [eco]hydrodynamic approach results in large scale [sub]regional water bodies which are the appropriate scale for target setting under MSFD. The scale equates to sub- divisions (2) of each Charting Progress region. There is, as yet, no clear way of combining assessments at the overall MSFD regional scale but consideration is being given to this as part of the discussions on co-ordination taking place through OSPAR.

Most of the Problem Areas identified in the UK are WFD transitional water bodies and therefore do not often overlap with MSFD requirements. However, there are WFD coastal water bodies that overlap with the MSFD areas that have been identified as being less than Good Status as a result of different biological quality elements and some based on nutrient concentrations alone. These will need to be taken into account in the broader scale MSFD assessments. A list of the relevant WFD water bodies is under development in liaison with the Environment Agency (not yet available).

Pressures and Risks

The risk of eutrophication depends on the presence of a relevant pressure. This is the input of anthropogenic nutrients from various land-based sources, delivered to the sea via rivers, ground water and the atmosphere [and sea-based sources, although the latter are normally relatively small at the [sub] regional scale]. As part of the risk based approach to the descriptor there is a need to monitor changes in the loading of nutrients over time, to determine whether pressure on the marine environment is increasing or decreasing.

The starting point for the management of risks due to eutrophication is the Initial Assessment (based on the OSPAR Comprehensive Procedure Assessment) for this descriptor [but will also need to reflect any significant sensitivities related to other descriptors especially those related to biodiversity, non-indigenous species, food

Page 17 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

webs and sea floor integrity]. Eutrophication status is well established in UK waters through assessments carried out for OSPAR (published in 2002 and 2008) and assessments for the purposes of the Urban Waste Water treatment Directive, the Nitrates Directive and the Water Framework Directive. The 2002 OSPAR assessment entailed a screening procedure which identified obvious non-problem areas and areas to be assessed using the Comprehensive Procedure. The outcome of this assessment was the identification of non-problem areas, potential problem areas and problem areas. Most of the problem areas were small estuaries and embayments. The UK assessment also identified some coastal non-problem areas which were of ‘ongoing concern’ due to high nutrient inputs and nutrient enrichment. These latter areas were to be subject to enhanced monitoring to increase the assessed confidence that they were non-problem areas. The second application of the Common Procedure reported in 2008, confirmed that UK marine waters were all non problem areas based on a further screening assessment, full application of the Comprehensive Procedure or assessments conducted for the purposes of the relevant directives. The pressure from nutrient inputs is decreasing in all regions apart from the southern North Sea where the pressure has remained the same.

The design of the risk approach should follow both the level of risk and the steps required to satisfy a diagnosis of eutrophication. For example, if anthropogenic nutrient pressures are present or increasing then evidence of nutrient enrichment is required; if nutrient enrichment is present or increasing then evidence of accelerated growth (elevated chlorophyll concentrations or primary production) is required; if accelerated growth is present or increasing then evidence of undesirable disturbance (e.g. changes in floristic composition) will be required. The evidence needed would differ between areas of unknown status and previously identified Problem Areas, where a full suite of relevant indicators supporting a Comprehensive Procedure assessment would be required, and Non-Problem Areas, where selected indicators would be used to demonstrate that status was being maintained. An integral part of the approach to managing risk for both problem and non-problem areas would be the use of models to both guide the application of any measures and define the extent in both space and time of monitoring required to demonstrate progress towards, or maintaining, target status. Special attention would be given to areas where one or more of the overlapping WFD coastal water bodies was at less than good status to determine the extent to which there is an impact at the larger scale.

Implications for monitoring

To be developed separately following agreement on UK indicators and targets.

Criterion 5.1 Nutrient Levels Qualitative Criterion Target: Nutrient concentrations arising from anthropogenic nutrient inputs do not lead to or pose a risk of undesirable disturbance [adverse effects] resulting from any associated accelerated growth.

Page 18 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Indicator 5.1.1 - Nutrient concentration in the water column

Type of targets

There is sufficient information available for most waters to set quantitative thresholds for assessing nutrient concentrations (to diagnose nutrient enrichment). However, from an ecological perspective and in the context of European case law, nutrient enrichment alone is not considered sufficient to diagnose eutrophication. Therefore, although these thresholds are useful for eutrophication assessment, we should not set a specific concentration target but targets for this indicator will be based on change over time.

Data would be derived from the OSPAR Eutrophication Monitoring Programme, where for Non-Problem Areas monitoring is required ‘about every 3 years in winter’ and for Problem Areas, every year. There is a need to review the current monitoring programme.

Define the targets

It is proposed, therefore, that the target for Non-Problem Areas would be no increase in the nutrient concentration resulting from anthropogenic nutrient inputs, assessed using data from periodic surveys and for Problem Areas a deceasing trend in nutrient concentration resulting from anthropogenic nutrient inputs over a [10] year period..

Baseline for targets

The baseline for the target is the current nutrient concentration (as defined in the Initial Assessment), reflecting the outcome of the Second Application of the OSPAR Common Procedure and described in Charting Progress 2 and the CSSEG Feeder Report.

Thresholds for assessment are also defined in the OSPAR Common Procedure – nutrient enrichment is defined using a threshold that is no more than 50% above an assessment area specific background concentration.

Indicator 5.1.2 - Nutrient ratios (silica, nitrogen and phosphorus), where appropriate

Type of targets

There is sufficient information available for most waters to assess nutrient ratios against the Redfield ratio and is already reported for nitrogen:phosphorus ratios. It is a useful assessment parameter as part of the overall methodology but while specific targets are not proposed, information about changing ratios of nitrogen, phosphorus and silicon should continue to be collected periodically in Non-Problem Areas and every year in Problem Areas.

Page 19 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Criterion 5.2 Direct effects of nutrient enrichment Qualitative Criterion Target: The direct effects of nutrient enrichment resulting from anthropogenic nutrient inputs do not constitute or contribute to an undesirable disturbance [adverse effects].

Indicator 5.2.1 - Chlorophyll concentration in the water column

Type of targets

There is sufficient information available for most waters to set quantitative thresholds for assessing chlorophyll concentration (to diagnose accelerated growth). However, setting concentration targets for water bodies would need to be type specific and, if set, would risk losing sight of the need to weigh a broader range of evidence in order to diagnose eutrophication. Therefore, we should not set concentration targets but targets for this indicator will be based on change over time.

Data would be derived from the OSPAR Eutrophication Monitoring Programme where for Problem Areas monitoring is required every year. There is no requirement to monitor chlorophyll concentrations in Non-Problem Areas, though it would be prudent to do so as part of managing risk and if this can be carried out cost- effectively using, for example, remote sensing and appropriate ground-truth and if there is evidence of nutrient enrichment.

Define the targets

It is proposed that the target for Problem Areas would be a decreasing trend in the chlorophyll 90%ile in the growing season over a [10] year period [linked to decreasing anthropogenic nutrient input]. In the case of Non-Problem Areas the target would be no increase in the chlorophyll 90%ile in the growing season [linked to increasing anthropogenic nutrient inputs] based on periodic surveys, where monitoring data is available.

Baseline for targets

The baseline for the target is the current chlorophyll concentration, as defined in the Initial Assessment, reflecting the outcome of the Second Application of the OSPAR Common Procedure as described in Charting Progress 2 and the CSSEG Feeder Report.

Thresholds for assessment are also defined in the OSPAR Common Procedure – elevated chlorophyll is defined as being above the region specific 90%ile threshold.

Indicator 5.2.2 - Water transparency related to increase in suspended algae, where relevant

This parameter is not currently used in our assessments of eutrophication. For UK [coastal] waters the relationship between water transparency and increased algal

Page 20 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

biomass is difficult to interpret because of the influence of tidally resuspended organic matter and terrestrial sources of optically active compounds that influence transparency. For these reasons, water transparency would be an ambiguous indicator. No indicators or targets are proposed.

Indicator 5.2.3 - Abundance of opportunistic macroalgae

This indicator will be relevant for intertidal and shallow sub-tidal areas of coastal waters which are already covered by the WFD. Any identified disturbance would be managed through WFD programmes of measures. Given that the geographic extent of the area covered by this indicator is relatively small, consideration will be needed to determine the weight attached to the indicator in relation to setting targets at [sub] regional scale.

Type of targets

There is sufficient quantitative information available for many water bodies and the WFD opportunistic macroalgae classification tool sets thresholds to diagnose less than good status.

Data would be derived from the relevant WFD monitoring programme1

Define the targets

It is proposed that the target [for Problem Areas] would be to achieve good status assessed using the WFD opportunistic macroalgae tool. The equivalent concept in OSPAR is to avoid ‘shifts from long lived species to short lived opportunistic species’.

Baseline for targets

The baseline for the target is the current status defined in the relevant WFD classification. The WFD opportunistic macroalgae tool sets out reference conditions.

Indicator 5.2.4 - Species shift in floristic composition such as diatom to flagellate ratio, benthic to pelagic shifts, as well as bloom events of nuisance/toxic algal blooms (e.g. cyanobacteria) caused by human activities

This is a critical indicator of undesirable disturbance but requires further technical development to ensure that it is fit for purpose. There are a of number starting points including the OSPAR COMPP ‘phytoplankton indicator species’ approach, the WFD

1 Reference to WFD monitoring programme

Page 21 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

phytoplankton tool, and various phytoplankton indices2. We have consistently rejected the simple ‘phytoplankton indicator species’ approach as there are no species that can be used as universal indicators for the plankton (though there are specific species that can be used in specific locations). The last UK application of the OSPAR Common Procedure adopted an expert judgement approach supported by the, then developing, WFD Phytoplankton Tool to assess plankton status. Scientific developments since then have pointed to a number of different approaches, of which, assessment based on life-form indices is considered to show considerable utility. In operation, the targets will require the adoption of a eutrophication relevant plankton index.

Type of targets

There is a developing body of information, particularly for coastal waters covered by the WFD, including data from long term monitoring stations and the CPR survey that can be used to address the targets set.

Define the targets

For Non-Problem Areas, the target should be that there is no trend in a eutrophication relevant plankton index that is attributable to increasing anthropogenic nutrient loading, winter nutrient concentrations or a trend in winter nutrient ratios, and for Problem Areas the target should be that there is a trend in a eutrophication relevant plankton index that is attributable to decreasing anthropogenic nutrient loading, winter nutrient concentrations or a trend in winter nutrient ratios

Another possible target relating to harmful algal blooms and biotoxin events in shellfish may be appropriate, as follows. For Non-Problem Areas a target could be that there is no increase in the occurrence (frequency, spatial or temporal extent) of harmful algal blooms and biotoxin in shellfish events that is attributable to increasing anthropogenic nutrient loading, and resultant winter nutrient concentrations or nutrient ratios3and for Problem Areas that there should be a decrease in the occurrence (frequency, spatial or temporal extent) of harmful algal blooms and biotoxin in shellfish events that is attributable to decreasing anthropogenic nutrient loading, and resultant winter nutrient concentrations or nutrient ratios

2 Development work is underway in parallel with consideration with indicators for plankton and pelagic habitat supporting Descriptors 1, 4 and 6. 3 Opinion is divided as to the usefulness of these targets based on biotoxin in shellfish events as there is evidence that there is no link to nutrient enrichment in UK waters.

Page 22 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Data may be derived from the OSPAR Eutrophication Monitoring Programme (with respect to Problem Areas) [and could be supplemented by information from the Continuous Plankton Recorder]. Data on the occurrence of toxin producing phytoplankters (and other harmful/nuisance species) and biotoxins in shellfish are routinely collected for coastal waters around the UK.

Baseline for targets

The baseline for the targets is the current status, as defined in the Initial Assessment and described in Charting Progress 2 and the CSSEG Feeder Report.

Some development work is required to make the plankton indices [and biotoxin related indicators] operational. Due consideration should be given to work already carried out to support WFD classifications and previous OSPAR COMPP assessments.

Criterion 5.3 Indirect effects of nutrient enrichment Qualitative Criterion Target: The indirect effects of nutrient enrichment resulting from anthropogenic nutrient input do not constitute an undesirable disturbance [adverse effect].

Indicator 5.3.1 - Abundance of perennial seaweeds and seagrasses (e.g. fucoids, eelgrass and Neptune grass) adversely impacted by a decrease in water transparency

Type of targets

There is sufficient quantitative information available for many water bodies and the WFD macroalgae and seagrass classification tools sets thresholds to diagnose less than good ecological status.

Data would be derived from the relevant WFD monitoring programme.

Define the targets

It is proposed that the target [for Problem Areas] would be to achieve or maintain good status assessed using the WFD macroalgae and seagrass tools. The equivalent concept in OSPAR is ‘shifts from long lived species to short lived opportunistic species’’.

Page 23 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Baseline for targets

The baseline for the target is the current status defined in the relevant WFD classification. The WFD macroalgae and seagrass tools set out reference conditions.

Indicator 5.3.2 - Dissolved oxygen, i.e. changes due to increased organic matter4 decomposition and size of the area concerned.

Type of targets

There is sufficient information available for most waters to set quantitative thresholds for assessing oxygen concentration (to support a diagnosis of undesirable disturbance).

Data would be derived from the OSPAR Eutrophication Monitoring Programme where for Problem Areas monitoring is required every year. There is no requirement to monitor oxygen concentrations in Non-Problem Areas though it may/would be prudent to do so if this can be carried out cost-effectively using, for example, a combination of in situ instrumentation and models.

Define the targets

The first target should be oxygen concentrations [or 5%ile] in bottom waters should remain above area specific assessment levels (which for concentrations are likely to be in the range 4 – 6 mg/l) that are related to anthropogenic input of nutrients.

The second target should be that there should be no kills in benthic animal species as a result of oxygen deficiency that are related to anthropogenic input of nutrients.

Evaluation

Evaluate each indicator against all the criteria in the attached spreadsheet.

MSFD GES indicator assessment template

4 Organic matter is from increased algal biomass as a result of accelerated growth fuelled by anthropogenic nutrients. It is not organic matter from terrestrial sources (human derived or natural).

Page 24 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Summary Table of Targets and Indicators for Descriptor 5. The three qualitative criterion targets and targets set for the associated indicators, taken holistically, support the overall eutrophication target - there should be no undesirable disturbance [adverse effects] [at the scale of the (sub) region] resulting from anthropogenic nutrient inputs. Eutrophication status is diagnosed by application of the OSPAR Common Procedure. Failure with respect to any individual indicator does not, on its own, lead to identification of eutrophication problems.

Criteria Criterion Targets Commission Indicators - based on the Initial Assessment OSPAR Area Specific Assessment level (describing Indicator (threshold) 5 desired Non-Problem Area Problem Area conditions) 2007/2010 2007/2010 5.1 - Nutrient  Nutrients  no increase in the  a deceasing trend Elevated levels of winter DIN and/or DIP Nutrients enrichment arising concentration in assessed dissolved in dissolved not exceeding 50% from background. levels from the water inorganic nitrogen inorganic nitrogen anthropogenic column (5.1.1) and phosphorus and phosphorus nutrient inputs concentration, concentration, does not lead to This is the main resulting from resulting from undesirable indicator for anthropogenic anthropogenic disturbance nutrient input using nutrient input, over nutrient [adverse effects] data from periodic a [10] year period. resulting from any enrichment. surveys associated accelerated growth.  Nutrient ratios  no specific target  no specific target Elevated winter N/P ratio (Redfield N/P = (silica, nitrogen (information is still (information is still 16) and used in diagnosis of used in diagnosis of phosphorus) eutrophication) eutrophication) where appropriate

5 Taken from HASEC 2011 Summary Record, Annex 10. Draft advice document on GES descriptor 5.

Page 25 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Criteria Criterion Targets Commission Indicators - based on the Initial Assessment OSPAR Area Specific Assessment level (describing Indicator (threshold) 5 desired Non-Problem Area Problem Area conditions) 2007/2010 2007/2010 (5.1.2) 5.2 - Direct The direct effects  Chlorophyll  no increase in the  a decreasing trend Justified area-specific % deviation from effects of of nutrient concentration in chlorophyll 90%ile in in the chlorophyll background not exceeding 50% nutrient enrichment the water the growing season 90%ile in the resulting from enrichment column (5.2.1) [linked to increasing growing season anthropogenic anthropogenic over a [10] year nutrient inputs This is the main nutrient input] based period [linked to do not constitute indicator for on periodic surveys decreasing or contribute to anthropogenic accelerated undesirable nutrient input.] disturbance growth. [adverse effects].  Water No indicator proposed No indicator n/a transparency due to difficulty of proposed due to related to interpretation in UK difficulty of increase in waters. interpretation in UK suspended waters. algae, where relevant (5.2.2)  Abundance of  WFD opportunistic Shift from long lived species to short opportunistic macroalgae tool at lived nuisance species (e.g. Ulva). macroalgae good status Elevated levels (biomass or area (5.2.3) covered) of opportunistic green macroalgae.  Species shift in If there is evidence of  changes in a Elevated levels of nuisance/toxic floristic nutrient enrichment eutrophication phytoplankton indicator species (and composition and accelerated relevant plankton increased duration of blooms) such as diatom growth then index that is to flagellate attributable to  no trend in a ratio, benthic to decreases in eutrophication pelagic shifts, as anthropogenic relevant plankton well as bloom nutrient loading, index that is

Page 26 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Criteria Criterion Targets Commission Indicators - based on the Initial Assessment OSPAR Area Specific Assessment level (describing Indicator (threshold) 5 desired Non-Problem Area Problem Area conditions) 2007/2010 2007/2010 events of attributable to winter nutrient nuisance/toxic increases in nutrient concentrations or algal blooms loading, winter trends in nutrient (e.g. nutrient ratios6. cyanobacteria) concentrations or caused by trends in nutrient  [decrease in the human activities ratios. occurrence of (5.2.4) harmful algal blooms and biotoxin in shellfish events that is attributable to decreases in nutrient loading, winter nutrient concentrations or trends in nutrient ratios] 5.3 - Indirect effects of  Abundance of  WFD tools Shift from long-lived species to short Indirect nutrient perennial (macroalgae and lived nuisance species (e.g. Ulva) effects of enrichment do seaweeds and seagrass) at good not constitute an nutrient seagrasses (e.g. status adverse effect fucoids, enrichment (undesirable eelgrass and disturbance) Neptune grass) adversely impacted by

6 Further work required as indicator has not been tested in operation.

Page 27 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Criteria Criterion Targets Commission Indicators - based on the Initial Assessment OSPAR Area Specific Assessment level (describing Indicator (threshold) 5 desired Non-Problem Area Problem Area conditions) 2007/2010 2007/2010 decrease in water transparency (5.3.1)  Dissolved  Oxygen Decreased oxygen levels oxygen, i.e. [concentrations/5%i Lowered % saturation changes due to le] in bottom waters increased should remain organic matter above area-specific decomposition oxygen assessment and size of the levels (e.g. 4 – 6 area concerned mg/l). (5.3.2).  There should be no kills in benthic animal species as a result of oxygen deficiency that are directly related to anthropogenic input of nutrients

ECJ (2009) European Court of Justice ruling of 10 December 2009 Case C-390/09 Commission v United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. European Court Report I-0

Page 28 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Descriptor 7 - Permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions does not adversely affect marine ecosystems

Definition of this descriptor is still open to discussion due to the lack of guidance from the earlier ICES/JRC deliberations. A potential definition (from discussion within Defra/Cefas) is: The nature and scale of any long-term changes to the prevailing hydrographical conditions (including but not limited to salinity, temperature, pH and hydrodynamics) resulting from anthropogenic activities (individual and cumulative), having taken into account climatic or long-term cyclical processes in the marine environment, do not lead to significant negative impacts on habitats distributions or habitat functioning or on hydro- geomorphological impacts on the seabed/coastline.

Whilst many of these impacts are potentially pertinent to UK waters, it is envisioned that these are highly unlikely due to the highly naturally dynamic nature of UK waters and other regulatory mechanisms (e.g. EIA Directive, SEA Directive, Water Framework Directive, Habitats and Birds Directives, Marine Planning, Marine Licensing) used to manage anthropogenic activities and ensure that impacts are within safe environmental limits.

Type of targets

The MSFD (Article 10) requires that environmental targets are set ‘on the basis of the initial assessment’. A range of high quality quantitative records are available for key parameters (waves, tidal currents, salinity etc) from a number of established monitoring programs e.g. SmartBuoy, WaveNet, Marine Scotland Science’s coastal Long Term Monitoring network, and JONSIS, Nolso-Flugga, Fair Isle-Munken and Ellett sections which could be converted into a number of indicators. However, these tend to be spatially limited and vulnerable to budgetary changes.

At present there is insufficient information of this descriptor on which to define quantitative targets and thresholds. However, operational targets can be described that set out how GES can be met through existing regulatory mechanisms.

Any assessment of D7 should be undertaken in conjunction with other targets, especially targets for D1 - Biodiversity, D4 - Food webs and D6 – Sea floor integrity. Any anthropogenic effects relevant to D7 will be manifested as impacts on D1, D4, and D6 as well as D7 itself. A potential structure with which to assess targets under D7 is shown in Figure A1-1.

Firstly, all developments are assessed under existing regulatory mechanisms, which take into account the impacts of any change in hydrological conditions. Any assessment of change must already include cumulative effects, and should be assessed at an appropriate spatial scale under the different regulatory mechanisms.

Page 29 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

If appropriate guidance is given to inform the existing regulatory mechanisms it is unlikely that any further assessment would be required. Such guidance could set out what should be assessed with regard to changes in hydrographic conditions and should cover the spatial extent of any change, the volume of disturbed sediment and the modification to energy within the hydrographic regime, and could set out thresholds which would be considered as constituting significant impact. The impacts on D1, D4 and D6 should also be considered.

Review under National Legislation/EIAs and existing EU Directives e.g. WFD

Physical Impacts Biological Impacts

Spatial Extent Descriptor 1 - Biodiversity Volume of sediment Descriptor 4- Food webs Modification of Energy Descriptor 6 – Sea floor Integrity Modification of Energy

7.1.1 Assessment 7.2.1 Assessment required (permanent required (Spatial extent changes to Hydrographic of habitats impacted) regime)

7.2.2 Assessment required (Habitat Functioning)

Figure A1-1. A potential structure with which to assess targets under D7 Scale of targets

As with the assessment of eutrophication status, hydrographic assessment is carried out on units or water bodies that are defined largely by physical factors such as depth, stratification, tidal forcing and wave exposure. This [eco]hydrodynamic approach results in large scale regional water bodies which are the appropriate scale for target setting under MSFD as local effects would be captured in site specific assessments for individual developments. One example of the potential scales of assessment is shown in Figure A1-2 delineating the OSPAR assessment boundaries. There is, as yet, no clear way of combining assessments from [eco]hydrodynamic zones into an overall assessment at the MSFD regional scale.

Page 30 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

There may be overlaps in the assessment in terms of Water Framework Directive (WFD) water bodies and River Basin Management Plans as riverine inputs and coastline developments could impact both WFD and MSFD, i.e. the WFD and RBMP assessments would be the inputs into a wider scale assessment under MSFD where larger geographical scale processes may occur (e.g. fronts, shelf mixing events, seasonal stratification). However, it is envisioned that WFD will capture the majority of issues associated with any impacts of developments in estuarine and coastal waters but will not capture offshore locations e.g. Dogger Bank. Regulators should ensure that any development that has far field impacts considers those impacts during the marine licensing and planning process.

Figure A1-2. Draft Eco-hydrodynamic zones in the North Sea as modelled by Cefas using GETM (pers com Dave Mills)

Criterion 7.1 - Spatial characterisation of permanent alterations Indicator 7.1.1 - Extent of area affected by permanent alterations

Type of targets

 There is sufficient information available for only a relatively small number of key monitoring sites with which a permanent change of hydrographic conditions could be detected. These sites may not be where potential [eco]hydrodynamic pressures or impacts may be encountered. Many sites around the UK exhibit large seasonal and annual natural variations (e.g. river

Page 31 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

estuaries, frontal regions associated with either seasonally stratified regions or permanent fronts as well as deep water pumping onto the UK continental shelf) which will need to be differentiated from anthropogenic impacts. Multi - decadal numerical model hindcast datasets may enable annual and climate trend signals to be differentiated from anthropogenic signals.  Data would be derived from a variety of sources including ICES, regional observation systems such as North West Shelf Operational Oceanographic System (NOOS) and national data-centres (including the commercial sector e.g. Oil & Gas and renewables) and would be integrated using a systematic approach such as the EMECO tool (www.emecodata.net).

Define the targets

 High Certainty of achieving GES Developments above specific disturbance thresholds (e.g. spatial extent, volume of disturbed sediment, modification of energy / hydrographic regimes) would require a more detailed assessment of the area of permanent hydrographic alteration. Due to uncertainties in data, specific thresholds have not been set at present. Further work will be required to define these levels.

 Probable Certainty of achieving GES All developments must comply with the existing UK regulatory regime and guidance should be followed to ensure that regulatory assessments are undertaken in a way which ensures the full consideration of any potential cumulative effects at the most appropriate spatial scales to ensure GES is not compromised.

Baseline for targets

 The baseline for the target will need to be assessed both spatially and temporally due to the large natural variability of physical oceanographic processes and parameters.  Thresholds for assessment are not defined in the OSPAR Common Procedure with the exception of Oxygen deficiency in Category III.1. These thresholds would need to be developed and could be potentially assessed as exceeding at 5% or 95% annual average.

Criterion 7.2 - Impact of permanent Hydrographic changes Indicator 7.2.1 - Spatial extent of habitats affected by the permanent alteration

Type of targets

 Whilst at first review this indicator is straight forward, closer investigation uncovers a number of issues. Note in this context a habitat is defined as a physical habitat e.g. substrate, tidal flow, temperature, etc, rather than either a distinct biotope or a succession of biotopes. Firstly, only approximately 10%

Page 32 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

of the UKCS has been surveyed in sufficient detail to establish a benthic baseline. The remainder of the seabed has been predictively modelled to produce large scale habitat maps. Secondly, very few sites (only localised areas such as a handful of aggregate extraction sites and Lundy (?)) have underdone repeated survey to determine the variability in the de-lineation of the boundaries between habitats. Thirdly, distinguishing impacts from a reference site may take several years to identify. This indicator overlaps with indicator 6.1.2 - Extent of seabed significantly affected by human activities for different substrate types. For these reasons, an operational target is most appropriate.

Define the targets

 High Certainty of achieving GES Developments above specific disturbance thresholds (e.g. spatial extent, volume of disturbed sediment, modification of energy / hydrographic regimes) would require a more detailed assessment of the spatial extent of habitats affected by permanent hydrographic alteration. Due to uncertainties in data, specific thresholds have not been set at present. Further work will be required to define these levels.

Baseline for targets

 The baseline for the target is the current JNCC UKSeaMap 2010 which combines both observations and predictive modelling. The Cefas EARS (Environment Assessment References Stations (see http://www.cefas.defra.gov.uk/alsf/projects/mitigation-and- management/08p75.aspx) for coarse substrates also provides a framework for establishing local versus climatic or cyclical changes. Similar reference sites would be established for the pelagic ecosystem.

Indicator 7.2.2 - Changes in Habitats, in particular the functions provided (e.g. spawning, breeding and feeding areas and migration routes of fish, birds and mammals), due to altered hydrographical conditions.

Type of targets

 Whilst at first review this indicator is straight forward, closer investigation uncovers a number of issues. Note in this context a habitat is defined as a

Page 33 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

physical habitat e.g. substrate, tidal flow, temperature, etc, rather than either a distinct biotope or a succession of biotopes. Firstly, only approximately 10% of the UKCS has been surveyed in sufficient detail to establish a benthic baseline. The remainder of the seabed has been predictively modelled to produce large scale habitat maps. Secondly, very few sites (only localised areas such as a handful of aggregate extraction sites and Lundy (?)) have underdone repeated survey to determine the variability in the de-lineation of the boundaries between habitats. Thirdly, distinguishing impacts from a reference site may take several years to identify. This indicator overlaps with indicator 6.1.2 - Extent of seabed significantly affected by human activities for different substrate types. For these reasons, an operational target is most appropriate.

 Data would be derived from the National mapping initiatives including SEAs, site specific EIA monitoring and targeted UK Government funded programmes e.g. CSEMP

Define the targets

 High Certainty of achieving GES Developments above specific disturbance thresholds (e.g. spatial extent, volume of disturbed sediment, modification of energy / hydrographic regimes) would require a more detailed assessment of the functioning of habitats affected by permanent hydrographic alteration. Due to uncertainties in data, specific thresholds have not been set at present. Further work will be required to define these levels.

Baseline for targets

 No specific baseline for seabed functioning of various habitats exists and as such any target will probably be determined using ecosystem models. These models are presently being used to establish long-term variability with 25 and 50 year hindcasts runs which could be used to establish a baseline (having taken into account natural variability).

Evaluation Evaluate each indicator against all the criteria in the attached spreadsheet.

Page 34 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

MSFD GES indicator assessment template. Implications for Monitoring A detailed methodology for measuring these targets is a major challenge. There is an inbuilt tension between requiring the developers to undertake monitoring of their own construction and beyond their impact zone in order to develop a wider regional context. Funding for UK Government programmes in order to establish a regional context is under major pressure and there is unlikely to be major changes in funding. Further work will be required to define a monitoring programme but this should be based on existing long-term datasets. Thus, it is proposed to “adopt” a number of key programmes (see non exhaustive sample list below) as sentinels for hydrographic monitoring. Consideration should be made for the use of remote sensing and also the use of numerical models as tools in the assessment process. Technological solutions may provide a solution through the use of gliders, Ferryboxes and passive water samplers.

Quality approved data from localised monitoring / assessment by developers combined with standard national programmes funded by government and other sources such as remote sensing, international programmes and numerical models would be integrated using tools such as EMECO at the appropriate temporal and spatial scales.

Examples of existing Long-term Hydrographic time-series:

AFBINI transects; Cefas Harwich line, SmartBuoy and WaveNet; Met Office MAWS buoys, Marine Scotland Science - JONSIS line (N. Sea; since 1972) and Fair Isle- Munken and Nolso-Flugga lines (Faroe-Shetland Channel; since 1903), Extended Ellet line, Stonehaven/Loch Ewe ecosystem monitoring stations, coastal Long Term Monitoring network; SAMS Tiree passage; PML Western Channel Observatory.

Page 35 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Descriptor 8: Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution effects.

Concentrations of contaminants are assessed using toxicologically-derived limit values, such as Environmental Quality Standards (EQSs) developed by the EU for Water Framework Directive purposes or Environmental Assessment Criteria (EACs) developed within OSPAR for use within their Joint Assessment and Monitoring Programme (JAMP) and Co-ordinated Environmental Monitoring Programme (CEMP). Member States may also have set national EQSs for other compounds of importance in their own waters. As not all contaminants will (or can) be measured, techniques which detect the biological effects resulting from contaminant exposure, assessing both exposure to specific contaminants, those with common modes of action, and broad scale impacts, can be deployed to detect pollution effects. ICES/OSPAR have developed assessment criteria for a number of biological effects methods, based upon ranges corresponding to background, exposed and possibly deleteriously affected (ICES WGBEC, 2010, 2011; ICES/OSPAR SGIMC 2010, 2011). Suites of chemical and biological methods which allow cause/effect relationships to be established are being developed (within the ICES Working Group on the Biological Effects of Contaminants; WGBEC and the joint ICES/OSPAR Study Group on Integrated Monitoring of Contaminants and Biological Effects; SGIMC) to facilitate an integrated approach to OSPAR monitoring in the future. As outlined in the Commission Decision, progress towards GES will depend on whether pollution is progressively being phased out, i.e. the presence of contaminants in the marine environment and their biological effects are kept within acceptable limits, so as to ensure there are no significant impacts on, or risk to, the marine environment.

The SGIMC 2011 have suggested a means by which data for a range of chemical and biological effects measurements may be integrated and used in the assessment of GES for Descriptor 8 (see Appendix 1. This approach is currently being tested prior to implementation in the Clean Seas Environment Monitoring Programme (CSEMP) using data gathered previously. Measurements of various parameters in various environmental matrices at various stations can be progressively summarized into simple visual representations of status at different degrees of data aggregation. At the highest level, data for both contaminant concentrations and their effects can be represented at MSFD sub-regional level by a single three colour “traffic light”. The critical boundary for GES assessment should be the green – red boundary, representing comparisons with EACs and/or EQSs. GES could be expressed as some high percentage compliance with this boundary. 100% compliance is impractical, as it amounts to a “one out all out” approach, and is therefore highly susceptible to perturbations by a small number of errors in sampling, analysis or data handling, or occasional short term variations in environmental quality. 95% compliance at the highest level of data aggregation would be an appropriate threshold level for GES compliance.

Page 36 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Type of targets

The MSFD (Article 9) requires that environmental targets are set “on the basis of the initial assessment”. Within WFD monitoring, initial assessments have already been made and findings within coastal and transitional waters will help to identify individual compounds which may be of concern under MSFD as they exceed Environmental Quality Standards and so have the potential to exert effects further offshore; within CP2 some mixture effects were addressed through bioassay monitoring. Results from atmospheric monitoring on land may also help to identify other compounds which will be deposited in offshore areas and so also may be of concern. Measures to control terrestrial sources (e.g. direct discharges and riverine inputs) of contamination are likely to be taken under WFD and related Directives rather than MSFD. An integrated programme of chemical and biological effects monitoring will be used to assess concentrations and effects of these compounds in the sea.

Scale of targets

Assessments should be made at the sub-regional scale (Greater North Sea, Celtic Seas) which implies collaboration between Member States in determining GES. Assessments will also need to be made on the basis of the waters of each Member State in these sub-regions if measures are needed, to see where they should be applied. From the assessments made under CP2, hazardous substances pose some problems in regions 1-5, with few or no problems in regions 6-8. Main sources to the marine environment are from rivers, the atmosphere, various industrial and agricultural discharges and emissions. These sources are generally subject to controls, but in some limited areas marine biota are at risk and sediments are contaminated, particularly near the main terrestrial sources in historically industrialised estuaries. Reservoirs of contaminants in sediments due to historical contamination will take many years to dissipate due to the persistence of many of these substances. These contaminated estuaries fall within the remit of WFD, but also have relevance to MSFD assessments of GES beyond 1 nautical mile (or 3 nautical miles in Scotland) from the baseline. Areas identified as having few or no problems in CP2 may require only occasional surveillance monitoring in the future.

Criterion 8.1 - Concentration of contaminants. Qualitative Criterion target: Concentrations of contaminants in water, sediment or biota do not exceed environmental target levels identified on the basis of ecotoxicological data as outlined within community legislation and other agreements (such as OSPAR) and are not increasing.

Page 37 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Indicator 8.1.1 - Concentrations of the contaminants mentioned above (i.e. in Decision 2010/477/EU)1 should be measured in the relevant matrix (such as biota, sediment or water) in a way that ensures comparability with the assessments under WFD (Directive 2000/60/EC).7,8

Type of targets

Environmental Quality Standards are available for the thirty-three substances classed as priority hazardous substances (PHS) and priority substances (PS) and the nine certain other pollutants under the Water Framework Directive (WFD 2000/60/EC). Concentrations of the contaminants mentioned above (i.e. in Decision 2010/477/EU) should be measured in the relevant matrix (such as biota, sediment or water) in a way that ensures comparability with the assessments under Directive 2000/60/EC. EQSs have been set for the different water body types (fresh, transitional and coastal) and the EQS represents the boundary between Good and Moderate status. EQSs are required to enable assessments of the chemical status of a water body to be made. There are two types of EQS; Environmental Quality Standards expressed as annual average concentration (AA-EQS) and Environmental Quality Standards expressed as maximum allowable concentrations (MAC-EQS). Additional EQSs have been set for hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorobutadiene and mercury in biota. The EQS Directive (2008/105/EC) also requires monitoring for trend analysis of substances that accumulate in sediments and/or biota. Member States may also have set national EQSs for other compounds of importance in their own waters, and these can also be used in assessments. The UK has developed a number of these, solely in water to date, but, under Directive 2008/105/EC on Environmental Quality Standards in the Field of Water Policy, it is intended to

7 Those substances or groups of substances, where relevant to the marine environment, that:

 Exceed the relevant Environmental Quality Standards set out pursuant to Article 2(35) and Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC in coastal or territorial waters adjacent to the marine region or sub-region, be it in water, sediment or biota; and/or:  Are listed as priority substances in Annex X to Directive 2000/60/EC and further regulated in Directive 2008/105/EC, which are discharged into the concerned marine region, sub-region or subdivision; and/or:  Are contaminants and their total releases (including losses, discharges or emissions) may entail significant risks to the marine environment from past and present pollution in the marine region, sub-region or subdivision concerned, including as a consequence of acute pollution events following incidents involving, for instance, hazardous and noxious substances.

8 Progress towards GES will depend on whether pollution is being progressively phased out, i.e., the presence of contaminants in the marine environment and their biological effects are kept within acceptable limits, so as to ensure that there are no significant impacts on, or risk to, the marine environment.

Page 38 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

develop EQS values for some other chemicals in biota and sediments. When developed, these may take precedence over OSPAR EACs for MSFD purposes.

Further relevant assessment criteria have been developed through OSPAR processes to permit assessments of state to be made. At present, a set of Background Concentrations (BCs), Background Assessment Concentrations (BACs) and Environmental Assessment Criteria (EACs) have been developed for CEMP determinands in sediment, and biota, where this has been possible. Where the setting of EACs has not been possible, other assessment criteria have been used within CP2, including EC Food Regulation limits and Effects Range (ER) values.

These provide two transition points (T0 and T1) for an associated traffic light system (http://www.ospar.org/v_publications/download.asp?v1=p00461). This traffic light system was adopted by OSPAR for use in the recent Quality Status Report (QSR2010) and was also used in the UK in the preparation of Charting Progress 2. For contaminants, the traffic light system used in the QSR comprises four colours; blue, green, amber and red. The colours have the following meaning:

 Blue: Status is acceptable. Concentrations are near background for naturally occurring substances (e.g. PAHs, trace metals) or close to zero for man-made substances (e.g. PCBs, PBDEs). This is the aim of the OSPAR Hazardous Substances Strategy.  Green: Status is acceptable. Concentrations of contaminants are at levels where it can be assumed that few or no risks are posed to the environment and its living resources at the population or community level.  Amber: Status is uncertain. Concentrations of metals in biota are lower than EU regulatory limits for fish and shellfish and above background, but the extent of risk of pollution effects is uncertain.  Red: Status is unacceptable. Concentrations of contaminants are at levels where there is a risk of unacceptable chronic or acute effects occurring in marine species, including the most sensitive species.

The first transition points (T0, blue to green) for all contaminants in sediment and biota are the OSPAR BACs. Where available, the Environmental Assessment

Criteria (EACs) were used as the upper Assessment Criterion (T1, green to red). The transition from red to green implies a transition from an unacceptable risk, to a state which is acceptable and poses little or no risk. Therefore the use of “green” has a relationship to “Good Environmental Status”. Where EACs were not available alternative approaches were used, such as the US EPA Effects Range (ER) values, which were used as the second transition point (green/red) for metals and PAH in sediment. For metals in biota, there are no EACs and so the EU dietary limits were used as the second transition point, with amber replacing green. The use of amber rather than green recognises the concern over the relevance of EU dietary limits as criteria for biological effects assessment.

Page 39 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

However, there is a need to develop additional assessment criteria for the substances and effects to be addressed under MSFD. Further development of EACs is underway through a study group (Intersessional Correspondence Group on Environmental Assessment Criteria- ICG-EACs) of the OSPAR Working Group on Monitoring and Trends and Effects of Substances in the Marine Environment (MIME) during 2011. Within this work programme, EACs will be finalised for PAH and metals in sediments, metals in mussels and oysters, and metals in fish. EACs will also be developed for polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), dioxin-like CBs, alkylated PAH, tributyltin (TBT) in biota, perfluorooctane sulphonate (PFOS), and dioxins and furans. Proposed EACs will be tabled at the OSPAR MIME meeting to be held in December 2011. OSPAR has also established an Intersessional Correspondence Group for the Implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

The assessment criteria currently available for substances currently classed as PHS/PS by WFD and for OSPAR CEMP and pre-CEMP contaminants are shown in Table A1-1.

Although the introduction of radionuclides is included as a pressure in Table 2 of Annex 3 of the MSFD, these substances only need to be addressed for the purposes of the initial assessment. Advice from the European Commission in its recent Staff Working Paper9 is that “as indicated in the recitals of Directive, Art. 30 and 31 of the Euratom Treaty regulate discharges and emissions resulting from the use of radio- active material and the Directive should therefore not address them”. Therefore targets for radionuclides have not been formulated.

Define the targets

 It is proposed therefore that the target for this indicator is: Concentrations of substances identified within relevant legislation and international obligations are below the concentrations at which adverse effects are likely to occur (e.g. are less than EQSs applied within WFD; and/or EACs applied within OSPAR).

OSPAR EACs (sediment and biota) and WFD EQS (water) are the most appropriate criteria for defining GES. EACs are available for some CEMP determinands (in sediment and biota) but are under development for others and for pre-CEMP determinands. EQS (AA-EQS and MAC-EQS), are available for water (but also for mercury, hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene in biota). Further sediment and biota EQSs are likely to be established within WFD. Concentrations of contaminants in water are generally below current United Kingdom-set EQSs

9 Relationship between the initial assessment of marine waters and the criteria for good environmental status: Draft April 2011.

Page 40 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

(Charting Progress 2), but some WFD EQS values may be more stringent. Where contaminant concentrations in coastal and transitional waters exceed WFD EQSs, or where other compounds not determined within WFD are of concern or where there are significant direct inputs to offshore waters (e.g. due to atmospheric transport and subsequent deposition, or significant discharges from offshore sources such as produced water) MSFD monitoring will be needed. Contaminant monitoring is currently undertaken in biota and sediment within the CSEMP to fulfil UK commitments to OSPAR. Comparison of these measured concentrations and of levels of biological effects to the upper assessment criteria (EACs, if available) may be used in the assessment of GES, although spatial coverage may need to be improved, particularly in offshore areas where data are relatively sparse.

The full suite of OSPAR ecological quality objectives, when developed, are intended to express the desired qualities of the ecosystem and so are relevant to GES.

Baseline for targets

 The MSFD (Article 4) lists 10 sub-regions for monitoring purposes. The relevant sub-regions for the UK are:  The Greater North Sea, including the Kattegat and the English Channel  The Celtic seas  Member States may also, if they wish, define smaller sub-divisions for assessment purposes as the UK has for CP2. A decision will need to be taken about whether the UK will report on a sub-region or sub-division basis.  Existing datasets from which an initial assessment could be made at the sub- regional scale include monitoring for OSPAR purposes, and for CP2 and associate publications, through the UK Clean Seas Environment Monitoring Programme (organic contaminants and metals in sediments and biota) and WFD (mainly contaminants in water, though more monitoring may be undertaken in sediments and biota in the future, once additional relevant EQSs have been set), and other research studies. Much of the data will be of use for Descriptor 8, however, there may be limitations in the spatial coverage of the datasets, particularly in more offshore areas.

Scale of targets

The appropriate spatial scale for full data aggregation is the MSFD sub-regional level. In order to include all relevant data in the assessment at this scale, collaboration with neighbouring Member States will be needed. Depending on the contaminant, a tendency of increasing, decreasing or stable concentrations may be observed over various time-scales. Considerable efforts have been made over the past decades to develop robust procedures for the determination of temporal trends in contaminant concentrations within OSPAR, and procedures developed for MSFD purposes should build on that experience. In order not to lose information relating to temporal trends, concentrations determined must be expressed in absolute terms

Page 41 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

rather than in relation to an environmental standard (above/below a guideline or assessment value).

Criterion 8.2 - Effects of contaminants. Qualitative Criterion Target: The effects of contaminants on selected biological processes and taxonomic groups, where a cause/effect relationship has been established, are kept within acceptable levels.

Indicator 8.2.1 - Levels of pollution effects on the ecosystem components concerned, having regard to the selected biological processes and taxonomic groups where a cause/effect relationship has been established and needs to be monitored.

Type of targets

The process begun within ICES/OSPAR to develop guidelines for integrated chemical and biological effects monitoring has established assessment criteria (Background and Elevated Response Levels; analogous to Background Assessment Concentrations and Environmental Assessment Criteria) for a range of biological effects techniques, and these can be used as targets within MSFD. The ICES/OSPAR Study Group on Integrated Monitoring of Contaminants and Biological Effects, SGIMC (ICES, 2009, 2010, 2011) and its predecessor, the ICES/OSPAR Workshop on Integrated Monitoring of Contaminants and their Effects in Coastal and Open-sea Areas, WKIMON (ICES, 2008) have developed a framework of assessment criteria for contaminant-related biological effects techniques. Considering the outputs from these expert groups in relation to the requirements of the MSFD, it is suggested that only biological effects tools that meet the following standards and have been adopted by the OSPAR Commission10 are considered for inclusion in monitoring programmes, which aim to deliver outputs for defining GES under Descriptor 8.

(1) Internationally accepted assessment criteria must be developed (or at an advanced stage of development), such as those developed under WKIMON and SGIMC (ICES, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011).

(2) Data collection should be in agreement with OSPAR JAMP /UKMMAS Guidelines and submission formats should accord with internationally agreed protocols, such as those developed within ICES.

10 Integrated chemical and biological effects assessment schemes have not so far been adopted by OSPAR (as at June 2011) but have been proposed to OSPAR in advice prepared by ICES. The schemes proposed by ICES are being trialled by the OSPAR MIME Working Group to see how they might best be used in a combined approach.

Page 42 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

(3) An internationally recognised Quality Assurance (QA) programme should be in place (e.g., such as those run under the auspices of BEQUALM (http://www.bequalm.org/), and QUASIMEME (http://www.quasimeme.org), or that are developed/coordinated through ICES WGBEC.

(4) The proposed biological effect tool should have been validated and have appropriate quality assurance protocols in place.

Biological effect tools that meet these criteria and are currently used under the existing Clean Seas Environment Monitoring Programme (CSEMP) or in Cefas and MSS demonstration programmes on the integrated monitoring of contaminants and their effects include the following, not all of which can yet be carried out on a routine basis:

Elevated Biological Effect Additional Background High and cause for response range information response range concern

Imposex Gastropods OSPAR Class A B-C ≥D

VTG in plasma; g/l Cod ≤0.23 >0.23 not relevant Flounder ≤0.13 >0.13 not relevant

EROD Dab (males) 147 >147 not relevant Dab (females) 178 >178 not relevant

Flounder  24 >24 not relevant

Bile metabolites (1- Dab  0.15 0.15-22 >22 OH pyrene)

Flounder  1.3 1.3-29 >29

DNA adducts; nm Dab 1.0 > 1.0 (> 6) adducts/mol DNA

Flounder 1.0 > 1.0 (> 6)

Lysosomal cytochemical ≥20 10-20 ≤10 Membrane Stability (mins) neutral red ≥120 50-120 ≤50 retention Bioassays; Sediment, 0-30 > 30-< 60 > 60 % mortality Corophium Sediment, Arenicola 0-10 > 10-< 50 > 50 Water, copepod 0-10 > 10-< 50 > 50 Bioassays; Water, bivalve 0-20 > 20-< 50 > 50 % abnormality embryo Fish Disease Index Dab < 2.5% quantile 2.5-97.5 % > 97.5% quantile quantiles

It is envisaged that the assessment of GES for Descriptor 8 will be based upon a combined approach using concentrations of chemical contaminants and biological measurements relating to the effects of pollutants on marine organisms. Biological effects tools will be used particularly when there is a need to check whether pollution effects are occurring in areas where concentrations of the limited range of monitored

Page 43 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

contaminants are at acceptable levels (as unmonitored contaminants may be present at levels causing biological effects) or whether pollution effects are occurring in areas where concentrations of monitored contaminants are not acceptable when assessed against toxicologically relevant assessment criteria.

Monitoring programmes should include the assessment of concentrations of priority contaminants in environmental matrices (water, sediment, and the tissues of biota). The data generated can then be interpreted against assessment thresholds (EACs and EQSs) that are aimed at protecting against the occurrence of pollution-related effects. Biological effects will be assessed against threshold levels of response that are indicative of significant harm to the species under investigation across marine regions. Low levels of biological response provide reassurance that contaminants which have not been determined by chemical analyses are not present at concentrations which could result in toxic impacts. Further discussion (extracted from the 2011 report of ICES/OSPAR SGIMC) of an integrated approach to the assessment of chemical and biological effects monitoring data is given in Appendix 1.

Define the targets

 The intensity of biological or ecological effects due to contaminants is below the toxicologically-based standards established by combined ICES/OSPAR processes within WGBEC and SGIMC (listed in Table A1-2) and agreed by OSPAR.

Biological effect responses should fall below the “high and cause for concern” level as defined by ICES/OSPAR (ICES, 2009, 2010, 2011).

It would also be possible for the UK to develop additional standards and apply them. Baseline for targets

 As for 8.1.1 above.

Scale of targets

 As for 8.1.1 above.

Criterion 8.3 - Impact of acute pollution events Qualitative Criterion target: Occurrence, origin (where possible), extent of significant acute pollution events (e.g. slicks from oil and oil products) and their impact on biota physically affected by this pollution.

Indicator 8.3.1 - Concentrations of contaminants and levels of pollution effects in areas affected by significant acute pollution events

Page 44 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Type of targets

 Under the UK National Contingency Plan for Marine Pollution from Shipping and Offshore Installations, there is a requirement to monitor “if a marine pollution incident [a spill of oil or hazardous chemicals] is expected to have a significant environmental impact”. A programme of integrated chemical and biological effects monitoring appropriate to the substances lost will provide information which will allow the scale of any environmental impact to be assessed, as well as its potential impact on GES within the affected sub- region.

Define the targets

 As a wide range of oils and chemicals may be spilled, targets will be incident- specific and will need to be derived at the time. Similarly, the monitoring to be undertaken will be incident- and location-specific, depending on the material spilt and the species, habitats and resources at risk. For spilled chemical compounds for which they have been established, EACs can be used as criteria of acceptability.  Data on discharges, emissions and spills from vessels and offshore oil and gas installations in UK waters are compiled by ACOPS (the Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea) on an annual basis. However, this mainly records the number and location of such events. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency also issues pollution reports (POLREPs) which generally give some estimate of the volume spilled in each case. A combination of the two types of information may enable some assessment to be made.  The environmental quality of affected waters may be influenced by significant pollution incidents, but the scale of the impact(s) and the spatial and temporal scale of the pollution will determine whether GES at a sub-regional level (Greater North Sea or Celtic Seas for the UK) is compromised as a result of an incident.  The UK has no relevant target on the occurrence, origin and extent of acute pollution events at the current time, but addresses individual events on a case-by-case basis.  An OSPAR EcoQO has been set in relation to oil pollution: “The average proportion of oiled common guillemots in all winter months (November to April) should be 10% or less of the total found dead or dying in each of 15 areas of the North Sea over a period of at least 5 years”. This is really targeted at chronic oil pollution (illegal discharges, diffuse inputs) rather than single spill incidents and so the EcoQO is not appropriate for use in this context.

Baseline for targets

 As for 8.1.1 above.

Page 45 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Scale of targets

 As for 8.1.1 above.

Evaluation  Evaluate each indicator against all the criteria in the attached spreadsheet.

MSFD GES indicator assessment template.

Page 46 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

List of priority substances in the field of water policy (from Annex II of the EQS Directive 2008/105/EC)

Alachlor Isoproturon

Anthracene Lead and its compounds

Atrazine Mercury and its compounds

Benzene Naphthalene

Brominated diphenylethers Nickel and its compounds

Cadmium and its compounds Nonylphenols (4-Nonylphenol)

C10-C13 Chloroalkanes Octylphenols (4-(1,1’,3,3’- tetramethylbutyl)phenol) Chlorfenvinphos Pentachlorobenzene Chlorpyrifos Pentachlorophenol 1,2-Dichloroethane Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Dichloromethane (benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, benzo[ghi]perylene, Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene).

Diuron Simazine

Endosulfan Tributyltin compounds (Tributyltin cation)

Fluoranthene Trichlorobenzenes

Hexachlorobenzene Trichloromethane (aka chloroform)

Hexachlorobutadiene Trifluralin Hexachlorocyclohexane

Certain other pollutants

Tetrachloromethane (aka carbon Endrin tetrachloride) Isodrin DDT total (p,p’-DDT) Tetrachloroethene (aka Cyclodiene pesticides Tetrachloroethylene)

Aldrin Trichloroethene (aka Trichloroethylene)

Dieldrin

Page 47 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Table A1-1. Assessment criteria currently available for substances currently classed as PHS/PS

Type Group of substances / substances OSPAR WFD Assessment criteria Priority List Water Sediment biota Trace Metals cadmium (CEMP) A EQS BAC, ER BAC, EC (mussels & fish flesh)

lead (CEMP) B EQS BAC ER BAC, EC (mussels & fish flesh)

mercury (CEMP) A EQS BAC ER BAC, EC (mussels & fish flesh), EQS

nickel B EQS

copper C EQS

Chromium VI C EQS

zinc C EQS

arsenic C EQS

Organometallic organic lead compounds  B compounds organic mercury compounds  A

organic tin compounds (CEMP) A EQS BAC and EAC (mussels only)

Organic ester neodecanoic acid, ethenyl ester  X

Organohalogens perfluorooctanyl sulphonic acid and (pre- X its salts (PFOS) CEMP)

1,2,3-trichlorobenzene  B EQS

1,2,4-trichlorobenzene  B EQS

1,3,5-trichlorobenzene  B EQS

Page 48 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Type Group of substances / substances OSPAR WFD Assessment criteria Priority List Water Sediment biota Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) (CEMP) X

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (CEMP) A EQS (PBDEs) (penta- BDE)

tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBP-A)  X

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (CEMP) X BACs EACs LV & MUS; BACs EACpassive

LV & FL: EC TEQs for dioxins & dioxin-like PCBs

polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (pre- X LV & FL: EC TEQs for dioxins & dioxin-like (PCDDs) CEMP) PCBs

polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs)

short chained chlorinated paraffins  A EQS (SCCP)

Organic nitrogen 4-  X compound (dimethylbutylamino)diphenylamine (6PPD)

Page 49 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Type Group of substances / substances OSPAR WFD Assessment criteria Priority List Water Sediment biota Pesticides/ alachlor X B EQS Biocides/ Organohalogens dicofol  X

endosulphan  A EQS

hexachlorocyclohexane isomers  A EQS BAC BAC EAC (HCH)

methoxychlor  X

pentachlorophenol (PCP)  B EQS

trifluralin  B EQS

hexachlorobutadiene X A EQS EQS

diuron X B EQS

hexachlorobenzene X A EQS BAC BAC

pentachlorobenzene X A EQS

chlorfenvinphos X B EQS

Pharmaceutical clotrimazole  X

Phenols 2,4,6-tri-tert-butylphenol  X

nonylphenol/ethoxylates (NP/NPEs)  A EQS and related substances octylphenol  B EQS

Phthalate esters certain phthalates: dibutylphthalate  B EQS for (DBP), diethylhexylphthalate (DEHP) DEHP

Polycyclic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons  (CEMP) A EQS for BAC ERL BAC & EAC (mussels) aromatic (PAHs) some

Page 50 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Type Group of substances / substances OSPAR WFD Assessment criteria Priority List Water Sediment biota compounds

X B EQS Volatile organic Chloroform compounds X B EQS Dichloromethane X B 1,2-dichloroethane benzene B EQS

Synthetic musk musk xylene  X

A, WFD Priority Hazardous Substance (PHS); B, Priority Substance (PS); X, not listed BAC, Background Assessment Concentration; EAC, Environmental Assessment Criteria; ER, Effects Range; EQS, Environmental Quality Standard, EC, European Commission food safety levels; TEQ, Toxic Equivalence EACpassive developed for PCBs in biota using EAC for sediment

Page 51 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Table A1-2. Assessment criteria for biological effects measurements. Values are given for both background assessment levels (BAC) and environmental assessment criteria (EAC), as available.

BIOLOGICAL EFFECT APPLICABLE TO: BAC EAC VTG in plasma; g/ml Cod 0.23 Flounder 0.13 Reproduction in eelpout; Malformed larvae 1 mean frequency (%) Late dead larvae 2 Growth retarded larvae 4 Frequency of broods with 5 malformed larvae Frequency of broods with 5 late dead larvae EROD; pmol/mg protein Dab (F) 178 Dab (M) 147 pmol/min/ mg protein S9 Dab (M/F) 680* Flounder (M) 24 * pmol/min/ mg microsomal protein Plaice (M) 9.5 Cod (M/F) 145* Plaice (M/F) 255* Four spotted megrim (M/F) 13* Dragonet (M/F) 202* Red mullet (M) 208 PAHs Bile metabolites; Dab 16 (1) *

(1) ng/ml; HPLC-F 3.7 (1) **

(2) pyrene-type g/ml; synchronous scan 0.15 (2) 22(2) fluorescence 341/383 nm

(3) ng/g GC/MS Cod 21 (1) * 483 (3) *

* 1-OH pyrene 2.7 (1) ** 528 (3) **

35 (2)

Page 52 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

BIOLOGICAL EFFECT APPLICABLE TO: BAC EAC ** 1-OH phenanthrene 1.1 (2)

Flounder 16 (1) *

3.7 (1) **

1.3 (2) 29(2) Haddock 13 (1) *

0.8 (1) **

1.9 (2) 35(2) DR-Luc; ng TEQ/kg dry wt, silica clean up Sediment (extracts) 10 40 DNA adducts; nm adducts mol DNA Dab 1 6 Flounder 1 6 Cod 1.6 6 Haddock 3.0 6 Bioassays; Sediment, Corophium 30 60 Sediment, Arenicola 10 50 % mortality Water, copepod 10 50 Bioassays; Water, oyster and mussel 20 50 embryo % abnormality Water, sea urchin embryo 10 50 Bioassay; Water, sea urchin embryo 30 50

% growth Lysosomal stability; Cytochemical; all species 20 10 Neutral Red Retention: all 120 50 minutes species

0 1 Micronuclei; /00 (frequency of micronucleated Mytilus edulis 2.5 cells) 2.5 2 Mytilus galloprovincialis 3.9 2

Page 53 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

BIOLOGICAL EFFECT APPLICABLE TO: BAC EAC 1 Gill cells Mytilus trossulus 4.5 2 Flounder 0.0-0.3 3 3 2 Haemocytes Dab 0.5 Zoarces viviparus 0.3-0.4 3 3 3 Erythrocytes Cod 0.4 Red mullet 0.3 3 Comet Assay; Mytilus edulis 10 Dab 5 % DNA Tail Cod 5

Stress on Stress; days Mytilus sp. 10 5 AChE activity; nmol.min-1 mg prot-1 Mytilus edulis 30 1* 21 1* 26 1** 19 1** 1+ 1+ 1 gills Mytilus galloprovincialis 29 20 15 1++ 10 1++ 2* 2* 2 muscle tissue Flounder 235 165 Dab 150 2* 105 2* 2+ 2+ 3 brain tissue Red mullet 155 109

3++ 3++ * French Atlantic waters 75 52

** Portuguese Atlantic waters

+ French Mediterranean Waters

++ Spanish Mediterranean Waters Externally visible diseases*** Dab Fish Disease Index (FDI): Fish Disease Index (FDI):

F: 1.32, 0.216

Ep,Ly,Ul M: 0.96, 0.232 F: NA, 54.0

Page 54 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

BIOLOGICAL EFFECT APPLICABLE TO: BAC EAC Ep,Ly,Ul F: 1.03, 0.349 M: NA, 47.7

Ac,Ep,Fi,Hp,Le,Ly,St,Ul,Xc M: 1.17, 0.342 F: 50.6, 19.2

Ac,Ep,Fi,Hp,Le,Ly,St,Ul,Xc F: 1.09, 0.414 M: 38.8, 16.1

Ac,Ep,Hp,Le,Ly,St,Ul,Xc M: 1.18, 0.398 F: 48.3, 21.9

Ac,Ep,Hp,Le,Ly,St,Ul,Xc M: 35.2, 16.5

M: males

Italics: ungraded, bold: graded F: females

NA: Not applied Liver histopathology-non specific Dab NA Statistically significant increase in mean FDI level in the assessment period compared to a prior observation period

Statistically significant upward trend in mean FDI level in the assessment period

Liver histopathology- contaminant-specific Dab Mean FDI <2 Mean FDI ≥ 2

A value of FDI = 2 is, e. g., reached if the prevalence of liver tumours is 2 % (e. g., one specimen out of a sample of 50 specimens is affected by a liver tumour). Levels of FDI ≥ 2 can be reached if more fish are affected or if combinations of other toxicopathic lesions occur.

Page 55 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

BIOLOGICAL EFFECT APPLICABLE TO: BAC EAC Macroscopic liver neoplasms Dab Mean FDI <2 Mean FDI ≥ 2

A value of FDI = 2 is reached if the prevalence of liver tumours (benign or malignant) is 2 % (e. g., one specimen out of a sample of 50 specimens is affected by a liver tumour). If more fish are affected, the value is FDI > 2. Intersex in fish; Dab 5

% prevalence Flounder

Cod

Red mullet

Zoarces viviaprus Scope for growth Mussel (Mytilus sp.) 5 -2

Joules/hr/g dry wt. (provisional, further validation required) Hepatic metallothionein Mussel edulis 0.6 1*

μg/g (w.w.) 2.0 2*

1 Whole animal 0.6 3* Mytilus galloprovincialis 2.0 1* 2Digestive gland 3.92* 3Gills 0.6 3* * Differential pulse polarography

Page 56 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

BIOLOGICAL EFFECT APPLICABLE TO: BAC EAC Histopathology in mussels VVbas: Cell type 0.12 0.18 composition of digestive 3 3 gland epithelium; µm /µm

(quantitative) MLR/MET: Digestive tubule 0.7 1.6 epithelial atrophy and thinning; µm/µm

(quantitative) VVLYS & Lysosomal VvLYS 0.0002 V>0.0004 enlargement; µm3/µm3

(quantitative) S/VLYS: µm2/µm3 4 Digestive tubule epithelial STAGE ≤1 STAGE 4 atrophy and thinning

(semi-quantitative) Inflammation STAGE ≤1 STAGE 3

(semi-quantitative) Imposex/intersex in snails Gastropod molluscs See OSPAR adopted See OSPAR adopted criteria criteria ***: Assessment criteria for the assessment of the Fish Disease Index (FDI) for externally visible diseases in common dab (Limanda limanda). Abbreviations used: Ac, Acanthochondria cornuta; Ep, Epidermal hyperplasia/papilloma; Fi, Acute/healing fin rot/erosion; Hp, Hyperpigmentation; Le, Lepeophtheirus sp.; Ly, Lymphocystis; St, Stephanostomum baccatum; Ul, Acute/healing skin ulcerations; Xc, X-cell gill disease. Full details of the assessment criteria and how they were derived can be found in the SGIMC 2010 and SGIMC 2011 and WKIMON 2009 reports on the ICES website and in the OSPAR Background Documents for individual biological effects methods.

Data for biomarkers in some northern fish species have been obtained through the IRIS BioSea JIP programme (funded by Total E&P Norge & EniNorge) and the Biomarker Bridges programme (funded by Research Council of Norway) and have been used to develop EAC and BAC values for Arctic fish.

Page 57 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

2011 ICES/OSPAR SGIMC

Extract from the 2011 ICES/OSPAR SGIMC report providing a worked example of an integrated approach to the assessment of chemical and biological effects monitoring data

Technical annex: Integrated assessment framework for contaminants and biological effects The development of a framework with which to assess contaminant and biological effects data together is essential for the delivery of integrated monitoring and assessment. A multi-step process is proposed which follows on from experience of the assessment of contaminants data for sediment, fish and shellfish in OSPAR contexts. The process is informed initially by the individual assessment of determinands (contaminants or effects) in specific matrices at individual sites against the defined assessment criteria (BAC and EAC). Such assessment criteria for biological effects have been developed over recent years and are included in OSPAR Background Documents, and for contaminants have been used by OSPAR groups, for example in the QSR 2010. Initial comparisons determine whether the determinand and site combinations are EAC (red). This summarised indicator of status for each determinand can then be integrated over a number of levels: matrix (sediment, water, fish, mussel, gastropod), site and region and expressed with varying levels of aggregation to graphically represent the proportion of different types of determinands (or for each determinand, sites within a region) exceeding either level of assessment criteria.

Such an approach has several advantages. The integration of data can be simply performed on multiple levels depending on the type of assessment required and the monitoring data available. The representation of the assessment maintains all the supporting information and it is easy to identify the causative determinands that may be responsible for exceeding EAC levels. In addition, any stage of the assessment can be readily unpacked to a previous stage to identify either contaminant or effects measurements of potential concern or sites contributing to poor regional assessments.

This approach builds on the OSPAR MON regional assessment tool developed for contaminants. The development of BAC and EAC equivalent assessment criteria for biological effects, which represent the same degree of environmental risk as indicated by BACs and EACs for contaminants, allows the representation of these monitoring data alongside contaminant data using the same graphical representation approach. The inclusion of biological effects data to the system adds considerable value to the interpretation of assessments. Where sufficient effects monitoring data are available, confidence can be gained that contaminants are not having significant effects even where contaminant monitoring data are lacking. In instances where contaminant concentrations in water/sediment are >EAC, a lack of EAC threshold breach in appropriate effects data can provide some confidence that contaminant

Page 58 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

concentrations are not giving rise to pollution effects (due for example to lack of availability to marine biota). Similarly, the inclusion of effects data in the assessment framework can indicate instances where contaminants are having significant effects on biota, but have not been detected or covered in contaminant-specific chemical monitoring work.

Application to determination of GES for Descriptor 8 of MSFD The assessment framework described below provides an appropriate tool for assessment of environmental monitoring data to determine whether Good Environmental Status is being achieved for Descriptor 8 of MSFD (concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution effects). Determinands with EAC or EAC equivalent assessment criteria provide appropriate indicators with quantitative targets. The assessment of contaminant and effects monitoring data against these EAC-level assessment criteria provides information both on concentrations of contaminants likely to give rise to effects and the presence/absence of significant effects in marine biota.

Due to the relatively large number of determinands monitored under the integrated approach, it is inappropriate to adopt an approach whereby EAC level failure of a single determinand results in failure of GES for a site or region. A more appropriate approach would involve the setting of a threshold (%) of proportion of determinands that should be

Example application of the integrated assessment framework In order to best demonstrate how monitoring data (assessed against BAC and EAC) can be integrated for matrices, sites and regions and ultimately provide an assessment that could be useful for determination of GES for Descriptor 8, a worked example is provided below following a five step process.

Step 1 Assessment of monitoring data by matrix against BAC and EAC All determinands available for a specific site assessment are compiled with results presented by monitoring matrix and expressed as a colour depending on whether the value exceeds BAC or EAC. In the example provided below, determinands and their status are provided for illustrative purposes only, to show how subsequent integration can be performed. A red classification indicates that the EAC is exceeded, blue indicates compliance with the BAC, while green indicates concentrations or levels of effects are between the BAC and EAC.

Page 59 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Step 2 Integration of determinands by matrix for a given site For each of the five matrices, the results of the individual determinand assessments are aggregated into categories: contaminants, exposure indicators, effects indicators and for sediment/water matrices also passive sampling and bioassay categories. It is necessary to separate the biological effects measurements into different categories depending on whether an EAC-equivalent assessment criterion (AC) has been set or not. Otherwise aggregated information on the proportion of determinands exceeding the separate AC will be incorrect. For simplicity, these categories have been termed ‘exposure indicators’ (where an EAC has not been set) and ‘effects indicators’ where an EAC (equivalent to significant pollution effect) has been set for the measurement. On subsequent aggregation / integration of these indicators across matrices for a specific site, bioassays are considered ‘effects indicators’ as EAC are available. It should be possible to include data from passive sampling in both the water and sediment schemes when assessment criteria have become available. They are nominally included in the example here to show how they could be included.

The integration by matrix and category of determinand can be expressed by tri- coloured bars showing the proportions of determinands that exceed the BAC and EAC as shown below. Note that for mussels in this instance, no exposure indicators are used, since all the biological effects measurements have EAC available.

Page 60 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

5) Gastropods

Step 3 Integration of matrices for a site assessment In order to express the results of assessment for a particular site simply, information can be aggregated across matrices and expressed by determinand category as shown below. In order to achieve this, results from passive sampling from sediment and water categories could be integrated into the contaminant indicator graphic and bioassays and gastropod intersex/intersex integrated into ‘effects indicators’. Thus the outcome of assessment of all determinands from all matrices can be expressed for a whole site. For some assessments, this will be the highest level of aggregation required. However, for assessments covering larger geographical areas (sub- regional, regional, national, regional seas for MSFD, etc) where assessments need to be undertaken across multiple sites, a further level of integration is required (steps 4 and 5).

Page 61 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

For transparency, each determinand grouping is labelled with the matrices from which it is comprised. Thus it can quickly be determined whether the site assessment is comprised of all or just a sub-set of the monitoring matrices. In the example below, all five matrices have been used to determine the overall site assessment, however only for fish (matrix 3) were there any effects measurements that did not have available EAC for assessment. Therefore the exposure indicators graphic is labelled to show that only matrix 3 contributed to the site assessment.

Step 4 Regional assessment across multiple sites This can be done at multiple levels (aggregation of data at the sub-regional, regional and national levels) in different ways to express both the overall assessment of proportion of determinands (across all matrices) exceeding both assessment thresholds (BAC/EAC) (approach A) and by determinand for the region showing the proportion of sites assessed in the region that exceed the thresholds (approach B). Both approaches show the overall proportion of determinand/site incidences of threshold exceedence. However approach A shows most clearly which determinands are responsible for any EAC exceedence, while approach B shows a more aggregated, summarised representation of the same information by determinand category. Both can be constructed directly from the output of Step 1.

4A Regional assessment of sites by determinand This shows a graphical representation of the proportion of sites falling into each status class for each determinand across all relevant matrices (many determinands are only relevant to one or some of the matrices).

Page 62 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

4B Regional assessment of sites by determinand category The above regional assessment can be summarised by determinand category as was demonstrated in step 3 for the site assessment and shown below.

Step 5 Overall assessment The assessment by region can be aggregated further into a single schematic showing the proportion all determinands across all sites that exceed BAC and EAC. This can be used for the purposes of an overall assessment and it is proposed that a simple threshold figure (e.g. 95%)

Page 63 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

assessment can be easily unpacked through the steps above to determine which sites and determinands (effects types or contaminants) are contributing to, for example, the proportion of red (greater than EAC) data, and thereby potentially leading to failure to achieve GES for a region.

Conclusion A potential assessment framework has been presented which integrates across contaminant and biological effects monitoring data and allows assessments to be made across matrices, sites and regions. It is simple and transparent and allows for multiple levels of aggregation for different assessment requirements. Such an approach has been used with success for a wide range of contaminants data in the OSPAR QSR 2010. It is proposed that this approach is tested with real monitoring data and could provide a suit

Page 64 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Descriptor 9 - Contaminants in fish and other seafood for human consumption do not exceed levels established by Community legislation or other relevant standards)

Maximum regulatory limits have been set for a number of contaminants in order to protect the health of human consumers (see Table A1-3). For a sub-region to achieve GES, exceedances should be minimised.

Criterion 9.1 - Levels, number and frequency of contaminants Indicator 9.1.1 - Actual levels of contaminants that have been detected and number of contaminants which have exceeded maximum regulatory levels and the frequency with which limits are exceeded.

Type of targets

 For a number of contaminants, regulatory levels (Regulations (EC) No 1881/2006) have been set and these maximum threshold values should not be exceeded. These apply to wild caught and farmed fish, crustaceans, molluscs, echinoderms, roe and seaweed harvested in the different sub- regions and destined for human consumption. Species studied should reflect UK commercial landings, and be taken from fishing grounds in UK waters. For radionuclides analogous regulations don’t exist. General radiological protection of human health is provided by maximum permitted daily dose. EURATOM Regulations apply only in emergency situations and are not appropriate for GES. Contaminant levels in finfish farmed in marine waters within WFD limits will not be of relevance for assessing GES under MSFD, as their primary exposure is via a fed diet and so does not reflect local environmental conditions.

Define the targets

 Monitoring for contaminants for which regulatory levels have been laid down (lead, cadmium, mercury, benzo[a]pyrene, dibenzo-p-dioxins (plus dibenzofurans and dioxin-like PCBs) should be undertaken in accordance with the analytical performance requirements defined in EC/1883/2006; concentrations should be assessed against the regulatory levels and for temporal trends.

GES for Descriptor 9 is achieved for contaminants where regulatory levels have been set, the maximum threshold values should only be exceeded in a small

Page 65 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

statistically agreed number of samples of fish and shellfish (e.g. 5%11) based on relevant surveys and including samples originating from commercial fishing grounds in the greater North Sea and the Celtic Seas.

 At the assessed scale, the upper-bound (mean + 95% confidence interval) concentration should be calculated for comparison against the Maximum Permitted Concentrations (MPCs) for each substance and group of species.  For radionuclides, a suitable target could be that the levels of radioactivity in seafood do not cause the maximum dose received to exceed the EU and UK dose limit of 1 milliSievert per year. This dose limit was originally developed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection and implemented under the EU Basic Safety Standards Directive 96/29/EURATOM.  Other contaminants are likely to be introduced into 1881/2006 by the end of 2011, notably non-dioxin-like PCBs and three additional PAHs. The limits for dioxins and total TEQ are under review. Also, the revised PAH limits may exclude fresh fish.  Currently, FSA conduct annual surveys of contaminants in shellfish from commercial harvesting areas in Scotland and Northern Ireland only, not in England and Wales. Other surveys are undertaken on a risk basis and often utilise market or retail samples. Informal discussions between Defra and the EU have indicated that these can also be used for MSFD purposes, although traceability to particular marine areas remains a problem. In order to surmount this, it will be necessary to supplement sampling for food safety purposes in order to meet the requirements of MSFD. Additional fish samples of commercially exploited species and size could be collected on non- dedicated cruises (e.g. fishery assessment cruises or those undertaken within the Clean Seas Environment Monitoring Programme). Another option may be sampling from fish markets by fishery inspectors, who have access to vessel fishing records. Hence, although additional chemical analyses will be required, additional (and expensive) ship time should not be necessary, so a small additional monitoring burden. Based upon the monitoring costs provided by FSA, a programme for England and Wales similar to those operated in Scotland and Northern Ireland might cost £40-80k per annum.  Within current biotoxin monitoring programmes, samples of shellfish are collected and analysed routinely from shellfish production areas around the UK. Subsamples of these tissue samples could be composited and analysed for contaminants on an infrequent basis. This would meet the

11 5% is suggested by the UK but ideally this would need to be agreed with other Member States sharing the sub-region.

Page 66 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

traceability requirements under MSFD. Again a small additional monitoring burden. The report of the ICES/JRC Task Group for Descriptor 9 did not consider biotoxins themselves as contaminants as they are produced naturally.

Baseline for targets

 The MSFD (Article 4) lists 10 sub-regions for monitoring purposes, and the report of the ICES/JRC Task Group for descriptor 9 lists the most consumed species in each. The relevant sub-regions for the UK are:  The Greater North Sea, including the Kattegat and the English Channel  The Celtic Seas Member States may also, if they wish, define smaller sub-divisions for assessment purposes as the UK has for CP2. A decision will need to be taken about whether the UK will report on a sub-region or sub-division basis.  Existing datasets from which an initial assessment could be made at the sub- regional scale include FSA Scotland and Northern Ireland surveys of fish and shellfish for contaminants, data for radionuclides in seafood collected by the EA, FSA, NIEA, and SEPA and summarised in the series of RIFE (Radioactivity in Food and the Environment) reports, CSEMP data held in MERMAN, and other research studies (e.g. Marine Scotland Science deep water fish contaminant data). Much of the data (contaminant and radionuclides) held by FSA will be of use for this Descriptor, however there are limitations in the spatial coverage of the datasets, especially for fish. FSA sampling is not designed for the purpose of environmental monitoring, rather it targets species and locations of highest risk, and therefore could represent a worst case scenario and may not reflect the true environmental status.  A review of contaminants and radionuclides in fish and shellfish monitoring activities is recommended to be undertaken in order to assess the suitability of these activities in addressing the requirements of Descriptor 9. This should include the development of a statistical sampling strategy design relevant in terms of species (importance in the human diet, landings from each sub- region) and number of samples. This design should include information on the amount of fish/shellfish landed from each sub-region and be risk-based in its approach. It should also take account of species that are exported for human consumption abroad and which are not widely eaten in the UK but reflect environmental quality.

Scale of targets

 The appropriate spatial scale for reporting against GES is the sub-regional level, as defined above. Depending on the contaminant, a tendency of increasing, decreasing or stable concentrations may be observed over various time-scales. In order not to lose information relating to temporal trends, concentrations found must be expressed in absolute terms rather than in

Page 67 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

relation to a regulatory limit (above/below the limit). Assessments may be made at the level of the UK waters within the Greater North Sea and Celtic Seas, or appropriate sub-areas (such as those used in Charting Progress 2, for example).  The range of species, number of samples and size of individual animals included in the monitoring should be reflective of commercial landings, i.e. those fish which enter the human food chain.  More frequent monitoring will be required if targets are exceeded.

Although it is clear that individual measurements would be compared to regulatory limits for specific contaminants, aggregation across contaminants and species will be required for an overall assessment of GES.

Evaluation Evaluate each indicator against all the criteria in the attached spreadsheet.

MSFD GES indicator assessment template.

Page 68 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Table A1-3. Regulatory limits on the maximum permitted concentrations of certain environmental contaminants in edible portions of fish and shellfish (whole fish if appropriate). TEQ = Toxic Equivalent Concentration (summed concentrations of certain planar organic compounds based upon their relative toxicity).

Regulation Compound or Maximum permitted Species to which the limit applies element concentration (wet weight) Arsenic in As 1 mg/kg Fish, shellfish and edible seaweeds, except where “naturally present”. Food Regns S.I. 1959 No. 831 (England & Wales) and No. 928 (Scotland) 1959 1881/2006 Pb 0.3 mg/kg Fish and shellfish with the main exceptions indicated below: 1881/2006 Pb 0.5 mg/kg Crustacea (excluding crab brown meat & head / thorax of lobster) 1881/2006 Pb 1.0 mg/kg Cephalopods (without viscera) 1881/2006 Pb 1.5 mg/kg Bivalve molluscs 629/2008 Cd 0.05 mg/kg Fish and shellfish with the exceptions indicated below: 629/2008 Cd 0.1 mg/kg Bonito, common two-banded seabream, eel, grey mullet, horse mackerel or scad (Trachurus sp.), louvar or luvar, sardine, sardinops, tuna, wedge sole. 629/2008 0.2 mg/kg Bullet tuna 629/2008 Cd 0.3 mg/kg Anchovy, swordfish 629/2008 Cd 0.5 mg/kg Crustacea (excluding crab brown meat & head / thorax of lobster and similar large crustaceans) 629/2008 Cd 1.0 mg/kg Cephalopods (without viscera), bivalve molluscs 1881/2006 Hg 0.5 mg/kg Fish and shellfish with the exceptions of crab brown meat, head / thorax meat of lobster (and similar spp.) and the species indicated below: 629/2008 Hg 1.0 mg/kg Anglerfish, Atlantic catfish, bonito, eel, emperor, orange roughy, rosy soldierfish, grenadier, halibut, kingklip, marlin, megrim, mullet, pink cusk eel, pike, plain bonito, poor cod, Portuguese dogfish, rays, redfish, sail fish, scabbard fish, seabream, pandora, shark (all species), snake mackerel or butterfish, sturgeon, swordfish, tuna. 1881/2006 B[a]P 2.0 μg/kg Muscle meat of fish as defined in category (a) of the list in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 104/2000. 1881/2006 B[a]P 5.0 μg/kg Smoked fish and fishery products 1881/2006 B[a]P 5.0 μg/kg Crustacea & cephalopods, other than smoked and excluding crab brown meat, head / thorax meat of lobster (and similar spp.) 1881/2006 B[a]P 10.0 μg/kg Bivalve molluscs 1881/2006 Dioxins & furans* 4.0 pg/g TEQ Fish and fishery products, excluding crab brown meat, head / thorax meat of lobster (and similar spp.) 1881/2006 Dioxins, furans & 8.0 pg/g TEQ Fish and fishery products, excluding eel, crab brown meat, head / thorax meat of lobster dioxin-likeCBs* (and similar spp.) 1881/2006 Dioxins, furans 12.0 pg/g TEQ Eel

Page 69 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Regulation Compound or Maximum permitted Species to which the limit applies element concentration (wet weight) & dioxin-like CBs 565/2008 Dioxins & dioxin- 25 pg/g TEQ Fish liver like CBs *Individual compounds as listed in 1881/2006

Page 70 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Fish and shellfish monitoring programmes undertaken by FSA in Scotland and Northern Ireland. There are no analogous programmes in England and Wales.

FSA Scotland

Shellfish monitoring programme

As part of statutory monitoring (as detailed in Regulation (EC) 1881 and 854) FSA Scotland conducts annual monitoring of chemical contaminants in newly classified shellfish areas and/or shellfish areas which were subject to sanitary surveys. This monitoring covers:

 Heavy Metals (chromium, manganese, cobalt, nickel, zinc, arsenic, selenium, silver, cadmium, lead and mercury)  PAHs  Dioxins and PCBs  Organochlorine pesticides The total predicted annual costs for this chemical sampling programme is approximately £30,000.

FSA research and surveillance programme

Specific project work has been carried out to identify Scottish fishing grounds or aquatic habitats with a history of exposure to heavy metals or organic pollutants and the edible species of fish and shellfish that these habitats support. Suitable samples of fish and shellfish from locations considered to be at risk from contamination were sampled and analysed to determine the levels of environmental chemicals, including heavy metals, dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, brominated flame retardants (BFRs), perfluorinated compounds, polychlorinated naphthalenes and phthalates. The total cost was approximately £156,000.

In relation to radionuclides, a project has been carried out to investigate radionuclides in seaweed. This examined traditional use of seaweed by crofting communities as a soil conditioner and for sheep grazing & potential pathways for Sellafield radionuclides to enter the food chain.

FSA in Northern Ireland (FSA in NI)

Live Bivalve Molluscs Chemical Monitoring Programme

Currently the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) collaborate with FSA in NI to cover chemical monitoring for shellfish flesh to meet requirements of the Shellfish Waters Directive and the Food Hygiene Regulations. This includes testing for heavy metals and a number of organic chemicals. In order to determine chemical contaminants representative for all classified areas, and in accordance with the full listing of contaminants as detailed in Regulation (EC) 1881/2006, FSA in NI have this

Page 71 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

year commenced a chemical contamination monitoring programme to complement the work undertaken by NIEA. In addition to the sampling carried out by NIEA, FSA in NI test live bivalve molluscs biannually for the following contaminants:

Heavy metals  Lead  Cadmium  Mercury Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Dioxin and dioxin like PCBs

The total predicted annual costs for this chemical sampling programme is approximately £35,000.

Finned Fish Chemical Monitoring Programme

FSANI also conduct a quarterly sampling and monitoring chemical contaminants programme for three groups of finned fish – pelagic, demersal and bottom dwellers. These three groups of fish are collected quarterly from 3 harbour ports in NI (approximately 36 samples per year) and are analysed for the following contaminants as detailed in Regulation (EC) 1881/2006:

Heavy metals  Lead  Cadmium  Mercury Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Dioxins, furans and dioxin-like PCBs

In addition, the fish samples are analysed for the following range of organochlorine pesticides:

Organochlorine Pesticides

Aldrin / Dieldrin Reported as Dieldrin

Chlordane α / Chlordane β / Oxychlordane Reported as Chlordane

Endrin

Heptachlor / Heptachlor Epoxide Reported as Heptachlor

Hexachlorobenzene

Hexachlorobutadiene

Hexachlorocyclohexane α

Hexachlorocyclohexane β

Page 72 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Hexachlorocyclohexane γ

Isodrin

o,p’-DDT / p,p’-DDE / p,p’-DDT / p,p’-TDE Reported as DDT

The total predicted annual costs for this chemical sampling programme is approximately £22,000.

Page 73 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Descriptor 10 - Properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment.

Marine litter has been defined as any persistent, manufactured or processed solid material discarded, disposed of or abandoned in the marine environment. According to Charting Progress 2 significant amounts of litter appear in our seas and on our beaches. Plastics are the main type of litter found both on beaches and offshore, including increasing quantities of microscopic pieces of plastics resulting from degradation of larger plastic products or direct inputs like from, for example, preproduction pellets or facial cleanser particles flushed into the sea. Plastic litter can take hundreds if not thousands of years to break down, and it may never truly biodegrade. International and UK legislation prohibits the disposal of all plastics into the sea.

Among the beach litter that can be identified in the UK, the main sources are the general public, fishing, sewage discharges and shipping. In general, there has been no appreciable fall in the quantities of litter on UK beaches since Charting Progress. In fact, if we consider data collected since the start of monitoring, there has been a considerable increase. In 1994, an average of around 1000 items per kilometre was recorded but, by 2007, this had almost doubled. The majority of this increase occurred between 1994 and 2003; since then, litter levels have been relatively steady although still high. Some beaches are not surveyed every year making a comparison of these sites more difficult and some areas have sparse data sets. Up to 40% of litter items remain unassigned each year, either because they are too small or too weathered to identify a source, or because they could have come from a number of sources. Although it was assigned a ‘red’ status (unacceptable) in some areas in Charting Progress, the overall ‘traffic light’ status assigned to beach litter is orange (some problems) in Regions 1 to 5. However, with the exception of Region 3 which has improved, the status has not changed significantly since Charting Progress.

We found a wide variability in offshore litter between sites and sometimes in successive years for locations sampled. The presence of significantly higher densities of litter at Carmarthen Bay, North Cardigan Bay, in the Celtic Deep and in Rye Bay suggests that these are areas of accumulation, where litter gathers because of the effects of winds and currents. The frequency of litter ranged from 0 to 17 items per hectare. Rope, polypropylene twine and hard plastics are the most common forms of offshore litter. However, data are too sparse to allow a meaningful assessment of changes in quantities of litter either regionally or over time, and we also know too little about the impacts of litter in the sea to draw any reliable conclusions about the effects.

Much of the man-made European marine litter ends up in the North-East Atlantic as a result of land-based and sea-based human activities and causes a reduction in

Page 74 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

social, economic and ecological value. Evidence from passive samplers already indicated associated release and sorbance of chemicals on polymers, thus mainly plastics and micro-plastics have a potential to possibly cause long term effects as they may act as a vector for transferring toxic chemicals to the food chain. This seems to indicate the principles adopted in the OSPAR hazardous substances strategy might be relevant in this context. The OSPAR Hazardous Substances Strategy sets the objective of preventing pollution of the maritime area by continuously reducing discharges, emissions and losses of hazardous substances, with the ultimate aim of achieving concentrations in the marine environment near background values for naturally occurring substances and close to zero for man- made synthetic substances. These principles could apply to litter, especially plastics which are man-made synthetic substances with hazardous chemical properties that potentially transfer into the food chain.

There is a direct reference to marine litter in The OSPAR North-East Atlantic Environment Strategy: “substantially reduce marine litter in the OSPAR maritime area to levels where properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment”. In order to manage this specific human pressure we need to develop appropriate programmes and measures to reduce amounts of litter in the marine environment and to stop litter entering the marine environment, both from sea-based and land-based sources, to complement the actions of Contracting Parties such as under OSPAR Recommendation 2010/19 on the reduction of marine litter through the implementation of ‘Fishing for Litter’ initiatives, including:

1. by 2012, based on an evaluation of progress made and available data, establish regionally coordinated targets for marine litter; 2. by 2014, a coordinated monitoring programme for marine litter; 3. Promotion of research to improve the evidence base with respect to impact of litter, including micro-particles, on the marine environment;

The characteristics of Good Environmental Status (GES) are set out in the UK Final Policy Position paper. On that basis, and taking account of the OSPAR Hazardous Substances and North-East Atlantic Environment Strategy, for EU Directives addressing marine litter issues and relevant international legislation, the overall aspiration is to substantially reduce marine litter in the UK maritime area to levels where properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment by 2020. To achieve this we will aim to continuously reduce inputs with a desire to reduce the total amounts of marine litter towards levels that do not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment by 2020. Note that the European Commission (EC) divided harm into three general categories: social, economic and ecological.

Page 75 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

It is widely agreed that there should be no adverse effects resulting from human induced marine litter and its degradation products currently present in, and entering into UK waters. At present, responsibility for marine litter is spread across a number of UK agencies. Further co-operation between all organizations responsible for litter will help coordinate efforts to control marine litter. Marine litter needs to be reduced over time and not pose any significant risk to marine life, either as a result of direct mortality or by way of indirect impacts at the scale of the (sub) region. Furthermore litter should not pose a direct or indirect unacceptable risk to human welfare and not lead to detrimental economic impacts for industry and coastal communities. The current evidence base is limited and therefore makes any assessment of whether the UK is likely to meet GES for this descriptor by 2020 difficult. As such, determining, and consequently justifying, any necessary targets and measures to achieve GES is challenging.

Type of targets

Different types of targets are possible; some guidance is given under Annex IV of the MSFD: (a) targets establishing desired conditions based on the definition of good environmental status (b) measurable targets and associated indicators that allow for monitoring and assessment (c) operational targets relating to concrete implementation measures to support their achievement.

Environmental targets need to be set on the basis of the initial assessment according to article 10 of the MSFD, which implies a need to set different types of marine litter targets with respect to clean and accumulation areas (similar to eutrophication). The target for clean areas will be the maintenance of this status and for accumulation areas to ultimately achieve the clean status through continuous improvement in status.

The Environmental Protection Act 1990 (s.87) states that litter is ‘anything that is dropped, thrown, left or deposited that causes defacement, in a public place’. For land-based litter it is an offense to dispose of litter. In the UK the Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires duty bodies to keep land clear of litter and the code of practice outlines a graduated scheme (levels A-D) of cleanliness which set outs what is socially acceptable and where remedial action is required. Beach litter on amenity beaches should be cleared between 1st May and 30th September. The duty under section 89 of the EPA 1990 extends to the high tide watermark. In all other beach areas, the Code recommends those responsible for beaches to regularly monitor them and develop an appropriate cleansing regime. Although the jurisdiction stops at the high water line, a similar scheme could be developed for the marine environment including economic and environmental aspects. In the case of clean areas it may be appropriate to consider pressure targets (i.e. relating to marine litter

Page 76 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

inputs) as part of a risk based approach, strengthened by additional monitoring information (such as beach and benthic litter assessments) where this can be done cost effectively. A good example of a pressure target could be to reduce litter from a specific origin like shipping, fishing, sewage or tourism by implementing measures related to those pressures. In the case of areas of accumulation, it is also necessary to provide indicators and targets that allow for the tracking of progress towards Good Environmental Status. An option would be to use category based targets at accumulation areas in order to reflect different changes in pressures. This means that we would follow trends in specific categories, for example plastic bags or fishing nets.

The targets must be qualitative as there is mostly insufficient evidence to support quantitative targets. Reflecting the lack of evidence in this area, this paper proposes a range of options for targets based on current state and pressure. None of these targets, for either clean or littered areas, can be seen as stand-alone elements which should be used in their own right as the equivalent of good environmental status. As our understanding improves it may be possible to move towards more quantitative thresholds which are directly related to the impact of litter on the marine environment, but currently we don’t have enough evidence to be able to set targets for a particular percentage reduction in litter levels. A robust conclusion about marine litter status and management can only be made based on a combination of available information.

Changes in patterns of production and consumption over the last 30-40 years have led to a significant increase in the use of plastics and synthetics thus changing the nature of litter ending up in the marine environment. Further consideration is necessary with respect to expected future trends in activity, their impacts, and the effects of regulatory, technological, or social changes. Once in the environment, marine litter gradually breaks down into ever smaller pieces which persist for many years, so that they will continually build up as time goes by. This suggests that targets related to reduction of items needs to be fixed on a specific size class as smaller and smaller pieces will continue to be formed over time. Given the prolonged timeframe for decomposition and the limited amounts of litter actually removed through, for example, beach clearances or other initiatives, it can be argued that the overall number of marine litter items in the oceans will only continue to increase or stabilise.

Some marine litter will persist in the sea for years, decades and centuries, therefore, evaluations of sources alone will not be enough and long term monitoring in the marine environment will be required. While marine litter would appear to be largely preventable, the wide range of sources of litter, the number of pathways by which it enters the marine environment and the fact that litter can be easily transported by winds and currents, all make managing the problem highly complex. In order to prevent items from becoming marine litter, it is important to tackle this problem at its source. Measures broad enough to significantly impact on the amounts and types of

Page 77 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

litter currently reaching the marine environment are likely to require a mixture of funding and behavioural step changes. Local authorities, water authorities, industry, public and government all play their part in reducing and cleaning up litter, which means that bringing down litter levels significantly by 2020 will be very challenging. Education is the key to changing behaviour and creating a sustainable solution to the problem. Further measures to reduce amounts of marine litter could include the adoption of control measures promoting the application of best available techniques and associated waste and discharge limit values. Measures could also focus on the substitution of long lasting marine litter types in combination with bans, restrictions, and best environmental practices to address marine litter inputs from diffuse sources, such as consumer products.

Scale of targets

Current monitoring programmes for beach (e.g. MCS, LEQSE) and marine litter (e.g. Cefas), as modified to support the MSFD, will continue to be the method used to diagnose the marine litter status and effectiveness of management measures. The current monitoring programmes will continue to collect data which will allow us to distinguish between accumulation and clean areas in future. At the moment the results are not assessed this way and changes will have to take place in order to do so. The benefit of doing so will guide us when developing a risk based monitoring approach by 2014. Litter evaluation on beaches and at sea can be done on a European scale. The data from those monitoring programmes combined with relevant research information will form the necessary evidence to define harmful social, economic and ecological effects of litter in the marine environment. Evaluating the impact of litter on marine organisms needs to be done at a regional or basin scale, enabling transposition of protocols to local species. Highly affected areas will be monitored locally. Temporal scales should take into account seasonal variations.

Criterion 10.1 - Characteristics of litter in the marine and coastal environment Indicator 10.1.1 - Trends in the amount of litter washed ashore and/or deposited on coastlines, including analysis of its composition, spatial distribution and, where possible, source.

Type of targets

 There is insufficient information available for most regions to set quantitative thresholds related to the reduction of washed ashore and/or deposited marine litter trends on coastlines. Despite this it may, however, be possible to set quantitative reduction targets for beach litter based on the baseline data available from current beach monitoring programmes. For example, if the types of litter found on beaches for which we have a degree of control over are considered (some 50% as identified in the recent Marine Conservation

Page 78 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Society (MCS) report) then a target reflecting a reduction in these types could theoretically be set.  E.g.: MCS Beach Watch Results 2010

0.3% Medical 1.0% Fly-tipped 1.8% Shipping Sewage Related 7.3% Debris 15.3% Fishing 37.1% Non-sourced 37.4% Public

If we put measures in place to improve, for example, sewage overflow systems, we can target a 7.3% reduction; if we educate the public we can target another 37.4% reductions and so on. The existing data even allows for a more precise breakdown; we could, for example, select specific items such as cigarette butts. During the MCS Beachwatch Big Weekend 2010, a total of 4,895 cigarette butts were found on 376 beaches around the UK, representing 1.5% of the total litter found. An average of 29 cigarette ends were found for each kilometre of beach surveyed. If we develop a method to improve cigarette disposal we can reduce the number of litter items by 1.5%. Similar action can be taken on other specific items e.g.: cotton buds, plastic bags, etc and thus a combined reduction number could theoretically be calculated. However, there are drawbacks to such a target such as fluctuations caused by storms and the current lack of evidence suggesting a link to ‘harm’. In the absence of such evidence a trend-based target may be more appropriate until the evidence supports otherwise. The proposed reduction numbers (set out above) are arbitrary and thus they have to be used with caution.

 Data would be derived from the existing monitoring programmes of the MCS. MCS data are derived from annual surveys by volunteers who select a length of coastline and record the numbers and categories of litter during the clean- up operation. The methodology presently used by the MCS is comparable to that used by OSPAR and with the recently published UNEP/ IOC guidelines on survey and monitoring of marine litter. The current monitoring is excellent in terms of public engagement and coverage, but spatial and temporal short and long-term variation in factors that influence litter stranded on the coastline in combination with volunteer work leads to a high variation in the amount of litter recorded there. Despite those limitations the litter surveys are carried out each year in a consistent manner by each group of volunteers and so results are comparable year on year and do give a good indication of trends in litter levels and sources. MCS Beach Watch surveys can deliver the bulk of

Page 79 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

data for general monitoring and engaging the public, but this could be complemented by a subset of surveys with more frequent sampling which would increase the confidence in the assessment of trends. A subset of beaches, preferably in proximity of accumulation areas, where we already know they are, could be monitored locally or aligned with other types of surveys such as the Local Environmental Quality Survey of England (LEQSE) produced by Keep Britain Tidy on behalf of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) to provide a report on the Cleanliness State of the Nation.

Define the targets

 It is proposed therefore that the target: Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 A stable trend in the A decreasing trend in Overall reduction in the number of visible litter accumulation areas and a number of visible litter items within specific stable trend in clean areas items within specific categories/types from in the number of visible categories/types on 2010 levels to 2020 litter items within specific coastlines from 2010 categories/types on levels by 2020. coastlines from 2010 levels by 2020.

 Recently a 40% reduction target was proposed within OSPAR and subsequently rejected on the basis that there is a lack of understanding with respect to the levels and impacts of litter in the marine environment, no determination of immediate priorities, doubt over the effectiveness of potential measures and robustness of data from current litter monitoring programmes to determine if we are meeting any reduction target  MCS is currently not looking at beaches in relation to clean or accumulating areas, although could probably do so in future. Pending this we can use reference beaches which are prone to regular “defined” littering i.e. tourism, riverine inputs, sewage, etc.  At some point the UK will need to agree on indicator items i.e. specific types of litter, like for example, cigarette butts, cotton buds, plastic bags, or broader indicator categories e.g. fishing litter, sanitary items, etc. Targeted surveys of specific litter items/categories will be necessary to capture the effectiveness of implemented management measures.  The targets above should be seen as preliminary targets until further evidence underpinning quantitative targets becomes available  Alternatively or simultaneously operational targets such as for example improved waste reception facilities, beach notices, education, etc need to be introduced  Remark: Evidence is lacking and more research is needed to define the different stages in the process of biofouling but the presence and degree of bio-fouling

Page 80 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

on litter, can be used as an indirect measure to define the residence time of a certain litter item in the marine environment which allow for some sort of differentiation between “new” and “old” items and thus might be used in future to distinguish between historical and “new” marine litter.

Baseline for targets

 The baseline for the target is the current MCS dataset which also formed the basis for the assessment in Charting Progress 2. This project provides the only long-term data set on beach litter levels, material types and sources on beaches in the UK. The range of data available is generally good although certain CP2 regions, notably 6, 7 and 8, have inadequate data coverage to draw any firm conclusions about litter trends.  Ideally we would look for beach surveys to complement LEQSE type surveys. Local environment quality is a subject many people feel strongly about as it is about issues on their doorstep.  Although marine litter was assigned a ‘red’ status (unacceptable) in some areas in Charting Progress 2, the overall ‘traffic light’ status assigned to beach litter is orange (some problems) in Regions 1 to 5. However, with the exception of Region 3 which has improved, the status has not changed significantly since Charting Progress (2005). The evidence available suggests that the UK is currently below the target proposed at option 1 above.  Temporal scales should take into account seasonal variations.

Scale of targets

 Litter evaluation on beaches can be done on a regional and wider European scale.

Although reactive measures, such as beach cleaning surveys, are useful to actively reduce litter volumes in the short term they do not provide any long term solutions to the problem. These measures are only economically viable where revenue from the beach is important. Part of this beach litter is thrown on the beach by waves and tides, but another undefined part originates from beach visitors and no differentiation between both can be made.

Indicator 10.1.2 - Trends in the amount of litter in the water column (including floating at the surface) and deposited on the sea-floor, including analysis of its composition, spatial distribution and, where possible, source.

Type of targets

 At the moment seabed litter has been surveyed at only a few sites and data are sparse, making assessment difficult. The situation is even worse with regard to water column surveys. This means there is insufficient evidence or criteria to assess impacts and state on a regional basis, although evidence

Page 81 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

suggests that marine litter accumulates in certain locations due to underlying hydrodynamics. The precise dynamics between beach, benthic and water column litter are not fully understood at this time and a better understanding needs to be developed before we can predict one by measuring another.  Data would be derived from the existing monitoring programmes which have recently been expanded in order to improve the temporal and spatial scale. Opportunistic sampling for seabed litter takes places on the back of ongoing fish stock assessment and contaminant surveys. A case study looking at amounts of water column litter is currently taking place and will offer us limited insight into the full extent of the marine litter cycle. Consequently only a trend target for benthic litter is proposed.

Define the targets

 It is proposed therefore that the target for litter on the sea-floor: Option 1 Option 2 A stable trend in the A decreasing trend in Overall reduction in the number of visible litter accumulation areas and a number of visible litter items within specific stable trend in clean areas items within specific categories/types on the in the number of visible categories/types on the seafloor from 2010 levels litter items within specific seafloor from 2010 levels by 2020. categories/types on the by 2020. seafloor from 2010 levels by 2020.

 CP2 indicated the presence of significantly higher densities of litter at Carmarthen Bay, North Cardigan Bay, in the Celtic Deep and in Rye Bay which suggests that these are areas of accumulation. The currently running CEFAS marine litter monitoring project will further assess the amount and composition of marine litter and its accumulation areas by developing a standardised and international agreed monitoring approach. Evidence suggests that the main part of marine litter comes from land based (80%) and not from sea-based sources. This seems to indicate that reductions can easily be achieved by limiting the input. An estimated 1.5 to 2bn sanitary protection items are flushed down the toilet every year in the UK, in addition to 61-100m condoms (National Bag It and Bin It Group, 1997). Improved sewage overflow systems and better labelling are possible examples of operational targets which will contribute to reduced inputs  The targets above should be seen as preliminary targets until further evidence underpinning quantitative targets becomes available. Whether or not one can demonstrate movement towards the target depends on the natural variability within the measurements, which will come out of the analysis of the historic data plus an understanding of the litter-generating mechanism and cycles. We can probably assume there is not just one generating mechanism for all litter, and that different control measures might mitigate the input of litter from, e.g. fishing, shipping, maritime industries and terrestrial sources.

Page 82 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

 Several international drivers for change are already in place, although effective enforcement is missing. Globally shipping is still considered a major source of marine litter, however within Europe this is no longer the case. Over the last decade, the UK Government has taken considerable action to make shipping safer and reduce the risk of polluting activities, both accidental and deliberate. EU Directives such as the port reception facilities for ship- generated waste and cargo residues (Directive 2000/59/EC) and international agreements such as MARPOL have resulted in tighter controls for ships when in port and at sea, reducing operational discharges and negating the need to discharge waste at sea. Increased participation in recycling schemes by the general public and implementation of this relatively new legislation may take some time to show effect. Monitoring of marine litter accumulation at hotspots will allow us to assess the effectiveness of those changes. Again we can target specific categories or pressures (similar as the method described above) to follow up changes in accumulation rates reflecting failed or successful measures.

Baseline for targets

The baseline for the target is the Cefas dataset which also formed the basis for the assessment in Charting Progress 2. This dataset provides the only long-term data set on offshore litter levels, material types and sources around the UK. The range of data available is generally good although certain CP2 regions, notably 6, 7 and 8, have inadequate data coverage to draw any firm conclusions about litter trends. We found a wide variability in seabed litter, not only between sites but also between successive years for locations sampled, there is generally not much litter on the seabed. The total number of litter items collected per station ranged from 0 to 161, the latter recorded at Carmarthen Bay in 2003. The presence of significantly higher densities of litter suggests that these are areas of accumulation, where litter gathers because of the effects of winds and currents. However at this moment, data are too sparse to allow a meaningful assessment of changes in quantities of litter either regionally or over time. Further data collection is ongoing under the CEFAS marine litter monitoring project which is currently funded by DEFRA and will strengthen our initial assessment under CP2 to form the baseline for the target. The generated data will be statistically analysed and used for modelling studies in order to create better insights into the marine litter dynamics and pressures. The main objectives of this project are to assess the amount and composition of marine litter and its accumulation areas by developing a standardised and international agreed monitoring approach. The methodology presently used by Cefas is adapted from the Northwest Pacific Action Plan (NOWPAP 2007a) and the published UNEP/ IOC guidelines on survey and monitoring of seabed litter. This specific method was also recommended within the MSFD Task Group. In future we may just need to monitor accumulation areas and assume that "clean" areas vary pro rata. The relative

Page 83 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

variability of "clean" areas will also be higher, which means you spend more effort counting less litter to get a less reliable index.

There are not enough data available at the moment to draw any reliable conclusions about litter distribution in the water column. A survey of floating litter in the Northern Atlantic was conducted in 2002 which used visual sightings of litter on the ocean surface taken from a ship. It inferred that the density of marine litter ranged from 0 to 20 items/km2 at latitudes between 0 and 50°N. The highest density of floating debris was located around the UK and North-West Europe with figures given for the English Channel of 10 to 100+ items/km2.

The ongoing case study with a ‘manta’ trawl by Cefas in combination with the results from the Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR) will allow us to make some sort of assessment albeit with limited significance due to a restricted time series and coverage. The method and equipment used are similar to those applied by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Algalita Marine Research Foundation (AMRF).

Scale of targets

Litter evaluation at sea can be done on a regional and wider European scale.

Notwithstanding the need to prevent litter in the first place, OSPAR has promoted ‘fishing for litter’ as a practical, simple yet effective means to remove litter from the marine environment. The project targets the fishing industry by asking fishermen to voluntarily collect marine litter caught up in their nets in large hard-wearing bags provided by the project. The amount and types of litter (but not the origins) are recorded onshore before being disposed of in an environmentally friendly way. OSPAR published a Background Report on Fishing-for-litter activities in the OSPAR Region and adopted guidelines on how to develop a ‘fishing for litter’ project.

Indicator 10.1.3 - Trends in the amount, distribution and, where possible, composition of micro-particles (in particular micro-plastics).

Type of targets

 This parameter was not used in past UK assessments and there is insufficient information available for most waters to set quantitative thresholds.  Limited spatial data is available from time series which originated out of Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR) datasets. However the CPR samples at approximately 10 m depth and so will not sample floating debris above “plankton” size.  The water column case study with the ‘manta’ trawl will capture microparticles at the surface larger than 333 µm and thus gives us limited information in relation to distribution patterns.

Page 84 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Define the targets

The longevity of many litter components is widely accepted and fragmentation of certain marine litter will continue to occur. This means that numbers of microparticles are only likely to go up over coming decades. This parameter is not currently used in assessments under CP2. No quantitative indicators or targets are proposed as there isn’t currently enough evidence to support a target for a reduction in micro-plastics. The desired aspiration would be no further increase in microparticles by 2020, but it is imperative we design effective monitoring, develop decent time series and improve our understanding of harm in order to ensure appropriate targets are set.

Baseline for targets

Some data are or will be available for the initial assessment although limited in time and space. The persistence and fate of microparticles is not well understood. Further monitoring of distribution patterns and dynamics will have to take place and more research is needed into litter decomposition rates under different environmental conditions in order to quantify the half-lives for different litter types. Knowledge on half-life will assist in identifying residence times in the oceans and on beaches as well as targeting management strategies at those litter types that are both damaging and persistent.

Scale of targets

Microparticle evaluation cannot be done on a regional scale and highly affected areas will need to be monitored locally. Temporal scales should take into account seasonal variations such as storms and stratification.

Criterion 10.2 - Impacts of litter on marine life Indicator 10.2.1 - Trends in the amount and composition of litter ingested by marine animals (e.g. stomach analysis)

Type of targets

 There is no information available for most waters to set quantitative thresholds for assessing impacts on marine animals caused by ingested amounts of litter.  Attention should be paid to areas where littering is more extensive and where environmental harmful effects might occur as defined by further research, or creates a risk or economic loss to the people using or living at the coast.  Related monitoring and verification implications: monitoring results combined with research on social, economic and ecological harm will lead to improved knowledge of critical thresholds.

Page 85 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

 Identification of harm from litter on animal populations must be a combination of experimental approaches with data collected from animal populations in the wild.  The work under the OSPAR Convention provides examples of objectives and tools that can be used to define, and indicate progress towards, “Good Environmental Status” in the North East Atlantic. OSPAR’s expertise and experience in developing and applying these is a good starting point for the development of criteria and methodologies to determine “Good Environmental Status” under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. For the North Sea, an Ecologic Quality Objective (EcoQO) for plastic particles in the stomach of fulmars has been established, but this OSPAR EcoQO goes much further than GES. The EcoQO target of 0.1 g is based on values from pristine areas and might thus never be achievable. Unlike other seabirds, fulmars do not regurgitate plastic particles but accumulate them. The content of plastic particles in fulmar stomachs can therefore be used as an indicator for the abundance of floating litter encountered at sea; it is not really an indicator of litter impacts. Nevertheless it could be argued that relatively high litter concentrations could lead to impacts.

Define the targets

 There are different proposed options available depending on the desired aim:

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Trends in the levels of Trends in the levels of Less than 10% of plastic particles in the plastic particles in the northern fulmars stomachs of northern stomachs of northern (Fulmarus glacialis) fulmars (Fulmarus fulmars (Fulmarus having more than glacialis) are not glacialis) are moving 0.1g plastic particles moving away from the towards the levels in the stomach levels indicated in the indicated in the (OSPAR EcoQO) OSPAR EcoQO. OSPAR EcoQO.

 This OSPAR EcoQO or a variation on it could also be used to monitor floating marine litter (see indicator above).

Remark: Option 3, again this target refers to a pristine condition in the Arctic and might thus never be achievable; nevertheless it is an accepted OSPAR EcoQO.

Page 86 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

A. B. 70% 100%

65% 75%

60% 50%

55% 25% EcoQO 10% target 0% Scottish East southeast 1980‘s 95- 96- 97- 98- 99- 00- 01- 02- 03- Channel Skagerak (6 9) 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 Islands England North Sea (222) (258) (304) (329) (294) (318) (331) (304) (309) (91) (60) (107) (821) (191)

70% C. The OSPAR Fulmar Plastic EcoQO 60% Percentages of birds having more than 50% 0.1 g plastic in the stomach: 40% 30% A. Temporal trend Netherlands 20% (5 year periods 1980-2007) 10% 0% B. Regional differences in the North Sea Arctic Faroe North (over period 2003-2007) Canada Islands Sea (169) (647) (1287) C. EcoQO target in reference areas

Figure A1-3 The OSPAR fulmar EcoQO

Baseline for targets

We know too little about the impacts of litter in the sea to draw any reliable conclusions about the effects.

The Fulmar-Litter-EcoQO approach probably comes closest to the intended methodology for ‘Good Environmental Status’ in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, and may act as an example. Over the period 2002–2006, the stomachs of 1090 beached fulmars from the North Sea were analysed. The percentage of fulmars with more than 0.1g plastic in the stomach ranged from about 45% to over 60% per area. The Channel area was the most heavily polluted while the Scottish Islands were the ‘cleanest’ region with a mean mass for plastics in fulmars of about a third of the level encountered in the Channel. Currently the 10% level of the EcoQO probably only occurs in Arctic populations. A long-term monitoring series for the Netherlands shows a significant reduction in plastic abundance from 1997 to 2006, mainly through a reduction in raw industrial plastics. The report concluded that stomach content analysis of beached fulmars offers a reliable monitoring tool for (changes in) the abundance of marine litter off the Dutch coast. By its focus on small-sized litter in the offshore environment such monitoring has little overlap with, and high additional value, to beach litter surveys of larger waste items. Furthermore, stomach contents of fulmars reflect the ecological consequences of litter ingestion on a wide range of marine organisms and create public awareness of the fact that environmental problems from marine litter persist even when larger items are broken

Page 87 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

down to sizes below the range of normal human perception. Such monitoring can be applied in other areas by either fulmars or similar species with adjusted targets Beached birds may have died for a variety of reasons. For some birds, plastic accumulation in the stomach is the direct cause of death, but more often the effects of litter ingestion act at sub-lethal levels, except maybe in cases of ingestion of chemical substances. It is important to remain aware that an indicator is not equal to the full range of environmental harm.

Scale of targets

If the full cost of degradation of ecosystem goods and services by marine litter is to be assessed more research on the ecological impact of marine litter needs to be undertaken. Studies on dose response need to be undertaken in relation with types and quantities of marine litter. These studies will enlarge our understanding and enable a more science based definition of threshold levels. In relation to the descriptor and what constitutes harm in a socio-economic sense, this has yet to be defined for marine litter. There is no consensus on what is an acceptable level of economic harm from marine litter. There has only been a limited amount of research into the social and economic effects of marine litter and there are many aspects that require further research, especially in relation to the definition of harm.

Page 88 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Descriptor 11 - Introduction of energy, including underwater noise, is at levels that do not adversely affect the marine environment

Criterion 11.1 - Distribution in time and place of loud, low and mid frequency impulsive sounds Indicator 11.1.1 - Proportion of days and their distribution within a calendar year over areas of a determined surface, as well as their spatial distribution, in which anthropogenic sound sources exceed levels that are likely to entail significant impact on marine animals measured as Sound Exposure Level (in dB re 1 μPa².s), or as peak sound pressure level (in dB re 1 μPa peak) at one metre, measured over the frequency band 10 Hz to 10 kHz

Type of targets

 Is there enough evidence for specific thresholds or should targets be trend- based or qualitative?

There are large gaps in our understanding of the effects of sound on marine life and therefore setting thresholds for indicator 11.1.1 will be challenging (see for example review by OSPAR 2009b; Tasker et al. 2010). The Commission decision has changed the suggestion of Tasker et al. (2010) from being a complex but single dimensional choice of target to a complex three-dimensional target (proportion of days, areas, sound thresholds). The UK expert group agreed that the sound threshold criteria proposed by Tasker et al. (2010) would be the most reasonable, subject in due course to change should the science indicate other appropriate levels (see Southall et al. 2007). It has to be noted that there is a six-year review timetable built into the Directive which certainly has the potential to take account of scientific progress for this and the second indicator. These sound threshold levels refer to the proposed behavioural response criteria for single pulses for all cetacean hearing groups (low-, mid- and high frequency cetaceans; see Southall et al. 2007; Table 5). Since behavioural response is very difficult to quantify, Southall et al. 2007 used the onset of temporary threshold shift (TTS) as the de facto criterion for behavioural disturbance. It has to be emphasised that Southall et al. (2007) provide thresholds for exposure, i.e. received sound pressure levels, whereas in Tasker et al. (2010), source levels12 are applied. There were two main reasons for this:

12 Source level is a measure of the acoustic output which is a characteristic of the source rather than the environment. It is often expressed as the SPL that would exist 1 m away from an equivalent point source radiating with the same acoustic power into the medium as the actual source. It is determined by measuring the SPL in the acoustic far-field and extrapolating back to determine the SPL that would exist 1 m away from the acoustic centre using an appropriate propagation model.

Page 89 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

 An indicator that is based on exposure would require measurements or modelling of sound pressure levels received by an animal which would not be practical or safe.  It cannot be guaranteed that animals are within a ‘safe’ exposure distance throughout an area.

The UK expert group therefore follows the concept of a pressure indicator as put forward in Tasker et al. (2010). This would also follow the logic of the GES descriptor 11 which explicitly mentions the ‘introduction of energy’. The values by Southall et al. (2007) (see below) would cover most activities that have been discussed to cause behavioural disturbance, such as seismic surveys and construction of offshore wind farms if impact pile driving is used, and explosions, for example during explosive decommissioning (see Tasker et al. 2010). Developers will have the choice on how to contribute to the achievement of GES with one option being to take steps to attenuate sounds to a level where no significant harm occurs. It is recognised that further consideration is necessary as to the feasibility of current mitigation measures in reducing levels to reflect those outlined in the proposed target and further discussions will take place as to whether the levels proposed provide a realistic target for developers to achieve.

Decisions on two further target values are called for by the Commission Decision: i. “Proportion of days and their distribution within a calendar year ... as well as their spatial distribution” and ii. “areas of a determined surface.”

An analysis of the current number of days when source exceeds the threshold has yet to be performed to establish a baseline against which a target might be set. Plans are in hand to conduct this analysis, but until information from that analysis is available, it would be very unwise and unsafe to set a target. It is understood that targets should be set to avoid a large number of widely dispersed sound sources operating simultaneously above the threshold, but instead to attempt to focus these sound sources into a small number areas over shorter periods of time.

Tasker et al. (2010) recommended areas of an approximate spatial scale of 15 nm x 8 nm (at UK’s latitude). A balance needs to be struck between having an area that would be too small to represent the approximate area of influence of a sound over the threshold, and an area being so large as to make any resultant index insensitive to changes brought about by management. In addition, it would help if the size of areas chosen was practical for fast and accurate representation of pressures, and preferably the dimensions of an area should be approximately consistent across marine international boundaries. DECC have indicated that they would prefer to work at the scale of hydrocarbon licensing blocks (or multiples thereof). These blocks are 10 nm N/S and c5 nm E/W (12 minutes longitude). Neighbouring EU countries in the North Sea operate in blocks of 10 nm N/S and c10 nm E/W (20 minutes longitude). It is therefore recommended that the UK uses single blocks as

Page 90 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

the “areas of determined surface” – this will lead to some size variance in UK waters (blocks are larger in the south compared with the north, due to spherical nature of the earth), but this disadvantage is offset by the administrative ease of working with existing management divisions of the sea.

Define the targets

 Define targets for high, medium and low levels of ambition where possible.

Give advice on which level is the most appropriate for GES.

In principle the target will be trend-based and apply a more recent interpretation of indicator 11.1.1 as put forward by the EU TG on noise (but revised by the UK Expert Group):

High level of ambition:

An annual statistically significant decrease is demonstrated in the proportion of days and their distribution within a calendar year, over areas of 10 min lat and 12 min long and their spatial distribution in which anthropogenic sound sources, measured over the frequency band 10 Hz to 10 kHz, exceed the energy source level 183 dB re 1 μPa² m² s; or the zero to peak source level of 224 dB re 1 μPa² m².

Medium level of ambition:

There is no annual statistically significant increase in the proportion of day and their distribution within a calendar year, over areas of 10 min latitude by 12 min longitude and their spatial distribution in which anthropogenic sound sources, measured over the frequency band 10 Hz to 10 kHz, exceed the energy source level 183 dB re 1 μPa² m² s; or the zero to peak source level of 224 dB re 1 μPa² m².

The values for the ‘proportion of days’ and their ‘distribution’ will be based on an analysis of existing seismic survey and wind farm installation activity off the UK in the recent past, part of which is currently undertaken by DECC. The results of this analysis will be available in due course and will help defining a more concrete target with regards of different levels of ambition.

Baseline for targets

 Advise where appropriate on the baseline for each target (e.g. spatial and temporal scale)

The spatial scale should comprise all UKCS licence blocks, divided between regional seas (in the same way as other indicators). The temporal scale against which the baseline will be set is the 3 years covering the period 2008-2010. It is fully intended that all information on the occurrence of loud impulsive sounds should be used in the

Page 91 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

baseline assessment, including the incorporation of an extrapolation of the potential increase in pile driving activity beyond 2010 resulting from renewable energy expansion. As such the targets will be refined based on an analysis of current and future activities being undertaken by DECC. In addition further refinements are permitted at six year intervals by the Directive itself.

Scale of targets

 Advise on the most appropriate temporal and spatial scale at which to apply targets.

The annual changes of emitted low frequency impulsive sounds will be based on a desk-based assessment of the annual activity that leads to introduction of mid- low frequency impulsive sound as reported in EIAs and other licence/permit documentation. The spatial scale will be all 10 min latitude x 12 min longitude deg long licence blocks within the UK EEZ. Commission Indicator 11.1.1 is designed to be applied at a regional seas scale and not to individual licensing blocks. The proposed target is intended to act as a register for all low frequency impulsive sound taking place in order that any wide-scale cumulative effects can be identified and accounted for in decision-making. Specific impacts of sound in particular areas will still considered through EIAs and SEAs and generally applied to one activity or sector.

Criterion - 11.2 Continuous low frequency sound Indicator 11.2.1 - Trends in the ambient noise level within the 1/3 octave bands 63 and 125 Hz (centre frequency) (re 1 μPa RMS; average noise level in these octave bands over a year) measured by observation stations and/or with the use of models if appropriate.

Type of targets

 Is there enough evidence for specific thresholds or should targets be trend- based or qualitative?

The effects of ambient noise13 on marine life are largely unknown so that no exposure thresholds exist as of yet (see Tasker et al. 2010). Targets for indicator

13 Ambient noise is defined here as noise that is composed of 1) background noise, 2) foreground noise. Background noise is defined as sound arriving at a receiver from distant sources that cannot be resolved as coming from spatially distinct sources; Foreground noise comprises all sound that can be resolved by a receiver. Measurement noise noise – that is noise not caused by sound waves reaching the receiver (e.g. electrical self noise, platform noise, flow noise, cable strum, etc) may contribute to the recorded signals, but these should be minimised during measurement and should not be considered in the analysis of trends (see Ainslie 2010).

Page 92 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

11.2.1 therefore will be trend based. It is clear from the discussion within the UK Expert Group that several points have to be considered:

 Receivers (e.g. fish and marine mammals) are in most cases highly mobile and areas of importance (e.g. spawning / breeding grounds) vary greatly and could occur anywhere in UK seas. A sampling scheme should therefore not be based on the distribution of ‘sensitive’ receivers/areas. Instead, areas should be targeted where the intensity of anthropogenic sound is relatively high and would not be strongly affected by dominant local sources, e.g. subtle changes in ferry routes, in order to obtain information on ambient noise in high pressure areas.  The frequencies chosen reflect the fact that most fundamental shipping sounds are concentrated in this range (not only in deep waters but also in the conditions of the North Sea) and at these frequencies shipping sounds dominate other sounds. Also limiting the bands will reduce the overall cost of monitoring and reporting. However, it is acknowledged that the range of frequencies could be amended if this is deemed appropriate. For example, recordings of ambient noise levels could be undertaken for every centre frequency in the 1/3 octave band up to 200 Hz. This would cover most noise associated with shipping (see for example Urick 1983 and Tasker et al. 2010) and would insure against the possibility of future changes in the indicator frequencies. Analysis would be carried out initially on only the 63 and 125 Hz centre frequencies. Collecting this additional information would also not incur additional cost.  Modelling is considered likely to be too difficult to be reliable as the uncertainties when attempting to provide maps for very large areas are too high and the overall amount of data that is of use to both seed models and to test their validity is too sparse. It is much better to develop empirical indicators, than to rely on modelled results alone.  The IMO (International Maritime Organisation) has already started looking at the issue of underwater noise from shipping. The proposed targets reflect the discussions and agreements being sought through the IMO and any management measures necessary to achieve them will be progressed through the IMO and agreed internationally in order to ensure the UK fleet is not placed at a disadvantage. For this reason the Commission Indicator 11.2.1 should be viewed more as an incentive to monitoring at this time rather than a tool to restrict activities.

Define the targets

 Define targets for high, medium and low levels of ambition where possible.  Give advice on which level is the most appropriate for GES.

A UK target would be trend based:

Page 93 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

High level of ambition:

Trends14 in the ambient noise level within the 1/3 octave bands 63 and 125 Hz (centre frequency) (re 1μPa RMS; average noise level in these octave bands over a year) measured by observation stations show a statistically significant decrease above natural variation.

Medium level of ambition

Trends in the ambient noise level within the 1/3 octave bands 63 and 125 Hz (centre frequency) (re 1μPa RMS; average noise level in these octave bands over a year) measured by observation stations do not show a statistically significant annual increase above natural variation.

Baseline for targets

 Advise where appropriate on the baseline for each target (e.g. spatial and temporal scale)

It is desirable that a meld of historical data, real time measurements and forecast trends will be necessary to properly address the target. However, the results so far suggest that existing SEA, EIA and MOD related data cannot contribute sufficiently to a baseline for ambient sound in high pressure areas. Even if the data for seeding models was of sufficient quality, modelling acoustic propagation in coastal regions is extremely challenging due to the changing bathymetry and the lack of accurate environmental data. Therefore it is strongly recommended that the baseline is derived from measurements rather than based on modelling using existing datasets. However, the empirical data gathered could be used to validate ambient noise models so that a judgement on their usefulness could be made in the future. The baseline should be considered after 3-4 years of monitoring at representative stations in high pressure areas and after a number of options for statistical analysis have been considered. Cefas is currently running a project which provides a feasibility study for indicator 11.2.1: ME5210: Monitoring Ambient Noise for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. This project is examining the ambient noise indicator and will start monitoring ambient sound at selected locations in 2011. The project will – along with the TG noise, develop a detailed methodology for analysing the data.

14 Trend is defined as the statistically significant change of mean / median ambient noise over a defined period of time (month, year).

Page 94 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Scale of targets

 Advise on the most appropriate temporal and spatial scale at which to apply targets.

Targets are applied on the UK scale and will focus on the high pressure areas. The monitoring will, however, have to be applied on a regional scale as the issue of ambient sound disturbance is a transboundary one. The monitoring concepts across the EU states within a region should be aligned using the consultation within EU TSG noise.

Evaluation

Evaluate each indicator against all the criteria in the attached spreadsheet.

MSFD GES indicator assessment template Sources

Ainslie MA (2010) Principles of sonar performance modelling, Vol. Springer in association with Praxis Publishing Chichester, UK OSPAR (2009b) Assessment of the impacts of anthropogenic underwater sound in the marine environment, Vol 441. OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (www.ospar.org) Southall BL, Bowles AE, Ellison WT, Finneran JJ, Gentry RL, Greene CRJ, Kastak D, Ketten DR, Miller JH, Nachtigall PE, Richardson WJ, Thomas JA, Tyack P (2007) Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: initial scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals 33:411-521 Tasker ML, Amundin M, Andre M, Hawkins T, Lang I, Merck T, Scholik-Schlomer A, Teilmann J, Thomsen F, Werner S, Zakharia M (2010) Marine Strategy Framework Directive - Task Group 11 Report - Underwater noise and other forms of energy, European Commission Joint Research Centre and International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Luxembourg Urick R (1983) Principles of underwater sound, Vol 1. McGraw Hill, New York

Page 95 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Appendix 2 - Target-indicator template

Descriptor 2 - Non-indigenous species

Indicator 2.1.1 - Trends in abundance, 2.2.1 - Ratio between invasive non- 2.2.2 - Impacts of non- temporal occurrence and spatial indigenous species and native indigenous invasive species distribution in the wild of non- species in some well studied at the level of species, indigenous species, particularly taxonomic groups (e.g. fish, habitats and ecosystem, invasive non indigenous species, macroalgae, molluscs) that may where feasible notably in risk areas, in relation to provide a measure of change in the main vectors and pathways of species composition (e.g. further to spreading of such species the displacement of native species) Criteria Levels Precision 1. Unknown precision or precision quantifiable but unable to statistically assess trends due to small sample size/unrepresentative/biased/high volatility 2. Uncertainty quantifiable and signal- 1 1 1 to-noise ratio allows for statistical assessment of trends 3. Uncertainty quantifiable and signal- to-noise ratio allows for year on year statistical assessments Time series 1. Insufficient data for assessment (<5 availability years) 2. Sufficient data to make an 1 1 1 assessment of progress (5-10 years) 3. Both long and short -term trends can be assessed (10+ years data) Data security 1. Future data sources known to be uncertain 2. Future data unthreatened 1 1 1 3. Future data secure Ease of 1. Highly complex, requires detailed communication explanation 2. Likely to be understood by most 2 1 1 3. Has been shown to be widely- understood

Page 96 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

2. Some verification checks in place 1 1 1 3. Detailed verification in place and documented Frequency of 1. Periodic updates 2. 3-5 years 1 1 1 3. Annual or biennial Geographic 1. Not full UK coverage 2. UK coverage, some bias 2 1 1 3. Full UK coverage Capacity for 1. Cannot be disaggregated disaggregation 2 Can be disaggregated but data quality issues arise 1 1 1 3. Can be disaggregated to Country level and assessed TOTAL 13 10 10

Page 97 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Descriptor 3 - Commercial fish and shellfish

Indicator 3.2.1 - Spawning stock 3.1.1 - Fishing mortality (F) biomass (SSB) Criteria Levels

2. Sufficient data to make an assessment of progress (5-10 years) 3 3 3. Both long and short -term trends can be assessed (10+ years data) Data security 1. Future data sources known to be uncertain 2. Future data unthreatened 2 2 3. Future data secure Ease of communication 1. Highly complex, requires detailed explanation

2. Likely to be understood by most 1 1 3. Has been shown to be widely-understood Data transparency and 1. Data unavailable to public auditability 2. Limited summary data available 2 2 3. Full raw/primary data set and detailed description available Transparency and 1. Methodology not available soundness of methodology 2. Methodology available but not peer reviewed 3 3 3. Methodology externally published and peer reviewed Data verification 1. Unverified data 3 3 2. Some verification checks in place

Page 98 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Indicator 3.2.1 - Spawning stock 3.1.1 - Fishing mortality (F) biomass (SSB) 3. Detailed verification in place and documented Frequency of updates 1. Periodic

2. 3-5 years 3 3 3. Annual or biennial 1. Not full UK

2. UK coverage, some bias 2 2 3. Full UK coverage Geographic coverage 1. Cannot be disaggregated

2 Can be disaggregated but data quality issues arise 1 1 Capacity for 3. Can be disaggregated to Country level and assessed disaggregation 23 23 TOTAL

Page 99 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Descriptor 5 - Eutrophication

Precision 1. Unknown precision or precision quantifiable but unable to statistically assess trends due to small sample size/unrepresentative/biased/h igh volatility 2. Uncertainty quantifiable 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 and signal-to-noise ratio allows for statistical assessment of trends 3. Uncertainty quantifiable and signal-to-noise ratio allows for year on year statistical assessments Time series 1. Insufficient data for availability assessment (<5 years) 2. Sufficient data to make an assessment of progress (5-10 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 years) 3. Both long and short -term trends can be assessed (10+ years data) Data security 1. Future data sources known to be uncertain 2. Future data unthreatened 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 3. Future data secure Ease of 1. Highly complex, requires communication detailed explanation 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 2. Likely to be understood by most

Page 100 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

5.3.1 - 5.2.1 - 5.2.3 - Abundance Indicator 5.1.1 - Nutrient Chlorophyll Abundance 5.2.4 - of perennial concentration 5.1.2 - concentration of Species shift seaweeds 5.3.2 - in the water Nutrient in the water 5.2.2 - Water opportunistic in floristic and Dissolved column ratios column transparency macrolalgae composition seagrasses oxygen 3. Has been shown to be widely-understood Data 1. Data unavailable to public transparency and auditability 2. Limited summary data available 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 3 3. Full raw/primary data set and detailed description available Transparency 1. Methodology not available and soundness 2. Methodology available of methodology but not peer reviewed 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 3. Methodology externally published and peer reviewed Data verification 1. Unverified data 2. Some verification checks in place 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 3 3. Detailed verification in place and documented Frequency of 1. Periodic updates 2. 3-5 years 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 3 3. Annual or biennial 1. Not full UK

2. UK coverage, some bias 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 3 Geographic 3. Full UK coverage coverage 1. Cannot be disaggregated 2 Can be disaggregated but data quality issues arise 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Capacity for 3. Can be disaggregated to disaggregation Country level and assessed

TOTAL 27 26 27 13 24 22 24 26

Page 101 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Descriptor 7 – Hydrographical conditions

7.2.1 - Spatial Indicator 7.1.1 - Extent of extent of habitats 7.2.2 - Changes affected by affected by the in Habitats permanent alterations permanent change (function) Criteria Levels

2. Sufficient data to make an assessment of progress (5-10 years) 2 1 1 3. Both long and short -term trends can be assessed (10+ years data) Data security 1. Future data sources known to be uncertain 2. Future data unthreatened 1.5 1 1 3. Future data secure Ease of communication 1. Highly complex, requires detailed explanation

2. Likely to be understood by most 2 2 2 3. Has been shown to be widely-understood Data transparency and 1. Data unavailable to public auditability 2. Limited summary data available 3 3 3 3. Full raw/primary data set and detailed description available

Transparency and 1. Methodology not available soundness of methodology 2. Methodology available but not peer reviewed 3 3 3 3. Methodology externally published and peer reviewed

Page 102 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

7.2.1 - Spatial Indicator 7.1.1 - Extent of extent of habitats 7.2.2 - Changes affected by affected by the in Habitats permanent alterations permanent change (function) Data verification 1. Unverified data

2. Some verification checks in place 3 3 3 3. Detailed verification in place and documented Frequency of updates 1. Periodic 2. 3-5 years 1 1 1 3. Annual or biennial 1. Not full UK

2. UK coverage, some bias 1 1 1 3. Full UK coverage Geographic coverage 1. Cannot be disaggregated

2 Can be disaggregated but data quality issues arise 3 3 3 Capacity for 3. Can be disaggregated to Country level and assessed disaggregation 21.5 19 19 TOTAL

Page 103 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Descriptor 8 - Contaminants

8.2.1 - Level of Indicator 8.1.1 - Contaminant pollution 8.2.2 - Spills of oil or concentrations effects chemicals Criteria Levels

2. Sufficient data to make an assessment of progress (5-10 years) 2 2 1 3. Both long and short -term trends can be assessed (10+ years data) Data security 1. Future data sources known to be uncertain 2. Future data unthreatened 3 2 1 3. Future data secure

Ease of communication 1. Highly complex, requires detailed explanation 2. Likely to be understood by most 3 2 1 3. Has been shown to be widely-understood

Data transparency and 1. Data unavailable to public auditability 2. Limited summary data available 3 3 2 3. Full raw/primary data set and detailed description available Transparency and 1. Methodology not available soundness of methodology 2. Methodology available but not peer reviewed 3 3 1 3. Methodology externally published and peer reviewed Data verification 1. Unverified data 3 3 2

Page 104 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

8.2.1 - Level of Indicator 8.1.1 - Contaminant pollution 8.2.2 - Spills of oil or concentrations effects chemicals 2. Some verification checks in place

3. Detailed verification in place and documented Frequency of updates 1. Periodic 2. 3-5 years 3 3 1 3. Annual or biennial 1. Not full UK

2. UK coverage, some bias 3 3 1 3. Full UK coverage Geographic coverage 1. Cannot be disaggregated

2 Can be disaggregated but data quality issues arise 3 3 3 Capacity for 3. Can be disaggregated to Country level and assessed disaggregation TOTAL 29 26 14

Page 105 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Descriptor 9 - Contaminants in fish and shellfish

9.1.1 - Actual levels of contaminants that have Indicator been detected and number of contaminants which 9.1.2 - Frequency of have exceeded maximum regulatory levels being regulatory levels. exceeded. Criteria Levels

2. Sufficient data to make an assessment of progress (5-10 years) 1 1 3. Both long and short -term trends can be assessed (10+ years data) Data security 1. Future data sources known to be uncertain 2. Future data unthreatened 1 1 3. Future data secure Ease of communication 1. Highly complex, requires detailed explanation

2. Likely to be understood by most 3 2 3. Has been shown to be widely-understood Data transparency and 1. Data unavailable to public auditability 2. Limited summary data available 2 2 3. Full raw/primary data set and detailed description available Transparency and 1. Methodology not available soundness of methodology 2. Methodology available but not peer reviewed 3 3 3. Methodology externally published and peer reviewed

Page 106 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

2. Some verification checks in place 3 3 3. Detailed verification in place and documented Frequency of updates 1. Periodic 2. 3-5 years 1 1 3. Annual or biennial 1. Not full UK

2. UK coverage, some bias 1 1 3. Full UK coverage Geographic coverage 1. Cannot be disaggregated

2 Can be disaggregated but data quality issues arise 3 3 Capacity for 3. Can be disaggregated to Country level and assessed disaggregation TOTAL 19 18

Page 107 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Descriptor 10 - Marine litter

10.1.2 - Trends in the amount of litter in the water 10.1.3 - Trends in 10.2.1 - Trends 10.1.1 - Trends in the column (including floating the amount, in the amount amount of litter washed at the surface) and distribution and, and composition Indicator ashore and/or deposited on deposited on the sea-floor, where possible, of litter ingested coastlines, including analysis including analysis of its composition of by marine of its composition, spatial composition, spatial micro-particles (in animals (e.g. distribution and, where distribution and, where particular micro- stomach possible, source. possible, source. plastics). analysis) Criteria Levels

Precision 1. Unknown precision or precision quantifiable but unable to statistically assess trends due to small sample size/unrepresentative/biased/high volatility 2. Uncertainty quantifiable and signal-to-noise 2 2 1 2.5 ratio allows for statistical assessment of trends 3. Uncertainty quantifiable and signal-to-noise ratio allows for year on year statistical assessments Time series 1. Insufficient data for assessment (<5 years) availability 2. Sufficient data to make an assessment of progress (5-10 years) 3 1.5 1 3 3. Both long and short -term trends can be assessed (10+ years data) Data security 1. Future data sources known to be uncertain

2. Future data unthreatened 2 1.5 1 2 3. Future data secure Ease of 1. Highly complex, requires detailed communication explanation 2. Likely to be understood by most 2.5 2 1 2 3. Has been shown to be widely-understood Data 1. Data unavailable to public transparency 2.5 2 1 2 and auditability 2. Limited summary data available

Page 108 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

2. Some verification checks in place 1.5 2 1 2 3. Detailed verification in place and documented Frequency of 1. Periodic updates 2. 3-5 years 3 2 1 2 3. Annual or biennial

1. Not full UK

2. UK coverage, some bias 2 2 2 3 Geographic 3. Full UK coverage coverage 1. Cannot be disaggregated 2 Can be disaggregated but data quality issues arise 3 2 1 3 Capacity for 3. Can be disaggregated to Country level and disaggregation assessed TOTAL 24 19 12 24.5

Page 109 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Descriptor 11 - Underwater noise

11.1.1 - Proportion of days and their distribution within a calendar year over areas of a determined surface, as well as their spatial distribution, in which 11.2.1 - Trends in the ambient anthropogenic sound sources exceed noise level within the 1/3 octave levels that are likely to entail significant bands 63 and 125 Hz (centre Indicator impact on marine animals measured as frequency) (re 1 μPa RMS; Sound Exposure Level (in dB re 1 average noise level in these μPa².s), or as peak sound pressure level octave bands over a year) (in dB re 1 μPa peak) at one metre, measured by observation stations measured over the frequency band 10 Hz and/or with the use of models if to 10 kHz appropriate. Criteria Levels

Precision 1. Unknown precision or precision quantifiable but unable to statistically assess trends due to small sample size/unrepresentative/biased/high volatility 2. Uncertainty quantifiable and signal-to-noise ratio allows 1 1 for statistical assessment of trends 3. Uncertainty quantifiable and signal-to-noise ratio allows for year on year statistical assessments Time series availability 1. Insufficient data for assessment (<5 years) 2. Sufficient data to make an assessment of progress (5-10 years) 2 1 3. Both long and short -term trends can be assessed (10+ years data) Data security 1. Future data sources known to be uncertain

2. Future data unthreatened 3 3 3. Future data secure Ease of communication 1. Highly complex, requires detailed explanation

2. Likely to be understood by most 1 1 3. Has been shown to be widely-understood

Data transparency and 1. Data unavailable to public 3 1

Page 110 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

3. Full raw/primary data set and detailed description available Transparency and 1. Methodology not available soundness of methodology 2. Methodology available but not peer reviewed 2 2 3. Methodology externally published and peer reviewed Data verification 1. Unverified data

2. Some verification checks in place 3 2 3. Detailed verification in place and documented Frequency of updates 1. Periodic

2. 3-5 years 2 3 3. Annual or biennial

1. Not full UK

2. UK coverage, some bias 3 1 3. Full UK coverage Geographic coverage 1. Cannot be disaggregated

2 Can be disaggregated but data quality issues arise 2 1 Capacity for 3. Can be disaggregated to Country level and assessed disaggregation 22 16 TOTAL

Page 111 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Appendix 3 - Targets and Potential Management Measures

me a sure s indica t or matrix_Cefas and JNC

Page 112 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Appendix 4 - Biodiversity components: species & habitat lists

The following lists of species and habitats (embedded files) contain an agreed list of habitat and species used by HBDSEG in the development of targets and indicators for GES. These were developed via ICG-COBAM, and thereby provide a level of consistency in the assessment of biodiversity across the North-East Atlantic region.

The lists contain:

 Predominant habitats and functional groups of species

 Special (Listed) species and habitats from Community legislation and international agreements.  Additional species being considered within some sub-regions for potential use to represent the broader functional group in which they occur. This selection is guided by the criteria below and is an ongoing process. The lists are intended as a common starting point for identification of indicators for GES. These lists may be extended to include an agreed subset of more common species, representative for the functional groups (in liaison with ICG-COBAM, under OSPAR). However, the agreed functional species groups contained in the attached version can already be regarded as guidance for species assessments under MSFD.

The following guidance on the selection criteria for species within each functional group (from ICG-COBAM (1) 11/4/1) provides a clear view on the operability (practicability) and effectiveness of indicators based on the suggested species. The selection of species to be assessed under MSFD in the OSPAR maritime area should be representative in terms of:

i. their abundance and distribution (i.e. also naturally predominant species as well as species that are predominant as an effect of human activities should be included);

ii. their sensitivity towards specific human activities;

iii. their suitability for the respective indicators and descriptors of the EU COM decision;

iv. the practicability (incl. cost effectiveness) to monitor them;

v. their inclusion in existing monitoring programmes and time-series data;

vi. their association with specific habitats.

Page 113 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

MSFD Habitats list: MSFD Draft Species list (under development):

HabitatsWorksheetA UK listed and nnexI.xls indicator species fish

Page 114 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Appendix 5 - Supporting information for the Benthic Habitats Section 3.2

Appendix 5A - Distribution of Benthic Habitats throughout UK waters.

Subtidal and deep-sea habitat types are derived principally from modelling; intertidal habitat types are derived from survey data but cannot be seen on this scale of map.

Map A – Potential benthic habitat distrbution in the UK, based on EU SeaMap modelled data (2010). The 18 predominant habitats have been merged into 8 broad types for ease of visualisation (different reef types and sediment types are not highlighted). Littoral (intertidal) habitats are not shown.

Page 115 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Map B – Potential Annex I Habitats Directive Habitat distrbution in the UK. The map shows the potential distribution of three Annex I habitat types that occur away from the coast. Other Annex I habitats are not shown.

Page 116 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Map C – Distribution of OSPAR Threatened and Declining habitats (biogenic reefs and seamounts)

Page 117 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Map D – Distribution of OSPAR Threatened and Declining habitats (all other [non-reef] habitats) There are clear regional differences in the distribution of benthic habitats within UK waters, although information on the distribution of offshore habitats (especially subtidal rock) is still incomplete. Intertidal rocky habitats (including rocky and boulder shores and sea cliffs) are widespread, occurring in all Regional Seas. Notable exceptions are the south-eastern and north-western coasts of England, as well as parts of Wales, where intertidal sediments form extensive beaches, sandbanks, saltmarshes and muddy shorelines. In other areas (e.g. Scotland and Northern Ireland) such stretches of intertidal sediments are often interrupted by rocky promontories and headlands.

The largest known areas of subtidal rock (including biogenic reefs) occur in Scottish waters, particularly to the west of the Hebrides and around Shetland, though some extensive areas also occur off Devon and Cornwall. Elsewhere this habitat occurs mainly as a narrow band adjacent to rocky shores. Biogenic reefs are built by marine species such as horse mussels (Modiolus modiolus) found mainly to the north), and ross worms (Sabellaria spinulosa), which are more common in the south and east.

Subtidal sediments cover the vast majority of the continental shelf around the UK. Most of the shelf is covered by sands, gravels or mixed sediments, with muds mainly accumulating in deep basins in the Northern North Sea and Irish Sea, as well as in sheltered sealochs in Scotland and Northern Ireland; each of these sediment types

Page 118 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

supports distinctive communities. For MSFD purposes, they have been divided into shallow and shelf subtidal sediment types, the distinction being that shallow sediments may be regularly disturbed by surface waves and therefore support quite different communities to shelf sediments. Large expanses of shallow subtidal sediments are particularly widespread in the Irish Sea, the Eastern Channel and the Southern North Sea and occur out to considerable distances offshore. Sediments within coastal lagoons are largely confined to southern England and western Scotland. Conversely, shelf sediments occur much closer to coasts where the water deepens rapidly, e.g. around most of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Cornwall and on Rockall Bank, west of Scotland.

Deep-sea habitats occur below 200m, and are found beyond the continental shelf edge. Within UK waters they mainly occur to the north and west of Scotland and west of Rockall, although there are also small areas in the extreme southwest off Cornwall. Most of these are sediment habitats, with rocky habitats and reefs largely confined to seamounts and similar structures.

Page 119 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Appendix 5B - Relationship between predominant habitats, and Special (listed) habitats and EUNIS habitat classes.

HabitatsSpreadsheet AnnexII.xls

The table shows:

a. The predominant habitats (based on the TG1 types; Cochrane et al. 2010) and the Special (listed) habitats and benthic species (from the Habitats Directive and OSPAR Convention) that are associated with each predominant habitat; b. The relationships between the predominant types and the listed types. c. The relationships between the MSFD habitats and the EUNIS habitat classes;

The regions (~MSFD sub-regions) indicate where each habitat/species occurs (green = pretty likely/certain, ? = possible).

Page 120 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Appendix 5C - Draft Regional Seas (2009).

Note that these regional sea boundaries are slightly different to the ones used to undertake the habitat assessment for Charting Progress 2 due to improvements in the resolution of the biogeographic data used to draw the boundaries between regions.

Page 121 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Appendix 5D - Summary of the possible baseline-setting and target- setting approaches

Further information on baseline-setting under the Habitats Directive (HD)

Range and area under the Habitats Directive require the setting of ‘favourable reference values’ (FRVs) which effectively act as baselines against which the FCS targets are set. These values are identified on the basis of habitat ‘viability’, which is a difficult concept to apply to marine habitats. The favourable reference value for range and area must be at least that when the Directive came into force. Information on historic distribution may be used when defining the favourable reference range and area, and 'best expert judgement' may be used to define it in the absence of other data. For many Member States, including the UK, FCS is largely determined by the status of habitats at the time the Habitats Directive came into force nationally (1994), and the use of historical data is minimal. This means the baseline used under the Habitats Directive is essentially ‘current state’ (see figure above), and the opportunity for recovery of habitats that were extinct or extirpated (in a region) or significantly modified before 1994 is limited (for example, European oyster beds disappeared in the North Sea before 1994 and have not been considered in the FCS assessments for Annex I Reef under the Directive).

Page 122 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Appendix 5E - Sensitivity matrix and pressure thresholds

The matrix of vulnerability (below) shows the likely impact of a pressure on a habitat. Impact (vulnerability) can be determined by combining information on sensitivity and exposure. The scores for ‘sensitivity’ and ‘exposure to pressures’ are multiplied to derive a coarse grading for feature vulnerability. This grading is set out in the Table entitled ‘Categories of vulnerability’.

The matrix of vulnerability. The figures presented are for illustrative purposes only.

Relative sensitivity of the habitat to a specific pressure

High (3) Moderate (2) Low (1) None detectable

(0)

High (3) 9 6 3 0

Medium (2) 6 4 2 0

Low (1) 3 2 1 0 Relative exposure of the None (0) 0 0 0 0 habitat to a specific pressure

Exposure at an unknown level ? ? ? 0

Note the level of likely impact (vulnerability) will always be categorised ‘insufficient information to make any assessment’ in cases where there is inadequate information to assess either the exposure OR sensitivity of a given feature.

Categories of vulnerability. The figures presented are for illustrative purposes only.

High vulnerability 6 to 9

Moderate vulnerability 3 to 5

Low vulnerability 1 to 2

Vulnerability identified, but not quantified as level of exposure unknown.

No known vulnerability 0

Insufficient information to make any assessment

Page 123 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

The pressure thresholds (targets) set out in spreadsheets below have been developed by:

 Determining the sensitivity of the MSFD habitat using information from the MCZ project work  Using the ‘Matrix of vulnerability’ to determine what level of pressure exposure the MSFD habitat could tolerate in line with ‘moderate vulnerability’, given its specific sensitivity to that pressure (i.e. up to a score of 5 or a light blue colour).  Setting a ‘qualitative pressure exposure threshold’ in line with a maximum vulnerability of ‘moderate’ for each habitat. The threshold categories are: o No or low exposure to pressure;

o Up to moderate exposure to pressure;

o Up to high exposure to pressure;

o Not Exposed;

o Unknown

 Setting a confidence score (in brackets) in line with the confidence score assigned to the sensitivity assessment (i.e. if the confidence in the sensitivity assessment is low, the confidence in the qualitative pressure exposure threshold will also be low). The ‘qualitative pressure thresholds/targets’ in spreadsheet ‘Sensitivities matrix and pressure targets’ can be articulated in terms of both the temporal frequency and spatial distribution of a given pressure benchmark (see below for more information about pressure benchmarks). This is because in some cases it may be appropriate to manage the temporal frequency of a pressure to achieve GES, in some cases its spatial distribution and in some cases both. For example, many biogenic reefs are significantly impacted by the first occurrence of physical abrasion, and therefore managing its temporal frequency may not be as effective as managing its spatial distribution.

The matrix below presents:

i) an assessment of the sensitivity of 108 MCZ features (which have been grouped into Broadscale Habitats (based on EUNIS Classification Level 3), Habitats of Conservation Interest and Species of Conservation Interest) to 5 physical and biological pressures that can be linked to human activities in the marine environment

ii) an assessment of the sensitivity of the MSFD habitats to these 5 pressures, established though a ‘translation’ of MCZ broadscale and listed habitat

Page 124 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

sensitivities into MSFD Predominant and listed habitat sensitivities. Note that sensitivity scores have not been generated for Habitats Directive Annex I habitats, as these were not covered by the MCZ project.

iii) a set of pressure thresholds based on the sensitivity scores of all the MSFD habitats (except Habitats Directive Annex I habitats) for these 5 pressures

The final recommended pressure indicators and targets (thresholds) are set out in Appendix 10 of this report (as well as in Chapter 3).

MSFD_Pressure_thre sholds_3.xls

Full details of the methodology are provided in an accompanying project report: Tillin, H.M., Hull, S.C. & Tyler-Walters, H.T.W., 2010. Accessing and developing the required biophysical datasets and data layers for Marine Protected Areas network planning and wider marine spatial planning purposes. Report No 22 Task 3 Development of a Sensitivity Tool (pressures-MCZ/MPA features).

Page 125 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Appendix 5F - Background to sensitivity matrix information

Below is an extra from the Natural England & JNCC guidance for use of sensitivity matrix information published in January 2011 for the Marine Conservation Zone Project.

Sensitivity of marine species and habitats: Guidance on using the Sensitivity Matrix, Pressures and Activities Matrix, and combination tables to predict potential implications of MCZ designation.

This guidance is to help in the use and interpretation of the sensitivity matrices and tables that have been developed by Defra, Natural England and JNCC, and supplied to the regional MCZ projects. The information for estimating general sensitivity of marine features includes the feature sensitivity to pressures matrix, developed by ABPmer, and the activities/features tables subsequently put together by Natural England. The feature sensitivity to pressures matrix shows the relative sensitivities of marine features to environmental pressures, at specified benchmarks. The activities/features tables build on this information, and allow looking up of the sensitivity of each marine species and habitat feature to a given pressure, whilst simultaneously being able to see which activities are associated with that pressure. This was achieved by combining the data of the feature sensitivity to pressures matrix and an activities and pressures association matrix, produced by JNCC. Specific issues to note when interpreting the tables and matrices

1. Interpretation of sensitivity assessments and associated human activities

Due to the way that the activities/features tables are put together there is a chance that the results could be misinterpreted. For example, if the table shows that a feature is highly sensitive to a particular pressure and that that pressure is associated with a particular activity; it does not automatically follow that the activity would be have to be prohibited in order to protect the feature at a given location. A discussion and/or evaluation will need to be made, taking into account the way activities operate, to ensure the pressure or pressures are actually occurring on the specific sites. Conversely, if a feature was deemed to have a medium or low sensitivity to a pressure, it would not necessarily mean that activities associated with the pressure could be maintained at current levels, particularly if an associated activity was causing the pressure at or above the pressure benchmark (see below). Again, this will depend on how activities are operating within the site, for example frequency, gear type etc.

2. Pressure benchmarks

The sensitivity assessments were made using pressure benchmarks, which defined a particular level of pressure. They considered what the effect on the feature would be if the pressure occurred at that pressure benchmark, or level. For example, the sensitivity of horse mussel beds to ‘shallow abrasion’ was determined to be high, where the Natural England & JNCC guidance for use of sensitivity matrix information – January 2011 pressure benchmark for shallow abrasion is ‘damage to seabed surface and penetration ≤25mm’.

Page 126 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

However, while there are activities associated with causing shallow abrasion, it may not be the case that those activities necessarily cause the pressure at that benchmark, within a specific marine site. Therefore, the benchmark describes the level of pressure to which the feature is sensitive, and not the level, or intensity of the associated activity(s).

Intensity and type of activity, and therefore site-level sensitivity considerations, will be location and activity-specific so definitive general assessments are difficult to make accurately. Decisions on management will ultimately require expert judgement on a case-by-case basis, and the evidence on which any decision is based should be provided for transparency.

3. Sensitivity ‘ranges’

In some cases the sensitivity assessment of certain features to a particular pressure is necessarily presented as a range (e.g. ‘medium to high sensitivity’). This might be because the feature in question is broad-scale, and comprised of component sub- habitats that are not all equally sensitive to the same pressure. An example might be subtidal sand, which includes both high and low mobility habitats. Its sensitivity to ‘physical removal and extraction of the substratum’ is considered to range from ‘Low’ to ‘High’ sensitivity on the basis that stable diverse communities will exist in some areas (higher sensitivity) whilst mobile and less diverse areas will exist in others (lower sensitivity).

In these cases, for the purposes of clarity, the precautionary approach has been taken and the higher sensitivity result has been listed in the matrix and the collation table. However, where the sensitivity assessment is a range, this has been indicated by an asterisk and it will be possible to refer to the original information to work out the detail of the assessment if required. Further information, if available, such as the presence of sub-habitats or species, could be used to refine the sensitivity assessment for a particular broad-scale habitat site.

4. Features

The feature sensitivity to pressures matrix will be used by a number of different marine projects across the UK. As such the features listed are not specific to the MCZ Project or the Ecological Network Guidance. However, the broad-scale habitats and features of conservation importance listed in the Ecological Network Guidance are all represented in the features sensitivity to pressures matrix.

5. Coincident features and activities

In the over-arching sensitivity table there will be instances where it appears that a feature is sensitive to an activity that does not overlap with the feature. This is a factor of combining the sensitivity matrix and pressure/activity matrix, linked through the pressures; and common sense will need to be applied in these cases to

Page 127 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

disregard those activities that, although they may be associated with the pressure, do not interact with the feature. For example, coastal saltmarsh is highly sensitive to ‘physical change (to another seabed type)’, which is in turn associated with fishing through hydraulic dredging. However, fishing through hydraulic dredge would obviously not occur on saltmarsh. Later in the process, the Natural England & JNCC guidance for use of sensitivity matrix information – January 2011 analyses of ‘exposure of features to pressures’, should resolve this issue. Natural England and JNCC will also look into ways to screen out these anomalous results in the meantime.

6. ‘Compatibility’ of activities

The matrices and activities/features tables do not show ‘compatibility’ of activities with features. The compatibility or incompatibility of features with activities will depend on a wide range of site-specific variables, such as location, intensity (frequency and duration), and current management of activity. Using a matrix approach for predicting ‘compatibility’ in this simplified way would give spurious and in many cases misleading answers. The activities/features tables provide an initial indication of which activities are associated with pressures that can impact certain features.

This is the first step in the process of assessing exposure, and although the regional MCZ projects will undertake a vulnerability assessment (looking at the exposure of the feature to a pressure), a more detailed scientific vulnerability assessment will be subsequently undertaken to inform the Impact Assessments, management measures and enforcement. Defra, MMO, JNCC and NE are currently planning how this will be carried out.

7. Confidence assessments

The sensitivity scores in the sensitivity matrix, and therefore the scores that have been carried through to the tables, have been made through a rapid assessment approach, based on expert judgement. For some features or pressures, there is good knowledge of sensitivity, but for others information is limited. Each sensitivity assessment has an accompanying confidence score. This indicates the relative confidence, according to the criteria (below), indicated by the specialists at the time of making the sensitivity assessment.

Page 128 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Confidence score Definition Low Confidence (L) There is limited or no specific or suitable proxy information on the sensitivity of the feature to the relevant pressure. The assessment is based largely on expert judgement. Medium Confidence (M) There is some specific evidence or good proxy information on the sensitivity of the feature to the relevant pressure. High Confidence (H) There is good information on the sensitivity of the feature to the relevant pressure. The assessment is well supported by the scientific literature.

8. Sensitivity (resistance and recoverability), pressures and pressure benchmarks

Sensitivity: A measure of tolerance (or intolerance) to changes in environmental conditions, made up of:

 Resistance (tolerance/intolerance): response to change, whether an element can absorb disturbance or stress without changing character, and;

 Resilience (recoverability): the ability of a system or feature to recover from disturbance or stress.

Pressure: The mechanism through which an activity has an effect on any part of the ecosystem.

Pressure Benchmarks: The pressure definitions and benchmarks were established by ABPmer and MarLIN under the MB102 sensitivity matrix contract. Where practicable three benchmarks were developed for each pressure, where the benchmarks describe the breakpoints between high/medium and medium/low pressure level, and the mid-point between these two benchmarks (defined as medium pressure). This medium pressure was used for assessing the sensitivity score within the overall sensitivity matrix. To develop the pressure benchmarks, information was drawn from a number of sources including:

 existing benchmarks from other sensitivity assessments (MarLIN website www.marlin.ac.uk);

 environmental quality standards, such as water quality standards established under the EC Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC);

Page 129 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

 guideline values for concentrations of contaminants in sediment and biota (e.g. OSPAR environmental Action Criteria (EAC’s), Canadian Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines (ISQCs);

 initial thresholds developed for indicators of Good Environmental Status under the EC Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC);

 climate change projections (UKCP09);

 expert knowledge of the nature and scale of hydrological changes associated with marine infrastructure developments in UK waters

The pressure benchmarks were further refined following review during the workshops. More information on the development and rationale for the pressure benchmarks can be found in the MB0102 Sensitivity Matrix Report.

Page 130 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Appendix 5G – Rock and Biogenic Reef Habitats – Additional detail

Below is supporting information on the targets and indicators which have been proposed by HBDSEG for rock and biogenic reef habitats. It should be read in conjunction with sections 3.2.5 and 3.2.8 on advice for selecting indicators and setting targets and covers the three categories of development for indicators (operational now, operational by 2014 (defined by 2012) and operational by 2018).

Existing European Targets and Indicators

Intertidal species composition & abundance (WFD rocky shore macroalgal tool) Assessments are undertaken at the water body scale (10-25km stretches of coastline: www.wfduk.org) throughout the UK and Republic of Ireland. The WFD Macroalgal blooming tool (MAB) is not relevant to rocky shores because nuisance opportunist species only occur on sedimentary shores. There are currently no sublittoral macroalgal or rocky invertebrate community tools used under WFD in the UK. The Rocky Shore Tool Paper v.5 by the Marine Plants Task Team describes the macroalgal indicator in detail (see also Wells et al. 2007).

The rocky shore macroalgal tool is based on the total number of seaweed species found by a defined search procedure on an open coast shore. The tool does not use the abundance of seaweeds because cyclic succession results in large natural changes in seaweed cover in just a few years and this has nothing to do with changes in quality. Correspondingly, seaweed species richness is little affected by total cover and remains constant in the absence of environmental change. However, subhabitat diversity on a shore does affect species richness so differences between shores are taken into account in the assessment.

Although detailed species composition is not used in the WFD macroalgal tool, aspects of the breakdown of the community are used as supporting measures because the % green algae increases with lower quality and % red algae increases with higher quality. Species lists are obtained on single occasion visits to a shore over two hours between May to September and uses a reduced species list (RSL) of 70 species (slightly different lists for different parts of British Isles) to allow for the skill-base of non specialist surveyors. The number of species present is a surrogate for total species. Under WFD species numbers and composition on a shore are translated onto a sliding scale from 0 to 1.0 and organized into five quality categories within this range this is the Ecological Quality Ratio. The relationship between species total and physical shore features is accounted for in this process.

For England and Wales the surveys using the macroalgal tool are done by the Environment Agency (often Wells Marine Surveys, under contract to the EA). The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency have maintained seaweed monitoring efforts but this year voluntary severance schemes have reduced the necessary skill base. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) have detailed coverage of Northern Ireland shores. Although not directly relevant to UK MSFD work, the

Page 131 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Environmental Protection Agency in the Republic of Ireland has been fully engaged in the development and implementation of this tool and Norway has since adopted it. Spain and Portugal currently use differing approaches.

Existing UK Targets and Indicators

Intertidal community indicator (MarClim)

The intertidal community monitoring undertaken within the MarClim programme is not directly underpinned by a statutory requirement such as WFD. Its development and implementation has been funded by DEFRA and the UK Conservation Agencies as a climate indicator and has since been used as context to Habitats Directive and Charting Progress national assessments. Like the WFD macroalgal tool, the MarClim monitoring could be double-badged under MSFD to provide wider coverage of Descriptor 1 Indicator Class 1.6.1, i.e. the condition of the typical species and communities. The MarClim programme complements the WFD macroalgal tool because it offers wider taxonomic coverage (covering invertebrate species too), enhanced geographic coverage and therefore confidence in assessment and also offers explicit climate change calibration of assessments (an MSFD requirement). MarClim nevertheless would need some development to meet these new roles. Additional species and habitat types would need to be added to surveys. This should include the incorporation of functional groups in surveys that indicate boulder turning, one of the greatest human impacts on rock shores.

The MarClim method uses a rocky shore species list with a reduced list of temperature sensitive species of invertebrates and macroalage of northern coldwater (N), southern warmwater (S) and non-native (NNS) origins, with range limits occurring in, or near the UK. Baseline data used to support the derivation of the list and selection of monitoring sites is taken from extensive studies in the 1950s, 1980s, 1990s and annual surveys carried out from 2002-date by the Marine Biological Association of the UK around England, Wales and Scotland (Mieszkowska et al. 2005, Mieszkowska 2010, Mieszkowska 2011). The data primarily allows for shifts in geographic distribution and range of individual indicator species to be tracked but also provides a measure of changes in community composition and detection of changes in the dominance of key structural and functional groups such as grazers, space occupiers, predators and primary producers (Mieszkowska 2010).

Categorical abundance data (SACFOR) is collected for the species on the list at each site (including records of absence, recorded as Not Seen). Quadrat counts are also undertaken for N, S, NSS barnacles, N&S limpets and timed searches for S topshells. These data provide information on population dynamics, recruitment success and competitive dominance between N&S species (Mieszkowska et al. 2006; 2007; Poloczanska et al. 2008).

Changes in SACFOR category for individual species will indicate functionally important community level changes through a combination of improvements

Page 132 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

(increase in category), no change (same category score) or a reduction in condition (1-2 category reduction = ‘deviation’, 3 category reduction = unacceptable, a decline from Common or greater to Occasional, Rare or Not Seen = ‘destroyed’).

CCW have methods to assess the scale of bolder disturbance in N2K sites. This methodology can easily be added to MarClim surveys with taxanomic abilities no greater than existing surveys. The location and condition of under-boulder fauna and the presence and location of an anoxic zone on the surface of the boulder can be used to score condition in one of four categories using a systematic sampling strategy (Moore et al. 2009).

New indicators defined by 2012, operational by 2014

Area of subtidal biogenic structures

Area measures are applicable to structures formed by Sabellaria spinulosa (Ross worm), Sabellaria alveolata (Honeycomb worm), Serpula vermicularis (tubeworm), Mytilus edulis (blue mussel), Modiolus modiolus (horse mussel), Limaria hians (gaping file shell) and Lophelia pertusa (cold-water coral) and maerl beds. It is possible that Ostrea edulis (native oyster) may also have fallen into this category but any structures formed by this species are probably extinct in UK waters (see Beck et al. 2011).

Biogenic structures occur in a range of environmental settings and possess varying biophysical properties, therefore extent has been measured using a number of methods such as towed and drop-down video transects, intertidal grid and transects, systematic grab sampling and hydroacoustic survey (e.g. Roberts et al. 2004; Lindenbaum et al. 2008; Moore 2009; Moore et al. 2009; Stillman et al. 2010).

Extant data have been collected for intertidal fisheries management, assessments of bird food availability for SPAs under the Birds Directive (e.g. Moore 2009; Stillman et al. 2010), EIAs for developments, and SAC management and monitoring (Lindenbaum et al. 2008; Moore et al. 2009). Methods are generally cost effective and easy to use. However, application is patchy within the UK. Data also needs to be collated and mobilised across agencies and sectors to enable a national MSFD indicator to be assessed.

Repeatability of methods and detection and heterogeneity of the structures influence choice of methods and scale of measurement errors. Differing measurement errors will need accommodation during combined assessments: scale-up to appropriate assessment units may be necessary. Extant monitoring needs systematic collection and collation and geographical expansion of extant schemes to get appropriate coverage.

Page 133 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Area of Subtidal rock

Widespread active monitoring for this indicator is also not cost effective but collation of extant data to underpin a desk-based assessment would be feasible.

Extent measures at UK or regional sea level for subtidal rock are available from a combination of models and multibeam data (ref MESH & Robinson et al.). Direct monitoring of subtidal rock at a UK scale is not cost effective. A desk assessment can be undertaken for this indicator as it was for Charting Progress 2 (DEFRA 2010). Up to date rock extent maps would need to be collated and over-laid with pressure data to simultaneously measure and assess extent and the area over which community change may have occurred due to anthropogenic pressure.

Intertidal rock extent (inc exposure sub-types)

Burrows (submitted) and other have modelled and ground truthed shore types and thereby estimated the extent of different exposure types and the relative proportions affected by coastal developments. Some areas have ground-truthed Phase 1 intertidal survey data (Wyn et al. 2000) enabling area measures of shore types but for Scotland and elsewhere high coastal complexity and scale make linear extent the achievable option and common denominator at a UK scale. This indicator is cost effective, easily measured, and achievable as a desk-based study using ground- truthed model data and development information.

Area of littoral chalk habitat

Most areas of intertidal chalk in the SE of England have been mapped (Natural England and Environment Agency) but other sources of information may be required from elsewhere. Some new data will be required but this indicator can be achieved with systematic data collation efforts.

Chalk habitats are nationally rare and have been historically lost during coastal development and defence. The area or linear extent of this habitat can be systematically assessed using a desk-based approach, collating data from within and outwith SACs. Natural England’s (NE) Casework Tracker database has suitable data on coastal development and mapping and other data in are available in SE England NE, Wildlife Trusts, Shore Search, Marclim and E. Sussex CC.

Area of intertidal seacaves

This potential indicator would need to be a desk-based assessment of known developments; a baseline of all sea caves is not achievable.

It is uneconomic to actively monitor sea caves at a UK scale because some parts of the UK are highly complex with many sea caves and most are unaffected by anthropogenic activity. In some coastal regions, however, they have been bricked-

Page 134 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

up in coastal development work and in these areas ad hock monitoring does occur in response to coastal development pressure.

Abundance of associated species on biogenic reef

Community-based indicators are applicable to several types of biogenic structures: Sabellaria alveolata, Serpula vermacularis, Mytilus edulis, Modiolus modiolus Limaria hians and Lophelia pertusa. Data are available from several types of biogenic structure in the UK (e.g. Rees et al., 2008; Sanderson et al. 2008; Trigg et al., 2011) using directed sampling by divers, towed video and intertidal coring. Methods are cost effective and easily applied but small-scale heterogeneity requires careful consideration of deployment strategy, stratification and statistical power in most cases.

Community composition varies between biogenic structures of the same species so this indicator and its targets will need to be derived from assessments on a site-by- site basis in the first instance. Physical impact models need incorporation e.g. those for Modiolus, Serpula and Limaria (Cook et al. in prep, Moore et al. 2009, Service & Magorrian 1997). Application of multivariate and univariate indices (inc WFD multimetrics) needs evaluation at the scale of a UK MSFD indicator. Wider geographic coverage will be required than present sporadic monitoring in UK SACs. Community based indicators for Sabellaria spinulosa will require careful consideration.

Density of biogenic reef forming species

This indicator is potentially applicable to several types of biogenic structures: Sabellaria spinulosa, Sabellaria alveolata, Mytilus edulis, Modiolus modiolus, Limaria hians and Lophelia pertusa. In common with the preceding indicator, an understanding of appropriate targets needs to be constructed within a model of state that is yet poorly understood for many of the biogenic types. Wider geographic coverage will also be required despite various local monitoring activities in SACs (e.g. Rees et al. 2008; Sanderson et al. 2008). Methods are cost effective and easily applied but small-scale heterogeneity requires careful consideration of deployment strategy, stratification and statistical power in most cases. Lophelia reefs in NW Scotland may present substantial experimental and logistical hurdles.

Epifaunal indicator species

Widespread drop camera work would be needed to make this indicator operational and there may be scope for new towed technology application. The abundance per unit of area of erect taxa can be determined for a unit of video footage. Many of these taxa are slow-growing, sessile and vulnerable to physical abrasion although a pressure gradient model may be need to be tested to determine target levels.

This indicator is closely related to the Subtidal species composition & abundance (sponge / anthozoan) indicator above but addresses horizontal rocky habitats,

Page 135 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

generally in deeper water, and over a wider area. Sufficient monitoring in deeper habitats would be relatively more expensive but there are efficiencies to be gained by using the same platform as for other indicators.

New indicators operational by 2018

Subtidal species composition & abundance (sponge / anthozoan communities)

Fragile sponge and anthozoan communities on subtidal rocky habitats have been studied using divers in circalittoral steeply inclined rocky habitats where erect sponges and anthozoans dominate in some UK protected areas. They have also been studied in more horizontal and often deeper habitat settings using drop-down and towed video (Erect epifaunal indicator species - below). A national indicator would require a duel approach to both broad types and stratification to particular biotope types in each case. A number of sentinel monitoring stations would be required. This indicator would be indicative of wider circalittoral communities and potentially sensitive to abrasion. Although cost effective and easily measured, the establishment of monitoring stations and supporting case studies would require some investment.

Sponge diversity

Sponge dominated communities occur widely in the UK shallow circalittoral. Morphological richness and diversity measures in sponge communities are a useful, cost effective surrogate for sponge species richness and diversity (Bell & Barnes 2001; Bell 2007) and there is evidence elsewhere in the world that sponge species diversity is responsive to water quality. Morphological monitoring baselines for some sponge communities have been developed in Welsh MPAs but the ecological response model remains untested within Atlantic Europe. Developing this indicator would require extended geographic coverage and a test of the community model response.

Kelp depth and kelp park depth

Kelp depth is linked to light attenuation (e.g. Kain 1979; Dayton 1985). In recent trials the max depth bcd at which kelp and kelp park occurs can be precisely measured and data are currently available for some parts of the UK. Historic data may also be retrievable. Burrows (submitted) shows a link between biodiversity and kelp depth, therefore a measure of kelp depth can be used as a cost effective surrogate for infralittoral biodiversity (but will need periodic direct measurement). A national case study would verify the infralittoral biodiversity - kelp depth link and serve as a repeatable reference point for periodic re-survey. Monitoring site selection needs to include appropriate geology. Some turbid regions such as SE England may not be appropriate. Remote sensing data on turbidity may offer additional context for this indicator.

Page 136 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Appendix 5H – Sediment Habitats – Additional detail

Below is supporting information on the targets and indicators which have been proposed by HBDSEG for sediment habitats. It should be read in conjunction with section 3.2.6 on advice for selecting indicators and setting targets and section 3.2.7 on advice on setting baselines. All sediment indicators which are not already in use within the WFD fall into the category of ‘operational by 2014, defined by 2012’ and therefore this is the only category considered here.

The sediment habitat list consists of 12 predominant habitats and 16 special habitats. Other habitats originally listed under sediments were considered to be more appropriate to be dealt with as rock and biogenic reef habitats, namely, Coral gardens, Ostrea edulis beds and Deep sea sponge aggregations. The only sediment habitat listed not occurring in UK waters (North Sea and Celtic Sea sub- regions) is Cymodocea meadows. The proposed sediment indicators in this report are suggested in most cases as being applicable to all sediment habitats although the value of using indicators such as range and extent for some widely distributed predominant habitats such as shelf and abyssal sediments is probably limited. The Redox Potential Discontinuity (RPD) / Sediment Profile Imagery (SPI) indicator suggested for development will have limited applicability where sediments are coarse/highly mobile due to the lack of any RPD layers and difficulties in utilising SPI.

Other indicators are specific to habitats such as the WFD seagrass (Zostera beds) and the Opportunistic Macroalgae tools (intertidal mudflats and possibly littoral sand). As with the seagrass tool, the Infaunal Quality Index (IQI) has been developed for coastal and transitional waters under WFD so will require further work to apply in offshore environments. The WFD intertidal seagrass tool has been in development since 2004 and entered use operationally in 2007. It has been developed and tested at individual beds and water bodies in different European countries. The UK and Republic of Ireland Marine Plants Expert group have agreed a common matrix for allocating status to intertidal seagrass assessments. The benthic invertebrate soft sediment IQI tool has a long history of research into its use as an index for assessing ecological status of benthic invertebrate communities. The intertidal opportunistic macroalgae tool was developed from 2003 and has been used operationally for WFD since 2006 (components of the opportunistic macroalgae tool have been used for assessment for Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive since the late 1990s). The IQI and opportunistic macroalgae tools were used for reporting ecological status in the first round of WFD River Basin Management Plans. The seagrass tool, IQI and opportunistic macroalgae tools have also been validated against comparable assessment methods of other member states bordering the North East Atlantic through the WFD Intercalibration process. A saltmarsh tool is under development (Best et al 2007) but does not have the same kind of evidence base as exists for the other tools at present although there have been England and Wales-wide assessments of extent and in many waterbodies. This provides a useful

Page 137 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

baseline against which repeat surveys can be made and the saltmarsh tool refined for broader use.

For the WFD intertidal seagrass indicator there is already some monitoring in place for WFD whereby bed extent is assessed by directly tracking around the bed or remotely through aerial imagery and quadrats placed to obtain % cover. The WFD- UKTAG report also suggests that the extent of seagrass beds may in some cases be measured by remote imagery. Sampling programmes have been established for IQI in a limited number of water bodies under WFD but there is currently no offshore monitoring in place for IQI. Sampling occurs for the opportunistic macroalgal tool with sites chosen by stratified random sampling within the intertidal zone. Saltmarsh assessments will be based on quadrat sampling along stratified random transects to examine changes in vertical zonation within the intertidal zone as well as aerial extent using aerial imagery. The saltmarsh tool is expected to be used operationally in 2012. Although indicators will mostly be applicable across habitats, targets will vary according to the habitat under consideration. The expert advisory group on sediments also suggests that other habitats may need to be identified under the ‘widespread habitats’ category and more urgently under the category ‘habitats which merit a particular reference’.

New indicators defined by 2012, operational by 2014

Distributional Range of Habitat (Indicator 1.4.1)

This indicator is suitable for establishing the geographical range of a habitat (i.e. northern and southernmost limit National Grid Reference (NGR), lat/long), both at a large scale (e.g. UK) and a smaller scale (e.g. within a region sea). It would be more useful for habitats that are at risk of a retraction in range (e.g. saltmarsh) rather than those for which long-term changes are unlikely (e.g. Abyssal sediment).

Distributional pattern of habitat (Indicator 1.4.2)

This indicator is tightly linked to the ‘range of habitat’ indicator but would show distribution information where that is thought to be important. For example, it may be useful to see distance between Zostera (seagrass) beds or other special habitats as this can be linked to connectivity of systems and the ability of habitats to be maintained through dispersal of larvae/propagules from other populations.

Area of sediment habitat (Indicator 1.5.1)

This indicator would look at the spatial extent (area) of all non-intertidal sediment habitats (predominant and special) establishing the location (NGR, lat/long) and boundary of habitat (NGR, lat/long). The reason ‘intertidal habitat area’ and ‘habitat area’ are proposed as two separate indicators is that there is a lot of information on the location and distribution of intertidal sediment habitats whereas many of the subtidal sediment habitats will have to rely on mainly modelled maps. There is also a difference in pressures that the intertidal and subtidal regions are subjected to and

Page 138 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

there is a greater array of management and policy drivers at the terrestrial/marine boundary. One of the most important issues in utilising this indicator will be to separate changes in habitat distribution/area caused by anthropogenic impacts from changes due to new information becoming available from surveys. For example, a 5% loss in a habitat could go unnoticed if the equivalent amount of habitat is ‘found’ due to improvements in modelled distribution based on new survey data. There is an additional issue around our ability to measure extent at present as there are currently significant errors associated with the modelled approach and even techniques used in the field which have their own associated errors (e.g. position- fixing and instrumentation error). Expert judgement and models will continue to play a significant part in this judgement and have done so to date for Habitats Directive.

Redox Potential Discontinuity / Sediment Profile Imaging (Indicator 1.6.3 and criterion 6.2):

It is proposed that an indicator be used based on sediment profile imaging (SPI) with sampling taking place on a decadal basis for offshore environments (but could be sampled more frequently in coastal areas where some current monitoring already exists). The preferable approach would be to use SPI to just measure benthic habitat quality index (BHQ), an approach described by Rosenberg et al (2009) who related it to EU-WFD environmental quality status. The indicator could therefore be applied to a wide range of coastal and offshore habitats including deep sea sediments (Diaz and Trefry 2006) although it would need some refining for deep sea areas. It would also need to be supplemented with some conventional quantitative sampling.

Sediment Profile Imaging (SPI) has been used for many years as a pollution monitoring technique by evaluating the activity of resident marine fauna (O’Reilly et al 2006; Keegan et al 2001). This means that for certain areas (e.g. Galway Bay and Kinsale Harbour) there are now several years of SPI data (P. Dando – pers. Comm.) and other UK laboratories are investigating SPI as a tool for long-term benthic monitoring.15 Challenges such as removing the subjective nature of interpreting results have been addressed by developing specialist software (Geeta et al 2004). Recently there has been more interest in utilising SPI techniques to provide indicators for WFD and MSFD. For example Birchenough et al (2011) look at using two metrics, bioturbation potential (Bpc) calculated from quantitative information and apparent Redox Discontinuity Layer (aRPD) derived from SPI images as an indicator tool to assess seabed structure and function of ecosystems. As Bioturbation Potential (Bpc) is very costly to calculate for different sites and cannot be derived

15 http://www.oceanlab.abdn.ac.uk/research/spi.php

Page 139 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

from SPI data (P. Dando – pers. Comm.) the preferable approach would be to use SPI to just measure benthic habitat quality index (BHQ), an approach described by Rosenberg et al (2009) who related it to EU-WFD environmental quality status. The indicator could therefore be applied to a wide range of coastal and offshore habitats including deep sea sediments although it would need some refining for deep sea areas. There may also be some difficulty with coarser sediments and even in the deep sea penetration depth may be an issue. There would also need to be ‘ground- truthing’ using a box corer or similar deep sampling device (so it samples at an adequate depth). This would also be undertaken alongside the SPI based monitoring at a decadal scale.

Additional supporting information on advice on setting baselines for sediment habitats

For the WFD seagrass, opportunistic macroalgal and saltmarsh tools, reference conditions are derived using a combination of historic data and expert judgement. For the Infaunal Quality Index (IQI) reference conditions are derived using a combination of best available low pressure data and expert judgement with reference conditions being adapted according to habitat. Reference conditions for the IQI are under continued development as data becomes available.

For the indicators ‘range of Habitat’, ‘spatial distribution of habitat’, ‘intertidal Habitat area’ and ‘habitat Area’ it is important to consider baselines (and targets) established under other directives and policy reports for these quantity elements i.e. Favourable Conservation Status (Habitats Directive), Good Ecological Status (Water Framework Directive), thresholds for ‘threatened and declining habitats and species’ (OSPAR) and ‘area impact assessments’ (Charting Progress 2 Habitats assessment). For a baseline, Charting Progress uses historical conditions i.e. a concept of ‘undisturbed conditions’. OSPAR also uses a historical baseline and Good ecological status under the Water Framework Directive is equivalent to undisturbed conditions.

The Habitats Directive takes a slightly different approach in using a baseline which incorporates the concept of viable area of habitat against which to assess habitat loss. The setting of this baseline can be current conditions (if the area is considered to be ‘viable’) but can also use historical data to construct a viable area, if required. Nine of the special sediment habitats are covered by baselines and targets as part of the Habitats Directive, with the remaining five special habitats being covered by OSPAR. The twelve predominant habitats were all assessed as part of Charting Progress 2 with baselines and targets based on a combination of OSPAR and Habitats Directive thresholds. For GES, it is proposed to retain all the baselines as set out in these policy drivers whilst recognising the challenges of providing historical baselines for any habitat. It is also important to note that for at least two of the habitats (Atlantic salt meadows - Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae’ and ‘Zostera beds’), information on habitat extent is included as part of the assessment of GEcS for WFD).

Page 140 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

For the pressure related condition indicators ‘distribution of pressures’ and ‘percentage seabed adversely affected by human activities’ the baseline would be the based on the assessment undertaken for Charting Progress 2 (and any available updated information). As already stated, ‘changes beyond prevailing conditions’ is not an indicator in itself with an associated baseline and target but really forms part of the context for all of the condition indicators, to allow anthropogenic changes to be identified. The information from the monitoring of changes in prevailing conditions, along with information on ocean processes would allow an understanding of current baselines of state for sediment habitats.

For the SPI indicator the baseline will have to be set using expert judgement making sure that sampling was undertaken in a way that took into account various factors such as seasonal variation in RPD depth.

Page 141 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Appendix 6 - Pelagic habitats report

The Development of UK Pelagic (Plankton) Indicators and Targets for the MSFD

This annex is meant to supplement the information contained in the actual report with technical detail. Repeating information and content has been omitted from the annex in the interest of brevity.

Full documentation of this abbreviated annex can be found in: Gowen, McQuatters- Gollop, Tett, Best, Bresnan, Castellani, Cook, Forster, Scherer and Mckinney, The Development of UK Pelagic (Plankton) Indicators and Targets for the MSFD: A Report of a workshop held at AFBI, Belfast 2-3rd June 2011. Report for Defra, June 2011.

1. Lifeforms and State-Space theory

1.1 Introduction A lifeform is a group of species (not necessarily taxonomically related) that carry out the same important functional role in the marine ecosystem. For example, diatoms as a group of species have a functional role related to silicon cycling. In this report, we are concerned with methods for quantifying the state or health of one part of marine ecosystems, the pelagic community of organisms, also called the plankton. The essential features of the method proposed are (i) the grouping of the many species of organisms found in the water column into a few lifeforms, and (ii) the display of changes in the abundance of each of these lifeforms using a state-space approach.

In the main report we provide the full set of lifeforms that we propose to use to develop indices for the pelagic habitat component of the biodiversity group of descriptors plus Descriptor 5 - Eutrophication. At this point the theory underlying the method is described with reference to an example pair of these lifeforms described here. The phytoplankton includes many species of microscopic algae. Some of these species belong to a group called diatoms, which are characterised by having a cell wall made of silicon. Diatoms are tolerant of the turbulent, low-light, conditions of spring in temperate seas, and so, characteristically, give rise to a spring phytoplankton bloom in March, April or May. Many planktonic animals and fish lay their eggs to hatch in time for this bloom, which provides food for the growth of the larvae. Dinoflagellates comprise another taxonomically-defined group within the phytoplankton. They do not require silicon, typically become abundant only after the spring diatom bloom, and are characterised by two flagella (whiplash like attachments) which enable them to swim up or down and so take advantage of water-column layering, for example in estuaries or when summer warms the surface layer of the open sea. Some provide a source of food for planktonic animals during

Page 142 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

the summer, but some species contain toxins that may deter grazing and are poisonous to some animals and humans.

1.2 The basis of the state-space approach The theory of state-space derives from physics and especially the discipline of thermodynamics, but has been adapted to apply to systems in general and in our case to ecosystems. A system is defined as ‘a set of components and relationships within a defined boundary’ (Tett et al. 2011). To identify the state of a system it is necessary to define a set of system state variables. These are attributes of the system that change with time in response to each other and external conditions. There needs to be enough variables in the set to jointly describe all system variability other than that (perhaps somewhat arbitrarily) defined as ‘noise’.

Consider that our aim is to ascertain the state of the phytoplankton in a defined part of the sea, on a given day. A representative water sample is collected and examined microscopically to obtain a list of the species present and their abundances. While mapping of data would be preferable in some cases (D1.4 - Habitat distribution) and can indeed be carried out in open waters thanks to the Continuous Plankton Recorder, this is not possible with time-series that collect data at just one or two or twenty stations. However, we could see a change in taxa abundance that becomes increasingly apparent northwards or southwards which may signal a shift in distribution. Therefore we use abundance as it is a metric that is routinely recorded by monitoring programmes and that is applicable to the relevant MSFD criterion. The total abundance of all the diatoms and the total abundance of all the dinoflagellates are calculated giving two numbers, which give the co-ordinates of a point that can be plotted into a space, or map, defined by two axes: one for the abundance of diatoms, and the other, at right-angles, for the abundance of dinoflagellates (Figure A6-1).

Page 143 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Figure A6-1 An illustration of how the state of a diatom-dinoflagellate community is defined by a point plotted into state-space. This point represents ecosystem state at the instant that the water sample was taken and as characterised by the abundances of diatoms and dinoflagellates. However, as noted earlier, a characteristic of the phytoplankton is its high natural variability (on temporal scales that range from days to inter-annual). It is likely therefore, that analysis of a water sample taken a few days or weeks later from the same location might give abundances that plotted to a different point in the diatom-dinoflagellate state-space. The path between the two states is called a trajectory, and the condition of the phytoplankton is defined by the trajectory drawn in the state-space by a set of points. The seasonal succession of species in seasonally stratifying seas means that this trajectory tends in a certain direction as dinoflagellate abundance increases relative to diatom abundance during summer. However, as phytoplankton growth declines during autumn, abundances decrease towards levels prior to the spring bloom, with the result that the trajectory tends towards its starting point (Figure A6-2). Given roughly constant external pressures, the data collected from a particular location in the sea over a period of years forms a cloud of points in state- space that can be referred to as a regime.

As Figure A6-2 shows, our argument is that some changes in external conditions - for example the consequences of an oil spill - might cause a temporary deviation from the usual regime - while other changes - for an example, an increase in the inputs of human generated nutrients - might cause a permanent deviation from this regime, by causing the system to switch to a new regime. The Plankton Index (PI) tool, described later in this section, provides a way to quantify movements in state- space away from the ‘usual regime’.

Page 144 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Figure A6-2. Regime shift in state-space (Tett et al. 2007). It is unlikely that two state variables will be sufficient to describe all important variability in the marine pelagic system. In principle this is not a problem: we simply add other axes to the state-space map. This is illustrated for 3 phytoplankton state variables in Figure A6-3. Note that the third axis has to be drawn at right-angles to the other two, and the Figure is in fact a 2-D projection of a 3-D object. The rule is that each additional state variable has to be independent of the existing set, and its axis has to be drawn at right-angles to all existing axes. In principle, therefore, the state-space map has to be drawn in as many dimensions as there are state variables but this is difficult. Our solution is to rely on sets of state-space diagrams, each in two dimensions. As long as each axis in any plot is independent of all other axes in any plot, and we follow the rule that all axes must be commensurable it will be straightforward to combine results from any number of plots into a single Plankton Index.

We refer to these state-space diagrams as ‘maps’, and to the lines that link points as ‘trajectories’ rather than ‘graphs’. In normal scientific usage, a graph implies a functional relationship between the values on the horizontal (x-axis) and the values on the vertical (y-axis). That is, a change in x causes a change in y. In the case of state-space diagrams, there is no implication that change in one state variable causes change in another, although change in both might be linked in some way. In the diatom-dinoflagellate example, although both lifeforms compete for supplies of nutrients and energy, there is no direct, functional link that allows us to say that diatom change causes dinoflagellate change. Just as, in the case of a map of the Earth’s surface, it makes no sense to say that changes in latitude cause changes in longitude: instead, latitude and longitude are the two co-ordinates that define a position. Thus, when referring in a general way to the two axes of a state-space plot, we label them as ‘Y1’ and ‘Y2’ in contrast to the ‘X-Y’ labels used in a graph that implies a functional relationship.

Page 145 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Figure A6-3. State space in 3-D, illustrated using CPR data provided by SAHFOS. The three lifeforms used here are: dino(flagellates), pelagic diatoms (a subset of all diatoms) and weed diatoms (which includes species of Pseudo-Nitzschia). Abundances are number of cells caught on CPR silks in a certain distance travelled by the recorder. These abundances have been converted to logarithms so as to show a wide range of values. Each point, an open circle, is the mean abundance of this lifeform in the [central] North Sea in a particular year. A star shows the mean over several years, and the seasonal trajectory is the dashed line linking these stars.

1.3. Why state-space? We could of course simply plot the two example time-series of diatom and dinoflagellate abundances as graphs against time (Figure A6-4), adding additional data as required. We could simplify the picture to some extent by, for example, plotting a time-series of the ratio of dinoflagellates to diatoms, or the percentage of total phytoplankton abundance contributed by diatoms. And then we could extract simple statistics, such as annual means of diatom abundance or percentage diatoms. But such a method throws away information about the annual succession of lifeforms, exemplified by seasonal changes in the relationship between diatoms and dinoflagellates, which seems an important aspect of the pelagic ecosystem. Indeed, this can be seen as forming part of the structure of the ecosystem, substituting in temporal variation in terms of spatial structure. Furthermore, any index based on an annual statistic is sensitive to sample collection routines: it is, for example, easy to miss the spring phytoplankton bloom.

These objections were recognised during the development of indicators for the phytoplankton biological quality element of the Water Framework Directive, and methods developed for the construction of seasonal envelopes of variation for each lifeform. Nevertheless, an approach based on state-space, although initially appearing complex, has several advantages. The first is that of potential conceptual consistency across the variety of animals and micro-organisms that contribute to the ecological status of the pelagic community. The second is that this consistency

Page 146 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

leads to a very simple method (that of counting points) for measuring change. The third is that the state-space approach lends itself to simple visualization: experience suggests that most people find pictures (geometry) easier to understand than complicated numbers (algebra).

One objection to state-space as opposed to time-series graphs might be that a state- space plot results in a loss of information, about the time-dependency of changes in abundance. The main justification is that system state is not defined by time but by the instantaneous values of state variables; two systems that have the same pair of values for Y1and Y2 are said to be in the same state. A practical advantage is that state-space plots are less sensitive, than statistics based on time-series graphs, to defects in sampling regimes. Nevertheless, it is important to sample throughout the year so that the plankton regime is fully characterised.

1.4 Estimating a value of a Plankton Index for a pair of lifeforms The operations necessary to get a value of a Plankton Index for a pair of lifeforms are listed in the complete Belfast meeting report (contact Abigail McQuatters-Gollop [email protected] for a copy). Many of these operations can be demonstrated using spreadsheets, drawing by hand, and counting by eye. Nevertheless, a previously-written (and debugged) computer program allows easier routine operation. The results were made by a program written with MatlabTM, software that includes an extensive library of mathematical and graphical functions.

The starting point was the time-series of diatom and dinoflagellate biomass at the L4 station in the English Channel near Plymouth. Figure A6-4 shows graphs of biomass (Y) against time (t), which is to say the position of a point is defined by its Y-t co- ordinates. For example, the co-ordinates of the point for diatom biomass on 2 May 1994 are Y1= 2.53 and t = 1994.442. The corresponding dinoflagellate co-ordinates are: Y2= -0.31 and t = 1994.442. The Y-coordinates are in fact logarithms (to base 10) of estimates of 337.42 diatom and 0.48 dinoflagellate biomass (units). Logarithmic transformations are commonly applied to data on plankton (Barnes, 1952) because they allow more reliable statistical analysis and interpretation, and also allow change at low abundance to be seen as clearly as change at high abundance. In essence, a given amount of change on a logarithmic axis shows the same proportionate increase or decrease, irrespective of abundance. Such a transformation is also desirable because it ensures commensurability of axes in state-space plots.

Page 147 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Figure A6-4. Time-series of diatom and dinoflagellate biomass from the Plymouth L4 station, data provided by Claire Widdicombe at PML.

The next step is to make such a state-space plot for which the co-ordinates of each point are a pair of values of Y1 and Y2 (such as 2.53 and 0.48 for L4 on 2 May 1994). A minor difficulty arises when there is no value of Y2 corresponding to Y1 at the same time (or vice versa), but it is sometimes possible to approximate the missing value.

In order for a Plankton Index (PI) to be calculated, it is necessary to establish reference (baseline) conditions as the basis for subsequent comparison. The term reference is used here simply to denote the data set against which comparisons will be made (baseline), and does not imply pristine conditions. In the example, Plymouth L4, the reference (baseline) period was taken as the 4 years from 1992 through 1995, during which sampling had taken place at roughly fortnightly intervals. Plotting the 4 years of data gave the cloud of points shown in the left-hand part of Figure A6-5.

Page 148 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Figure A6-5. Example of the calculation of a component of the Plankton Index. In this case, the diatom- dinoflagellate pair using data from the Plymouth L4 station. Data from 1992-1995 has been used for the reference set, on the left side; the right side shows a comparison of data from 2001 with this envelope. Next, we want to define a reference (baseline) envelope to include all, or most, of these points, and to give us a basis for comparison with data collected in subsequent years or at other sites. The outer part of the envelope is made by applying a geometric method known as a Convex Hull (Sunday, 2004; Weisstein, 2006) to the cloud of data points plotted in state-space. The outer points can be thought of as pins pushed into the plot, and the Hull as a rubber band stretched around these pins.

In principle, the reference envelope defines a bundle of trajectories, and in some cases, such as phytoplankton, limitation theory suggests that the bundle should have a hollow centre (Tett & Mills, 2009). It is possible to fit an inner envelope by turning the points ‘inside-out’ around the centre of the cloud of points, applying the Convex Hull procedure again, and re-inverting.

Tett et al. (2008) found that the size and shape of the envelope was sensitive to sampling frequency and total numbers of samples. Envelopes were made larger by including extreme ‘outer’ or ‘inner’ points, and the larger the envelope, the less sensitive it was to change in the distribution of points in state-space. Thus, it is desirable to exclude a proportion (p) of points, so as to eliminate these extremes and obtain a smaller, tighter, envelope. The envelope, thus drawn, defines a domain in state-space that contains a set of trajectories of the diatom-dinoflagellate component on the marine pelagic ecosystem and thus represents the prevailing regime during the reference period. It is desirable to include 3 years of data in drawing the envelope, in order to take account of natural inter-annual variability: but not too many years (no more than 5), because Plankton Indices are tools to examine change in time.

The next step plots a new set of data into state-space and compares them with the reference (baseline) envelope. Does the new cloud of points fall mainly within this envelope or instead show a shift in state-space? The right-hand side of Figure A6-5 illustrates this. Experience suggests that fewer new points are needed for the

Page 149 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

comparison than are desirable for the reference envelope. Currently we think that it is desirable to have at least a dozen points for comparison. These should represent samples taken throughout the year, because seasonal variation is seen as an essential part of the ‘structure’ of the phytoplankton community.

The value of the PI is the proportion of new points that fall inside the envelope, or, to be precise, between the inner and outer envelopes. In the example, for the comparison year 2001 at L4, 22% (or 9) of 41 new points lie outside, and the PI is 0.78. A value of 1.0 would indicate no change, and a value of 0.0 would show complete change, with all new points plotting outside the reference envelope. The envelope was made by excluding 10% of points, so some new points are expected to fall outside: four, in the case of the example. Is 9 significantly more than 4? The exact probability of getting 9, by chance alone when 4 only are expected, can be calculated using a binomial series expansion, or approximately, by a chi-square calculation (with 1 df and a 1-tail test). The conclusion is that the value of 0.78, is significantly less than the expected value of 0.9, and so conditions in respect of diatoms and dinoflagellates in 2001 were statistically significantly different from those in 1992-96.

What is the meaning of this change? It could be the result of no more than ‘normal’ inter-annual variation, which might take the system outside the reference (baseline) envelope without indicating a persistent shift in regime. Thus the next step is to examine a trend. There were sufficient data available for L4 to allow a comparison to be made for individual years, from 1997 to 2002. As plotted in Figure A6-6, the values of the PI (for the diatom-dinoflagellate state-space component) fluctuate from year to year, with some of the values of the index for particular years showing a significant proportion of new points falling outside the reference envelope. However there is no significant temporal trend in the values of this PI.

1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5

PCI-LF 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Year

Figure A6-6. A time-series of the PC-LF a component of the Plankton Index. In this case, the diatom- dinoflagellate pair using data from the Plymouth L4 station. The index for each year is calculated by comparing the state-space plot for each year against the 1992-1995 reference set.

Page 150 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

1.5 Composite Plankton Indices A composite Plankton Index is put together from several PIs made as described above, each involving a 2-D state-space plot. To avoid ambiguity, we will notate a PI t,tref component value as i , referring to component i (e.g. that for diatoms and dinoflagellates shown above) for year t compared with the reference period tref. The overall Plankton Index for a given year is simply the mean of the available component PIs, or:

in 1   PI t  PIi t,tref  n i1 (To repeat a prior stipulation, this procedure requires all axes to be commensurable (Box 4.6 in the Belfast report) and no lifeform to appear more than once in the set of axes used for the overall analysis.) We can assess the significance of a value of PI t using the same approach as for assessing the significance of the diatom- dinoflagellate PI component, i.e. by summing the total number of points that fall outside all component envelopes and comparing with expectation based on the proportion excluded from the reference (baseline) envelope. As in the case of the diatom-dinoflagellate example, a time-series of values of the compound PI can be examined for trend. What is to be done if a trend is found, will be considered in the next chapter.

Such a composite PI might include components for phytoplankton, heterotrophic microplankton, and zooplankton. We contend that this would provide a single holistic indicator of changes in the condition of the pelagic ecosystem. In addition, lesser compilations can be made, to provide indices relevant to particular MSFD descriptors. If we reserve the label PI for the holistic indicator, we could refer for example to an eutrophication-relevant PI as PI(D5), and write PI(D5)[t =1990:2010] for the time-series of values covering the comparison years 1990 through 2010.

1.6 Discussion To recapitulate: we have argued that the plotting, in state-space, of values of the abundance of several lifeforms belonging to the plankton, enables the tracking of changes in the condition of the pelagic community over time, by means of comparing the state-space positions of new points with a reference envelope. As mentioned above, the use of the term ‘reference(baseline) envelope’ is not meant to imply that the conditions it described are pristine, or correspond to ‘reference conditions’ as the term is used by the WFD, or, necessarily, to GES as used by the MSFD. Our method is aimed at providing a tool for management, able to show whether condition is changing. If it is changing, then time-series of PIs can be examined for possible correlations (in space or time) with time-series of pressure indicators.

Page 151 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

However, the MSFD explicitly requires the establishment or maintenance of GES over marine sub-regions, and so it will be useful to establish reference envelopes for ecohydrodynamic water types in which the pelagic environment is deemed to be of good status. Establishing reference conditions for the WFD has proved troublesome, because it has involved finding water-bodies subject to no, or very little, anthropogenic pressure. Because the MSFD defines GES in terms of proper ecosystem functioning, it would seem possible to find homogenous water-bodies (i.e. spatial regions of constant ecohydrodynamics, within MSFD sub-regions) where ecosystem functioning can be explored through a combination of detailed investigation and numerical modelling, and thus establish GES reference envelopes for the PI tool. In the medium term it might be possible to make estimates of such envelopes using ecosystem models alone.

2. Meeting targets

2.1 The assessment process For the pelagic habitat component of the biodiversity group of descriptors, the criteria and indicator target are the same and as are applicable to changes in floristic composition under Descriptor 5 - Eutrophication. The target is: The plankton community is not significantly influenced by anthropogenic pressures. Assessment scales are discussed in the main body of the report but are reiterated here. To assess the environmental status of the plankton at the regional sea level, it is important that sampling stations are located in each ecohydrodynamic region in UK waters. Ecohydrodynamic regions are bodies of water that are distinct from each other as a result of stratification (vertical layering of water masses) or differences in mixing. Such a regional spread of data is necessary in order to ensure that assessment is spatially representative. Figure A6-7 shows the simulated distribution of ecohydrodynamic regions (permanently stratified, permanently mixed, intermediate regions and regions of freshwater influence - ROFI) in the North Sea based on the 3D General Estuarine Transport Model (GETM) physical model (Cefas unpublished data). When monitoring station are spatially isolated but have a time- series (such as the numbered stations in Figure A6-1) they can be assessed independently for significant changes. The open sea regions, and coastal areas with WFD monitoring, can be aggregated for assessment based on the ecohydrodynamic breakdown.

Page 152 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Figure A6-7 The simulated distribution of a 50 year average of ecohydrodynamic regions (with monitoring stations overlain) in the North Sea. Based on a 3-D General Estuarine Transport Model (GETM) physical model (Cefas unpublished data). Areas in white have no consistent dominant level of mixing or stratification. A decision tree showing how the lifeform indices and Plankton Index will be used to determine whether the target has been met at the scale of assessment (i.e. open sea ecohydrodynamic regions, coastal zone ecohydrodynamic regions if data allow, individual monitoring stations) and GES of the plankton confirmed is outlined in Figure A6-8. For each individual monitoring station, annual estimates (based on comparing data from each year with the baseline data) of the Plankton Index for each descriptor (PID1, PID4 and PID5) and the overall Plankton Index (PI) will be used to construct time-series. The high natural variability in the plankton is likely to cause some inter-annual variability in values of each index and on occasions differences between years may be statistically significant. Figure A6-5 illustrates this point. The figure shows the diatom and dinoflagellate state-space plots (data from the Plymouth Marine Laboratory L4 time-series) for the reference years 1992-1995 and data from 2001. The value of the index was statistically significantly different indicating that the diatom and dinoflagellate community in 2001 had changed compared to the reference years. The test to determine whether a time-series is showing a change in the plankton rather than natural variation will be the presence of a statistically significant trend or change. An example of a time-series for the PCI-LF

Page 153 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

component of a PI based on the Plymouth Marine Laboratory L4 time-series data is shown in Figure A6-6. In this case there is no significant change in the index.

The absence of a significant change will show that there has not been an overall change in an index. A significant change in an index will be attributed to human pressure (and not climate change) if there is a significant correlation between the change in an index and a particular human pressure and if that change is not seen at other coastal stations or in the open sea. The absence of a significant correlation will be used as evidence that the target for Good Environmental Status of the pelagic community as a whole, and the pelagic (plankton) components for the biodiversity, food-web, seafloor integrity and eutrophication (D5.2.4) descriptors has been met16. Identification of a significant correlation to a pressure will signify that the target has not been met and this may require investigative monitoring and a programme of measures.

Figure A6-8. The draft decision process.

16 This presupposes that the starting point of the trend (baseline or reference conditions) represent GES.

Page 154 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

One way of visualising whether the target has been met on a regional and local scale is by colouring time-series plots. Figure A6-9 shows an example in which the green background graphs indicate no trend. A red background signifies a significant trend in the index that might be up or down. In this example there are only trends in near- shore waters, as the offshore waters show no trend suggesting a localised pressure rather than a broad scale climatic effect. In both Liverpool Bay and the Wash LF group 1 are red (suggestive of a common pressure e.g. nutrients), but in the Wash/Thames area L F group 4 is red also suggesting an additional pressure. However, there is one important issue that is relevant to all of the MSFD descriptors: how to determine whether the assessment region as a whole is in Good Environmental Status if the target is not met in one location. Similarly, can the environmental status of an assessment region be deemed to be good if the pelagic habitat targets have been met for the region as a whole, but the target for a different ecosystem component has not been met?

References

Barnes, H. (1952). The use of transformations in marine biological statistics. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 18, 61-71.

Page 155 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

61N

59N

57N

55N Latitude

53N

51N

49N -10W -9W -8W -7W -6W -5W -4W -3W -2W -1W 0W 1W 2W

Longitude

Figure A6-9. A visual representation of a regional assessment.

Page 156 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Appendix 7 - Birds report

MSFD Targets and Indicators for Marine Birds

Sub-group Chair: Ian Mitchell (JNCC)

Sub-group members: A. Webb (JNCC), A. Brown (NE), A. Douse (SNH), S. Foster (SNH), N. McCulloch (EA-NI), M. Murphy (CCW); additional input from D. Stroud (JNCC).

Introduction

The UK’s marine environment holds internationally important numbers of birds during the breeding season, during spring and autumn migration and during winter. In total, 109 bird species17 regularly use the marine areas in the UK, chiefly as a source for food but also as a safe place away from land-predators in which to loaf, roost and moult. Most of the UK’s marine bird species come from two broad taxonomic groups that are commonly referred to as waterbirds and seabirds.

There are 57 species of waterbird that regularly use the UK’s marine environment17, comprising of shorebirds (order Charadriiformes, including representatives from the following families: - Haematopodidae(e.g. oystercatcher), Recurvirostridae (e.g. curlew), plovers - Charadriidae and sandpipers - Scolopacidae); herons, egrets and spoonbills (Ciconiiformes: Ardeidae and Threskiornithidae); ducks, geese and swans (Anseriformes); divers (Gaviiformes); grebes (Podicipediformes); and coot (Gruiformes: Rallidae). Shorebirds and some duck species feed on benthic invertebrates in soft inter-tidal sediments and on rocky shores. Geese mostly graze on exposed eelgrass beds (i.e. Zostera spp.). Herons and egrets feed on fish in shallow (i.e. wading depth) inter-tidal and sub-tidal areas, whereas grebes, divers and some duck species can catch fish in deeper water. Other diving ducks feed on invertebrate benthos.

However, the coastal area under the jurisdiction of MSFD includes only non- estuarine shores below MHWS that could include lagoons and saltmarsh that are not associated with transitional waters (i.e. places that are inundated at high tide without flow of freshwater). Therefore, in determining GES under

17 According to JNCC’s list of bird species that make significant use of the marine environment around the UK – see www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4560.

Page 157 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

MSFD with respect to marine birds, we need only to focus on those species of shorebird and other waterbirds that predominate outside estuaries.

There are 38 species of seabird that regularly occur in the seas around the UK17. They comprise of Procellariiformes: fulmars and shearwaters (Procellariidae) and storm-petrels (Hydrobatidae); Pelecaniformes: gannets (Sulidae ), great cormorant and European shag (Phalacrocoracidae); and Charadriiformes: skuas (Stercorariidae), gulls (Laridae), terns (Sternidae ) and auks (Alcidae). Most seabirds feed on prey living within the water column (i.e. plankton, fish and squid) or pick detritus from the surface. Gulls are the only seabirds that also feed on benthos, by foraging along exposed inter-tidal areas. Therefore most seabirds spend the majority of their lives at sea: some are confined to inshore waters (e.g. terns, gulls, great cormorant and European shag) and others venture much further offshore and beyond the shelf-break, even during the breeding season.

Relevant Commission Decision Criteria / Indicators

Table A7-1 shows the Commission Decision criteria and indicators that are relevant to birds under Descriptor 1 - Biodiversity and Descriptor 4 - Food Webs. The table does not include the indicators listed in the Commission Decision criteria 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 under Descriptor 1, that are relevant only to marine habitats.

Indicators and targets have been proposed for each Commission Decision indicator that are considered relevant. No indicators or targets are proposed under the Commission Decision indicator of population genetic structure (1.3.2). But there should be an assessment of genetic structure in harbour seal populations to enable indicators of population abundance (1.2.1) to be equally representative of all discrete population sub-units. There are no genetically distinct sub-populations within any of the species of birds using UK waters that would benefit from an indicator or target, in order to maintain its diversity.

Page 158 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Table A7-1 Relevance of Commission Decision criteria and indicators to marine birds.

RIT - relevant and indicator and target proposed, RI - relevant and indicator only proposed, R – relevant but no target or indicator proposed, X - not relevant.

Commission Decision Relevance to Marine Criterion Indicator Birds

1.1 Species distribution Distributional range (1.1.1), RIT

Distributional pattern within the latter, where RIT appropriate (1.1.2)

Area covered by the species (for X sessile/benthic species) (1.1.3)

1.2 Population size Population abundance and/or biomass, as RIT appropriate (1.2.1)

1.3 Population condition Population demographic characteristics (e.g. RIT body size or age class structure, sex ratio, fecundity rates, survival/mortality rates) (1.3.1)

Population genetic structure, where X appropriate (1.3.2).

1.7 Ecosystem structure Composition and relative proportions of R ecosystem components (habitats and species) (1.7.1).

4.1 Productivity (production Performance of key predator species using R per unit biomass) of key their production per unit biomass (productivity) species or groups (4.1.1)

4.2 Proportion of selected Large fish (by weight) (4.2.1) X species at the top of food webs

4.3 Abundance/distribution of Abundance trends of functionally important RIT key groups/species selected groups/species (4.3.1)

Page 159 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Bird functional groups, listed species and indicator species

The recommended functional groups for birds (Table A7-2) are identical to those recommended by OSPAR’s MSFD advice manual on biodiversity (OSPAR Commission unpub.).

Table A7-2 Recommended functional groups and listed species for marine birds in UK waters.

Functional Groups example taxa or group Listed species

Inshore pelagic divers, grebes, saw-bills, great Great Northern diver1 feeding birds cormorant, European shag, black guillemot Slavonian grebe1

Inshore surface gulls, terns Little Tern1 feeding birds Roseate tern1,2

Inshore benthic seaduck feeding birds Smew1

Intertidal benthic waders feeding birds Purple sandpiper1

Offshore pelagic auks, northern gannet, feeding birds shearwaters Balearic shearwater2

Offshore surface black-legged kittiwake, northern feeding birds fulmar, storm-petrels Black-legged kittiwake2

1AEWA Annex1 Table 1 column A 2OSPAR List of threatened and declining species.

Within each functional group, the species that should be included in UK assessments of GES were selected according to following groupings as specified in the Directive:

i. Listed species from Community legislation and international agreements (hereafter, referred to as ‘listed species’).

ii. Additional species being considered within some [European] sub- regions for potential use to represent the broader functional group in which they occur (hereafter, referred to as ‘indicator species’).

The selection of marine bird species should be limited to those that occur regularly in the MSFD assessment area. This excludes some waterbird species that predominate in estuaries.

OSPAR Commission (unpub.) recommends ‘listed species’ of birds should be those that are included in Annex 1 of the Birds Directive and on the OSPAR

Page 160 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix) list of threatened and declining species. The Birds Directive actually applies to all wild migratory bird species and Annex 1 lists those species for which nationally important aggregations should be designated as Special Protection Areas, as oppose to internationally important aggregations in all other species. Hence, the Birds Directive is not a necessarily a useful reference for identifying species that require special protection and inclusion in assessments of GES under MSFD. Furthermore, the OSPAR list of threatened and declining species does not appear to be inclusive of all relevant taxa of marine birds. Therefore, we recommend that ‘listed species’ are selected from the species that are awarded the highest level of protection under the Action Plan of AEWA - African Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (i.e. species listed in column A of Table 1, Annex III of the Agreement

(http://www.unep- aewa.org/documents/agreement_text/eng/pdf/aewa_agreement_text_2009_2 012_table1.pdf). However, AEWA does not include petrels and shearwaters. However, if the AEWA criteria (annexed to this Appendix) were applied to the petrels and shearwaters that regularly occur in UK waters, Balearic shearwater would be added to the list.

The selection of bird ‘indicator species’ was guided by OSPAR Commission (unpub.) that provides the following guidance: The selection of species to be assessed under MSFD in the OSPAR maritime area (MSFD sub-region b) should be representative in terms of:

a. their abundance and distribution (i.e. also naturally predominant species as well as species that are predominant as an effect of human activities should be included);

b. their sensitivity towards specific human activities;

c. their suitability for the respective indicators and descriptors of the EU COM decision;

d. the practicability (incl. cost effectiveness) to monitor them;

e. their inclusion in existing monitoring programmes and time-series data;

f. their association with specific habitats.

The full list of proposed indicator species of marine bird in UK waters is embedded here:

Page 161 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

UK MSFD Bird listed and indicator species. The use of seabirds and waterbirds that are monitored at sea as indicator species is very much dependant on the development of new monitoring and its ability to provide accurate data at a suitable spatial scale that can be incorporated into the indicators recommended below.

Indicators, Baselines & Targets:

Approach to setting baselines and targets for marine bird indicators

For birds, the limited time series of data available (around 30- 40 years) do not contain any true reference values when anthropogenic influence on these animals was negligible. It is unlikely that populations of these highly mobile animals have, at no part in their lives, not been impacted by current or past human influences on the marine environment. Hence there are no reference populations that state targets can be set against

Baselines set in the past or current values in a time series are likely to be biased by certain anthropogenic impacts. As measures are implemented (e.g. under MSFD) to reduce these impacts, the baseline values set in the past may no longer be appropriate for assessing GES. For example, some seabird species are arguably more abundant as a result of food provided by wasteful fishing practices such as discarding. As the CFP moves towards eliminating discards, these species may decline in number and range beyond target levels and therefore fail to achieve GES. Baselines for mobile species should therefore be reviewed during every 6 year reporting cycle and amended if necessary to take account of any anthropogenic bias in previously set baselines.

Baselines should also be reviewed regularly to ensure they take into account the inherent variance in the marine environment, and to ensure that the state of indicators at GES with respect to Descriptor 1 - Biodiversity is in accordance with ‘prevailing geographic, physiographic and climatic conditions’. As monitoring programmes develop and evidence increases, our understanding of the likely future impacts of a changing environment will enable us to set ‘smarter baselines’ that can account for such changes.

Species Distribution (Criterion 1.1)

With respect to Species distribution (Criterion 1.1), separate indicators (and indicator-targets) of distributional range (1.1.1) and distributional pattern (1.1.2) are proposed for each of five groups of birds:

Page 162 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

i. breeding seabirds – refers to all seabird species at breeding colonies;

ii. coastal-breeding waterbirds – refers to all species of waterbird breeding close to the shoreline and dependant on intertidal and inshore areas for feeding;

iii. non-breeding waterbirds – refers to all waterbird species in inshore waters outside the breeding season;

iv. non-breeding shorebirds – refers to all species of in non-estuarine intertidal areas outside the breeding season;

v. seabirds at sea – refers to all seabird species in inshore and offshore waters throughout the year.

The separation is due to differences in how the range and distributional pattern of each group will be estimated. No indicator is proposed for distributional range (1.1.1) for seabirds at sea, since the extremities of the range of such wide-ranging species are unlikely provide an indicator of GES. More pertinent to GES of seabirds at sea will be an indicator of distributional pattern (1.1.2) that will detect changes in the distribution of high and low density areas that may be linked to the distribution and intensity of pressures.

None of the indicators for range and distributional pattern in birds are currently operational because there is no other requirement for such indicators. Sufficient data18 do exist for breeding seabirds, coastal-breeding shorebirds and non-breeding shorebirds to enable indicators to be defined by 2012 and be operational by 2014.

The construction of indicators for non-breeding waterbirds and seabirds at sea, is subject to the progress of the UK Seabird & Cetacean Monitoring Project, which is currently under development. There is currently no systematic monitoring of inshore aggregations of waterbirds in UK waters. Seabird monitoring in the UK is limited mainly to providing information at colonies, and it is likely that additional monitoring will be required in offshore and inshore waters as part of the EU Birds Directive. The monitoring of seabirds at colonies provides the most cost-effective and precise information on their numbers and distribution compared to other monitoring methods.

18 From the Seabird Monitoring Programme (SMP), Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS), Non-estuarine Wader Survey (NEWS), successive breeding and wintering Bird Atlases and successive breeding seabird censuses (e.g. Seabird 2000) – all covering the British Isles.

Page 163 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

However, there are limitations in this approach to understanding how human pressures are affecting any measured changes; the monitoring does not occur at the location of the impacts in offshore waters and fluctuations at the colonies will be affected by changes in all of the areas used for feeding and maintenance by seabirds, not just the areas where the human pressures are occurring. Furthermore, monitoring at colonies provides no information on how the distributional range and population size of breeding species changes in UK waters outwith the breeding season, and provides no information at all for species that do not breed in the UK but visit our waters in important numbers during the non-breeding periods. Monitoring of the UK’s waters for these top predators is likely to utilise information from a wide variety of sources in order to make surveys cost-effective, such as from volunteers, marine industries supplemented by targeted information commissioned to fill remaining gaps in data provision from. Data collection surveys can be combined for seabirds and for cetaceans in most cases at no additional cost. If sufficient monitoring of inshore waterbirds and seabirds at sea is instigated as part of the project, then indicators and targets for these birds could be operational by 2018; this also applied to indicators of population size.

Population Size (Criterion 1.2)

The indicators proposed for bird Population size (Criterion 1.2) are more generic than for distribution: i) Species-specific trends in relative breeding abundance and ii) Species-specific trends in relative non-breeding abundance. The metrics for both are annual estimates of the numbers of birds (or pairs) expressed as a proportion of a baseline value that is specific to each species. The two indicators provide a functional distinction in the case of waterbirds, between state of populations during breeding and at other times; in the case of seabirds between the state of breeding seabirds at colonies and the state of populations at sea.

The recommended approach to indicators (and targets) of bird population size follows that developed by ICES (2008) for the OSPAR EcoQO on seabird population trends. Existing UK and devolved administration indicators for populations of breeding seabirds and non-breeding waterbirds use a single trend of the annual geometric mean abundance of multiple species with each group (e.g. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-4229). ICES (2008) considered using geometric mean trend indicator for the EcoQO on seabird population trends but discounted it on the basis that it was difficult to interpret and difficult to set targets against and use to inform measures.

Page 164 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Data exist on abundance of breeding seabirds, coastal breeding waterbirds and non-breeding shorebirds and will be collected by ongoing schemes (though some expansion may be necessary – see below). A breeding seabird indicator has already been produced for the Celtic Seas (OSPAR Region III – see Figure A7-1 taken from see ICES 2010) and one is currently being developed with neighbouring states for the Greater North Sea (OSPAR Region II). Population size indicators for the aforementioned groups of bird should be operational by 2012.

Figure A7-1 Trend in relative abundance of European shag in OSPAR Region III Celtic Seas. Indicator target was set at +/- 30% of the baseline. (From ICES 2010)

Setting baselines and targets for population size (1.2) should follow the approach used in the OSPAR draft EcoQO on seabird population trends (see ICES 2008, 2010). Baselines for each indicator of population size (criterion 1.2) should be set in the past at a time when anthropogenic influence on a particular species was thought to be minimal. Indicator targets should be set as a deviation from the baseline and the target can be varied according to the ability of species to recover from declines: ICES (2008) recommended that annual abundance of species that lay more than one egg per year should be more than 70% of the baseline, but more than 80% of the baseline for species that lay just one egg. The different targets are intended to take account of the lower reproductive output of the single egg layers and hence, a lower rate of recovery following declines. Targets for positive deviations should be set, where population increase may have an impact on GES of the wider marine bird community (e.g. species that depredate other birds and benefit from anthropogenic food sources). ICES (2008) recommended an upper limit of +30% of the baseline for all species. However, the HBDSEG birds subgroup recognised that increases in some species may have negligible effects on the rest of the seabird community and if such species were to exceed an upper target value, this may not necessarily mean that GES is not achieved.

Page 165 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Therefore, upper limits to indicator targets should be applied only to those species (i.e. skuas and large gulls) whose populations may be artificially elevated by anthropogenic impacts (e.g. food provided by discarding) and would also, in turn, have a detrimental impact on other bird populations.

The criterion targets for species distribution and population size should be set at a proportion of species-specific indicators that are within target values: ‘Changes in abundance should be within target levels for >75% - >90% of species of marine bird that are monitored.’ The lower limit of 75% is taken from the OSPAR draft EcoQO on seabird population trends (ICES 2008): if less than 75% of species indicators had not achieved their target, the seabird community would possibly be in poor health and suitable action would be instigated (i.e. research or remedial measures). Given that ICES (2008) considered 75% to be the limit below which remedial action should be instigated, the option of a higher target, up to 90%, is more likely to equate to GES. Figure A7-2 shows an example of this criterion for breeding seabirds in the Celtic Seas OSPAR Region III – from ICES (2010).

Figure A7-2 The EcoQO on seabird population trends applied to data on breeding seabird trends (as in Fig. 1) from OSPAR Region III Celtic Seas. Target was set at >75% of species should be at target levels for abundance (From ICES 2010)

Page 166 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Population Condition (Criterion 1.3)

For Population Condition (Criterion 1.3) we have proposed indicators of demographic characteristics (1.3.1) for species that breed in the UK, for which metrics such as breeding success and adult survival are relatively straight forward to monitor compared to those species that occur in UK waters outside the breeding season. Appropriate indicator species are predominantly seabirds but some waterbirds such as common eider may be appropriate.

Breeding success is one of the recommended metrics as this is already monitored annually in some seabird species at colonies throughout the UK, with a time series going back to the mid 1980s. We propose two indicators of breeding success:

i. Annual breeding success of kittiwakes ii. Breeding failure of seabird species sensitive to food availability Some further development work is required for both indicators but both should be operational by 2012.

The baseline-setting method used for indicators of Population condition (1.3) and productivity (4.1) vary depending on indicator used. For the indicator on breeding failure of seabird species sensitive to food availability, there is no baseline, whereas the indicator of annual breeding success of kittiwakes, has a baseline that takes into account climatic variation. Kittiwake breeding success at individual colonies is significantly negatively correlated with local mean sea-surface temperature (SST) two winters previously (Frederiksen et al. 2004, 2007). The relationship is thought to be related to larval sandeel survival and the subsequent availability of 1 year-class sandeels for kittiwakes to rear their chicks on. Therefore at each colony, a different baseline value is set each year according to the local SST two winters previously.

In an area of E Scotland and NE England where sandeel fishing occurred during 1991-98 and has been banned since 2000, there was a significant additive effect of the presence of fishing, as shown the red line in Figure A7-3.

Page 167 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Figure A7-3 Stylised version of a relationship between kittiwake breeding success and SST two winters previously (from Frederiksen et al. 2004) to demonstrate how targets may be set re Criterion 1.3. The proposed indicator uses the regression of SST and breeding success as the baseline and the 95% CI as the target ‘band’ (see Figure A7-3). It is proposed that any significant negative deviation will indicate a detrimental anthropogenic impact other than any climate change impacts. Breeding success should be within the target band in at least five years in each six year reporting cycle, in order to allow for natural stochastic events that may depress breeding success (e.g. heavy rainfall). The criterion target should be set at the number of colonies achieving the target rate (e.g. 50, 75 & 90%, but not necessarily these values).

JNCC plan further work to look at whether baselines and targets can be constructed for other colonies elsewhere in the UK and whether other species that are sensitive to food supply could be included.

We identified a need to develop an indicator for pressures on land that would significantly affect the productivity of seabirds as marine organisms. Depredation by non-native mammals (e.g. rats, mink) on islands can reduce breeding success, breeding numbers and extirpate colonies. The pressure from non-native mammals can be easily removed through eradication and quarantine. If this pressure is removed it will mitigate the impacts of other pressures that are not so easy to manage e.g. climate change and fishing pressures.

The other demographic measured in seabirds is adult survival. However, annual survival rates are currently monitored in a handful of colonies per species. A project by JNCC and the BTO is underway to investigate the feasibility of expanding existing monitoring. An indicator on adult survival would be dependent on future monitoring, but may be operational by 2018.

Page 168 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

There may be problems linking changes in survival with pressures operating in UK and European waters, since many species spend the non-breeding period in areas beyond the NE Atlantic. But we suggested that an indicator of birds killed by commercial fishing (‘by-catch’) and aquaculture should be developed to monitor a potentially significant pressure on marine bird survival. Monitoring of seabird by-catch is conducted in UK waters but it is incidental and not part of systematic survey and excludes some gear-types and aquaculture. As a consequence, the extent of this pressure in UK waters is unclear, but could potentially kill large numbers of birds. Further monitoring is required in order to determine how important this pressure is on marine birds and to develop an indicator.

Indicators of population condition (1.3) and population size (1.2) described above, should be used as indicators of Productivity (production per unit biomass) of key species or trophic groups (Criterion 4.1) and of Abundance/distribution of key trophic groups/species (Criterion 4.3)

Ecosystem structure (Criterion 1.7)

We envisage that some of the indicators proposed for 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 will contribute to this criterion but did not discuss their inclusion in anymore detail.

Productivity (production per unit biomass) of key species or trophic groups (Criterion 4.1)

See productivity indicators and targets under Criterion 1.3. Abundance/distribution of key trophic groups/species (Criterion 4.3)

See population size indicators and targets under Criterion 1.2. References

Frederiksen, M., Wanless, S., Harris, M.P., Rothery, P. & Wilson, L.J. 2004. The role of industrial fisheries and oceanographic change in the decline of North Sea black-legged kittiwakes. Journal of Animal Ecology, 41: 1129–1139 Frederiksen, M., Mavor, R. A. & Wanless, S. 2007. Seabirds as environmental indicators: the advantages of combining data sets. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 352: 205–211. Frederiksen, M., Jensen, H., Daunt, F., Mavor, R. A. & Wanless, S. 2008. Differential effects of a local industrial sand lance fishery on seabird breeding performance. Ecological Applications, 18(3): 701–710. Furness RW and ML Tasker 2000. Seabird-fishery interactions: quantifying the sensitivity of seabirds to reductions in sandeel abundance, and identification of key areas for sensitive seabirds in the North Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 202: 253–264.

Page 169 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

ICES. 2008. Report of the Workshop on Seabird Ecological Quality Indicator, 8-9 March 2008, Lisbon, Portugal. ICES CM 2008/LRC:06. 60 pp. ICES. 2010. Report of the Working Group on Seabird Ecology (WGSE), 15– 19 March 2010, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2010/SSGEF:10. 77 pp. Lloyd, C., Tasker, M. L. & Partridge, K. 1991. The status of seabirds in Britain and Ireland. Poyser, London. Mitchell, P.I., Newton, S.F., Ratcliffe, N. & Dunn, T.E. 2004. Seabird Populations of Britain and Ireland. T. & A.D. Poyser, London.

Page 170 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Annex to Appendix 7

AEWA Classification used in the context of MSFD to define species listed under the Agreement

STATUS OF THE POPULATIONS OF MIGRATORY WATERBIRDS KEY TO CLASSIFICATION The following key to Table 1 of AEWA Classification is a basis for implementation of the Action Plan: Column A Category 1: a) Species, which are included in Appendix I to the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory species of Wild Animals; (b) Species, which are listed as threatened on the IUCN Red list of Threatened Species, as reported in the most recent summary by BirdLife International; or (c) Populations, which number less than around 10,000 individuals. Category 2: Populations numbering between around 10,000 and around 25,000 individuals. Category 3: Populations numbering between around 25,000 and around 100,000 individuals and considered to be at risk as a result of: (a) Concentration onto a small number of sites at any stage of their annual cycle; (b) Dependence on a habitat type, which is under severe threat; (c) Showing significant long-term decline; or (d) Showing extreme fluctuations in population size or trend. For species listed in categories 2 and 3 above, see paragraph 2.1.1 of the Action Plan contained in Annex 3 to the Agreement. Source: http://www.unep- aewa.org/documents/agreement_text/eng/pdf/aewa_agreement_text_2009_2 012_table1.pdf

Page 171 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Appendix 8 - Marine mammals report

MSFD Marine Mammal and Reptile subgroup: Criterion Targets audit trail

Subgroup Co-Chairs: Eunice Pinn (JNCC) and Mark Tasker (JNCC)

Subgroup Members and contributors: Phil Hammond (SMRU), Callan Duck (SMRU), Alisa Hall (SMRU), Clare Ludgate (NE), Fiona Manson (SNH), Karen Hall (SNH), Jim Reid (JNCC), Victoria Copley (NE), Mandy McMath (CCW) and Gary Burrows (NIEA).

Background to the species

Cetaceans:

Whales, dolphins and porpoises are collectively known as cetaceans. Twenty-eight species have been recorded in UK waters. Of these, 11 are known to occur regularly, while the remaining 17 species are considered to be vagrants or rare visitors. This represents a high level of cetacean diversity within the UK’s comparatively small section of the North Atlantic, and is due to the considerable diversity in topography, habitats and food resources available in these waters.

Cetaceans are very mobile and can range widely, with some undertaking large-scale movements including regular seasonal migrations while others display more localised movements. For most species, animals found in UK waters are therefore part of a much larger biological population or populations whose range extends beyond UK waters. Equally, the number of individuals present at any one time may be only a small proportion of those that make use of UK waters at some point during their lives.

Seals:

Two species of seal live and breed in UK waters, grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) and harbour (also called common) seals (Phoca vitulina). Although both species can be found around the UK coast at any time of the year, they are not evenly distributed. Both are considerably more abundant in Scotland than in England, Wales or Northern Ireland; with harbour seals being rare on the south and west coasts of England and in Wales.

A number of Arctic seals are seen very occasionally around the UK coast, particularly in Scotland, including ringed (Phoca hispida), harp (Phoca groenlandica), bearded (Erignathus barbatus) and hooded seals (Cystophora cristata), and very rarely walrus (Odobaenus rosmarus). These species are not resident in the UK and are not further considered.

Page 172 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Turtles:

Encountering a marine turtle in UK waters is a rare event; this is partly due to their relatively low numbers and partly to the difficulty of spotting them in the open sea when conditions are anything but perfectly calm. Of the 4 species reported from UK waters, the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) is the only one to be considered a true member of the British fauna; with approximately 30 records per year. UK waters represent only a small peripheral part of the foraging habitat of this wide-ranging species. All other turtle species (loggerhead Caretta caretta, Kemp’s ridley Lepidochelys kempii and green Chelonia mydas) tend to reach UK waters only when displaced from their normal range by adverse currents, i.e. UK waters are not considered part of their functional range.

Because these species are either not resident in the UK or are seen only very rarely, they are not considered to be appropriate indicator species.

Development of GES Criterion Targets

All marine mammal species in the UK are listed under a variety of Community Legislation and international agreements: the Habitats Directive, Convention on Migratory Species and ASCOBANS - Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans in the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas, and OSPAR list of threatened and declining species. As such, all marine mammal species in UK waters are considered to be ‘listed species’.

The marine mammal and reptile subgroup have proposed a total of 41 indicators and targets, mostly species specific, which link to three Criterion Targets for Descriptor 1 - Biodiversity, two Criterion Targets for Descriptor 4 - Food webs and three additional Criterion Targets linked to pressure impacts. Indicators and targets were only proposed for the most commonly seen species, i.e. harbour and grey seals, harbour porpoise, short-beaked common dolphin, bottlenose dolphin, white-beaked dolphin, long-finned pilot whale and minke whale.

These indicators and targets all link to assessments that are integral to the UK’s obligations through the Habitats Directive, ASCOBANS, OSPAR and EU Regulation 812/2004 on cetacean by-catch.

For the consultation, Defra have proposed that there will be three levels of Criterion target:

 Level 1: GES targets and indicators which are well developed and supported by good evidence and which the UK could put forward to the Commission in 2012.

Page 173 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

 Level 2: GES targets and indicators which need some further development work between now and 2012 in order to finalise the details and Defra propose using the consultation to seek people’s views on the suggested criterion target.

 Level 3: GES targets and indicators for which it has not been possible to develop proposals at this time. With further research and developmental work, it may be possible to put these forward in 2018.

Descriptor 1 - Biodiversity

Criterion Target 1.1 Species Distribution: In 75-90% of indicators monitored, there should be no statistically significant contraction in the distribution of marine mammals.

Four of the indicators and targets, related to seals, proposed under this criterion target are considered to represent level 1, i.e. they are well developed and there is sufficient evidence for them to be submitted in 2012. There are an additional 6 relating to cetaceans that require further research and developmental work. Research is currently being undertaken that will, by March 2012, provide a good indication of our ability to detect trends in cetacean distribution and abundance for the more common species, including the power to detect those trends through data collected under the Joint Cetacean Protocol. Once this information is available, it is hoped that these indicators and targets will contribute to the Criterion Target. This will also rely on the development of a cetacean monitoring programme as required by the Habitats Directive. Such a programme has yet to be fully developed, costed and implemented.

For seals, this criterion target links to work undertaken for the two OSPAR EcoQOs. The annual assessment of UK seal populations is based primarily on information from surveys conducted by the Sea Mammal Research Unit of both grey and harbour seals in Scotland and of common seals in eastern England (Figure A8-1 and A8-2) but includes information collected independently by other organisations, including: the National Trust (Farne Islands and Blakeney Point), Scottish Natural Heritage (Shetland, Lismore, South Ronaldsay and Rum), Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust (Donna Nook), Natural England (Horsey) and the Countryside Council for Wales (Wales). In Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (formerly Environment and Heritage Service) and the National Trust monitor common and grey seals in Strangford Lough. A small number of other organisations also collect information on grey and common seals (e.g. INCA study seals in the estuary of the River Tees; the Cornwall Seal Group studies seals in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly). Information from these organisations may be included into the formal advice provided through the Special Committee on

Page 174 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Seals where appropriate. The UK seal monitoring programme is largely funded by NERC and costs approximately £1M per annum. However, this is supplemented by funding, particularly for harbour seals, from SNH and Natural England and from Scottish Government. NERC have recently indicated that their funding will be reduced by up to 20% over the next 3-4 years which is likely to mean a reduction in the number of sites surveyed and/or frequency of surveys, particularly for grey seals.

Figure A8-1. The main grey seal breeding colonies in Great Britain and Northern Ireland (From SCOS, 2008).

Page 175 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Figure A8-2. The distribution of common seals in Great Britain and Northern Ireland in August, by 10km squares, from surveys carried out between 2000 and 2006 (From SCOS, 2008).

Page 176 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Criterion Target 1.2 Population Size: In 75-90% of indicators monitored, there should be no statistically significant decrease in abundance of marine mammals.

Two of the indicators and targets contributing to this criterion target are considered to be sufficiently well developed for submission in 2012, these relate to seals and are derived from two OSPAR EcoQOs.

For grey seals:

"Taking into account natural population dynamics and trends, there should be no decline in pup production of grey seals of ≥10% as represented in a five- year running mean or point estimates (separated by up to five years) within any of nine sub-units of the North Sea. These sub-units are: Orkney; Fast Castle/Isle of May; the Farne Islands; Donna Nook; the French North Sea and Channel coasts; the Netherlands coast; the Schleswig-Holstein Wadden Sea; Heligoland; Kjørholmane (Rogaland)."

And for harbour seals:

"Taking into account natural population dynamics and trends, there should be no decline in harbour seal population size (as measured by numbers hauled out) of ≥10% as represented in a five-year running mean or point estimates (separated by up to five years) within any of eleven sub-units of the North Sea. These sub-units are: Shetland; Orkney; North and East Scotland; South- East Scotland; the Greater Wash/Scroby Sands; the Netherlands Delta area; the Wadden Sea; Heligoland; Limfjord; the Kattegat, the Skagerrak and the Oslofjord; the west coast of Norway south of 62oN".

In the UK, up to January 2009, grey pup production remains within the limits of the EcoQO (Figure A8-3). Pup production appears to be beginning to stabilise in Orkney; is increasing at the Isle of May/Fast Castle (due entirely to increases at Fast Castle); is stable at the Farne Islands and is increasing at Donna Nook. Two colonies recently established in Norfolk (at Blakeney Point and at Horsey) should be included with Donna Nook in this EcoQO assessment.

In contrast, recent surveys have shown that harbour seal populations have declined well in excess of the limits set out in the EcoQOs in Orkney, Shetland, north-east Scotland, south-east Scotland and the Greater Wash (Figure A8-4). The decline in the east of England was due to the outbreak of PDV in 2002. Reasons for declines in the other areas have not yet been determined.

There are an additional 7 indicators and targets relating to cetaceans that require further research and developmental work to enable an assessment of the Criterion Target. See comments in criterion target 1.1 above regarding

Page 177 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix) development of the first 6 through work on the Joint Cetacean Protocol. The 7th relates to the inshore bottlenose dolphin populations. For two of these populations (Scottish east coast and the Cardigan Bay area), there is the potential that such an indicator could be developed in time for 2012, although 2018 is considered more realistic. There is sufficiently reliable data to indicate that the bottlenose dolphins on the Scottish east coast is considered to be stable and those in the Cardigan Bay area also remain stable, with limited evidence of a slight increased (Figures A8-5 and 6). These abundance estimates were collected during research projects were funded in part by SNH and CCW, respectively. SNH have a MoU in place with Aberdeen University to continue to carry out this survey work, which runs until 2013. Funding for the work in Wales has recently ceased and now relies solely on funds that can be raised by Sea Watch Foundation (who were originally contracted by CCW to undertake the work).

Grey seal pup production at annually monitored UK breeding colonies 45000 Total production

Outer Hebrides 40000 Orkney

35000 Inner Hebrides

North Sea: Isle of May, Fas t Cas tle, Farnes , Donna Nook, 30000 Blakeney Pt, Horsey

25000

20000

15000 Estimated pup production Estimated 10000

5000

0 1960 1963 1966 1969 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 Year

Figure A8-3. Grey seal pup production at annually monitored colonies in Scotland and England between 1960 and 2007 (From SCOS, 2008). These colonies account for approximately 85% of grey seal pups born in the UK.

Page 178 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Counts of harbour seals around Scotland Tay plus Moray Firths Outer Hebrides (part) Highland Strathclyde Shetland Orkney Outer Hebrides (all) 9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000 Number of seals Number of

3000

2000

1000

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year of survey

Figure A8-4. Counts of common seals in Regions of Scotland between 1990 and 2007 (From SCOS, 2008).

Figure A8-5. Trends in annual estimates of the number of dolphins using the Moray Firth SAC, based upon surveys conducted during the core-study inner Moray Firth study area (From Thompson et al., 2006).

Page 179 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

160 P 140 o 120 p u 100 l 80 a t 60 i 40 o 20 n 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year

Figure A8-6: Bottlenose dolphin population estimates from photo-ID work in the Cardigan Bay area (From Peasante et al, 2008). Error bars represent standard error.

Criterion Target 1.3 Population Condition: There should be no statistically significant decline in seal pup production and bottlenose dolphin calf production; and there should be no adverse health effects from contaminants and biotoxins; and mortality of marine mammals due to fishing by-catch should be sufficiently low to not inhibit population size targets being met.

A total of 11 indicators and targets currently contribute to this Criterion Target. Of these 2 are sufficiently well developed, 5 require some additional development but will be ready for 2012 and a further 4 are require further research with the possibility of submission in 2018. These 11 indicators and targets cover a variety of biological aspects:

 pup and calf production for the two seal species and the inshore bottlenose dolphin populations, respectively (see section on Criterion 4.1).

 by-catch of harbour porpoises, short beaked common dolphins, grey seals and harbour seals (see section on MSFD pressure indicators)

 PCB and other organohalogenated contaminant levels in harbour porpoises and harbour seals linked immunosuspression and other adverse health effects (see section on MSFD pressure indicators)

 the relative occupancy of haulout sites used by both grey and harbour seals. Additional analysis underway to determine if there is a relationship between relative haulout numbers and local trends in

Page 180 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

population abundance between the two species. Existing data will need to be analysed to provide an indication of feasibility of such an assessment.

 identification of harbour seal subpopulations. The assessment of genetic structure of this species will enable estimates of the abundance of harbour seal in discrete population sub-units to be made, which is considered extremely important due the continuing population declines observed.

 presence of algal biotoxins in seals (see section on MSFD pressure indicators).

Many of these proposed indicators are reliant on short-term research funds awarded to academic institutions or NGOs.

Descriptor 4 - Food webs

Indicators proposed for marine mammals under D4 criteria 4.1 and 4.3 are identical to those indicators proposed above under Criteria 1.2 and 1.1 respectively.

Criterion Target 4.1 Productivity (production per unit biomass) of key species or trophic groups: In 75-90% of indicators monitored, there should be no statistically significant decrease in abundance of marine mammals.

This covers the pup and calf production for the two seal species and the inshore bottlenose dolphin populations, respectively. For grey seals there is sufficient evidence to submit in 2012 (e.g. see FigureA8- 4). For harbour seals and the inshore bottlenose dolphin populations some additional work is required, but the indicators are expected to be submitted in 2012.

Harbour seal pup production is difficult to assess. It has, however, been monitored annually in the Moray Firth since 1988, although more accurate aerial techniques were introduced in 2006. Assessments are also undertaken in The Wash, where 90% of the species outside Scotland resides. The Wash was first surveyed in 2003 and is reassessed every 5 years. Further sites (possibly SACs) should be added to these assessments, but will require additional funding.

Photo-identification studies in the Cardigan Bay area indicate that the number of calves born per year are 13 (2005), 20 (2006), and 20 (2007). From those estimates, crude birth rates were calculated as 0.098 (2005), 0.112 (2006), and 0.101 (2007), and a mean value for the three years of 0.104. These compare favourably with crude birth rate estimates calculated for other bottlenose dolphin populations, which range from 0.012 to 0.156, but in most

Page 181 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix) cases are between 0.055 and 0.10. Until recently this work was undertaken by the Sea Watch Foundation, funded by CCW. These funds have now ceased and continuation of the research relies on monies obtained by Sea Watch. Similar photo-ID work has been undertaken in the Moray Firth through CRRU and Aberdeen University.

Criterion Target 4.2 Abundance/distribution of key trophic groups/species: There should be no statistically significant decline in seal pup production and bottlenose dolphin calf production.

Two indicators contributing to this Criterion target are sufficiently developed (grey and harbour seal abundance trends) with a third expected by 2012 (inshore bottlenose dolphin abundance trends). The development of an additional 6 indicators linked to cetacean abundance and another for the relative occupancy of seal sites is expected by 2018.

At this time, trends in distribution of these marine mammal species have been left out of this Criterion target. However, should the ongoing JCP research indicate that value would be gained with their inclusion then the number of indicators contributing to this Criterion target will be increased.

MSFD Pressure targets associated with marine mammals

Three GES Criterion Targets have also been suggested for pressures known to have potentially significant influence on marine mammals populations . These cover by-catch, PCB contamination and algal biotoxins.

MSFD Pressure Impact selective extraction of species, including incidental non-target catches (e.g. by commercial and recreational fishing: Annual by-catch rate is reduced to less than 1.7% of best population estimate (for harbour porpoise and common dolphin, but 2% for seals)

At the fifth North Sea Conference in 2002, Ministers agreed that an ecological quality element relating to harbour porpoise by-catch in the North Sea would be given the objective: ‘annual by-catch levels should be reduced to levels below 1.7% of the best population estimate’. In 2006, OSPAR adopted the agreement on the application of the ecological quality objective (EcoQO) system in the North Sea, which required in 2008, a first assessment of the application of the EcoQO system and in 2009 an improved elevation of the results of the EcoQO system as a contribution to the Quality Status Report (QSR) for 2010 (OSPAR, 2010).

In 2008, the ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) Working Group on Marine Mammal Ecology tried to evaluate progress to date with this EcoQO on a North Sea wide basis (ICES, 2008b). It was quickly apparent that many of the fisheries suspected to have the highest by-catch

Page 182 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix) levels are conducted without by-catch observer programmes as these are not a requirement of Council Regulation 812/2004 (see below). As a consequence, it was not possible to evaluate whether the EcoQO has been met.

Council Regulation 812/2004 requires the reporting of certain cetacean by- catch from all EU Member States, although these are not fully comprehensive of the North Sea. In addition, evaluation of the scale of incidental killing and capture of cetaceans (i.e., by-catch) is also required under the EU Habitats Directive, but precise standards have not been set and there has been little evaluation or enforcement of this Directive requirement to date.

For the UK, data on marine mammal by-catch has been formally collected through the UK by-catch monitoring project since 2005. Prior to this, data was collected through a variety of research projects. The two main species affected by fishing in UK waters are the harbour porpoise and the short- beaked common dolphin. Harbour porpoises are by-caught mainly in static nets whilst common dolphins tend to be caught in pelagic trawls but are also by-caught in static nets.

UK fleet by-catch estimates of porpoises in the North Sea, though reliant on rather old observations, are estimated to be in the low hundreds at present. These can be compared with notional by-catch limits of around 3500-4500. Other major gillnet fisheries exist in Denmark and Norway, while Sweden, Belgium, the Netherland and France also prosecute gillnet fisheries in The North Sea. By-catch rates in these other nations’ fisheries are not known at present, but a recent analysis by ICES suggested that total effort in commercial fisheries is not currently high enough to take as many as 3500 porpoises per year in the North Sea, though concerns have been raised about large scale recreational gillnet fisheries that exist along the continental shore of the North Sea. Increasing fuel prices and a potential cod recovery could also increase gillnet effort in the future.

In the South and Southwest, porpoise by-catches are likely in the mid to high hundreds per year in UK set net fisheries, and while sustainable by-catch limits are likely to be over 2000 animals per year, there are as yet very incomplete estimates of by-catch of porpoises in this area by other nations. Similarly, for common dolphins by-catch currently amount to some few hundreds of animals per year taken by the UK fleet, including now just a few or a few tens of animals at most in UK pelagic pair trawl fisheries. The UK total is therefore much lower than the estimated sustainable take limit of around 2800 animals, but by-catch by other European member states are likely to run into the thousands, so it remains a moot point as to whether or not current aggregate by-catch rates for common dolphins are sustainable.

Page 183 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Seals have also been recorded in static nets and pelagic trawls, with by-catch rates highest in the North Sea with, the numbers recorded being relatively low (singles to tens per year).

The UK by-catch monitoring project has recently been awarded for a further 3 years, with the current funding due to cease in 2014. This project covers all cetacean species, seals and seabirds.

MSFD Pressure Impact. PCB and other organohalogenated contamination in harbour porpoises and harbour seals are below estimated threshold levels for adverse health effects.

A single indicator contributes to this, which requires further development prior to submission in 2018. Work undertaken through UK cetacean stranding scheme (CSIP) has demonstrated that porpoises dying as a result of infectious disease had significantly higher levels of PCBs than healthy porpoises that die as a result of traumatic deaths (e.g. by-catch or bottlenose dolphin kills) (Jepson et al, 2005). PCB levels equivalent to 13mg/kg lipid has been identified as the critical level at which the contaminant begins to affect cetacean health. Such an assessment is proposed as part of the OSPAR monitoring requirements for harbour porpoises as a ‘threatened and declining species’.

During 2010, Defra funded the analysis of retrospective samples from 100 harbour porpoises (2004-2008) for chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorine pesticides (OCs) and brominated diphenyl ethers (flame retardants, PBDEs) with results expected to be available later in 2011, progressing work towards a 20 year time series of marine contaminant analysis in UK stranded harbour porpoises.

In 2010, analyses of long-term temporal trends in blubber concentrations of PCBs (n=440; 1991-2005) (Law et al. 2010a) and PBDEs (n=415; 1992-2008) (Law et al. 2010b) in UK-stranded harbour porpoises were published. Summed PCB concentrations in UK harbour porpoises declined slowly from 1991-1997 and then levelled off in 2005 as a result of a ban on the use of PCBs which began more than two decades ago (Law et al 2010a). This decline is much slower than that observed for organochlorine pesticides (such as DDTs and dieldrin). There are also regional differences in PCBs and OC pesticide levels within UK waters (lower levels in Scotland), possibly reflecting differences in diffuse inputs and transfer between regions, e.g. via the atmosphere. The reason for the slow PCB decline is not known but likely to involve continuing diffuse inputs from e.g. PCB-containing materials in storage, construction and in landfills, and to the substantial reservoir of PCBs already in the marine environment.

Page 184 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Among harbour seals comparable datasets exist for blubber levels of PCBs and PBDEs for 1989 and 2003 (Hall et al. 1999, Hall et al. 1992, Hall & Thomas 2007). An archive of blubber samples from the more recent years is also available for analysis. For some regions (e.g. the Wash and the SW coast of Scotland) levels, particularly in males, still exceed the estimated threshold level for adverse health effects, particularly immunosuppressive effects (approximately 20ppm PCBs lipid weight) which have been well demonstrated in this species (Ross et al. 1996).

Funding for this work has so far been ad-hoc. If taken forward, serious consideration will need to be given to finding a more permanent solution to the funding situation. Funding for the UK cetacean stranding scheme itself has recently been put in place for the next three years (approximately £350K per annum) running until 2014. However, this does not include further analysis of toxins either for cetaceans or seals.

MSFD Pressure Impact Nutrient and organic matter enrichment: Exposure of seals to biotoxins (target to be developed).

Assessment of toxin levels in seal faeces will provide information on the exposure of seals to the toxins produced by harmful algal blooms which appear to be increasing in many areas throughout the world, including the UK, due to changes in the environment and increases in nutrient input to the marine environment. A single indicator contributes to this, which requires further development prior to submission in 2018. Samples could be obtained through current monitoring of seal diet by the subsampling of faeces collected from seal haulout sites. The ad hoc collection of seal scats at various sites around the UK may continue beyond the end of the current diet study and would provide an opportunity to continue the exposure monitoring but some additional funds would be required for the toxin analyses.

References

Hall, A. J., C. D. Duck, R. J. Law, C. R. Allchin, S. Wilson and T. Eybator. 1999. Organochlorine contaminants in Caspian and harbour seal blubber. Environmental Pollution 106: 203-212.

Hall, A. J., R. J. Law, D. E. Wells, J. Harwood, H. M. Ross, S. Kennedy, C. R. Allchin, L. A. Campbell and P. P. Pomeroy. 1992. Organochlorine levels in common seals (Phoca vitulina) that were victims and survivors of the 1988 phocine distemper epizootic. Science of the Total Environment 115: 145-162.

Hall, A. J. and G. O. Thomas. 2007. Polychlorinated biphenyls, DDT, polybrominated diphenyl ethers and organic pesticides in United Kingdom

Page 185 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix) harbor seals - mixed exposures and thyroid homeostasis. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 26.

Jepson, P.D., Bennett, P.M., Deaville, R., Allchin, C.R., Baker, J.R. & Law, R.J., 2005. Relationships between PCBs and health status in UK-stranded harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24, 238-248.

Law, R.J., Bersuder, P., Barry, J., Deaville, R., Reid, R.J., Jepson, P.D. (2010) Chlorobiphenyls in the blubber of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) from the UK: levels and trends 1991-2005. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60, 470-473.

Law, R.J., Barry, J., Bersuder, P., Barber, J., Deaville, R., Reid, R.J. and Jepson, P.D. (2010) Levels and trends of BDEs in blubber of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena) from the UK, 1992 – 2008 Environmental Science & Technology 44, 4447-4451

Pesante, G., Evans, P.G.H., Anderwald, P., Powell, D. & McMath, M., 2008. Abundance and life history parameters of bottlenose dolphins in Cardigan bay 2005-2007. CCW Marine Monitoring Report No. 61. 81pp.

Ross, P., R. Deswart, R. Addison, H. Vanloveren, J. Vos and A. Osterhaus. 1996. Contaminant-induced immunotoxicity in harbour seals: Wildlife at risk? Toxicology 112: 157-169.

SCOS, 2008. Scientific Advice on Matters Related to the Management of Seal Populations: 2008. Available at: www.smru.st- andrews.ac.uk/documents/SCOS_2008 _v1.pdf

Thompson, P. M,, Corkrey, R. Lusseau, D, Lusseau, S.M., Quick, N., Durban, J.W., Parsons, K.M. and Hammond, P. S. 2006. An assessment of the current condition of the Moray Firth bottlenose dolphin population. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 175 (ROAME No. F02AC409).

Page 186 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Appendix 9 - Fish report

Developing Indicators and Targets for Descriptors 1 and 4 in Respect of Fish

S.P.R. Greenstreet, H.M Fraser, C. Millar, I. Mitchell, W. Le Quesne, C. Fox, P. Boulcott, T. Blasdale, A.G. Rossberg and C.F. Moffat

Data availability and assessment scales

Groundfish surveys have been carried out in support of fisheries management for decades and the species abundance at length data they provide are ideal for deriving the indicators stipulated for Descriptors 1 and 4 in the EC 2010 Decision document. Recent analyses for the UK’s “Charting Progress 2” and OSPAR’s “Quality Status Report 2010” demonstrate that data from such surveys are readily available throughout the majority of UK waters and most waters covering the European continental shelf. The North Sea case study that accompanies this report confirms the wealth of data available to populate these indicators for fish.

Despite this apparent abundance of suitable data, the situation is not perfect. Issues arise regarding the geographic scales at which assessments may be required. The MSFD considers four distinct regions: the Baltic Sea; the North- east Atlantic Ocean; the Mediterranean Sea; and the Black Sea. Two of these regions are further split into four sub-regions. The Greater North Sea (including the Kattegat, and the English Channel) and the Celtic Seas, for example are two sub-regions of the North-east Atlantic Ocean. No single groundfish survey covers an entire MSFD region, and few if any cover an entire sub-region. Assessments at both the sub-regional and regional scale will therefore require aggregation of information collected over smaller spatial sub-units. Protocols detailing how these disparate smaller spatial scale monitoring programmes should be integrated will need to be established so as to ensure that resulting regional-scale assessments are consistent and objective.

Most groundfish surveys are designed to assess fish populations at relatively large spatial scales, for example the North Sea or the Celtic Sea. The North Sea ICES first quarter (Q1) International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) typically samples approximately 170 ICES statistical rectangles and generally achieves approximately 400 trawl samples sweeping a seabed area of approximately 30km2 each year. The whole North Sea covers an area of approximately 570,000km2 and an average ICES rectangle covers an area of 3,500km2. Thus while the sampling statistics appear impressive, and represent a substantial economic investment on the part of the participating countries, in

Page 187 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix) reality the actual fraction of the total North Sea, and its resident individual populations, sampled in any one year is relatively small. Deriving metric values that convey something approaching reality therefore requires 20 or more individual trawl samples to be combined to generate a single representative sample (Greenstreet and Piet, 2008). The consequence of this is that in order to examine temporal trends at the resolution of single years, data collected across ten or more ICES rectangles need to be combined. This clearly limits the spatial resolution at which these surveys can be used to address questions regarding variation in fish biodiversity and food web dynamics. The value of groundfish surveys therefore starts to diminish at spatial scales smaller than the spatial units used in, for example, the UK Charting Progress 2 process. A further consequence of this scale issue is that coastal areas are relatively under-surveyed. This is also partly due to the nature of the vessels generally involved in groundfish surveys, which rarely operate in water shallower than 30m.

Indicator derivation

Firstly, it was necessary to determine which of the indicators stipulated in the EC Decision document (Table A9-1) could be populated with regard to the fish sub-component. “Habitat” level metrics were considered not appropriate for fish; although there may be a need to ensure that fish-related habitat issues, for example conservation of key habitats such as spawning grounds, were adequately covered in the development of “habitat” indicators. Even here though, problems related to the availability of key fish habitats should be reflected by changes in the “species” level indicators set for criteria 1.1 species distribution, 1.2 population size, and 1.3 population condition. Indicator 1.1.3 area covered by the species (for sessile and benthic species) was also considered not relevant to mobile species such as fish; related issues in respect of fish would be addressed via indicator 1.1.1 distributional range. Finally, in respect of indicator 1.3.2 population genetic structure, whilst there is evidence of population genetic structuring in some fish species, these invariably involve commercially targeted species such as cod (Hutchinson et al., 2001; Nielsen et al., 2009). For the vast majority of fish species there simply are no data. Since genetically separate fish populations would require a degree of spatial segregation, any issues associated with a decline in one or more genetically distinct populations would be reflected by changes in range extent.

Page 188 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Table A9-1. Levels, criteria and indicator types proposed for Descriptor 1 “Biological diversity is maintained” and Descriptor 4 “Food webs” of the MSFD (EC 2010).

Descriptor Level Criterion Indicator 1.1.1 - Distributional range 1.1.2 - Distributional pattern within the 1.1 - Species latter, where appropriate distribution 1.1.3 - Area covered by the species (for sessile/benthic species) 1.2.1 - Population abundance and/or 1.2 - Population size Species biomass, as appropriate 1.3.1 - Population demographic characteristics (e.g. body size or age 1.3 - Population class structure, sex ratio, fecundity condition rates, survival/ mortality rates) 1.3.2 - Population genetic structure, where appropriate 1 1.4 - Habitat 1.4.1 - Distributional range distribution 1.4.2 - Distributional pattern 1.5.1 - Habitat area 1.5 - Habitat extent 1.5.2 - Habitat volume, where relevant 1.6.1 - Condition of the typical species Habitat and communities 1.6.2 - Relative abundance and/or 1.6 - Habitat condition biomass, as appropriate 1.6.3 - Physical, hydrological and chemical conditions 1.7.1 - Composition and relative 1.7 - Ecosystem Ecosystem proportions of ecosystem components structure (habitats and species) 4.1 - Productivity 4.1.1 - Performance of key predator (production per unit species using their production per unit biomass) of key biomass (productivity) species or trophic groups Species or 4.2 - Proportion of 4.2.1 - Large fish (by weight) 4 functional selected species at the groups top of food webs 4.3 - 4.3.1 - Abundance trends of functionally Abundance/distribution important selected groups/species of key trophic groups/species

Criterion 4.1 was also considered to be largely irrelevant to fish indicators and targets. This criterion, and its associated indicator, was considered to relate primarily to “reproductive” productivity, for example kittiwake chick production per breeding pair, which has been shown to be closely linked to the availability of suitable prey (Frederiksen et al., 2004; Daunt et al., 2008). In fish populations, recruit production, the main measure of successful reproductive productivity, is highly variable. Its relationship to spawning stock size is generally weak and rarely statistically significant until spawning stock size falls

Page 189 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix) to critically low levels, at which point recruit production often declines markedly. This variability in recruit production is the consequence of small variations in the exceptionally high mortality rates that occur during a number of processes between the egg and juvenile phases of the life cycle. Recruit production is therefore considered to be primarily driven by a number of stochastic processes strongly influenced by environmental factors, and generally not related to anthropogenic activities. The possibility of using growth productivity indicators, e.g. Production/Biomass (P/B) ratios, was instead considered. However, for most species, but particularly “sensitive” species, we would want populations to exhibit low P/B ratios; populations dominated by older, larger, mature fish, close to the asymptote of their growth curves, and therefore exhibiting low growth production per unit biomass. However, it was thought that this would be “counter-intuitive” for most stakeholders, and could potentially confuse matters.

Thus, in respect of demersal fish, metrics could be identified, or suggested, that could fulfil indicator roles for: 1.1.1 Distributional range; 1.1.2 Distributional pattern within the range; 1.2.1 Population abundance and biomass; 1.3.1 Population demographic characteristics; 1.7.1 Composition and relative proportions of ecosystem components; 4.2.1 Large fish (by weight); and 4.3.1 Abundance trends of functionally important selected groups/species. However, some of these metrics were considered insufficiently understood at the current time and would therefore require further development before appropriate targets for them could be set.

Distribution range

Geographic shifts (i.e., northwards or southwards) in a species’ range were considered primarily to be a response to environmental change, whereas changes in the extent of a species’ range may well be a response to pressure from human activities. Indicators for this criterion also needed to take account of differences in situation; for example, continental shelf communities or shelf- edge communities. Thus for a continental shelf sea, variation in range considered the horizontal plane, where as for shelf-edge seas, variation in range considered the vertical axis (depth). For each species-based “range” 19 indicator (Rs) therefore, the metric proposed considers the proportion of ICES rectangles (shelf sea) (equation 1), or the proportion of sampled depth bands (shelf-edge sea) (equation 2),

19 Distributional range as suggested here relates to the “extent” of a species’ distribution and not the geographical position of its distribution.

Page 190 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

C ,ys R ,ys  1. C ,yTotal

D ,ys R ,ys  2. D ,yTotal sampled by each annual survey in which the species (s) in question is recorded present in each year (y). Cs,y and Ds,y are, respectively, the number of ICES rectangles or depth bands that the species in question is recorded present in each year and CTotal,y and DTotal,y are, respectively, the number of ICES rectangles or depth bands sampled in the survey in each year.

Distributional pattern within the range

This indicator was considered to be concerned about variation in the distribution of individuals within the occupied range (ie. Cs,y, see equation 2); increases or decreases in the patchiness (contagion) or evenness (dispersion) of individuals over the area occupied. As a simple dispersion/contagion metric, the mean/variance ratio was therefore proposed.

 Ac ys max,,  A ,, cys  Ac ys min,,

C , ys P , ys  2 3.   Ac ys max,,    A ,, cys  Ac sy max,    Ac ys min,,   A ,, cys    C  Ac ys min,,  , ys     

C , ys 1

This metric can be computed using either ICES rectangle abundance data (numbers km-2) or biomass data (kg km-2), both of which can be substituted in equation 3 as As,y,c, the abundance or biomass of a given species (s) in each year (y) in each ICES rectangle (c) where it is present, and simply involves calculating the mean of the values across all the rectangles in which a species was recorded present in any one year (numerator part of equation 3) and dividing this by the variance of these values (denominator part of equation 3).

In a Poisson distribution, which describes the distribution of randomly dispersed objects, the mean and the variance are equal; a mean:variance ratio of 1.0 therefore indicates a random distribution of individuals over the occupied area. Values <1.0 (variance>mean) indicate patchy or contagious distributions while values >1.0 (mean>variance) indicate even or dispersed distributions; declining trends reflect increasing contagion, while increasing trends suggest increasing dispersion. Given the generally restricted number

Page 191 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix) of depth bands considered in most studies of shelf-edge fish communities, this approach may not be applicable in this situation.

Population abundance and/or biomass

Both abundance and biomass data are readily available from the majority of groundfish surveys, or easily determined through application of weight-at- length relationships to the abundance data. Metrics of both population abundance and biomass are therefore generally available. The question is whether both are necessary in respect of fish for the biodiversity indicator? Some pressures from human activities, such as fishing, are size selective (targeting the larger individuals) and raise mortality rates. Any increase in mortality reduces life expectancy, so average age in a population declines. Being non-deterministic in their growth, any reduction in average age in a fish population results in a reduction in average length. Since weight varies with length as a cubic power, pressures that cause mortality rates to increase affect population biomass to a greater extent than they affect population abundance. On the other hand, other anthropogenic pressures on the marine ecosystem, such as chronic or acute pollution events might influence the productivity of particular populations. Such effects might be better detected using metrics of population abundance. There are therefore good arguments to support the use of indicators of both population abundance and population biomass. Since we have the capacity to provide both, this is the obvious way forward.

The metrics used to act as abundance and biomass indicators in the North Sea pilot study standardise the abundance and biomass data by taking account of the area swept by the trawl gear in each annual survey, thus:

C , yTotal  A ,, cys A  c1  4. ,ys C ,yTotal Std  ,cy c1

C , yTotal  B ,, cys B  c1  5. ,ys C ,yTotal Std  ,cy c1

As,y and Bs,y are the desired annual species-based indicators. These are derived by first summing the abundances As,y,c (or biomasses Bs,y,c) of the species in question (s) in each year (y) in each ICES rectangle (c) surveyed across all the rectangles surveyed in each year (CTotal,y). Next the total area of seabed swept in each annual survey is determined by summing the areas swept in each ICES rectangle (φy,c) across all rectangles surveyed in each

Page 192 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix) year and the abundance (or biomass) sum is divided by this value to derive “whole survey” density estimates (numbers km-2 or biomass kg km-2 at a “regional” scale (in MSFD terms “sub-regional” or “sub-sub-regional” scale), i.e. the area covered by the survey (in our pilot study, the North Sea covered by the ICES Q1 IBTS). We have used are square kilometres (km2) because this seems a sensible spatial unit by which to consider most fish populations. However, many of the rarest fish species will be recorded at densities of <1km-2 (or <1kg km-2), and the combination of values <1 and >1 can cause analytical problems, particularly if transformation is required. Consequently, these survey density estimates were raised by a “standard” area (ФStd), which in the case of the North Sea pilot study was 30km2, this being an approximation of the mean or median area surveyed across all years of the ICES Q1 IBTS.

If species biomass in any year and rectangle are not available directly from the survey, this can be estimated from the species abundance at length data (per year and rectangle) by applying species specific weight-at-length

s relationships of the form ,  sls lW , where αs and βs are, respectively, the species-specific constant and exponent parameters of the power function, l is the length in question and Ws,l is the corresponding weight of an individual fish of this species and length. Biomass estimates for each species in each Maxl year and rectangle (Bs,y,c) can then be determined as B ,, cys   cyls AW ,,,,,, cyls , Minl where Ws,l,y,s is the weight of each individual fish of species s and length l in year y rectangle c and As,l,y,c is their abundance.

Population demographic characteristics

Data to assess variation in fish population demographics are not routinely collected as part of the groundfish survey protocols. However, it is possible to generate some potential metrics using life-history trait information and applying these to the standard abundance-at-length data provided by the surveys. Thus length at first maturity data are available for many species (see Table A9-2), and where they are not, they can be estimated from von Bertalannfy growth equation ultimate body length parameter values (see Table A9-2) using regression analysis (Figure A9-1). In any year, and for any species, sampled in a survey, the proportion of individuals, or the proportion of the sampled biomass, that exceeds this length can be determined. This

Page 193 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix) provides an estimate of the proportion of mature individuals (MNos,s,y) or 20 biomass (MBiom,s,y) in the population . The indicator is calculated as:

C , yTotal Ll ,Maxs A ,,, cyls M  c1 Ll .Mats 6. ,, ysNos C ,yTotal  A ,, cys c1

C , yTotal Ll ,Maxs B ,,, cyls M  c1 Ll .Mats 7. ,, ysBiom C , yTotal  B ,, cys c1

200 0.91228 Lmat = 0.75782L n = 60, r 2 = 0.884 POR

160 SKA STU

TOP 120

BRA (cm) LIN mat HAL

L 80 ANG CODSER SPUSPYTRA LSDCRA CEE SAI TOR TURSTY CAT BRI HAK 40 HADBAN LEQPIP BLMLSODSORGURSBTNMTBRFLOPLAGFOHAG SSOBIB NPOWHIWITGGUSNBMEG FMECUW TSODRALRDCDABRONHAPANPCOFOR SOLSHEHOO 0 0 100 200 300 400 L(cm)

Figure A9-1. Relationship between Length at maturity (Lmax) and the von Bertalanffy ultimate body length (L∞) parameter for 60 demersal species where estimates for both parameters were available. Each species data point is identified by the MS 3-letter species code.

20 It is important to realise that variation in this metric as defined actually reflects variation in the size composition of the population, rather than any change over time in the length at which individuals of a particular species mature.

Page 194 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Composition and relative proportions of ecosystem components

This indicator was interpreted as the species composition and relative proportions of species in the demersal fish community. Univariate community metrics that have commonly been applied to fish communities could therefore be used for the purposes of this indicator (Greenstreet and Hall, 1996; Greenstreet et al., 1999; Rogers et al., 1999; Piet and Jennings 2005; Greenstreet and Rogers, 2006). In respect specifically of biodiversity, these include metrics of species evenness (Pielou’s evenness index, the Shannon- Weiner index, Simpson’s index, and Hill’s N1 and N2, which are the exponential and reciprocal of the last two metrics respectively) and metrics of species richness (species counts or Margaleff’s richness) (Greenstreet et al., in press). However, it is not clear what targets might be set for these metrics. The Q1 IBTS case study presented here has demonstrated that both species richness and species evenness have increased over the duration of the survey time-series.

The current OSPAR EcoQO for “fish communities” is based on the large fish indicator (LFI) (the proportion by weight of fish in the community larger than a specified length threshold). The LFI was specifically developed to monitor the effect of fishing pressure on the status of the broader fish community, beyond just the commercial stocks that are the subject of annual assessments. Under the auspices of ICES, the LFI has been the focus of a considerable research and development effort, with attention paid to: refining its sensitivity to fishing pressure; determining appropriate targets; developing an appropriate theoretical modelling framework to underpin management advice; and “rolling the process out” to redefine the LFI and set appropriate targets for additional marine regions beyond just the North Sea pilot area (Greenstreet et al., 2011; Shephard et al., in press). The LFI is therefore a prime candidate as an indicator of change in the composition and relative proportions of ecosystem [fish community] components. However, the LFI is also explicitly mentioned in the EC 2010 Decision Document as the indicator for Criterion 4.2 proportion of selected species at the top of food webs (see next section), but there seems to be no prohibition of the same indicator fulfilling two different indicator roles across different Descriptors.

Large fish (by weight)

The use of the large fish indicator (LFI) in a food web context is firmly rooted in size-based aquatic food web theory (Kerr & Dickie, 2001). Body-size is widely regarded as having at least as important a role to play in the processes structuring marine communities and controlling food web dynamics as species identity (Jennings et al., 2001; 2002; Jennings & Mackinson 2003). The LFI was developed as part of the OSPAR EcoQO pilot study carried out for the North Sea (Greenstreet et al., 2011). However, the indicator is region and

Page 195 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix) survey specific. It is the underlying process used in the North Sea to define and set targets for the indicator (Greenstreet et al., 2011) that needs to be “rolled out” to other regions and surveys, rather than simply applying the North Sea indicator definition and targets in a “prescribed” fashion (Shephard et al., in press). Derivation of the indicator is described in detail in the two cited studies, but in essence the LFI is defined as:

C ,yTotal S ll s max,  B ,,, cyls c11s ll LFI _ Threshold LFI y  S 8.  B ,ys s1

where S is the total number of species in the sample and lLFI _ Threshold is the region/survey specific large fish length threshold (see equation 5 and associated text for explanation of the remaining terms) and ls max, is the maximum length of each species recorded in the survey.

Abundance trends of functionally important selected groups/species

Fish trophic groups have been defined in previous studies. For example, the European Regional Seas Ecosystem Model (ERSEM) defines and models carbon flow through four fish groups: pelagic planktivore; pelagic piscivores; demersal benthivores; and demersal piscivores (Greenstreet et al., 1997). For ERSEM, species were assigned to each group on the basis of the adult fish diet. However, fish diet varies markedly with age and length (Hislop, 1997; Greenstreet, 1996; Greenstreet et al., 1998), and more meaningful indicators might be developed by taking account of both species- and size- related variation in diet.

Selection of species-specific indicators

The wealth of data that groundfish surveys provide in itself also poses problems: for example in deciding the basis on which particular species are selected to fulfil specific indicator roles. The Q1 IBTS analysed here has, over the course of its 26y history up to 2008, generated data on 128 demersal fish species alone. Our analyses have illustrated the variety of different ways that particular aspects of these species have varied over this time. Simply assessing variation in 128 different metrics fulfilling each of the different indicator roles listed in Table A9-1 would present considerable difficulties, particularly with regard to target setting. In order to interpret trends in indicator values for particular species, and then set targets for these indicators, it is necessary to have some a priori expectation as to what the metric value might be under conditions of sustainable exploitation; most

Page 196 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix) particularly, what this value might be compared with present day or recent historic values.

The sensitivity of different fish species to human pressure has been linked to their life-history characteristics. Species with k-type traits, such us large ultimate body size, slow growth rate, low fecundity, late age and large size at maturity, etc, are generally more sensitive to human activities that increase mortality rates (Jennings et al., 1998; Jennings et al., 1999; Gislason,et al., 2008). Human pressure on marine ecosystems generally brings about a decline in such species (Jennings et al., 1998; Jennings et al., 1999), for example the well documented decline in many elasmobranch species in the North Sea (Walker & Heessen, 1996; Walker & Hislop, 1998; Greenstreet & Rogers, 2000). Conversely, r-type species, which have the opposite traits, are opportunistic in nature and tend to flourish in disturbed situations, or when populations of their k-type predators are diminished (Greenstreet et al. 1999; Daan et al., 2005; Greenstreet et al. 2011). Opportunistic species often respond positively to other pressures on the ecosystem, such as chronic enrichment pollution. Taking account of species life-history characteristics can therefore provide the basis for selecting particular species to perform the indicator roles set out in the EC 2010 Indicator Decision document for Descriptor 1.

A further requirement for species selected to perform an indicator role is that they are adequately represented in the groundfish survey time-series . In the case study presented here, representation in at least half of the years that the Q1 IBTS was carried out was deemed a key requirement and 76 species met this condition. These 76 species were then ranked according to three life- history traits, ultimate body length (Linfinity) von Bertalanffy growth parameter (K), and length at first maturity (Lmaturity). The average of these three rankings was determined, and in turn ranked to place each species along an r-k spectrum with values from 1 (most opportunistic species) to 76 (most sensitive species) (Figure A9-2A). 33%iles then defined three groups of species: the 25 lowest ranked species, considered to be r-type or opportunist species; the 25 highest ranked species, considered to be k-type sensitive species, and a group of 26 middle ranked r/k-type species considered to be intermediate in their opportunistic/sensitivity traits (Table A9-2). Variation in the three life- history traits across these three groups is illustrated in the Box-Whisker plots shown in Figure A9-2B. Overlap in either of the three traits was minimal

Page 197 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix) between the two extreme groups; sensitive k-type species and opportunist r- type species21.

300 250 A 200 B 150 infinity

L L infinity 100 Lmaturity k 50 300 Lower 33%ile Middle 33%ile Upper 33%ile 2.5 0 "opportunist" "intermediate" "sensitive" r-species r/k-species k-species 2.5 2 2 1.5 200 K 1.5 1 K

L 0.5

1 0 100 160

0.5 120

0 0 maturity L 0 20406080 40 r-k spectrum rank 0 rr/kk

Figure A9-2. A. Variation in ultimate body length (Linfinity) von Bertalanffy growth parameter (K), and length at first maturity (Lmaturity) with increasing ranking on the r-k scale. Dashed vertical lines indicate the upper, middle and lower data 33%iles, representing sensitive, intermediate and opportunist species. B. Box-whisker plots showing the median, upper and lower quartiles, and maximum and minimum ultimate body length (Linfinity) von Bertalanffy growth parameter (K), and length at first maturity (Lmaturity) values for three groups of species, opportunists (r), sensitive (k) and intermediate trait species (r/k).

21 Figure 2 and Table 2 define the sensitive k-type and opportunist r-type species groups based on the North Sea Q1 IBTS demersal fish case study. These groups would need to be defined explicitly and specifically for each survey data set used in any given marine region assessment. Further note that this species grouping, based on species-specific life-history traits, is particularly appropriate in respect of pressures that increase rates of mortality above the natural rate. If a particular anthropogenic pressure affects fish species in other ways, some alternative approach to identifying “sensitive” species may be necessary.

Page 198 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Table A9-2. List of 76 species recorded present in the Q1 IBTS in at least half (13y or more) of the survey’s time-series giving their r-k spectrum ranking and group, and detailing their life-history trait data on which this ranking and grouping was based. Shaded cells indicate details for species currently listed on the OSPAR list of threatened and endangered species.

Von Bertalannfy Ultimate body growth Length at first r-k spectrum r/k group Scientific name Common name length (cm) parameter maturity (cm) rank

Aphia minuta Transparent goby 5.40 2.230 3.53 1

Pomatoschistus minutus Sand goby 9.20 0.928 5.74 2

Callionymus reticulatus Reticulated dragonet 8.76 0.495 5.49 3

Liparis montagui Montagu's sea snail 9.54 0.472 5.93 4

Buglossidium luteum Solenette 11.70 0.540 7.00 5

Phrynorhombus norvegicus Norwegian topknot 9.54 0.472 5.93 6

Arnoglossus laterna Scaldfish 15.80 0.840 9.40 7 Opportunist Liparis liparis Sea snail 11.87 0.417 7.24 8

Echiichthys vipera Lesser weever 11.87 0.417 7.24 9

Callionymus maculatus Spotted dragonet 12.65 0.402 7.67 10

Agonus cataphractus Hooknose 17.40 0.419 9.00 11

Syngnathus rostellatus Nilsson's pipefish 20.00 0.747 11.65 12

Lycenchelys sarsii Sar's wolf eel 15.73 0.355 9.36 13

Trisopterus minutus Poor cod 20.30 0.506 13.00 14

Page 199 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Von Bertalannfy Ultimate body growth Length at first r-k spectrum r/k group Scientific name Common name length (cm) parameter maturity (cm) rank

Triglops murrayi Moustache sculpin 15.73 0.355 9.36 15

Callionymus lyra Dragonet 22.20 0.471 13.00 16

Ciliata mustela Five-bearded rockling 19.58 0.314 11.43 17

Trisopterus esmarkii Norway pout 22.60 0.520 19.00 18

Zeugopterus punctatus Topknot 19.58 0.314 11.43 19

Taurulus bubalis Sea scorpion 18.70 0.251 10.96 20

Microchirus variegatus Thickback sole 20.70 0.374 14.00 21

Pholis gunnellus Butterfish 26.30 0.420 14.96 22

Raniceps raninus Tadpole fish 21.87 0.295 12.64 23

Mullus surmuletus Striped red mullet 33.40 0.430 18.61 24

Hippoglossoides platessoides Long rough dab 24.60 0.336 15.00 25

Capros aper Boarfish 23.40 0.283 13.45 26

Limanda limanda Common dab 26.70 0.261 13.00 27

Intermediate Myoxocephalus scorpius Bullrout 34.00 0.240 15.00 28

Chelidonichthys cuculus Red gurnard 41.70 0.460 25.00 29

Merlangius merlangus Whiting 42.40 0.320 20.00 30

Page 200 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Von Bertalannfy Ultimate body growth Length at first r-k spectrum r/k group Scientific name Common name length (cm) parameter maturity (cm) rank

Microstomus kitt Lemon sole 37.10 0.415 27.00 31

Enchelyopus cimbrius Four-bearded rockling 35.90 0.196 14.00 32

Solea vulgaris Dover sole 39.20 0.280 25.00 33

Syngnathus acus Great pipefish 38.58 0.213 21.22 34

Trisopterus luscus Bib 38.00 0.211 23.00 35

Lycodes vahlii Vahl's eelpout 40.09 0.209 21.98 36

Trachinus draco Greater weever 40.85 0.207 22.36 37

Lumpenus lampretaeformis Snake blenny 47.60 0.205 20.00 38

Platichthys flesus Flounder 47.30 0.230 25.00 39

Glyptocephalus cynoglossus Witch 45.50 0.165 20.00 40

Entelurus aequoreus Snake pipefish 46.12 0.193 24.97 41

Scophthalmus rhombus Brill 50.00 0.270 37.00 42

Eutrigla gurnardus Grey gurnard 46.16 0.156 21.00 43

Psetta maxima Turbot 57.00 0.320 46.00 44

Sebastes viviparus Norway haddock 36.00 0.070 20.90 45

Gaidropsarus vulgaris Three-bearded rockling 47.50 0.191 27.00 46

Page 201 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Von Bertalannfy Ultimate body growth Length at first r-k spectrum r/k group Scientific name Common name length (cm) parameter maturity (cm) rank

Helicolenus dactylopterus Bluemouth 37.20 0.095 25.00 47

Lepidorhombus whiffiagoni Megrim 51.80 0.073 19.00 48

Amblyraja radiata Starry ray 66.00 0.233 46.00 49

Myxine glutinosa Hagfish 61.13 0.164 25.00 50

Melanogrammus aeglefinus Haddock 68.30 0.190 34.00 51

Zoarces viviparus Viviparous blenny 52.00 0.130 27.86 52

Cyclopterus lumpus Lumpsucker 55.00 0.120 29.33 53

Pleuronectes platessa Plaice 54.40 0.110 27.00 54

Chelidonichthys lucerna Tub gurnard 65.00 0.148 34.15 55

Pollachius pollachius Pollack 85.60 0.186 43.91 56

Sensitive Scyliorhinus canicula Lesser spotted dogfish 90.00 0.200 58.00 57

Raja clavata Thornback ray 105.00 0.220 65.00 58

Gadus morhua Cod 123.10 0.230 70.00 59

Anguilla anguilla European eel 83.20 0.076 42.78 60

Squalus acanthias Spurdog 90.20 0.150 67.00 61

Merluccius merluccius Hake 103.60 0.107 37.00 62

Page 202 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Von Bertalannfy Ultimate body growth Length at first r-k spectrum r/k group Scientific name Common name length (cm) parameter maturity (cm) rank

Mustelus asterias Starry smooth hound 105.71 0.121 53.23 63

Brosme brosme Torsk 88.60 0.080 50.00 64

Raja montagui Spotted ray 97.80 0.148 67.00 65

Lophius piscatorius Angler 135.00 0.176 75.00 66

Leucoraja naevus Cuckoo ray 91.64 0.109 59.00 67

Chimaera monstrosa Rabbit ratfish 113.10 0.116 56.61 68

Galeorhinus galeus Tope 163.00 0.168 120.00 69

Anarhichas lupus Catfish 117.40 0.047 43.00 70

Raja brachyura Blond ray 139.00 0.120 100.00 71

Pollachius virens Saithe 177.10 0.070 55.00 72

Molva molva Ling 183.00 0.118 85.00 73

Hippoglossus hippoglossus Halibut 204.00 0.100 83.00 74

Mustelus mustelus Smooth hound 205.00 0.060 97.39 75

Dipturus batis Skate 253.70 0.057 155.00 76

Page 203 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Commercially exploited species used as part of the assessment for Descriptor 3 – Commercial fish and shellfish were deemed eligible for inclusion as indicator species for Descriptors 1 – Biodiversity and 4 – Food webs (provided they met the selection criteria set out above) because they generally constitute key members of the demersal fish community. Where Descriptor 3 species contributed to the breaching of targets set for individual descriptor 1 or 4 indicators and criteria, this should be taken as an indication that management of that species through the CFP was either inadequate or not being applied appropriately.

Target setting

When the status of the demersal fish community is deemed to be unsatisfactory, i.e. below good environmental status (GES), targets for k-type species should reflect the need to encourage an increase in their abundance. If fish community status is considered adequate (i.e. at GES), then targets should reflect the need to ensure that populations of k-type species are maintained and do not decline as a consequence of human activity. Conversely, r-types species may well be over- represented in perturbed communities, and even when fish community status might be considered adequate, one would not wish to see any undue increase in their abundance. Targets for r-type should at all times therefore reflect the need to ensure that, generally, populations of these opportunist species do not increase.

Targets for opportunist r-type species were considered necessary because:

 Such species may be more responsive to human pressures other than fishing, such as pollution enrichment events, which may affect local productivity.

 By the very nature of their life-histories, such species may respond more quickly to both natural and anthropogenic disturbance, thereby potentially providing “early-warning” of impending issues.

 Opportunist species are often amongst the most abundant species in fish communities. They therefore have the potential, if their populations increase, to exert high predation pressure on their prey, which could include the eggs and larval phases of sensitive k-type species. Similarly, juveniles of sensitive k-type species, as they grow through their small size phase, could be subjected to higher levels of competition from opportunist r-type species.

For several of the indicators described above, no targets have been proposed. In these cases, the relationship between the proposed indicator and anthropogenic pressure on the fish community was not considered to be sufficiently well understood as to allow reliable targets to be proposed. The species-based indicators falling into this category were 1.1.2 distributional pattern within the range and 1.3.1 population demographic characteristics. Targets could be proposed for 1.1.1 distributional range, 1.2.1 population abundance and biomass, 1.7.1 composition and relative proportions of ecosystem components, and 4.2.1 large fish (by weight).

Page 204 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

To date, most fish-focused marine ecosystem-related work (i.e. not stock assessment science) has focused on setting reference points (or baselines) and targets for community level univariate indicators (Greenstreet and Rogers, 2006); e.g., the 1983 reference period that gave rise to a target of 0.3 for the North Sea demersal fish community LFI (Greenstreet et al., 2011). The rationale underlying this approach does not apply to the single species based indicators stipulated by the EC 2010 Decision document for “species” level criteria (1.1, 1.2, and 1.3). Reference periods for different species differ markedly depending on each species’ life-history characteristics. Because species ranked higher along the r-k spectrum have lower tolerance to pressure from human activities, they would have been adversely affected by activities such as fishing earlier than lower ranked species. For many k-type species, notable fishing impacts would already have occurred long before the advent of the Q1 IBTS. The current proposal therefore uses the entire groundfish survey time series as a “reference” and compares indicator values in the latest assessments with the mean and standard deviation for all data over the full survey time series. Essentially targets would be set based on the recent deviation in metric values compared with variation over period covered by each survey. Target deviation direction and extent would then depend on whether the species in question was considered to be a sensitive k-type or opportunist r-type species, and whether the management situation involved conservation of a situation currently at GES, or restoration of a community towards GES. For those indicators considered sufficiently well understood as to allow targets to be proposed, a probabilistic approach to target setting was developed with the objective of being able to assess whether criterion-level targets were achieved with a specified level of statistical significance.

Analytical procedures

Factor analysis performed on each of the species based indicators suggested between 5 and 8 general types of temporal trend (see accompanying North Sea case study). For the distributional pattern indicators, basing the mean/variance ratio on either ICES rectangle abundance data or biomass data, seven or eight trend types respectively were identified, none of which were monotonic in nature. For each of the remaining indicators, only one of the factor score trends was monotonic, and just 24% to 55% (average 44%) of the 49 species analysed were linked to the monotonic factor (only 49 species, those recorded present in all years of the ICES Q1 IBTS, were analysed). For all six indicators examined therefore, the use of simple trend based statistics to set targets would have been questionable.

An alternative approach is therefore proposed. This essentially uses the entire time series of each indicator to provide the “reference level” or “baseline”. Firstly, for

each species-based (s) indicator time series, the mean indicator value ( Is ) and the

standard deviation around this mean (Is ) across all years of available data in the

indicator time series YI  (from the first [yfirst] to the last year [ylast]) was calculated.

Page 205 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

ylast  I ,ys y first I s  9. YI

2 ylast ,  II sys y first I s  10. YI 1

where Is,y is the indicator value for a given species and year. Each year’s indicator value can then be converted to its standardised deviate (Is,y,STD_DEV) equivalent by

,  II sys I _,, DEVSTDys  11. Is

Abundance and biomass data are notoriously non-normal in their distribution, generally being skewed to the left (long “tail” of a few higher than expected values). Log transformation mitigates this situation and stabilises variances (reduces the

tendency for variance to increase with the mean). Before substituting the As,y and Bs,y into Is,y in equations 8, 9, and 10 therefore, the raw indicator values must first be log-transformed.

Calculating the standardised deviates of an indicator’s values does not in any way alter the trend shape. It simply places each indicator trend at the same central point (the mean) and fixes the range in values over a constant scale. This is illustrated

using the biomass indicator (Bs,y) for three sensitive species: angler, spurdog and spotted ray (Figure 3). By equally scaling the variation in each species-specific indicator in this way, each species’ trend can be compared directly with any other species. Between species differences in indicator values (comparisons between high abundance species and low abundance species for example) are eliminated so that each indicator has equal weighting in terms of their contribution to criterion-level targets. It also means that all indicator-level and criterion-level targets can be expressed using a single term, which is applicable to all species-specific indicators regardless of actual indicator values; greatly simplifying target setting.

Page 206 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Angler Spurdog Spotted ray 6 4

5.6 s,y B

10 2 )

-2 5.2

(g 30km (g 4.8 0 s,y B

10 4.4 Log

-2

4 Log of Deviates Standardised

A. B. 3.6 -4 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year Year

Figure A9-3. Trends in angler fish, spurdog and spotted ray log-transformed biomass indicator values (A) and standardised deviates of the log-transformed indicator values (B) derived from the North Sea Quarter 1 International Bottom Trawl Survey.

Figure A9-4A shows fitted normal distributions for each of the biomass trends illustrated in Figure A9-3A; each distribution is determined by the mean and standard deviation of the indicator values. Since all three of these species are sensitive species, if not currently at GES, then our targets would require their biomass to increase in order to achieve GES. Appropriate targets might therefore be “the most recent biomass estimate in each species time series should exceed +1 standard deviation above the long-term mean value”. This would necessitate setting separate individual targets for each species-specific (log-transformed) biomass indicator; for example, 5.48 for Angler fish, 5.29 for spurdog and 4.80 for spotted ray ( x  ); and the same might need to be done for a possible further 73 species in the North Sea case study. This same process would also have to be repeated for each of the other species-specific indicators that are sufficiently well developed as to allow target setting (abundance and distributional range). Furthermore, with each new year of monitoring, with new “recent” indicator values and the each time series extended by another year, this entire target setting procedure would have to be undertaken again. However, converting the basic indicator values to their standardised deviates overlays each distribution, placing each on an identically scaled abscissa (Figure A9- 4B). Indicator targets can now be phrased as “recent indicator standardised deviates should exceed +1”. The same target is relevant to each of the sensitive species, and it could well apply to several or all of the different species-specific

Page 207 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

indicators. Furthermore, the target remains the same in each and every year till GES is finally achieved.

Angler Spurdog Spotted ray 0.15 0.15 +1 standard deviation X = 5.33, = 0.154

0.1 0.1

X = 5.04, = 0.249

X = 4.52, equency

r = 0.282 Frequency F

0.05 0.05

A. B. 0 0 34567-4 -2 0 2 4 Log B (g 30km-2) Standardised Deviates of Log B 10 s,y 10 s,y

Figure A9-4. A: Normal distributions fitted to the angler fish, spurdog and spotted ray log-transformed biomass indicator values shown in Figure 31A. The mean and standard deviation parameter values for each distribution are shown. B: The same normal distributions applied to the standardised deviates of the log-transformed biomass indicator values.

The biggest advantage to this approach, however, lies in the fact that the normal distribution probability density function can be used to determine the probability of any specified deviation away from the mean (Figure 5). Thus if the target suggested above, “recent indicator standardised deviates should exceed +1”, were to be set for sensitive species, then for every one of the sensitive species monitored (25 in the instance of the North Sea case study) there would be a 16% probability of observing such a value. Given this relatively high probability of observing such a value simply by chance, such a target may initially appear unambitious. However, sensitive species have k-type population dynamics. Populations of many of these species may have been reduced to relatively low levels by detrimental human activities and, by their very nature, such species will only be capable of relatively low rates of population recovery. In this context, such a target may now seem biologically unrealistic, particularly if time scales to achieve targets are short. Consequently, more appropriate individual indicator-level targets for sensitive k-type species might be “the most recent indicator standardised deviates should exceed +0.5”. The

Page 208 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

probability of observing such a value, based on each species historic indicator time series, would now be 35%.

0.08

P=0.2996

0.06

P=0.1915 P=0.1915

0.04 Frequency

0.02

P=0.1587 P=0.1587

0 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 Standardised Deviates of Y

Figure A9-5. Normal distribution probability density function indicating the probabilities associated with observing standardised deviates of <-1.0, <-0.5 to -1.0, -0.5 to +0.5, >+0.5 to +1.0, and >+1.0. Any assessment of the state of the fish community would not rely on whether individual species had met their indicator-level targets or not. Instead the assessment would rely on meeting criterion-level targets. Since we know the probability of an individual indicator meeting its target, and we know the number of individual species-specific indicators we have assessed (25 sensitive k-type species in the case of the North Sea demersal fish case study), we can use the binomial distribution to determine the probability of a specified number (or proportion) of these indicators meeting their targets with a pre-determined probability of this number doing so simply by chance. Science generally adopts a 5% probability significance level, and this would seem to be sufficiently ambitious as the basis for setting criterion-level targets. The binomial experiment for the North Sea case study can therefore be summarised as:

Page 209 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

 “Assuming individual indicator targets of “the most recent indicator standardised deviate should exceed +0.5”, there is a 35% probability of this happening by chance in respect of each individual indicator. Out of 25 indicators, what number would have to meet this target for there to be a less than 5% probability of this overall result occurring by chance?”

One would expect at least 8 to 9 species to meet their individual targets purely by chance (.35 x 25), but it turns out that if 14 achieve their target, there is a <5% probability that such a result could come about purely by chance. This represents 56% of the 25 sensitive k-type species assessed in the North Sea case study. However, the proportion of indicators that need to meet their targets is sample size dependent; if only 10 sensitive species had been monitored then 70% would have needed to meet the target, but this proportion drops to 50% if 40 species-specific indicators are analysed (Table A9-3).

More ambitious targets could be set for the individual species-specific targets; for example the other target previously considered, “the most recent indicator standardised deviate should exceed +1.0”. Now the probability of any individual indicator meeting its target is reduced to 16%. Assuming the same level of significance for meeting the criterion-level target, only 8 of the 25 North Sea sensitive species would have to meet this more ambitious indicator-level target for this to occur by chance with a probability of <5% (Table A9-3). The combinations of indicator-level and criterion-level targets presented in Table A9-3 all represent the same level of statistical significance at the criterion-level. This illustrates that the binomial distribution can be used to “trade off” levels of ambition at the indicator- and criterion-levels so as to maintain a constant level of ambition at the criterion-level.

Page 210 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Table A9-3: The number of individual species-specific indicators that need to meet their stipulated indicator-level targets in order to achieve the criterion-level target, implying that at the <5% probability significance level, a significant fraction of the individual indicator targets have been met. The table shows how variation in the number of species assessed affects the criterion level targets, and how modifying the level of ambition in the individual species targets affects the fraction of the assessed species that need to meet their indicator targets in order to demonstrate a significant improvement at the criterion level. Green shading shows the situation for the demersal fish analysed in the North Sea case study described in the working document.

Number of Targets for individual indicators: Targets for individual indicators: individual The most recent indicator The most recent indicator species standardised deviates are >+1.0 standardised deviates are >+0.5 indicators relative to the long-term mean. relative to the long-term mean.

Criterion Target Proportion Criterion Target Proportion

10 5 0.50 7 0.70

15 6 0.40 9 0.60

20 7 0.35 12 0.60

25 8 0.32 14 0.56

30 9 0.30 16 0.53

35 10 0.29 18 0.51

40 11 0.28 20 0.50

So far we have considered the rationale underpinning the setting of criterion-level targets for sensitive k-type species when not at GES, and needing improvement in their status at the criterion-level to achieve GES. But once GES is achieved, all that is then required is that current status is conserved; i.e. no significant decline in the criterion-level status of sensitive species. Thus individual indicator-level targets could be “the most recent indicator standardised deviate should equal or exceed the long-term time series mean (standardised deviate ≥0.0)”. The criterion level target would then be “the proportion of species meeting their individual indicator targets should be sufficiently high that there is a <5% probability of this happening by chance”. Since there is a 50% probability of species meeting their individual indicator-level targets by chance, out of 25 species-specific indicators, between 12 and 13 might be expected to meet their targets through chance alone. But if this was the situation, then that would mean that there was no management in place to actively prevent species failing their targets, or that such management was ineffective. To address this concern, the required binomial experiment can be stated “if there is a 50:50 chance of species meeting their target, then with a given number of species-specific indicators, what number should equal or exceed the long-term time series mean for this to occur by chance with a probability of <5%”? In the North Sea case study, with 25 sensitive k-type species, this number turns out to be 18. Thus if 8 species in the North Sea were to fail their target, this could infer that there

Page 211 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix) was a significant risk of impending failure to maintain sensitive demersal fish GES in the North Sea. More than 12 species failing the criterion-level target would be indicative of current actual failure. Table A9-4 reveals that meeting such “conservation-orientated” criterion-level targets is increasingly difficult the lower the number of individual species-specific indicators assessed. Essentially, the objective of this target is to prove “no change” and “no change” is generally regarded as being the “null hypothesis”. Null hypotheses are notoriously difficult to prove, depending heavily on the statistical power of the analysis. Clearly in this case, statistical power improves markedly once the number of individual species-specific indicators reaches 30 or more.

Table A9-4. The number of individual species-specific indicators that need to meet their stipulated indicator-level targets in order to achieve the criterion-level target, implying that at the <5% probability significance level, a significant fraction of the individual indicator targets have been met. The table shows how variation in the number of species assessed affects the criterion level targets, and how modifying the level of ambition in the individual species targets affects the fraction of the assessed species that need to meet their indicator targets in order to demonstrate a significant improvement at the criterion level. Green shading shows the situation for the demersal fish analysed in the North Sea case study described in the working document.

Conserving current status of sensitive k-type Preventing undesirable change in r-type species when at GES opportunists at all times

Targets for individual indicators: Targets for individual indicators:

“The most recent indicator standardised “The most recent indicator standardised deviate should equal or exceed the long-term deviate should not exceed, and ideally be time series mean (standardised deviate less than, the long-term time series mean ≥0.0)” (standardised deviate ≤0.0)”

Number No active Active management No active Active management of management management individual species Number Proportion Number Proportion Number Proportion Number Proportion indicators

10 5 50% 9 90% 5 50% 9 90%

15 8 53% 12 80% 7 47% 12 80%

20 10 50% 15 75% 10 50% 15 75%

25 13 52% 18 72% 12 48% 18 72%

30 15 50% 20 67% 15 50% 20 67%

35 18 51% 23 66% 17 49% 23 66%

40 20 50% 26 65% 20 50% 26 65%

Regardless of whether the current management situation is “managing to achieve GES” or “managing to maintain GES”, targets for opportunist r-type species should

Page 212 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

take account of the fact that increases in the abundance, biomass and distributional range of their populations are considered undesirable. Indicator-level and criterion- level targets similar to those suggested for conserving sensitive k-type species, albeit with the directionality reversed, would therefore seem appropriate. Thus individual indicator-level targets could be “the most recent indicator standardised deviate should not exceed, and ideally be less than, the long-term time series mean (standardised deviate ≤0.0)”. The criterion level target would then be “the proportion of species meeting their individual indicator targets should be sufficiently high that there is a <5% probability of this happening by chance”. This binomial experiment is identical to the one described above, so the target numbers and proportions are the same (Table A9-4).

Final caveats

The two summation terms in equations 9 and 10 encompass the entire time series of each indicator in each new assessment, indicating that with each assessment the most recent indicator values added to the time series should be included when calculating the long-term mean and standard deviation. However it has also been suggested that both the mean and the standard deviation should be calculated up to a fixed point in time, e.g. 1983 to 2008, or perhaps up to the year that management measures are implemented.

Consider a situation where the fish community is below GES and management intent is to recover sensitive k-type species to achieve GES. For any given species the target is “the most recent indicator standardised deviate should exceed +0.5”. If in the most recent assessment, based for example on the period 1983 to 2008, the indicator standardised deviate just meets the target with a value of +0.500001. Then if in the following assessment, the summations to derive the mean and standard deviation are carried out over the same period (i.e. 1983 to 2008), neither parameter will change, and if for the species in question there is no change in indicator value, it will again record an indicator standardised deviate of +0.500001 and be judged to have met its indicator level target. However, if currently below GES, the intent would be for year on year improvement until GES is ultimately reached. If in the initial assessment the criterion-level target is reached, so that significantly more than 35% of sensitive k-type species record indicator standardised deviates >+0.5, this will inevitably cause their long-term time series means to have increased at the time of the next assessment. Under these circumstances, the species in the example above, showing no change in indicator value between the initial assessment and the next, would in all likelihood record an indicator standardised deviate <+0.5, and consequently fail to meet its indicator-level target. Determining the means and standard deviations over the entire time series, including each new additional assessment, provides the “moving target” that ensures continual improvement towards the ultimate achievement of GES.

Page 213 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

However the situation changes once GES is reached; now management intent would be to maintain current GES. For any given species the target is “the most recent indicator standardised deviate should equal or exceed the long-term time series mean (standardised deviate ≥0.0)”. If in the most recent assessment, based for example on the period 1983 to 2008, the indicator standardised deviate fails the target with a value of -0.2. Then if in the following assessment, the summations to derive the mean and standard deviation are carried out over the same period (i.e. 1983 to 2008), neither parameter will change, and if for the species in question there is no change in its indicator value, it will again record an indicator standardised deviate of -0.2, and will again be judged to have failed its indicator-level target. If nothing changes in each subsequent assessment, this species will be flagged as a perpetual “failure” case. However, if following the initial assessment, all subsequent assessments derive the means and standard deviations used to determine the indicator standardised deviates on the entire data set, then ultimately the mean values will fall and the species will get closer and closer to meeting its indicator-level target without any specific remedial action ever being implemented. This is not how the process should work.

The summation terms in equations 9 and 10 are therefore correctly stated if current status is “below GES” and management intent is to move towards GES. But if current status is “at GES” and management intent is to conserve current status, then ylast should be replaced by yGES, that year in which GES was deemed to have been attained, in the both equations.

As currently stated, even though the criterion-level targets might be met in successive assessments, particular sensitive k-type species might still be in decline. By chance alone, 35% of sensitive species could have indicator standardised deviates of <-0.5. With recovery management in place the proportion of “sensitive” species in this situation should be less than this. However, application of the binomial distribution, with 25 species and assuming a 65% probability of individual species specific indicator standardised deviates exceeding -0.5, even if criterion- level targets were being met at the 5% significance level, it is likely that 4 species (16%) will have indicator standardised deviates of <-0.5. If on each assessment occasion a different four species fall into this situation, then this would be of little concern. But if the same species perpetually meet this condition then this would infer that, although the status of sensitive k-type species was generally improving, particular species might still be in persistant decline, and so cause for concern. If the species involved should also happen to be included in, for example, the OSPAR list of threatened and endangered species (see TableA9-2), then this may need immediate action to be taken. The assessment process would need to be carried out in such a way as to flag-up these types of issue.

Similarly, in the process described thus far, no consideration has been given to the intermediate r/k group of species. Whilst there is no underlying rationale to set targets for this group, nevertheless these species should still be assessed following

Page 214 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

the protocols described above so as to detect persistent changes in indicator values; particularly increasing trends in species nearer the r end of the spectrum and decreasing trends in species nearer the k end of the spectrum.

Summary of Indicator-level and Criterion-level Targets

Distribution range

The rationale for setting targets assumes that increasing human pressure would cause the ranges of opportunistic species to increase and of vulnerable species to decline. Table A9-5 lists both the individual indicator and the criterion targets proposed for the distributional range indicators defined for two different marine situations; continental shelf seas and shelf-edge seas.

Page 215 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Table A9-5. Indicators and targets proposed for the “distribution range” indicator applied to demersal fish.

Indicator Species Managemen Situation metric type t situation Indicator targets Criterion target The most recent The proportion of standardised deviate species meeting their of the distribution individual indicator range indicator Opportunisti targets should be should not exceed, c r-type At any time sufficiently high that, and ideally be less species based on the binomial than, the long-term distribution, there is a time series mean <5% probability of this (standardised deviate happening by chance. ≤0.0). Proportion The proportion of of species meeting their sampled The most recent individual indicator ICES Continental standardised deviate targets should be rectangles shelf sea Below GES of the distribution sufficiently high that, in which range indicator based on the binomial the should exceed +0.5. distribution, there is a species <5% probability of this occurs. Sensitive k- happening by chance. type species The most recent The proportion of standardised deviate species meeting their of the distribution individual indicator range indicator targets should be At GES should equal or sufficiently high that, exceed the long-term based on the binomial time series mean distribution, there is a (standardised deviate <5% probability of this ≥0.0). happening by chance. The most recent The proportion of standardised deviate species meeting their of the distribution individual indicator range indicator Opportunisti targets should be should not exceed, c r-type At any time sufficiently high that, and ideally be less species based on the binomial than, the long-term distribution, there is a time series mean <5% probability of this (standardised deviate happening by chance. ≤0.0). The proportion of Proportion species meeting their of depth The most recent individual indicator Shelf-edge bands in standardised deviate targets should be sea which the Below GES of the distribution sufficiently high that, species range indicator based on the binomial occurs. should exceed +0.5. distribution, there is a <5% probability of this Sensitive k- happening by chance. type species The most recent The proportion of standardised deviate species meeting their of the distribution individual indicator range indicator targets should be At GES should equal or sufficiently high that, exceed the long-term based on the binomial time series mean distribution, there is a (standardised deviate <5% probability of this ≥0.0). happening by chance.

Page 216 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Distributional pattern within the range

Assuming that some sort of dispersal process (e.g. the Ideal Free Distribution [Fretwell and Lucas, 1970; Partridge, 1978]) underlies most fish distributions, the following rationale for target setting was initially considered. The core preferred habitat of any organism is a physical attribute of the environment, and therefore remains constant in size. Being the best habitat for the species in question, this is where abundances are highest. Like any predator, fisheries are attracted to such locations because high abundances are reflected in higher catch rates per unit effort. Thus fish are primarily extracted from such locations, reducing abundance in these prime habitat hot-spots, tending to reduce contagion and causing the mean:variance ratio to increase. As abundance declines in the prime habitats, the Ideal Free model predicts that individuals in less optimal habitats will move into the now vacant, or less occupied, prime locations. This will tend to reduce the extent of the species range as the lowest occupancy, least optimal, locations empty; the number of high density sites (ICES rectangles) remains the same, but the number of low density sites reduces. The effect of this on the mean is much less than on the variance, consequently causing the mean:variance ratio to rise, again suggesting increased dispersion across the populated range.

However, the arguments presented above are primarily based on how we might expect the degree of contagion/dispersion to vary mainly as a function of changes in abundance and range. On this premise, the level of correlation between the distributional pattern indicator and indicators of abundance and distribution range would be high; implying a high level of indicator redundancy and negating the need for all three indicators. It was not clear how distributional pattern might change independently of these other two indicators. Furthermore, indicators of abundance, biomass and distribution range were thought likely to be more sensitive to anthropogenic pressure than the proposed indicator of distributional pattern. Finally, mitigation measures implemented to meet other targets, particularly those set for other ecosystem components, such as habitat restoration and recovery of prey resources, might lead to conflicts between targets set for fish distributional pattern. Consequently, no targets are currently proposed for the distributional pattern indicator. This indicator needs further development in respect of the fish component.

Population abundance and/or biomass

In setting targets, we have assumed that the pressure from human activity would cause a decrease in the abundance and biomass of vulnerable species and an increase in the abundance and biomass of opportunistic species. Management would therefore need to reverse or control these tendencies. Table A9-6 lists both the individual indicator-level and the criterion-level targets proposed for both population abundance and population biomass indicators.

Page 217 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Table A9-6. Indicators and targets proposed for the population abundance and biomass indicators applied to demersal fish.

Manage Species Indicator ment type Situation metric situation Indicator targets Criterion target

The most recent The proportion of standardised species meeting deviate of the their individual population indicator targets abundance and should be Opportun- population biomass sufficiently high At any istic r-type indicators should that, based on time species not exceed, and the binomial ideally be less than, distribution, there the long-term time is a <5% series mean probability of this (standardised happening by deviate ≤0.0). chance.

Population The proportion of abundance species meeting their individual density The most recent indicator targets standardised should be Continental deviate of the sufficiently high shelf and Below population AND that, based on shelf- edge GES abundance and the binomial seas population biomass distribution, there indicators should is a <5% exceed +0.5. Population probability of this biomass happening by density Sensitive chance. k-type species The proportion of The most recent species meeting standardised their individual deviate of the indicator targets population should be abundance and sufficiently high population biomass At GES that, based on indicators should the binomial equal or exceed the distribution, there long-term time is a <5% series mean probability of this (standardised happening by deviate ≥0.0). chance.

Population demographic characteristics

It was not obvious what the targets should be for such an indicator. Initially one might expect that, for a vulnerable species, any reduction in mortality rate should increase life-expectancy so that a greater proportion of each population should grow to exceed their length at first maturity, and so cause indicator values to increase. However, reduced fishing activity should also reduce discarding rates of juvenile fish.

Page 218 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Increased survival rates among such fish might bring about an initial decline in the proportion of mature fish indicator, and it is only when these fish eventually grow to exceed each species’ length at first maturity threshold that indicator values might start to increase. Some relatively simple population modelling is required to explore these questions before appropriate targets can be set. The results of such modelling should also indicate whether it is better to derive this indicator based on biomass or on abundance. Consequently, no targets are currently proposed for the population demographic characteristics indicator. This indicator needs further development in respect of the fish component.

Composition and relative proportions of ecosystem components

Long lags between changes in pressure and structural and compositional responses by fish communities have been demonstrated empirically in several studies (Daan et al, 2005; Greenstreet et al., 2011; Shephard et al., In press) and seem to be supported by the results of process-based, multiple-species, size-based modelling work (Fung et al., in review; Rossberg et al., 2008). The North Sea case study analysis has indicated that the increase in species richness might be interpreted as either a positive or a negative response to changes in fishing pressure depending of the length of the response lag involved (Figure A9-2). Alternatively the change in species richness may be the result of change in environmental conditions.

Fishing generally targets the more dominant species in the community. Reductions in dominant species’ population size might be expected to bring about an increase in species evenness; declining status could be associated with increased evenness! Conversely, reduced predation pressure from target species could elicit marked expansion in the populations of their smaller prey species, particularly among the competitively dominant species. Tropho-dynamics theory suggests that increases in prey biomass should be approaching an order of magnitude larger than declines in predator biomass; in terms of abundance, this difference would be even greater. Thus across the whole community, this marked increase in the apparent dominance of a few prey species would bring about a reduction in species evenness associated with fishing disturbance; the process alluded to in several previous studies (Greenstreet and Hall, 1996; Greenstreet et al., 1999; Greenstreet and Rogers, 2006; Greenstreet et al., in press). But the above hypothesis posits opposing responses in species evenness to variation in fishing pressure, suggesting that these metrics should be applied independently to different size classes of fish in the community, with specific targets set for each size class dependent on their trophic functional role.

Once again, more multi-species community modelling work is required to provide a secure basis for setting targets for these indicators. In recent years there has been a proliferation in the number of such models available, and their development has become increasingly directed towards addressing such management-related questions. Within the next year it is quite possible that some of these models could

Page 219 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

be sufficiently developed as to be able to support the target setting process. It is almost certain that they will be available by 2015 to provide advice in respect of the measures required to achieve such targets.

The LFI was developed specifically to assess the impact of fishing on the “health” of the demersal fish community. As such the LFI is perhaps the best metric currently available to fulfil the indicator role for this Criterion. The use of the LFI to support the OSPAR EcoQO for fish communities has been fully developed (Greenstreet et al., 2011; Shephard et al., in press) and we simply adopt the indicator definition and targets. Since a single indicator for each “fish community” assessed is proposed, the indicator-level target is de facto the same as the criterion-level target (Table A9-7).

Table A9-7. Indicators and targets proposed for the composition and relative proportions criterion in respect of demersal fish.

Manage Species type ment Indicator Criterion Situation Indicator metric situation targets target

The “large fish indicator” (LFI)

LFI > “the proportion of regional/survey fish (by weight) specified target. exceeding a specified length threshold” Demersal North Sea target assemblage Continent 0.3 Indicator al shelf Length thresholds At any Celtic Sea target target and shelf- are dependent on time 0.4 should edge region/survey/specie (but with specified be met seas s suite species composition) Targets are dependent on North Sea threshold region/survey/ 40cm species suite

Celtic Sea threshold 50cm

Page 220 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Large fish (by weight)

In the North Sea there is some evidence to suggest that the link between variation in the LFI and changes in the trophic structure of the food web might not be as tight as traditional size-based aquatic food web theory might predict. In a heavily fished region the expected trend towards smaller size was noted, but no change in trophic level (Nitrogen stable isotope ratio analysis) was observed (Jennings et al., 2002); large piscivores of one species were replaced by small piscivores of another species. The use of the LFI as a food web structure (proportion of top predators) indicator therefore still needs to be properly validated. However, The EC 2010 Decision document explicitly stipulates that the LFI should be used as a Descriptor 4 food web indicator to address Criterion 4.2 - Proportion of selected species at the top of food webs. Until this validation work is done, this is the proposed course of action. The indicators and targets are identical to those proposed for Criterion 1.7 - Composition and relative proportions of ecosystem components given in Table A9-7.

Abundance trends of functionally important selected groups/species

Although trophic functional groups for fish have been suggested, the actual assignment of species and size classes to these groups has yet to be carried out. So while these indicators are conceptually easy to derive, no operation indicators are currently available. Neither is it clear what the appropriate targets should be. The fish communities of the North Sea and Celtic Sea have undergone quite profound changes in composition and structure that these have been described as regime shifts (Greenstreet et al., 1997; Heath, 2005a; 2005b). The causes of these changes have been linked to both anthropogenic and climatic factors. Considerable development is therefore required before this indicator can be made operational and appropriate targets selected.

Making the species-specific targets operational

Targets suggested for the species-specific indicators considered operational at the current time are all essentially “trend-based”; the most recent indicator value should be at a particular level with respect to all other indicator values in the time series. The problem with such targets is that they do not actually define GES in respect of each particular indicator. Rather they describe how the indicator should change under different circumstances and management regimes; whether currently at GES and managing to conserve this state, or currently below GES and managing to attain this state. If currently in the latter position, there is no mechanism associated with each individual indicator to determine when or if GES is actually reached, and the situation should switch to the former. Choice of target in Tables A9-5 and A9-6 is dependent on the condition given in the “Management situation” column. However, nothing linked to the indicators themselves provides any indication as to which condition currently prevails.

Page 221 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

The LFI is the only indicator proposed so far for the fish component that has an explicit numeric target value. Implicit in this is the assumption that target values for the LFI represent GES; if the target for any given region is met then GES for fish in that region will have been met in respect of this indicator. At the last assessments, the LFI in the North Sea was 0.22, below the target of 0.3 (Greenstreet et al., 2011) and the LFI for the Celtic Sea was 0.12, below the target of 0.4 (Shephard et al., in press). According to the LFI therefore, GES for the fish community in both regions has yet to be achieved. Consequently, a precautionary approach would be to assume that, with regard to the species-specific indicators listed in Tables A9-5 and A9-6 the current management situation is “below GES”, and the corresponding indicator-level and criterion-level targets should be adopted. If in subsequent assessments these targets are achieved, this would not mean that the state of the fish community was necessarily at GES. It would, however, imply that the management measures introduced to achieve GES were being effective, and were actually altering the state of the community in the desired direction towards GES.

The corollary to this proposition is that, once the LFI targets are met, GES is achieved. Targets for the species-specific indicators associated with the management situation of “at GES”, listed in Tables A9-5 and A9-6 should then be adopted. This essentially identifies the LFI as the indicator that defines GES for the broader fish community, but at present there appears little alternative to this. Interestingly, this means that when LFI targets are reached, values of the species- specific indicators that prevail at that time might now reflect actual GES values. There is some circularity to this argument, but again at present it seems that this cannot be avoided.

The accompanying North Case study working document that has informed much of the development of indicators and targets for fish just considers demersal fish species. Pelagic species (herring, sprat, sandeels, etc) are a major component of fish communities so this could be considered to represent a major gap. However, groundfish surveys also sample pelagic species and fisheries management certainly uses these data to derive abundance indices for species such as herring and sprat. The shoaling nature of herring and other pelagic species affects sampling probabilities in a way that differs markedly from the sampling probability of most demersal species. Two survey trawls in a given ICES rectangle may miss all shoals of herring in the area, so recording a rectangle density estimate of zero. Conversely, both trawls might hit herring shoals, thereby recording a density far in excess of the actual density present in the rectangle. Demersal species do not shoal to the same extent; they are more evenly distributed so trawl sample densities are generally more representative of actual local scale density and this issue is less of a concern. This variability in sampling probability can markedly influence outcomes in studies applying univariate community metrics to groundfish survey data. Hence, in such studies, pelagic species have traditionally been excluded from the analysis (Greenstreet et al., 1999; Greenstreet & Rogers, 2006; Greenstreet et al., 2011).

Page 222 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

However it is a question of variability and scale. In surveys covering whole marine regions, such as the ICES Q1 IBTS covering most of the North Sea, this sampling variability evens out; hit the shoals in one rectangle, miss them in the next. At a regional scale therefore, the overall estimate of density may reasonably well reflect the actual density of fish across the whole region, but the inter-rectangle variability will be high. Thus groundfish surveys may well be capable of providing data for pelagic species to support the species-specific indicators proposed here. However, while these indicators may be reliable enough at large spatial scales, MSFD sub- region scale (e.g. the Greater North Sea), they may be less reliable at smaller spatial scales.

There is some concern over the issue of indicator redundancy (Greenstreet et al., in press). For example among the fish indicators for which targets are being proposed, there is a strong possibility that distribution range, population abundance and biomass will all be strongly cross-correlated. Should one indicator be selected, perhaps the one deemed most sensitive to changes in pressure, or the one thought most comprehensible to a layman audience, or the one where the evidence base underpinning target setting is most comprehensive? Or should a concept of “headline” indicators and supporting “tracking” or “surveillance” indicators be invoked? Or should all of them just be proposed anyway?

Finally there is the issue of indicator compatibility. If in recovering populations of sensitive k-type species this brings about an increase in large bodied piscivorous fish in the community, what effect might this have on management capacity to achieve indicator targets proposed for other ecosystem components? For example, maintenance of kittiwake chick productivity might be compromised through increased competition between adult kittiwakes, foraging for fish prey for their chicks, and increased numbers of piscivorous fish predators in the marine environment.

References

Bax, N.J. (1991) A comparison of the fish biomass flow to fish, fisheries, and mammals in six marine ecosystems. ICES Marine Science Symposia, 193, 217 224.

Beare, D., Burns, F., Greig, A., Jones, E. G., Peach, K., Kienzle, M., McKenzie, E. and Reid, D. 2004. Long-term increases in prevalence of North Seafishes having southern biogeographic affinities. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 284: 269-278.

Brander, K. (1981) Disappearance of common skate Raja batis from the Irish Sea. Nature, 290, 48-49

Daan, N. 2001. The IBTS database: a plea for quality control. ICES Document, CM 2001/T:03.

Daan, N., Bromley, P.J., Hislop, J.R.G. & Nielsen, N.A. (1990) Ecology of North Sea fish. Netherlands Journal of Sea Research, 26, 343 386.

Page 223 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Daan. N., Gislason, H., Pope, J. G. and Rice, J. C. 2005. Changes in the North Sea fish community: evidence of indirect effects of fishing. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62: 177-188.

Daunt, F., Wanless, S., Greenstreet, S.P.R., Jensen, H., Hamer K.C., & Harris M.P. (2008) The impact of sandeel fishery closure in the northwestern North Sea on seabird food consumption, distribution and productivity. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 65: 362-381.

EC (2010) Commission decision of 1 September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters. 2010/477/EU Official Journal of the European Union L232: 14-24.

FAO. 2007. The State of the World’s Fisheries and Aquaculture 2006. FAO, Rome. 162 pp.

Fretwell, S.D. & Lucas, H.L. (1970) On territorial behaviour and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheoretica, 19: 16 36.

Fung, T., Farnsworth, K. D., Shephard, S., Reid, D. G., and Rossberg, A. G. In review. Recovery of com-munity size-structure from fishing requires multiple decades. ICES Journal of Marine Science,

Garcia, S. M., and Staples, D. J. 2000. Sustainability reference systems and indicators for responsible marine capture fisheries: a review of concepts and elements for a set of guidelines. Marine and Freshwater Research, 51: 385–426.

Gislason, H., Pope, J. G., Rice, J. C., and Daan, N. 2008. Coexistence in North Sea fish communities: implications for growth and natural mortality. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 514–530.

Greenstreet, S.P.R. (1996) Estimation of the daily consumption of food by fish in the North Sea in each quarter of the year. Scottish Fisheries Research Report, 55, 16pp plus tables.

Greenstreet, S. P. R. (2008) Biodiversity of North Sea fish: why do the politicians care but marine scientists appear oblivious to this issue? ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 1515-1519.

Greenstreet, S.P.R., Bryant, A.D., Broekhuizen, N., Hall, S.J. & Heath, M.R. (1997) Seasonal variation in the consumption of food by fish in the North Sea and implications for food web dynamics. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 54: 243-266.

Page 224 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Greenstreet, S.P.R., Fraser, H.M., Rogers, S.I., Trenkel, V.M., Simpson, S.D. & Pinnegar, J.K. (in Press) Redundancy in metrics describing the composition, structure and functioning of the North Sea’s demersal fish community. ICES Journal of Marine Science.

Greenstreet, S.P.R. & Hall, S.J. (1996) Fishing and the ground fish assemblage structure in the north western North Sea: an analysis of long term and spatial trends. Journal of Animal Ecology, 65, 577-598.

Greenstreet; S.P.R., Holland, G.J., Fraser, T.W.K., & Allen, V.J. (2009) Modelling demersal fishing effort based on landings and days absence from port to generate indicators of “activity”. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 66: 886-901.

Greenstreet, S. P. R., and Piet, G. J. (2008) Assessing the sampling effort required to estimate α species diversity in groundfish assemblages of the North Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 364: 181-197.

Greenstreet, S.P.R., Robinson, L.A., Piet, G.J., Craeymeersch, J., Callaway, R., Reiss, H., Ehrich, S., Kröncke, I., Fraser, H.M., Lancaster, J., Jorgensen, L. and Goffin, A. (2007) The ecological disturbance caused by fishing in the North Sea. FRS Collaborative Report, 04/07: 169pp.

Greenstreet, S.P.R. & Rogers, S.I. (2000) Effects of fishing on non-target fish species. In Effects of Fishing on Non-Target Species and Habitats: Biological, Conservation and Socio-economic Issues. (Eds. M.J. Kaiser & B. de Groot), Blackwell Science, Oxford. Pp 217-234.

Greenstreet, S. P. R., and Rogers, S. I. 2006. Indicators of the health of the North Sea fish community: identifying reference levels for an ecosystem approach to management. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 63: 573-593.

Greenstreet, S.P.R., Rogers, S.I., Rice, J.C., Piet, G.J., Guirey, E.J., Fraser, H.M., & Fryer, R.J. (2011) Development of the EcoQO for fish communities in the North Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 68: 1-11.

Greenstreet, S.P.R., Spence, F.E. & McMillan, J.A. (1999) Fishing effects in northeast Atlantic shelf seas: patterns in fishing effort, diversity and community structure. V. Changes in structure of the North Sea groundfish assemblage between 1925 and 1996. Fisheries Research, 40, 153-183.

Halpern, B.S., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K.A., Kappel, C.V., Micheli, F., D’Agrosa, C et al. 2008. A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science, 319: 948- 952.

Harris, M. P., Beare, D., Toresen R., Noettestad, L., Kloppmann, M., Doerner, H., Peach, K., Rushton, D. R. A., Fosater-Smith, J. & Wanless, S. (2007) A major increase in snake pipefish (Entelurus aequoreus) in northern European seas since

Page 225 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

2003: potential implications for seabird breeding success. Marine Biology, 151: 973- 983.

Heath, M. R. 2005a. Regional variability in the trophic requirements of shelf sea fisheries in the Northeast Atlantic, 1973-2000. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62: 1233-1244.

Heath, M. R. 2005b. Changes in the structure and function of the North Sea fish foodweb, 1973-2000, and the impacts of fishing and climate. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62: 847-868.

Heessen, H. J. L., Hislop, J. R. G. and Boon, T. W. 1996. An invasion of the North Sea by blue-mouth, Helicolencus dactylopterus, (Pisces, Scorpaenidae). ICES Journal of Marine Science, 53: 874-877.

Hutchinson, W.F., Carvalho, G.R. & Rogers, S.I. 2001. Marked genetic structuring in localised spawning populations of cod Gadus morhua in the North Sea and adjoining waters, as revealed by microsatellites. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 223: 251– 260.

Hill, M.O. 1973. Diversity and evenness: a unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology, 54:427-432.

Hislop, J.R.G. (1997) Database report of the stomach sampling project 1991. ICES Cooperative Research Report, 219, 422pp.

ICES 2001. Report of the ICES advisory committee on ecosystems. ICES Co- operative Research Report, 249; 75pp.

ICES (2009) Report of the Working Group on the Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activities (WGECO). ICES CM 2009/ACOM:20, 188pp.

Jennnings, S., Greenstreet, S.P.R. & Reynolds, J. (1999) Structural change in an exploited fish community: a consequence of differential fishing effects on species with contrasting life histories. Journal of Animal Ecology, 68, 617-627.

Jennings, S., Greenstreet, S.P.R., Hill, L., Piet, G.J., Pinnegar & Warr, K.J. (2002) Long-term trends in the trophic structure of the North Sea fish community: evidence from stable isotope analysis, size-spectra and community metrics. Marine Biology, 141: 1085-1097.

Jennings, S. & Mackinson, S. (2003) Abundance-body mass relationships in size structured food webs. Ecology Letters, 6, 971–974.

Jennings, S., Pinnegar, J.K., Polunin, N.V.C. & Boon, T. (2001) Weak cross-species relationships between body size and trophic level belie powerful size-based trophic structuring in fish communities. Journal of Animal Ecology, 70, 934–944.

Page 226 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Jennings, S., Reynolds, J.D. & Mills, S.C. (1998) Life history correlates of responses to fisheries exploitation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 265, 1-7

Jennings, S., Warr, K.J. & Mackinson, S. (2002) Use of sizebased production and stable isotope analyses to predict trophic transfer efficiencies and predator-prey body mass ratios in food webs. Marine Ecology Progress in Series, 240, 11–20.

Kerr, S.R. & Dickie, L.M. (2001) The Biomass Spectrum: a Predator-Prey Theory of Aquatic Production. Columbia University Press, New York.

Nielsen, E.E., Wright, P.J., Hemmer-Hansen, J., Poulsen, N.A., Gibb, I.M. & Meldrup, D. 2009. Microgeographical population structure of cod Gadus morhua in the North Sea and west of Scotland: the role of sampling loci and individuals. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 376: 213–225.

Partridge, L. (1978) Habitat selection. in Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach Ist Edition. pp 351 376. (eds J.R. Krebs & N.B. Davies). Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, U.K.

Pauly, Daniel (1995) Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 10(10):430.

Pielou, E.C. 1975. Ecological Diversity. Wiley, New York.

Pielou, E.C. 1969. An Introduction to Mathematical Ecology. Wiley, New York.

Piet, G.J. & Jennings, S. (2005) Response of potential fish community indicators to fishing. ICES Journal of Marine Science 62: 214-225

Piet, G. J., Quirijns, F., Robinson, L., and Greenstreet, S. P. R. 2007. Potential pressure indicators for fishing and their data requirements. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64: 110–121.

Piet, G. J., and Rice, J. C. 2004. Performance of precautionary reference points in providing management advice on North Sea stocks. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 61: 1305–1312.

Piet, G.J., van Hal, R. & Greenstreet, S.P.R. (2009) Modelling the direct impact of bottom trawling on the North Sea fish community to derive fishing mortality estimates of non-target fish species. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 66:1985-1998.

Reiss, H., Greenstreet, S.P.R., Robinson, L., Ehrich, S., Jorgensen, L. Piet, G.J. & Wolff, W.J. (2010) Unsuitability of TAC management within an ecosystem approach to fisheries: an ecological perspective. Journal of Sea Research, 63: 85-92.

Rice, J. C. 2009. A generalization of the three-stage model for advice using the precautionary approach in fisheries, to apply broadly to ecosystem properties and pressures. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 66: 433–444.

Page 227 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Rogers, S. I., Maxwell, D., Rijnsdorp, A. D., Damm, U. and Vanhee, W. 1999. Fishing effects in northeast Atlantic shelf seas: patterns in fishing effort, diversity and community structure. IV. Can comparisons of species diversity be used to assess human impacts on demersal fish faunas? Fisheries Research, 40, 135-152.

Shephard, S., Reid, D.G., & Greenstreet, S.P.R. In Press. Interpreting the Large Fish Indicator for the Celtic Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science.

Sparholt, H. (1990) An estimate of the total biomass of fish in the North Sea. Journal du Conseil International pour l'Exploration de la Mer, 46, 200 210.

Sokal, R.R. and Rohlf, F.J. 1981. Biometry. WH Freeman and Co., San Francisc, U.S.A. 859pp.

Walker, P.A. and Heessen, H.J.L. 1996. Long-term changes in ray populations in the North Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 53: 1085-1093.

Walker, P.A. & Hislop J.R.G. (1998) Sensitive skates or resilient rays? Spatial and temporal shifts in ray species composition in the central and northwestern North Sea between 1930 and the present day. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 55, 392-402.

Yang, J. (1982) An estimate of the fish biomass in the North Sea. Journal du Conseil International pour l'Exploration de la Mer, 40, 161 172.

Page 228 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Appendix 10 - Detailed targets and indicators for each biodiversity descriptor

AMALGAMATED_DAT A_SHEET_5.xls

Page 229 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Appendix 11 - CBA spreadsheets of biodiversity targets, pressures and measures:

pg 206 CBA appendix11 with HBD

Addendum:

This spreadsheet was submitted to Eftec (working under contract to Cefas) on 03/06/11 as part of the MSFD CBA. Since then, there have been some changes to the targets of the biodiversity descriptors and the other Descriptors referred to in the spreadsheet, however, the essence of the targets remains the same.

With regard to costings for additional monitoring of pelagic habitat – these have been amended but not updated in the spreadsheet – please refer to section 3.3.11 of this report.

Notes on spreadsheets

1. Criterion Targets (Column E)

These are derived from the amalgamated outputs of the HBDSEG Birmingham workshop (29th-31st March) and further development at the Kew workshop (4th/5th May 2011). Each of these targets represents the boundary between achieving GES and failing to meet GES.

Column F refers to the level of confidence that the proposed criterion target would equate to GES. Where the confidence in the criterion target equating to GES is low (i.e. where there is low confidence in the indicator targets underpinning these, and/or if the underlying data are sparse), the target may need to be set higher in terms of required state in order to ensure that GES is reached. Determining whether or not these criterion level targets have been reached (using the aggregated data on the underlying indicator targets) will ultimately determine whether GES has been achieved for UK biodiversity under the descriptors 1, 4 and 6.

2. Costs of monitoring progress towards criterion targets

The monitoring costs are also derived from the amalgamated outputs of the HBDSEG Birmingham and Kew workshops

They represent a summary of the estimated cost of monitoring the indicators underpinning each criterion.

Page 230 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

We have indicated where existing monitoring will suffice (i.e. no additional cost), and where additional monitoring or new monitoring schemes are required at medium cost (<£100k pa) and a high cost (>£100k pa).

These cost categories were originally suggested by the MMO, but HBDSEG has included more precise cost estimates where possible.

3. Pressure and Impacts

For each biodiversity target, we have identified (in Column J) which MSFD pressures and impacts will most greatly affect the probability of attaining them (from Table 2 Annex III of the Directive - see worksheet ). We have included only those pressures that are listed as having a high or medium impacts on the component - see worksheet which was derived from outputs from the Cefas workshop on Measures.

HBDSEG were invited by eftec to make additions to this list of pressures, where necessary. HBDSEG have assigned a confidence rating for the link between the listed pressures and the changes in state which would affect achieving the specified criterion target (Column K).

4. Pressure Targets

For each pressure/impact identified, we have assigned a relevant pressure target(s) from the Pressure Descriptors (3, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11) (see current provisional list in worksheet ); where none of these were appropriate, we have included new pressure targets suggested by the HBDSEG workshop. Where no pressure targets are appropriate or available from either source, columns L & M were left blank.

5. Measures

For each target, we have inserted a list of likely management measures that would help achieve that criteria targets (Column N). The measures list comes from the Cefas pressures workshop, and is presented in the worksheet . At eftec’s recommendation, HBDSEG have included additional measures where there were felt to be gaps. In column O, we have specified the confidence associated with the effectiveness of the measure(s) to achieve the target. The confidence rating relates to the ‘suite’ of measures proposed for each pressure, although HBDSEG has provided further information where confidence ratings vary significantly within each ‘suite’.

6. Business as Usual (BAU)

In column P, we have assessed whether the criterion targets will be attained by 2020 under a business as usual scenario of measures or whether additional measures and response monitoring will be required. The BAU scenario was informed by

Page 231 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Chapter 2 ‘Baseline’ in the ‘ME5405: Cost-Benefit Analysis of MSFD Targets – Draft Interim Report’. Again, the measures in column N were considered as a ‘suite’.

Column Q refers to additional measures and monitoring required over and above BAU.

7. Definitions of levels of confidence and uncertainty

The definition of ‘confidence’ is based on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2005).

A level of confidence is used in the IA to describe uncertainty that is based on expert judgment (in terms of the correctness of an analysis or a statement). Definitions of the terms used to communicate this are provided in Table A11-1.

Table A11-1. Definition of terms used to communicate confidence in information.

Terminology Degree of confidence in being correct

Very High confidence At least 9 out of 10 chance of being correct

High confidence About 8 out of 10 chance

Medium confidence About 5 out of 10 chance

Low confidence About 2 out of 10 chance

Very low confidence Less than 1 out of 10 chance

8. Key unknowns

The information provided to eftec in this spreadsheet is affected by a series of ‘unknowns’. Specifically, there are uncertainties surrounding:

The UK MPA network:

- Percentage cover of final UK MPA network

- Management measures in final MPA network

- Likely displacement of activities when MPAs are designated - What will be required over and above the MPA network to protect species and habitats

EU Directives (HD, BD, WFD)

- The alignment of MSFD targets with those in other existing EC Directives

Quality vs quantity

- GES is unlikely to be met uniformly across UK seas. It is anticipated that the status of some areas may get worse, while others better. GES targets will therefore need

Page 232 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

to take into consideration issues of scale, specifically regarding acceptable proportions of areas under different condition and their contribution to GES.

Current Status

- For some features/areas, we have little information regarding current state in relation to the target state.

Overlaps

- In most cases, targets will be achieved through the implementation of multiple measures. It is challenging to distinguish between the relative importance of each measure at this stage. There are also significant overlaps/redundancies in relation to monitoring costs.

Accuracy

- Amalgamation in terms of both within a criterion (i.e. combining indicator targets to come up with criterion targets) and across biodiversity components (targets applying to multiple biodiversity components) may significantly affect the accuracy of cost estimations.

Page 233 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Appendix 12 - Background information on Baseline

Climate Change

The recent Marine Climate Change Impacts Partnership (MCCIP) report provides an up-to-date review of information illustrating the effects of climate change on the marine environment. This is used here to illustrate the baseline scenario of the marine environment under current projections of human activity and government policy regarding climate change. From this basis, and combined with other projections, it is then possible to understand which descriptors need to be targeted for the eventual goal of Good Environmental Status.

This section starts by looking at the physico-chemical impacts of climate change, and then moves on to the implications for ecosystem services and their components which are generally split between looking at physical and human effects. Discussion of these points is provided through information compiled at the 2-3 March 2011 Cefas measures workshop.

Physico-Chemical Relationships These impacts involve the changes in the physical and geographical features and chemical composition of the marine environment. It is important to note that many of these display feedback mechanisms which can make the estimation of future states of the world less accurate, and especially so where there is a distinct lack of certainty about the extent of initial effects.

A major consequence of climate change has been the increase in air and sea temperatures in UK waters over the last 25 years. The largest increases have been observed in the southern North Sea (region 2, as defined in Charting Progress 2), where air temperatures have risen around 0.6°C per decade, and sea surface temperatures have risen between 0.6 and 0.8°C. This overall warming trend is predicted to continue up until the 2080s at a minimum; however, temperature predictions for a given year, or over a shorter time period, are much less certain as natural oceanic and atmospheric variability can cause fluctuations around the mean trend. An example of this is that 2008 UK coastal sea surface temperatures were lower than the 2003-2007 average.

Increases in global temperatures are causing arctic sea ice to melt, which releases freshwater into the oceans in the north of the UK. This has an important positive feedback mechanism, by which reduced ice cover results in increased solar energy absorbed and therefore increased warming (the ice-albedo effect). The thawing of permafrost may release significant quantities of methane, a greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere, further exacerbating the warming of the global climate. These effects are difficult to accurately predict, but also raise questions surrounding the possibility of critical thresholds after which rates of global warming increase rapidly.

Page 234 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

The release of freshwater has implications for the level of ocean salinity, although current observations and predicted future trends do not necessarily match up. As ice melt increases, salinity is expected to decrease and this is the prediction of models looking forward; however, the data collected since the 1970s demonstrates a somewhat mixed picture. Shelf sea and oceanic surface waters to the north and west (CP2 regions 7 and 8) have shown increases in salinity, CP2 regions 2, 5 and 6 no clear trend, while the deep waters of the north Atlantic decreased in salinity between 1960 and 2000 but have stabilised since. The long term effects are primarily dependent on the extent of polar and sea ice melt.

Polar and sea ice melt has also contributed to global sea level rise; between 1955 and 1992, this occurred at an average of 1.8mm per year and since then has increased to 3mm per year. Measurements of UK sea level rise are consistent with those made globally and while the trend of increased sea levels is strongly expected to continue, the level of increase is not agreed. Compared to a 1980 – 1999 baseline, projections of UK sea level rise range from 12 to 76cm by 2095; this corresponds to yearly rates of increase between 1.2mm and 7.6mm. The relative increase is expected to be greater in the south (i.e. regions 3 and 4) than the north (6) as a result of post-glacial rebound.

The Atlantic heat conveyor is the process by which equatorial waters are transported to higher latitudes in the north Atlantic, contributing to relatively mild winters in the UK. There is some evidence to suggest that there has been a slowing of the conveyor during the 1990s and early 2000s, and daily observations began in 2004 which will help to strengthen the evidence base. The IPCC (IPCC, 2007) suggest that this trend will continue, with a greater than 90% chance that the conveyor will slow by an average of 25% in comparison to pre-industrial levels over the course of the 21st century. If these predictions are correct, then this slowdown may offset some of the warming of the north Atlantic.

In line with the melting of the arctic ice cap, there is evidence that temperature stratification over the north-western European shelf seas is beginning slightly earlier each year. Models predict that, by 2100, thermal stratification will begin around 7 days earlier and end between 5 and 10 days later than is currently the case.

The oceans can regulate climate stability, as they remove about 25% of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere. As atmospheric levels of the gas have increased, the volume absorbed into the oceans increases, which in turn results in the acidification of the oceans. Since 1750, there has been a 30% decrease in surface pH and a 16% decrease in carbonate ion concentrations; this rate of pH change is faster than anything experienced during the last 55 million years. While the general trend of acidification is expected to continue – the partial pressure of carbon dioxide is expected to increase to double its pre-industrial level by 2050 – there may be limiting effects. As the general level of acidification increases, the ability of the oceans to absorb yet more carbon dioxide may decrease;

Page 235 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

indeed, this may already be being observed in the north-east Atlantic. Furthermore, the process is not spatially constant, with some areas absorbing more than average, and others acting as net emitters.

The rate of coastal erosion is a concern for many UK coastal communities and this may be a secondary effect of climate change as a result of sea level rise and the potential for stronger storm and wave systems. The main determinant of coastal erosion, however, is the local geology of the area, and as such, those areas already at risk will likely see their rate of erosion increase the most relative to other areas. The effect of wave and storm systems is uncertain because of large natural variability in wave climate as well as an unclear anthropogenic influence.

Finally, ocean acidification caused by climate change can increase the distance that sound can travel underwater22. Climate change will not increase the levels of noise, but will increase the distances that noise can be heard by marine organisms.

Outputs from the 2-3 March 2011 Cefas measures workshop indicate that the trends of physico-chemical relationships with climate change are mixed. All physico- chemical changes due to climate change that have been considered in the workshop have been graded as small pressures on the UK marine environment over the next 10-20 years and there is only medium to low confidence in the understanding of these.

Ecosystem Impacts Having assessed the physical and chemical impacts that are expected from climate change, it is now possible to interpret what these mean for the marine ecosystem. Ecosystem impacts can be heavily interlinked and we can start by looking at the observations and subsequent implications on food webs.

The increase in sea temperature has had a significant impact on plankton populations in the North Sea. The total biomass of the previously dominant cold water species Calanus finmarchicus has declined by 70% since the 1960s, while many other plankton species have shifted northwards by more than 10 degrees latitude in the same period. This trend is expected to continue, which in turn will impact on oxygen production, carbon sequestration and biogeochemical cycling.

The northwards shift has resulted in previously non-native, warmer water plankton species becoming increasingly prominent in UK waters. These species reproduce at different times of the year, with some species appearing between 4 and 6 weeks

22 http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=39821017654

Page 236 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

earlier than 20 years ago, impacting food webs. Increased acidification is also thought to affect the reproduction of plankton.

In line with the observations about plankton, distributions of fish have also shifted northwards. Coldwater species such as monkfish and snake blenny have migrated up to 400km, while other species have moved into deeper waters at an average rate of 3.5m per decade. This has been accompanied by an increase in the survival rates and subsequent incidence of warm-water species, such as sole and sprat, in UK waters. This trend is set to continue: by 2050, it is estimated that pelagic species (herring, anchovy) could move northwards by 600km, and demersal species (cod, haddock) by 220km.

The alteration of the distribution of fish species has implications further up the food chain. The number of seabirds breeding in the UK in 2008 was 9% lower than in 2000, and the rate of breeding success has also declined. This rate of decline is greatest amongst surface feeding species, such as the Arctic skua and black-legged kittiwake, which have seen their prey move into deeper water.

Indeed, models predict that by 2100, UK waters will no longer be able to support great skua and Arctic skua, while other surface feeding birds such as black guillemots, common gulls and Arctic terns will only survive in Shetland and the very northern parts of mainland Scotland. If wave and storm conditions were to worsen in the future, this would reduce the safe breeding-habitat for shoreline-nesting species as well as making searching for food more difficult. Mortality rates of both adults and chicks would increase due to starvation under such a scenario.

Marine mammals are also exhibiting sensitivities to changing sea temperatures as the distribution of some species shift. Those species that are only able to survive in specific habitats will be most affected, while the reduced plankton availability will affect certain baleen whale species. It is important to note that while many of these effects can be seemingly explained by climate change, other human activities, such as overfishing, may also be influencing what is outlined above. This is because both result in prey depletion. As such, the extent of the impacts, particularly on seabirds and marine mammals, being due to climate change, is uncertain. Direct mortality through by-catch in fishing gears remains the most important human impact on cetaceans in UK waters.

Warmer temperatures further east in Europe have encouraged a distributional shift in overwintering waterbirds (waders and wildfowl), resulting in declining numbers in the UK. This trend is expected to continue with changes in the Arctic and sub-Arctic reducing the availability of breeding grounds while increasing predation pressure.

The increased presence of non-native species was touched upon when discussing plankton but this extends to a much wider range of species. Warmer UK seas have altered the range of species for which the waters are habitable, and species which previously struggled to survive are now growing in numbers. Evidence is strong,

Page 237 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

with the introduced Pacific oyster spreading from farms in the early 1990s to self sustaining populations in Northern Ireland and southern England, while species such as the bryozoan, Bugula neritina, which had previously only been found in the warm waters of power station outlets, and red seaweed growing in number. The latter has spread from Devon in 2004 to Kent in 2009. When combined with acidification, the full effect of which is unknown on the majority of organisms, UK waters could begin to favour non-native species over native ones.

Outputs from the 2-3 March 2011 Cefas measures workshop indicate small pressures on the various species of plankton, with mixed trends and medium confidence. Fish demonstrate medium to small pressures, again with mixed trends, but confidence in these assessments is high because of the amount of data held on fish. Seabirds have small decreasing trends, but only with low confidence, and non- native species show a moderate increasing trend with medium confidence, while evidence on marine mammals is lacking.

Habitats Coastal habitats are affected by sea-level rise, as well as the amount of sediment being supplied/removed through both natural processes and human activity. This is exacerbated by the modification of habitats through human activity, which has rendered them less able to adapt to the effects of climate change. The extent, quality and distribution of coastal habitats is expected to be affected.

Increasing CO2 levels will also have a detrimental effect on some marine habitats. A change in the chemical composition of the oceans, or ocean acidification, causes a reduction in carbonate, the mineral which forms the skeletons and shells of organisms such as biogenic reef forming animals. Ocean acidification slows down the ability of coral reefs to grow and maintain their structures. However, due to lack of clear understanding, it is currently difficult to predict the extent of ocean

acidification due to increased CO2 levels on the resilience of calcified organisms and their ability to adapt23.

The lack of evidence about processes in deep-sea ecosystems makes an assessment of the effects of climate change difficult. It is thought that changes in surface waters could alter the quantity of food being delivered to the sea bed, but appropriate and accurate models do not exist.

Clean and Safe Seas A serious implication for human activity is the potential for increased coastal flooding brought about by sea level rise and increased storm frequency. While rising sea

23 http://royalsociety.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=5709

Page 238 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

levels pose the greatest physical risk, increased human activity in areas already under threat compounds this, meaning that a 40cm rise by 2100 would increase the number of properties at risk from coastal flooding by 130,000 to a total of 400,000.

Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) are routinely observed in UK waters, although their distribution has been seen to have changed over the past 40 years, presenting a somewhat mixed picture. While some HABs appear to be decreasing, as evidenced by the decline in paralytic shellfish poisoning of blue mussels, others are set to increase. An increased tendency for stratification is thought to encourage the growth of Karenia mikimotoi, which has been associated with fish kills and benthic mortalities in coastal waters in south-western England, western Scotland, Orkney and Shetland. There is also the possibility of non-native HABs moving in, as well as the potential for some of the physical impacts of climate change to influence the toxicity of the HABs already present.

Increasing seawater temperature and reduced salinity could increase the instance of marine vibrios, which can cause seafood related gastro-enteric or septicaemia illnesses. Although infections are uncommon in the UK, diseases associated with marine vibrios have increased in parts of Europe in recent years, usually following periods of above average warm weather. This could indicate that the UK will see more infections in the future, especially as non-native species of zooplankton that act as vectors for marine vibrios become more common in UK waters.

While changes in nutrient concentrations in UK waters have been observed, the causes are not certain. It has been suggested that nutrient concentrations in the sea are likely to decline if summers become drier, but there is significant uncertainty around this. Similarly, information surrounding the effects of climate change on the level of pollutants in UK waters is lacking, although it is generally believed that drought conditions would reduce the dilution of chemicals while significant storm periods would increase runoff and overflow: each increase pollutant concentrations.

Commercial Productivity This section assesses those areas that provide direct economic value through market goods to the UK.

The evidence about fish is largely reflected in that for fisheries; the locations of large catches of target species, such as cod, haddock, plaice and sole, have moved over the past 80 – 90 years, but this may also be in response to fishing activities and habitat modification. Models predict that cod stocks in the Celtic and Irish seas could disappear completely by 2100, accompanied by declining numbers in the North Sea. Climate change has reduced the Maximum Sustainable Yield of cod by about 32,000 tonnes per decade. This is likely to be offset to some degree by increased numbers of warmer water species, such as sea bass, anchovy, red mullet and squid. The stock biomass of adult sea bass in the Western Channel has increased from 500 tonnes to 2000 tonnes in the 20 years from 1985.

Page 239 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

The overall effect is that total yield may increase by 2050 (by 1 or 2%), but some areas, the Irish Sea and English Channel in particular, may see a reduction. This is likely to have significant implications for fishery-dependent communities, particularly in the north of Scotland and south-west England. The impact of other physico- chemical changes, such as acidification, is unknown, although it is thought that lower pH levels could represent a threat to the UK shellfish industry.

The short term estimates for aquaculture illustrate that climate change is not expected to have a significant impact on UK marine farming of fish and shellfish. However, as water temperatures continue to rise, there are likely to be conflicting pressures. Growth rates for some species (Atlantic salmon) may increase, while other (cod and Atlantic halibut) suffer from thermal stress. A potential increase in non-native species presents both opportunities, in the ability to farm new fish, and threats, in the form of greater HABs leading to fish kills.

The melting of the Arctic sea ice may reduce sea-based transport times from the UK to Asia in summer, as the Northern Sea Route is freed up. However, this will come at the cost of increased vulnerability of ports to flooding due to sea level rise.

Warmer and longer summers are expected to increase tourist visitor numbers, particularly at the coast. This effect may be compounded by summers becoming uncomfortable in the Mediterranean, and thus more foreign and national visitors. If communities are not prepared then a large increase in visitor numbers could be overwhelming, increasing demand for scarce resources (e.g. freshwater, pollution assimilation capacity) and leading to environmental degradation. Rising sea levels, coastal flood and erosion could put some of these communities at risk.

Habitat Types The incredible wealth of sea life that exists in UK inshore and offshore waters are influenced by its unique geographical position that encompasses the transition zone between north-eastern, cold-water communities and south-western, temperate-water communities found along Western Europe. The exceptional variety of marine habitats and species that exist along the UK’s 20,000km coastline and within the 710,100 square kilometres of its sea and seabed, which descends to depths in excess of 2,000m over the UK continental shelf are affected by increasing human pressures that over the time can significantly alter and change habitat types24.

A habitat is defined as the physical and environmental conditions (e.g. the seabed substratum and associated hydrographical and chemical conditions) that support a

24 http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/marinehotspots.pdf

Page 240 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

particular biological community (adapted from Connor et al. 1997)25. Each species tends to live within a certain environmental range depending on their preferences for several environmental factors. It is this that gives us the large number of different habitats within the marine environment. The UK marine habitats can be described at a complex habitat level that is comprised more specifically of defined biotopes. However, in this exercise we assess the UK marine environment at a more generic habitat level which mainly considers the type of substratum and the depth of occurrence. In the second assessment of the state of the UK marine environment, Charting Progress 2, the distribution of six broad habitat types based on substratum were mapped throughout UK waters: intertidal rock, intertidal sediments, sub-tidal rock, shallow sub-tidal sediments, shelf sub-tidal sediments and deep sea habitats. Much of the assessment of benthic habitat types is derived from survey data or from modelling with exceptions where data is incomplete, or unavailable, expert judgement is employed to finalise the overall picture of habitats26.

Intertidal Rock Intertidal rocky habitats occur across all UK seas. The majority of these habitats are in good environmental condition with minor adverse impacts from harvesting and random occurrence of non-native species.

Inter-tidal Sediments Inter-tidal sediments form extensive beaches, sandbanks, salt-marshes and muddy shorelines along the south-eastern and north-western coasts of England and parts of Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland also have long stretches of such intertidal sediments, interspersed with rocky promontories and headlands. These areas are significantly damaged or altered by anthropogenic factors across the UK seas with the exception of northern and western Scotland. The main factors include construction of coastal defences, release of hazardous substances, nutrient enrichment and non-native species.

Sub-tidal Rock Sub-tidal rock mainly occurs in Scottish waters. The majority of sub-tidal rock habitats have been permanently damaged or removed by mobile fishing gears such as bottom trawls that have a particular impact on fragile habitats such as biogenic reefs.

Shallow and Shelf Sub-tidal Sediments Shallow and shelf sub-tidal sediments are predominant types of habitat across the UK seas. Large areas of the UK inshore seabed are covered by shallow sub-tidal

25 TG1 interim report, 2010 26 http://chartingprogress.defra.gov.uk/

Page 241 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

sediments with widespread offshore extensions into the Irish Sea, the Eastern Channel and the Southern North Sea. Shallow sub-tidal sediments could also be found in lagoon areas with dominance in southern England and western Scotland. The larger proportions of UK offshore areas are represented by shelf sub-tidal sediments that are, to a certain extent, equally distributed across UK waters.

These areas have mainly been adversely affected by mobile fishing gears. The extraction of aggregates has also affected these types of habitats, but only in certain local areas rather than across the region.

Deep Sea Habitats Deep sea habitats occur below 200m. In UK regions this condition mainly holds in the North and West of Scotland and West of Rockall with minor areas in south-west Celtic Sea. Most of the deep sea habitats consist of sediment habitats with smaller amounts of rocky habitats or reefs that are largely confined to seamounts. Similar to other habitat types presented above, deep sea habitats are adversely affected by mobile fishing gears, which represent the main pressure to habitats.

Economic Baseline There is no doubt that climate change is one of the main drivers of habitat changes as mentioned in the previous section. In addition to climate change, a number of other factors affect the abundance and distribution of habitats across UK waters with fishing being a major non-climate change anthropogenic factor.

In the 2-3 March 2011 Cefas measures workshop, experts confirmed that mobile fisheries exert the highest level of pressure on seabed habitats across UK sub- regional seas. However, there is some recoverability to habitats that have been impacted by mobile or static gears, and recoverability is expected to increase with forthcoming MCZs and changes to the CFP. As a result there is a small improvement projected in some benthic habitats under a BAU scenario. It should be noted that while MCZs will reduce pressures within certain areas, overall pressure alleviation may not be achieved by this means alone due to potential displacement of fishing to different areas or switching between different types of fishing gears.

Physico-chemical components The physico-chemical components of the marine environment are topography/bathymetry, temperature, salinity, nutrients, oxygen, pH, pCO2 and chemicals, and several of these components support the basic processes which occur in the marine environment. Topography refers to the (study of the) features of the seabed while bathymetry refers to the (study of the) depth of the ocean floor relative to the surface of the water.

Page 242 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Seawater temperature is dependent on length of time of exposure to the sun and on depth. Annual mean sea surface temperature in the UK coast from 1961-1990 is 11.3 degrees Celsius27. Seawater temperature also affects the levels of dissolved oxygen in the water; warmer waters tend to have lower oxygen levels than temperate waters. Changes in temperature affect several marine organisms. There are some species, such as cod, that prefer colder temperatures and move out of UK waters if the temperature of their habitat increases. This means that a change in temperature may result in a change in the composition of the organisms that live in a certain area of the marine environment, therefore affecting biodiversity, food webs, and the species that are caught by commercial fishing.

Salinity refers to the dissolved salt content in seawater. There are natural variations in salinity levels due to evaporation and precipitation, but it is usually 35 parts per thousand. Changes in salinity will affect many marine organisms, especially those that cannot regulate the levels of salt in their bodies. Additionally, salinity affects the level of dissolved oxygen in the water; an increase in salinity will decrease dissolved oxygen. This means that changes in salinity will change the composition of the marine ecosystem, especially food webs and biodiversity.

Nutrients naturally occur in the marine environment and they support the growth of phytoplankton, which in turn supports the food web; thus essential in maintaining the productivity of the marine environment. Changes in the levels of nutrients depend on natural (e.g. decomposed matter, animal faecal matter) and man-made factors (e.g. agricultural run-offs, sewage). Increases in levels of nutrients will increase the growth of plants and algae. Excessive algae and plant growth can result in decreases in levels of oxygen in the marine environment (hypoxia) and affect water and habitat quality. This can result in fish kills and the decrease in the quality of bathing water in beaches (and rivers and lakes).

Oxygen is needed by almost all living organisms in the marine environment, and is therefore essential in supporting life in oceans. Oxygen is introduced into the marine environment via gaseous exchanges across the air-sea surface, and also through photosynthesis (of algae and other aquatic plants)28. Changes in temperature and salinity are the main drivers of the changes in levels of dissolved oxygen. Changes in oxygen have direct and indirect effects on organisms in the marine environment. The direct effects of reduced oxygen levels are death, hypoxia and anoxia (an extreme form of hypoxia), and the release of nutrients, while indirect effects include degradation of the ecosystem.

27 http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/content/view/757/9/ 28 http://www.ukmarinesac.org.uk/activities/water-quality/wq9_5.htm

Page 243 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

The pH of the seawater determines its acidity (pH less than 7 is acidic) while pC02, or the partial pressure of carbon dioxide, affects its acidity (increased pC02 increases acidity). Generally, seawater has a level pH in the range of 7.5 to 8.5. An increase in the acidity of seawater will kill marine life and corrode organisms such as corals and molluscs. Additionally, underwater sound can be heard by marine organisms over longer distances if seawater is more acidic29. This means that biodiversity is highly affected by ocean acidification.

Most of the chemicals in the marine environment are introduced by human and sectoral activities resulting in pollution and contamination effects. For example, PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), which have been commonly used as insulators for transformers and capacitors, result in reproductive and immunity impairment in marine mammals, seabirds and fish30. Chemicals in the marine environment affect the food web and adverse effects are compounding (i.e. more chemicals deposited in organisms that are higher up in the food chain); chemicals have an adverse effect not only on marine organisms but on consumers of seafood as well.

Physico-chemical components under a business-as-usual scenario Identifying the changes in these components in UK waters under a business-as- usual scenario is best done at local and smaller spatial scales in order to identify hotspots or prominent problem areas. However, during the 2-3 March 2011 Cefas measures workshop, the physico-chemical group has made the BAU scenario assessment on the changes in these components on a UK-wide level. They have identified that the most common pressures that lead to changes in these components are physical loss and damage, contamination of hazardous substances, systematic and/or intentional release of substances, and nutrient and organic matter enrichment.

Since topography is related to the seabed, this component is mostly affected by physical loss and damage due to the use of mobile fishing gear, offshore large scale construction (including of renewable energy) and navigational and aggregate dredging. On the other hand, the rest of the components are largely affected by the pressures of contamination of hazardous substances, systematic and/or intentional release of substances, and nutrient and organic matter enrichment. These pressures result from activities which generate diffuse or point source pollution, which, when reaching the marine environment, result in adverse effects such as

29 Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (2008), ‘Sounds Travel Farther Underwater As World's Oceans Become More Acidic’, in ScienceDaily, accessed online on March 24, 2011 30 Law, R. et al, (2010), Marine Strategy Framework Directive Task Group 8 Report: Contamination and Pollution effects, a report prepared for the European Commission Joint Research Council and DG Environment, no. 31210-2009/2010.

Page 244 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

eutrophication, pollution and contamination. The sectors which mostly contribute to these pressures are land-based industry (e.g. emissions from land transport), (finfish) aquaculture, agriculture and waste water treatment.

Members of the physico-chemical group of the 2-3 March 2011 Cefas measures workshop have identified that there will be no or very small changes to these components in 2020 due to sectoral activities under a business-as-usual scenario. Evidence from Charting Progress 2 has shown that the open seas are generally not affected by pollution and levels of (monitored) contaminants have significantly decreased. However, it should be noted that there are still some hotspots around the UK with these problems. The establishment of Marine Conservation Zones will also protect sensitive areas of the seabed from further physical loss and damage.

Even though there will be growth in the sectors that exert pressures on these components, current legislation (e.g. the Water Framework Directive) and licensing of marine activities, effectively address and reduce these pressures. However, it has to be pointed out that climate change strongly affects the physico-chemical components, therefore changes to these components in the medium to long term may be mainly due to climate change.

Biological Features The Biological Features of the UK marine environment are highly diverse and complex. To aid analysis of their baseline condition they have been subdivided into two groups:

 Concerned with 5 components: marine mammals, marine reptiles, fish (commercial and non-commercial) and seabirds—Biological Features Group A.  Concerned with 4 components: bottom flora and fauna, non-indigenous species, phyto- and zooplankton and commercial shellfish—Biological Features Group B.

The following points have emerged as significant issues with regards to changes in the biological features in the UK:  UK waters becoming more hospitable for NIS. Changes in temperature (and other conditions) allow non-indigenous species to survive and establish in areas they otherwise cannot. Trend is increasing and expected to continue, and may pose risks to indigenous species.  Sectoral activities contribute to changes in temperature (e.g. through the

release of CO2), but significant changes are due to global variables.  Pressures on physico-chemical components that occur locally are unlikely to cause the establishment of NIS in UK waters.  Possibly also through increased development offshore change in benthic habitat – allowing for ‘stepping stone effect’.

Page 245 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Biological Features Group A For marine mammals, five species are at favourable conservation status; therefore, the trend is likely to be stable31. However, future changes in their supply of food and other pressures may have adverse effects on their population.

Fisheries, both mobile and static, are major contributors to pressures on marine mammals. By-catch is the single biggest threat to cetaceans in UK waters. The extraction of certain species, and the levels of associated by-catch, can have significant effects on food webs for marine mammals, making it harder to get food and thus increasing competition. Fisheries also contribute to marine litter which creates problems for marine mammals (e.g. entanglement, ingestion). Confidence in the significance of the contribution of fisheries is high because of the amount of data that exists regarding the industry.

Offshore renewable energy and transport and shipping, both generate pressures on marine mammals through underwater noise and collisions, as well as independently contributing to barriers to species movement and marine litter, respectively. These are assessed as medium to high contributions to the overall pressures involved but confidence in the assessment of offshore renewables is low because it is a relatively new industry. Similarly, carbon capture and storage may have an impact on underwater noise, as well as contamination and changes in salinity, but the relative youth of the industry means that, although its contribution is thought to be small, there is low confidence in the assessment. Other energy industries, such as oil and gas, also contribute to the pressures of underwater noise and contamination, with the potential to introduce marine litter, but pressures are only low to medium, with medium confidence. Land based industry is a medium contributor to contamination, and there is medium confidence in this assessment.

Other pressures arise from marine litter (aquaculture and tourism), underwater noise (military) and physical damage / disturbance (military and tourism). Impacts from these are either unknown or classed as low; however, the classified nature of information on military activity makes a true assessment of their impacts extremely difficult. It is possible that explosions and sonar have a greater impact that can be confidently stated.

Information is also lacking surrounding the status of marine reptiles, which prevents the assessment of an overall trend. This is not of particular concern, however, because only a very small percentage of the world’s marine reptile population reside in UK waters. Due to this, the contribution of sectors to pressures on marine reptiles,

31 Eunice Pinn, JNCC, personal communication, June 2011.

Page 246 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

particularly marine litter and contamination, are thought to be low, but low confidence is held in these assessments.

The overall trend of commercial fish stocks is of small increases, although it must be noted that this is in the context of a significant historical decline. Indeed, the pressures associated are distinctly negative in nature; fisheries, both mobile and static, are strong contributors to the extraction of fish, while tourism and recreational activities make a medium contribution (although this is largely related to recreational sea anglers, and so the stock affected will be very specific, and not applicable to the overall biomass of fish). Confidence in these assessments is high to medium because of the strong data regarding the industries. Other pressures include underwater noise and physical damage from offshore renewables, nutrient enrichment from agriculture and biological disturbance through the spreading of disease or genetic contamination from aquaculture. These pressures are small, however, and the confidence held in them is medium to high; fisheries are of the greatest concern.

As with commercial fish stocks, non-commercial fish stocks are also showing a small increasing trend despite pressures that may indicate to the contrary. Fisheries result in the removal of some species, with mobile fisheries contributing more than static fisheries (which only have a small impact). Confidence in both these assessments is high. Other pressures are similar to commercial fish stocks, including underwater noise and physical damage from offshore renewables and nutrient and organic matter enrichment from agriculture; however, these are assumed to have small impacts.

Seabirds exhibit a, small, decreasing overall trend, with the major contributor being fisheries. As with their effect on marine mammals, fisheries reduce the availability of prey, increasing competition for food, but they are also affected by the levels of by- catch through the use of gillnets and the amount of discarding. Other pressures are low to medium; these include marine litter (land-based industry, tourism and transport and shipping) and contamination (land-based industry) as well as visual presence (tourism) which could affect the breeding habits of seabirds. Confidence in these assessments is low to medium. The military may also have impacts on breeding through physical disturbance but the overall contribution is thought to be low.

It is important that the conclusions from these snapshot assessments are considered alongside other factors, with climate change likely to have a significant effect.

Biological Features B The 2-3 March 2011 Cefas measures workshop group ranked the contribution of sectors to pressures on these components from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest); in this section we will focus on those sectors that scored 3 or higher. The pressures on bottom flora and fauna have been classified as medium to large, but the overall trend

Page 247 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

direction was not specified. This is because they appear to exhibit short term improvements in the face of a longer term decline. The major contributory sector is mobile fisheries (ranked 5), with a number of pressures resulting from it, namely: smothering, physical change to another seabed type, abrasion/physical disturbance, selective extraction of habitats, collisions, changes in siltation, changes in turbidity, underwater noise, marine litter, the introduction of synthetic and non-synthetic compounds and the introduction of non-indigenous species.

Coastal infrastructure and offshore renewable energy were both ranked 4, with their shared pressures being smothering, physical change to another seabed type, substrate loss and the introduction of synthetic compounds. Additional to this were the introduction of non-synthetic compounds for coastal infrastructure; abrasion/physical disturbance; changes in siltation, the water flow rate, turbidity and wave exposure; underwater noise; barrier to species movements and the introduction of non-indigenous species through offshore renewable energy. Other sectors of note are static fisheries and land-based industry (3); shared pressures between these two are marine litter and the introduction of microbial pathogens. Static fisheries also contribute to abrasion/physical disturbance and selective extraction of habitats as a result of lost fishing gear, and to collisions, changes in water flow rate and inputs of organic matter. Land based industry plays a role in the introduction of synthetic and non-synthetic compounds, the introduction of other substances (solid liquid or gas) resulting from their systematic release into the marine environment, and changes in siltation and turbidity.

Aquaculture and transport and shipping (5) were ranked as the most significant contributors to the introduction of non-indigenous species, which exhibit a medium, increasing trend overall. Other important sectors were noted as tourism and recreation (4) and offshore renewable energy and coastal infrastructure (3). The individual pressures were not noted.

The group noted a small to medium score for the overall trend of phyto- and zooplankton, but did not identify a trend direction due to the large natural variations that affect it. The most significant sectors were thought to be agriculture (5) and coastal infrastructure (4), while the only other sectors to rank higher than 1 were fisheries (mobile), oil and gas, and offshore renewable energy (2).

Commercial shellfish was not given a trend direction for the same reason as bottom flora and fauna, and was scored small. Both mobile and static fisheries sectors scored 5; shared pressures between the two are abrasion/physical disturbance, selective extraction of habitats, collisions, marine litter and the selective extraction of species (including by-catch). Static fisheries also contribute to changes in water flow rate, inputs of organic matter and the introduction of microbial pathogens, while mobile fisheries influence smothering, the physical change to seabed types, changes in siltation and turbidity, underwater noise, the introduction of synthetic and non- synthetic compounds and the introduction of non-indigenous species.

Page 248 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Aquaculture is the only other significant sector, contributing to pressures such as smothering, physical change to seabed types, abrasion/physical disturbance, selective extraction of habitats, changes in water flow rate, turbidity and wave exposure, underwater noise, marine litter, barrier to species movement, the introduction of synthetic and non-synthetic compounds, inputs of organic matter, the introduction of microbial pathogens and non-indigenous species, and the selective extraction of species including by-catch.

The 2-3 March 2011 Cefas measures workshop group concluded that the main sectors impacting the group of ecosystem components in the Biological Features ‘B’ baseline set were fisheries, offshore renewables, aquaculture and land based- industries with the pressures of physical loss and damage, contamination by hazardous substances and the introduction of non-indigenous species. An extremely important thing to note is that the effects on phyto- and zoo-plankton and non-indigenous species are mostly affected by climate change rather than individual sectors; this has implications for the measures targeting these ecosystem components.

Comparison between baselines Table A12-1 presents the similarities and differences in the baselines for each descriptor used in this project and a parallel project by ABPmer.

Table A12-1. Comparison between baselines 1

Descriptors of Consistency between this report and BAU project baseline GES Level Main Assumptions Differences D1 - Good The influence of the most BAU puts a specific emphasis Biodiversity significant pressures on on the assessment of habitats, biodiversity descriptor status by concluding that there is likely 2020, such as fisheries catch to be an improvement in and by-catch, physical abrasion, benthic habitats due to underwater noise disturbance, reduction in demersal fishing infrastructure presence, are activity that is recognized in recognised. descriptor 6 baseline. D2 - Non- Complete The issues presented by non- indigenous indigenous species are likely to species be a significant problem. D3 - Good It is assumed the CFP remains BAU project develops three Commercial a main mechanism to improve CFP scenarios: a best-case, fish and fish stocks; however the MFSD middle-case and worse-case shellfish will act as an international driver scenarios. BAU project takes to strengthen the final outcome into account highly protected of the CFP Reform process. ‘Reference Sites’ of MCZs. This report does not, but it is estimated these sites will only occupy less than 0.5% of UK marine waters, so this is not a major inconsistency. D4 - Food webs Good Climate change is identified as a BAU report considers likely main driver of many changes in positive or negative changes, the composition and distribution i.e. of the proportion of large of plankton with likely impact on fish that could be driven by food web. designation of MCZs and

Page 249 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Descriptors of Consistency between this report and BAU project baseline GES Level Main Assumptions Differences reforms in CFP, this report does not. This report considers the energy flow through ecosystem food chains that is being affected through the loss of habitats, BAU report does not. D5 - Complete Current management measures Eutrophication are likely to be sufficient to ensure improvement in remaining areas of concern by 2020. D6 - Sea floor Good Some improvements to habitats This report recognises some integrity are expected within protected potential risk to benthic areas communities through climate change and topography changes in specific sites that are not mentioned in BAU report. D7 – Moderate Current regulatory regimes (EIA. Tidal barrage technology is a Hydrographical SEA, Hab & Birds Directive, major cause of change in conditions WFD, licensing and planning) hydrographical conditions in are able, and will continue, to the BAU report. This report

ensure significant negative assumes that tidal barrage impacts on hydrographical technology is not advanced conditions are prevented. enough to be deployed at a commercial scale by 2020. D8 - Complete Existing legislation is effectively Contaminants addressing problems of contaminants (of chemicals), which are unlikely to result in failure to meet GES. D9 - Good Improvements in environmental This report recognises Contaminants state by 2020 due to effective possible risk of human vibrios in fish and implementation of existing in UK waters through physic- shellfish legislation (as per D8) chemical pressures as a result of climate change. D10 - Marine Complete Litter will continue to be a litter problem accumulating in coastal areas and in the water column. D11 - Complete Noise in the UK marine The BAU future scenario for Underwater environment is expected to renewable construction makes noise increase as a result of assumptions about rates of increasing use of acoustic build from the global offshore

survey by marine activities, such wind farm database. These as construction of marine have been considered over renewables (e.g. wind farms). ambitious by the Crown Estate, who have provided other data to support the ME5405 D11 targets.

Page 250 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Appendix 13 - Analysis of Impacts of Potential Management Measures

This section considers the impacts of potential measures to achieve the proposed targets for MSFD descriptors. It mainly considers the costs of potential measures, the confidence of the relevance of these measures (i.e. on whether there is a need to apply the measure in the UK) and of the estimates of the costs, and potential benefits are discussed. For the descriptors, the analysis firstly covers measures under broad headings, based on the pressures on the marine environment as categorised at the 2-3 March 2011 Cefas measures workshop:

 Physical Loss and Damage to the Seabed;  Other Physical Disturbance;  Interference with Hydrographical Processes;  Adverse By-products from Human Activities, and  Biological Disturbance.

However, within the categories relating to the physical loss and damage to the seabed, and biological disturbance, measures to manage adverse impacts from fisheries on the marine environment are significant. These measures must be considered collectively, not least due to their potential collective impacts. Therefore, a final category of impact is examined, relating to controls on fisheries, which includes several biological disturbance measures, and several of those relating to the seabed. This category is not only relevant to descriptor 3 (commercial fisheries), as there are strong links between these measures and many other descriptors.

The focus of the analysis is on the nature of management measures and the additional costs of individual measures in the other groups are then discussed. The analysis also considers the enforcement and ‘information’ costs associated with each potential measure, and the potential benefits from measures, although information on benefits is very limited. The costs reported are in 2011 prices.

The analysis of costs and benefits of measures is guided by the process laid out in The Handbook (eftec & Cefas, 2011), produced as part of this Defra project (ME5405) supporting the UK’s overall implementation of the Directive. The Handbook is based on the application of cost-benefit analysis and related techniques to specific clauses of the Directive, like cost-effectiveness analysis of measures, and assessment of disproportionate costs.

The guidance on analysis of costs and benefits in The Handbook is organised around nine steps:

1. Establishing the objective 2. Defining the baseline

Page 251 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

3. Defining the options (i.e. measures or combinations of measures) being analysed 4. Assessing the impacts of these options on marine activities and ecosystems 5. Computing a monetary valuation of the costs and benefits 6. Comparing the costs and benefits 7. Considering the distributional impacts 8. Sensitivity analysis 9. Reporting

For the measures considered below, the objectives (Step 1) are the targets currently being developed under the MSFD descriptors and indicators. The baseline (Step 2) is summarised in Section 4.3, and described in more detail in Appendix 12. The analysis of individual measures in this section generally covers Steps 3 to 7.

However, not all the steps are complete at this stage.

 Analysis of the benefits (e.g. under Step 6) is not presented for each measure. Benefits to the marine environment are considered separately due to the difficulties applying the evidence base to individual policy options.  Some sensitivity analysis is included, but further sensitivity analysis will need to be undertaken subsequently, in particular when combinations of measures are considered.

The analysis of individual measures under the descriptors enables the consideration of possible combinations of measures, as required by the Directive. This is done through systematic analysis of the individual measures analysed, in Section 4.4.

1. Physical Loss and Damage to the Seabed

Fisheries management measures are a key part of the potential measures available in relation to this pressure on the marine environment. These are further analysed later in this Appendix.

1.1 Non-fisheries Measures Re: Seabed Impacts

The main descriptors that are relevant to this set of pressures are D6 - Sea floor integrity and D7 – Hydrographical conditions. They also have relevance to other descriptors, such as D1 - Biodiversity and D4 - Food webs.

Spatio-temporal restrictions on marine aggregate dredging Sand and gravel from marine aggregate mining activities contribute a significant proportion of raw materials to the UK construction industry. In 2009, 1,286 km2 of

Page 252 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

UK seabed was licensed to be dredged, but only 123.6km2 was actually used, producing 20.10 million tonnes of sand and gravel32. After a successful aggregate dredging tender, companies must apply for a Dredging Permission (DP) which includes a submission of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and a Coastal Impact Study. If a favourable DP is obtained then an application to The Crown Estate for a production license can be made33.

There are existing seasonal restrictions on when aggregate dredging is allowed, but this is mainly for safety reasons and not for environmental reasons. The results of an EIA can also recommend seasonal restrictions. This means that there will be no additional costs due to this management measure

Costs: Currently, the areas of the UK seabed that are being dredged to extract minerals are in the regions of the Humber, the East Coast, the Thames estuary, the East English Channel, the South Coast, the South West and the North West, and these are equivalent to Regions 2 to 5 in the UKMMAS definition of the UK regional seas. Already, there are extensive restrictions on the areas that can be used to extract minerals (i.e. marine aggregate companies cannot just dredge wherever they want to), and an EIA is required in order to assess the status of the seabed and the impacts of extraction to it and to its benthic community. This means that the management measure of further spatial restrictions (i.e. current areas licensed for dredging will be decreased) may be unlikely, especially because the availability of sand and gravel extracted from land sources are decreasing34. A temporal restriction may also be put in place, and this could be through restricting the length of the license (with the operational stage currently up to 15 years), or restricting the time of the year wherein aggregate extraction can take place. If this were to be put in place, then the cost to aggregate companies in restricting the length of the license is the cost of renewing a license or applying for a new one. However, this may also mean that the intensity of the activity will increase during the licensed period in order to avoid costs involved in extending or renewing the license. If a restriction is put in place on the time of the year wherein aggregates extraction is allowed, this can also result in the intensity of the activity increasing during the allowed time. However, there are existing seasonal restrictions on when aggregate dredging is allowed, but this is mainly for safety reasons. The results of an EIA requires seasonal restrictions. This means that there will be no additional costs due to this management measure.

32 http://www.bmapa.org/downloads/BMAPA_12th_Ann_Report.pdf 33 http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/marine_aggregates#licences 34 http://www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/start.cfm?id=1371

Page 253 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

The Marine Management Organisation (MMO), Marine Scotland, the Welsh Government and the Environment and Heritage Service in Northern Ireland (but there are no areas being extracted for minerals in Scotland and Northern Ireland35) are the authorities responsible for monitoring and regulating the marine aggregate industry.

Spatio-temporal restrictions on navigational dredging Navigational dredging is used to develop ports and harbours and to create or maintain channels or berths used for navigation. The greatest dredging activities around the UK occur in the busiest ports such as Felixstowe, Hull and the Mersey Estuary, and from 2003-2005, a total of 102 sites have been dredged for navigational purposes, 21 of these with an area greater than 100,000 metres squared36. A license needs to be obtained before any navigational dredging activities can take place, and these are issued by the relevant port authority. On the other hand, the license to dispose the dredged material is licensed by the MMO, Marine Scotland, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Government.

Costs: Navigational dredging usually occurs in areas near to ports, harbours and marinas, and are usually consented or licensed by the local port authority. Any restrictions on this activity will be implemented all over the UK. There are several existing regulations such as the Water Framework Directive and the Habitats Directive that cover navigational dredging activities (including the disposal of the dredged material), but these regulations do not impose any specific spatial restrictions. If spatial restrictions are to be put in place, then this could have adverse effects such as damage to vessels and equipment on the users of areas that are periodically dredged for navigational purposes but the most significant economic costs will be borne by users of the ports who are not able to enter the port (e.g. costs incurred by vessels that are not able to land their cargo). This means that a temporal restriction, otherwise known as an “environmental window” may be a more viable option. Some port authorities, such as the Port of London Authority already impose seasonal restrictions on navigational dredging, subject to information or data gathered from environmental impact assessments37. This means that there will be no or very small additional costs due to this measure (seasonal restrictions).

Spatial restrictions on areas where cables and pipelines are laid There are undersea telecommunications and power cables in all of the UK waters38, and most of them are buried, but some are exposed and covered with a protective

35 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/295194/0108027.pdf 36 http://qsr2010.ospar.org/media/assessments/p00366_Dredging.pdf 37 http://www.pla.co.uk/pdfs/pe/Maintenance_Dredging_Brochure.pdf 38 http://qsr2010.ospar.org/en/media/chapter_pdf/QSR_Ch09_EN.pdf

Page 254 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

material. As for pipelines that carry materials (mostly oil and gas), they are found in the Northern and Southern North Sea, the Irish Sea and the Scottish Continental Shelf (regions 1, 2, 5 and 7)39. The laying of pipelines within UK territorial waters requires a license unless these are required to be laid in response to an emergency or for repair works40. On the other hand, the laying of cables does not require an EIA unless the work is large enough or going to be done in a sensitive location.41 Consent from The Crown Estate is required for cables and pipelines that cross the seabed within 12 nautical miles of the UK coastline since these may affect aggregate dredging and the construction of offshore wind farms.

Costs: DECC, the MMO, Marine Scotland, the Welsh Government and DOENI issue licenses for the laying of cables and pipelines. As for the industry, the costs will be due to changes in construction times and the length of cables/pipelines used. However, prior planning can minimise these costs.

Relevance of measure and of costs: Marine planning, under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, will cover potential restrictions on where cables and pipelines can be laid. However, the marine licensing process will contain the detailed decision of these restrictions according to each license application.

2. Other Physical Disturbance

The descriptors that are relevant to this category are D10 - Marine litter and D11 - Underwater noise. These two descriptors represent two fairly distinct pressures on the marine environment without the numerous interactions that complicate analysis of potential measures in relation to some other descriptors. Potential management measures for these two descriptors are described separately below. The measures involve a wide range of different potential actions, including changes in consumer behaviour, voluntary agreements, introduction of charges on a per activity basis, one-off investments and changes in daily business practices.

2.1 Potential Management Measures to Address Marine Litter

The proposed measures tackle the problems of existing levels of marine litter (e.g. fishing for litter, beach cleaning), the sources of marine litter (e.g. reducing combined sewerage overflows), or sometimes both (e.g. beach litter collection facilities).

39 http://chartingprogress.defra.gov.uk/feeder/Section_3.10_Pipelines.pdf 40 http://marinemanagement.org.uk/licensing/marine/activities/cables.htm 41 Holly Niner, JNCC, personal communication, June 2011.

Page 255 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Some of the measures that tackle the sources of marine litter relate to options for management of materials and waste throughout society. They are included here because they can potentially make a contribution to marine litter in relation to the MSFD. However, detailed analysis of their wider costs and benefits, involving issues such as materials flows in the economy and terrestrial litter problems, will be needed for decision makers to assess their desirability as policy options.

The 2-3 March 2011 Cefas measures workshop acknowledged that for marine litter individual measures have medium impact. However, if measures are implemented together, then the impact of these management measures could be large. An important point was made that a coherent and practical strategy for marine litter has to be developed in order to coordinate all measures taken against marine litter and ensure that maximum effect is to be achieved. There is a significant economic impact associated with marine litter and it affects a number of key industries that depend on the status of the marine environment.

Fishing for litter scheme This management measure aims to improve the fishing industry’s management practices for the waste they ‘catch’ and thus reduce the amount of marine litter in UK seas by physically removing it. The vessels that participate within this scheme are provided with hardwearing bags where they can deposit the collected litter whilst performing their normal fishing duties. Full bags are deposited on the quayside where the participating harbours move the bag to a dedicated skip for disposal.

This potential measure relates to all types of litter that might be retrieved from the marine environment during fisheries activity. However, it would only be expected to have a small effect on achieving GES for marine litter.

Costs: Fishing for litter scheme costs are mainly the cost of provision of bags, skip rental and further waste management. It is estimated that a 3 year project of Fishing for Litter Scheme in Scotland would cost approximately £315,450 (Tom Piper, KIMO, personal communication, January 2011). The project aims to maintain coverage in the 17 harbours and to include 300 boats in the scheme. As approximately a third of the UK’s fishing vessels are registered in Scotland (Irwin & Thomas 2009), assuming similar costs across the fleet, a 3 year UK scheme could cost approximately £950,000 with proportionally increased coverage and number of boats. Costs could affect ports and local authorities, and possibly regulators. This measure would also create small costs for fishermen in terms of extra time needed to store the litter on board and unload it at quayside. It may also have cost implications by taking up space in fishing vessels.

Page 256 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Relevance of measure and of costs: This management measure is currently being trialled in the UK (in Scotland and in the South West of England), and some fishers who participate in this scheme have indicated that there have been positive effects from the fishing for litter scheme42. The scheme is now in operation in all of Scotland’s Designated Landing Ports, and KIMO, the organisation responsible for the trial of this scheme, is looking for this scheme to be further extended within England and throughout the whole UK43. The cost estimate described above is for the scheme in Scotland, provided by the UK KIMO coordinator, which means that this cost may be used as a basis to estimate overall costs for the UK.

Increased beach cleaning There is evidence that the UK local authorities spend approximately £15.6 million each year to remove beach litter, representing a 37% increase over the past 10 years. There is also a significant amount of litter removed by voluntary organisations, for which it is estimated that volunteers contribute £111,962 of time each year (Mouat et al,2010).

This potential measure can be expected to have a medium effect on the target for marine litter. The costs are mainly incurred in proportion to the level of activity undertaken (fixed costs are low), so any additional costs could be directed towards coastal areas with particular litter problems.

Costs: Additional costs to current beach cleaning practices.

Relevance of measure and of costs: Beach cleaning is already done by local authorities in coastal areas, and the costs mentioned above are the estimates of what these authorities spend on beach cleaning. The actual cost of increasing beach cleaning will be highly dependent on how much additional cleaning activities are going to be undertaken.

Improved facilities for beach litter deposit and collection Improved facilities for beach litter deposit and collection can reduce the problem of marine litter accumulation in the marine environment. This measure is particularly relevant to managing marine litter originating from marine and coastal recreation and tourism. It could be targeted to where these sources are most significant. Litter facilities are provided in beaches around the UK, but there may be some that do not have adequate facilities, or visitors do not use these facilities properly.

42 http://www.kimointernational.org/Portals/0/Files/JimmyBuchan--press%20release.pdf 43 http://www.kimointernational.org/FishingforLitter.aspx

Page 257 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Costs: additional cost to local councils to improve facilities for litter collection at the UK beaches. Direct and indirect annual costs for a Kent case study was £11.6 million (ABPmer, 2009). The case study costs data for 12-13 tonnes of litter collected each week in summer on a 6 km stretch.

Relevance of measure and of costs: This management measure already exists in the UK (i.e. there are available facilities for litter in beaches), and the additional costs involved in improving beach litter facilities will depend on the extent that this management measure is implemented (e.g. providing more bins, increasing litter collection).

Provision of port reception facilities for litter/waste accumulated while at sea The EU Directive on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (EC2000/59) aims to reduce and limit the illegal discharge of waste into the marine environment. According to the Directive, all ships have to pay a mandatory fee independent of whether they use it or not.

The Directive is transposed into the UK law and is legally binding; therefore this management measure is already in place. The measure is most effective where ports are providing adequate reception facilities to meet the needs of a wide range of users. The existing legislation already requires fishing vessels to deliver their waste, although the ‘irrespective of use’ charge does not apply to fishing vessels. Fishing for litter is outside this regime because it does not relate to waste generated on board which vessels bring into port. Within the 2-3 March 2011 Cefas measures workshop, it was acknowledged that the Directive may need some revisions in order to improve its overall effectiveness. One option for this would be to introduce a UK- wide cost-recovery system (involving some consistency of approach and minimum standards) to further encourage disposal of waste on land rather than offshore. The costs of this cost recovery system are not yet understood.

Relevance of measure and of costs: Port Authorities currently provide waste facilities for vessels to use, but not all regulations in the existing Port Waste Directive apply to all vessels. The additional costs of improving the provision of port reception facilities would depend on the extent of these improvements (including increased controls to ensure compliance) and on the revision of the Port Waste Directive.

It is important to note here that in practice tightened controls under this measure are highly unlikely to be implemented. The ships that are not covered under this directive are warships or vessels operated by the State for non-commercial purposes and tightened control to include these vessels could create a conflict with the MARPOL convention. Although there may be some scope to broaden notification requirement to include those that are exempted under current Directive requirements (see potential management measure for Provision of port reception for oily wastes). The UK-wide cost-recovery is also unlikely to be implemented as certain agreements have been reached between Government and ports to leave ports discretion to

Page 258 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

operate as they choose within the constraints imposed by current EU Directive on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues.

Retrieval of lost or abandoned fishing gear Lost or abandoned fishing gear if not retrieved causes either physical disturbance or physical damage to the marine environment. The possible impacts of lost or abandoned gear are continued catching of target and non-target species, alterations to benthic habitats, introduction of synthetic material into the marine food web, entanglement of marine organisms and also, habitat damage. On top of this, lost or abandoned fishing gear can result in significant social and economic costs to the marine users, e.g. navigational issues.

A variety of measures are currently in place to reduce the adverse impact of this problem. Reducing the impacts of lost or abandoned fishing gear can contribute to reducing the pressures from physical damage or removal of the seabed, and thus to achievement of proposed targets for other descriptors. In EU waters, the rates of permanent net loss (i.e. those that are not retrieved by owners) are quite low - less than one percent of the total nets deployed. An exception to this is the deep water net fishery in the North East Atlantic (Brown et al, 2005).

In general, fishermen make the effort to locate and recover their own gear as it has significant economic value to them but the extent to which this is done will depend on the time and cost involved. There are examples of gear retrieval programmes in the UK, i.e. collaborative projects with Ireland and Norway in the Northeast deepwater Atlantic gillnet fishery. Experience suggests that gear retrieval programmes are likely to be successful and cost-effective measures where gear can be located and retrieved quickly, or where the location of a significant amount of lost gear that cannot be recovered by regular fishing activity is known.

Costs: Costs of retrieval programmes depend on the agreed area of coverage and the number of days that vessel hire/use is required and are most likely to be covered by the fishing industry. For example, a retrieval programme for the deep-water monkfish fishery in the North East Atlantic has been budgeted at £124,980 and Norwegian Retrieval programmes are estimated to cost around £151,000 per year (Brown and Macfadyen, 2007, costs converted from € at £1:€1.15). A discussion of the damage costs due to lost and/or discarded fishing gear can be found in Macfadyen et al, 2009.

Relevance of measure and of costs: The application of this management measure will depend on the extent of the problem in UK waters. The Brown et al (2005) study gave a summary of the problem of net and pot loss in UK waters, but did not include loss of other types of gear. This could mean that the extent of this problem in the UK may not be fully known, therefore the cost of and the need for implementing this management measure in the UK is difficult to know. However, based on estimates of permanent gear loss in EU waters (less than 1%), costs of retrieval programmes

Page 259 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

in the UK may be low. Some form of gear retrieval is already in existence; as mentioned above, some fishers try to retrieve lost gear as it may be expensive to replace them (especially if the lost gear can be repaired, or are still relatively new).

Improving the function, storage and efficiency of combined sewage overflows and surface water drains Combined Sewage Overflows (CSOs) are systems that ensure that any excess flow of combined sewage is discarded in a controlled way at specified and managed locations. Combined sewage consists of business and domestic waste and rainfall that are carried within the same pipes before the treatment to discharge. These systems are responsive to heavier rainfall and occasionally the overloading has to be released which may increase the litter entering the aquatic environment from combined sewers. Further investment may be required to address the remaining, mainly low risk, overflows as most polluting overflows have already been addressed by a £2.5bn investment programme since the water industry was privatised in 1989 (Environment Agency, 2010a). The highest risk overflows have been rebuilt, improved or eliminated resulting in major improvements in water quality in our rivers and coastlines.

Costs: Water companies and regulators are committed to a continued programme of improvement to address unsatisfactory CSOs (Water UK, 2009). Overall this is expected to have a small impact on this source of marine litter, although impacts may be more significant in certain locations, in particular where pressure on CSOs results from seasonal tourism patterns.

Relevance of measure and of costs: No additional cost is projected to occur under the MSFD.

Behaviour and education This measure would promote communication and education about the problem of marine litter, aiming to stimulate a more pro-active approach to this problem through prevention and minimization. The effective education of all stakeholders and facilitation to change behaviour may result in self-policing practice that may extend in terms of effectiveness beyond direct measures that aim to alter behaviour in society as a whole. Costs are not known. As a measure that builds on existing information provision (e.g. onboard vessels), they could be incremental and therefore relatively low. However, in order to be effective in changing behaviour and, therefore, impacting on the status of Descriptor 10, the measures might have to be very extensive, and could therefore have high costs.

The most cost-effective behaviour and education based measures could be those targeted at specific sources of marine waste. 3-4% of beach litter is sewage derived and 70-80% of this is cotton bud sticks (Environment Agency, personal communication, May 2011). Therefore education of consumers to alter flushing disposal of cotton buds could be an effective measure.

Page 260 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

The following potential management measures to tackle sources of marine litter relate to options for management of materials and waste throughout society.

Regulation on manufacturing industry to improve recyclability of key products Recycling saves energy, reduces raw material extraction and combats climate change. It is shown by a number of studies that recycling our rubbish is better for the environment44 rather than incinerating or putting it into landfill, however, market participants should be encouraged to pursue recycling and business enabled to invest in innovative resource management, i.e. improve recyclability of key products and reduce waste. The UK already has a landfill tax escalator designed to encourage diversion of waste from landfill. However, this policy measure does not directly incentivise changes to the design of products to increase their recyclability or otherwise reduce their likelihood to be a source of marine litter at the end of their design life.

Labelling of products This potential measure is related to the above suggestion on regulation of manufacturing. An On-Pack Recycling Label scheme is already developed in the UK to send a message to consumers to help recycle more material. Retailers, manufacturers and brand owners who put packaged products on the market are all encouraged, but not required, to participate in this scheme. Legal enforcement may increase the amount of recyclable material within business and household waste. Overall the effect on marine litter from this measure is expected to be small. However, specific measures to label products that most often end up as litter in the marine environment, could provide a more direct measure to address marine litter sources. This measure only facilitates action, rather than drive it – it would still be up to the consumer to recycle the material.

Costs: Companies that sign up to use the label pay an annual subscription fee of £700. Charities and small independent businesses with an annual turnover of less than £5 million pay £275 (OPRL Ltd, 2011). The amount collected is used to monitor the overall scheme.

Relevance of measure and of costs: The effectiveness of this management measure in reducing litter that ends up in the marine environment is highly dependent on the overall recycling habits of people in the UK. The costs discussed above are costs incurred by companies which voluntarily sign up to the On-Pack Recycling Label scheme. However, the costs of a mandatory scheme will be different, as it will not only be industry that will incur costs, but the regulator as well.

44 Except in cases where it is not appropriate to recycle such as hazardous waste

Page 261 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Plastic bag levy It is shown by the experience of different countries that a plastic bag levy usually introduces a set of interacting effects on the environment, consumers, business, waste and local authorities. Environmental impacts depend on what consumers decide to use in place of plastic bags, i.e. not using a bag at all, using a paper bag or bag for life. It is shown that the positive environmental impact is higher if this levy also applies to paper bags. However, the impacts of this measure on the marine environment will depend on the incidence of plastic bags within marine litter. This incidence is complicated by ‘biodegradable’ plastic bags. Many such bags are only ‘bio-fragmentable’; they break into microscopic pieces but do not degrade and, therefore, negatively impact on the marine environment as micro-scale (but potentially very extensive) pollutants.

Costs: The following costs are from a study which looked at a proposed plastic bag levy in Scotland. The estimated total cost per consumer is £12.42 per year for a plastic bag levy. If paper bags are included and small to medium enterprises are excluded, this is estimated to fall to £2.93 per year. These costs were calculated from the amount of levy paid for carrier bags, the relative hidden costs45 of plastic and paper bags, the cost of buying additional heavy weight plastic bags that are called bags for life, the cost of buying additional bin liners, and additional VAT. The impacts on business vary from sector to sector, i.e. food retailers are likely to experience net benefit as costs for the purchase of plastic bags fall, non-food retailers are likely to experience costs increase as purchases of paper bags will increase. Manufacturers of plastic bags are likely to see reductions in business with potential loss of direct jobs. Local authorities are likely to experience the set-up and on-going administration of the levy - in total these are estimated to be £3.5 - £4.7 million per annum. These costs are likely to be offset by income from the levy estimated at £7.75 - £9.90 million pa (Cadman et al, 2005).

Relevance of costs of measure and of costs: There are existing plans in Wales to introduce a plastic bag levy46, and in Scotland, a similar bill was proposed but later withdrawn47. There are currently no plans to introduce a plastic bag levy in England, although there are calls for the introduction for this tax. The costs estimated in the Cadman et al (2005) study may be used to estimate the cost of a levy to England as there may only be small differences in the purchasing/shopping habits of English and

45 Hidden costs cover the purchase, transport and storage of bags by a retailer, normally passed on to consumer through the price of goods. 46 http://wales.gov.uk/docs/desh/consultation/090703wastecarrierbagsen.pdf 47 http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/bills/43-environmentalLevy/documents/43- Environmental_Levy_on_Plastic_Bags_Scotland_Bill.pdf

Page 262 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Scottish households and individuals taking into account the difference in population of likely consumers.

Bottle deposits Bottle deposits can be used to provide an incentive for empty bottles to be returned so that they can be reused. The deposit value of the bottle/container provides a monetary incentive to return bottle/container for recycling. The cost of the deposit is incurred by the purchaser of the bottle, providing an incentive not to litter and claim the deposit.

Costs: Depends on the amount of deposit that has to be paid as a proportion of the normal price, return rate of bottles and the additional administration costs of the scheme. Hogg et al (2010) study examined both ‘parallel’ and ‘complementary’ systems with a parallel scheme running alongside existing kerbside collections and a complementary scheme replacing the provision for recycling certain materials at the kerbside. The main difference that was captured when modelling these two systems was the return rate. The assumption was that the overall return rate of returned bottles by the complementary system were 90% and by the parallel system 80%. In comparison between the systems, the study showed that the complementary system leads to highest return rates, the lowest revenue from unclaimed deposits and, hence, the highest administrative fees. The key difference in terms of overall costs between the complementary and parallel systems is associated with the return rate itself, and subsequent implications of unclaimed deposits.

The figures discussed below are for a complementary system. It was estimated that the deposit refund scheme would require £84 million one-off costs for the initial setting-up in the UK. This cost would be covered within the first few years of implementation, and would be met by fees payable by producers and retailers as they join the scheme. Other costs involved are £700 million per year to run (£ in 2010 prices) and a deposit of 15p for containers less than 500ml, 30p for containers greater than 500ml (Hogg et al, 2010). £700 million cost per year would be partially met by producers and the amount of unclaimed deposits that may be substantial to reduce the costs to producers (approx £491 million). From the results in Hogg et al (2010), the estimated net present value of these costs for 2011 – 2020 is £6.1 billion.

Relevance of measure and of costs: Plastic is the predominant type of marine litter, and it takes about 500 years for plastic bottles to decompose. This means that having a deposit-refund system may help alleviate the problem of plastic bottles ending up in the marine environment, whilst tackling the disamenity related to litter. The costs presented in the Hogg et al (2010) study were estimated by creating a high-level model on the deposit-refund system which reflects the current retail environment in the UK. The estimated costs may be representative of the actual cost (if this management measure is to be introduced), but it doesn’t take into consideration other costs that will be involved (e.g. costs in consulting relevant stakeholders). Should a bottle deposit system be set up in the UK, it is likely to be in

Page 263 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

a parallel system implying higher revenue generated from unclaimed deposits, thus leading to lower administrative fees, but with the ultimate lower environmental benefit delivered.

Benefits of the Measures The potential management measures to address the pressures creating / increasing marine litter (descriptor 10), will also contribute to alleviating pressures on other descriptors (e.g. 1-6, 8-9):

Overall marine litter is an avoidable cost, but the scale of existing marine litter means that some of the costs of dealing with it will persist for generations. Nevertheless, preventing marine litter entering waters will reduce its future costs including local authorities’ clean-up costs and impacts on fishermen. Addressing marine litter would also reduce a wide variety of adverse environmental impacts to individual species, organisms and ecosystems in the marine environment. Marine litter affects the non- market value of the marine environment, through loss of environmental amenity, reductions in species abundance or damage to habitats.

2.2 Potential Management Measures to Address Underwater Noise

A number of measures are proposed to tackle problems of underwater noise. The measures directly relate to D11 - Underwater noise but are also relevant to other descriptors. Marine mammals have excellent underwater hearing and are, therefore, extremely sensitive to underwater noise. All the measures discussed in relation to noise are also relevant to D1 - Biodiversity and some may indirectly affect other descriptors (e.g. D3 – Commercial fish and shellfish, D4 - Food webs).

The effects of some of these management measures are small, while the effects of others are unknown. None of these management measures try to remove underwater noise; they only try to mitigate its effects. Additionally, some of these measures also introduce underwater noise (e.g. pingers to deter marine mammals).

The increased use of pingers to deter marine mammals Pingers are acoustic deterrent devices and are usually used to deter marine mammals from static fishing gear thereby reducing mortalities as a result of by-catch. However, these devices have the potential to be used to deter mammals from areas where noisy activities such as pile driving take place in order to minimise the risk of injury. For example, pingers have been used in wind farm construction in Denmark to deter harbour porpoises (Carstensen et al, 2006) but this study has not given new data on the effectiveness of this measure. There is not enough evidence, however, to show that these are effective deterrents for seals in areas where marine construction activities are going on as it has been observed that seals are able to associate pingers with aquaculture nets and food (the “dinner bell” effect), attracting them to the area. Evidence on the use of this management measure (i.e. the use of

Page 264 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

pingers to deter marine mammals from areas where noisy marine activities are happening) in the UK has not been found.

Costs: Potential use of pingers to deter marine mammals before and during noisy underwater construction activities would affect the offshore construction and renewables industries. Pinger devices can cost £1,660 for 80 units (around £21 each) (Gordon et al, 2007) and can be used repeatedly. The number of units needed depends on the area that needs to be covered. Also, different mammals respond to different sound frequencies and types of sounds, which means that there may be different types of pingers that need to be used in order to deter different species or species groups. The overall cost will vary according to area, density of pingers, and species to deter.

In relation to the Round 3 programme of offshore wind farm construction, then these devices can be used in UK sea regions 1-5: the Northern North Sea, Southern North Sea, the Eastern Channel, the Western Channel and the Celtic Sea and the Irish Sea.

The use of these deterrent devices during noisy construction activities is currently not mandatory but Environmental Impact Assessments may recommend their use in the future in order to clear an area of marine mammals. For use in offshore construction, the MMO, Marine Scotland, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Government and DECC (but only for oil and gas related construction activities) may be responsible in the regulation of the use of these pingers.

Relevance of measure and of costs: As mentioned above there is no evidence of the use of pingers for noise mitigation in the UK. Additionally, pingers do not reduce underwater noise levels; they only reduce interactions with affected species. This means that this management measure is not relevant to the indicators for noise, therefore will not help reach the targets for Descriptor 11.

The use of bubble curtains and other sound reducing technical measures during construction phase of some marine activities A bubble curtain is a ‘wall’ of air bubbles released around the location where a noisy underwater activity, such as pile driving, is being carried out. Bubbles are created by forcing air through small holes drilled in metal or PVC rings using air compressors, therefore, creating a barrier for sound transmission (Spence et al, 2007). The barrier that the bubbles create reduces the sound that can reach marine mammals and sensitive fish that are in the area. There is evidence that the use of bubble curtains has reduced sounds and thus the number of potentially injured fish significantly during pile driving (Spence et al, 2007). There have been several experiments on the effectiveness of bubble curtains for the attenuation of underwater sound (see Nehls et al, 2007 for a summary of these studies) and this technology is already widely available, but there is no evidence found on the use of bubble curtains in the construction phase of marine activities around the UK coast.

Page 265 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

The effectiveness of this technique in mitigating the pressure of underwater noise during pile driving depends on the “thickness” of the curtain, the size and density of the bubbles (many small bubbles preferable over a few large ones) and the distribution of bubbles (Longmuir and Lively, 2001). This technique is also more effective if a “sleeve” is used to confine the bubbles as currents affect the direction of where the bubbles rise. Additionally, this technique can only be used effectively in shallow and coastal areas and areas that do not have strong currents. In some parts of the world, bubble curtains are used in pile-driving activities (for example associated with harbour constructions) in order to mitigate the effects of underwater noise on marine mammals and other sensitive marine organisms, and therefore, can be used in the construction phase of offshore wind farms.

Costs: The offshore construction and offshore renewable energy industries will bear the cost of installing bubble curtains during the construction phase. The cost of installing a bubble curtain is dependent on several factors: the depth of the sea; the size of the pile driving area and the complexity of the system. Different bubble curtain options include:

 A confined bubble curtain system is a sheet of fabric, metal casing, or other material used to constrain the air bubbles to prevent breakdown of the bubble curtain from currents (Spence et al, 2007);  An unconfined bubble curtain has no protection by some material for the bubbles against currents; or  A bubble tree, composed of several rings (the device that release the bubbles) that are stacked vertically (with a given distance from one another) in order to help reduce the negative effect of currents on the bubbles.

An observed cost in previous projects of an “unconfined” bubble curtain has been estimated to be in the region of £34,560 - £138,250 per project, and £69,130 - £138,250 per project for a “confined” system (Spence et al, 2007, costs in US$ converted to £ at £1; $1.6). A cost of $4,000 (£2,500) of using an unconfined bubble curtain per pile has also been observed in one project (Laughlin, 2005a, in Spence et al, 2007). The differences in the costs of using bubble curtains are highly dependent on the system used (i.e. “confined” or “unconfined” system), if there is a need for a bubble tree (dependent on water depth, although bubble curtains are more effective in shallow waters), and on how many bubble curtain systems are needed at one time (one system is needed per pile driver). Even though piling is usually done one at a time, piling can be done simultaneously in an area. The installation of a bubble curtain system also adds to construction time, but with proper planning, delays can be minimised (Reyff, 2009).

In relation to the Round 3 programme of offshore wind farm construction, these devices can potentially be used in UK sea regions 1-5: the Northern North Sea, Southern North Sea, the Eastern Channel, the Western Channel and the Celtic Sea, and the Irish Sea. However, their use is restricted to shallow and coastal areas, and

Page 266 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

areas that do not experience strong currents, within these marine regions. If bubble curtains were to be used more extensively in the UK, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) could have some responsibility in overseeing its use.

Relevance of measure and of costs: The equipment needed to construct a bubble tree is widely available, which means that this can readily be used in UK waters. However, there is no evidence that this is used in the UK and it is unlikely that bubble curtains could be used for offshore renewable as they are not adequate for the oceanographic conditions of the UK marine area48. Bubble curtains are one of two technical measures that can reduce the spatial scale that noise can be heard49. However, overall, bubble curtains may have very small effects in achieving GES for Descriptor 11 as it does not reduce overall impulsive noise levels in a given spatial area. As for the costs described above, these costs have been observed from previous pile-driving activities in the US, but these costs may not be directly transferable into the UK due to differences in the costs of equipment and labour. However, these give an impression on how much each bubble curtain system may cost in the UK if they are used.

Temporal restrictions on seismic surveys or pile-driving Temporal restrictions on noisy underwater activities can be put in place at seasons when more marine organisms are at risk to the adverse effects of underwater noise. These restrictions can be put in place during migration or spawning seasons when more animals congregate in an area.

Costs: Underwater seismic surveys are usually used for exploration by the oil and gas industries and for other survey work (e.g. on underwater topography). On the other hand, pile driving is used by the offshore renewable industry in the construction phase. These temporal restrictions can be applied anywhere in the UK but may be concentrated in UK sea regions 3 to 5: the Eastern Channel, the Western Channel and the Celtic Sea, and the Irish Sea.

The most obvious costs involved with temporal restrictions are the costs incurred due to delays to the survey or construction activity involved. Currently, there is no evidence on how much lost time might be attributed to these temporal restrictions. However, proper planning can reduce these costs. DECC authorises any seismic survey activities related to oil and gas and other underwater seismic survey activities are licensed by the MMO, Marine Scotland, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Government. On the other hand, JNCC has established guidelines on

48 Sonia Mendes, JNCC, personal communication, June 2011. 49 Sonia Mendes, JNCC, personal communication, January 2012

Page 267 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

seismic surveys. These authorities currently do not impose extensive temporal restrictions on noisy underwater activities such as seismic surveys or pile driving. However, JNCC advises that seismic surveys do not begin at night unless adequate mitigation has been put in place50. Findings from Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) may result in some temporal restrictions on noisy offshore activities, which mean that this management measure is already in place (i.e. that restrictions are on a case-by-case basis, not specific restrictions on the period when noisy activities are not allowed). This means that there may be no or very little additional costs.

Relevance of measure and of costs: One of the indicators used in developing the target for underwater noise is the proportion of days and their distribution, indicating that some form of temporal restriction on noisy activities may be needed. However, these temporal restrictions may not be fixed (i.e. that there are certain times in the year that these activities are not allowed), but may be imposed because of the results of existing marine regulation (an EIA). Additionally, the real world application of the proposed target for indicator 11.1.1 is highly dependent on the target values which are currently being developed by Cefas and JNCC. Once target values are set up, it could be a case that this measure may result in more tightened regulations under the current policy regime, i.e. increased length of temporal restriction on seismic surveys or pile-driving under MSFD scenario. Therefore, the costs of a temporal restriction will be highly dependent on how further long the restriction are extended (as this may further more delay construction), but as mentioned above, proper planning can minimise these costs.

Reapplying routing measures to shipping to decrease noise in key habitats, migration routes for marine mammals and to reduce the risk of collision Shipping creates underwater noise (caused by the propeller) and this causes problems for marine mammals since the frequency band of the noise generated by shipping is the same as the one used by marine mammals for communication (OSPAR Commission, 2009). Collision risks are also present, especially to larger marine mammals and those that inhabit busy shipping lanes. Routing measures could not only reduce underwater noise in sensitive areas but also reduce the risk of ship strikes.

The busiest shipping areas in the UK can be found in the Northern and Southern North Sea (UK sea regions 1 and 2, especially in the English Channel), and in the Minches and Western Scotland (region 6); therefore, these may be the areas targeted when re-designating shipping lanes. However, an assessment between the

50 Holly Niner, JNCC, personal communication, June 2011.

Page 268 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

overlaps of these shipping lanes and key areas for marine mammals needs to be done first. A re-designation will be more effective if it is permanent rather than seasonal.

Costs: The costs to the shipping industry brought about by this measure will be the cost of fuel and time if the designation routing measure means it takes them longer to reach a destination or pass through the area. Fuel costs make up around 50-60% of total shipping costs (Lloyd’s Shipping Economist, 2008) and in 2008 marine bunker fuel prices went past $550 per tonne (World Shipping Council, 2008). Increases in shipping costs may be passed on to consumers through increases in the price of consumer goods.

The Department of Transport (DfT) and the Marine and Coastguard Agency are responsible on shipping matters in UK waters. Costs to these organisations of this potential measure would mostly be due to planning, administration and monitoring. Research on overlaps of shipping activity and key areas for marine mammals will also incur significant costs. Additionally, since shipping is an international industry, any such routeing would need to be submitted, with all necessary supporting evidence to the IMO.

Relevance of measure and of costs: There have been previous lanes routeing measures in other countries to protect key species51. However, for this to be done in the UK, a thorough assessment between the overlaps of these shipping lanes and key areas for marine mammals and other species needs to be done first. One of the indicators used to develop targets for Descriptor 11 is ambient sound, and shipping noise is considered an ambient sound. This means that this measure may help reach the target, although this does not minimise underwater noise, only displaces the location wherein the noise is concentrated.

The use of ship quietening technologies The parts of a ship or vessel that make the most noise are the propellers (due to cavitation) and thrusters. Modifications to these parts can help in decreasing underwater noise caused by shipping and there are technologies available to make ship propellers less noisy: “The design of a quieter propeller or thruster includes modifications to common design parameters and features, such as changes in tip speed, blade outline (‘skew’), blade sections thickness, propeller pitch-diameter ratio and its radial distribution, and even the number of blades” (Spence, 2007, p.42). However, the volume of noise generated is more dependent on the speed of the vessel compared to the size of the propeller.

51 http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/dolphins-mediterranean.html#cr

Page 269 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Shipping activity can be found in all of the UK waters but the busiest shipping lanes can be found in the Northern and Southern North Sea (UK sea regions 1 and 2, especially in the English Channel) and in the Minches and Western Scotland (region 6). If this management measure is implemented it may be permanent unless there are changes to some circumstances (e.g. no longer economically feasible to use these technologies).

Costs: Changes to propeller design to reduce noise will affect the cost of the propeller (Spence 2007). The cost of re-designing propellers will lie mainly in the adaptation of the machines that are used to manufacture them and not in the increased material costs (ibid). Additionally, the cost of a propeller will depend on its size, which in turn depends on the size of the vessel it will be used for. In general, modified propellers cost about 15-20% more than a conventional propeller (Renilson Marine Consulting Pty Ltd., 2009). One disadvantage of the use of these modified propellers is that some are not as efficient, therefore, may increase the carbon footprint of the vessel (ibid).

There are other ship quietening technologies that may be used and the costs of these differ (see Renilson Marine Consulting Pty Ltd., 2009 for details of these costs): “The costs associated with retrofitting such technologies into an existing ship will depend exactly on what is required, and on whether it can be carried out during a scheduled dry docking, or if it will need a dedicated dry docking. For example, the costs associated with retrofitting a 20,000 dwt containership will be in the range of £165,440-£463,240, and those associated with retrofitting a 250,000 dwt tanker will be in the range of ££397,060 - £1,853,000. Assuming that these technologies are fuel efficient, the increase in efficiency could result in an annual fuel saving of £330,890 - £661,770 for the containership, and £661,770 - £1,323,540 for the tanker (costs in US$ converted to £ at £1= $1.6)” (ibid, p.32). Costs will be incurred every time these technologies are fitted.

The decision to fit these technologies will be dependent on several factors including changes in fuel consumption (an operator/owner will not chose these technologies if it increases the fuel use of the ship, or if the cost of doing so is greater than the benefits) and requirements brought about by legislation. Owners may also choose to fit ship quietening technologies onto recently purchased ships (i.e. purchase of second-hand ships, not necessarily new-build ships) rather than retro-fitting existing vessels. However, vessel owners may also fit ship quietening technologies onto their existing fleet if this increases the sale value of the vessels, especially if there is a change in legislation requiring the use of ship quietening technologies. Costs of building quietening technologies into new or refurbished ships would be expected to be lower than retro-fitting them.

The Department for Transport (DfT) and its Maritime and Coastguard Agency would be responsible in the implementation of this potential management measure. It has to be pointed out that the implementation of this management measure needs

Page 270 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

coordination, international negotiation and agreement within the IMO. This is because of the nature of the shipping industry (i.e. it is an international industry), and vessels under the British flag may have a disadvantage if they are required to fit expensive ship quietening technologies and vessels operating under other flags are not. Vessels can also change the flag under which they are operating in order not to comply with UK legislation (if this measure becomes compulsory for UK vessels but not for others) and a ban on “noisy” vessels (i.e. those not fitted with ship quietening technologies) in UK waters is not feasible nor a good idea.

Relevance of measure and of costs: Shipping noise is the highest contributor of ambient underwater sound, and ambient sound is one of the indicators for Descriptor 11 used in the UK’s target development work. This means that this management measure could contribute to reducing ambient noise in UK waters. However, as pointed out above, the implementation of this management measure needs to be an international effort. As for the costs presented above, these estimates were made in the US, therefore actual costs in the UK may be different due to differences in labour and material costs. However, these estimates show the possible range of costs that vessel owners/operators may incur.

Speed limitations for ships at certain areas (e.g. areas close to MPAs) The speed of the vessel is the most important factor that determines the volume of underwater sound generated. Shipping occurs in all of the UK waters, therefore, this potential management measure may be applicable to all areas. However, it may be targeted at particular areas, such as around marine protected areas, especially the ones that are designated in order to protect species sensitive to underwater noise and those that are at risk of death due to collisions (collisions above 14 knots will result in death for larger cetaceans52). It may be implemented permanently but on a seasonal basis. This measure may also affect larger fishing vessels. Navigational safety issues also need to be taken into account. For this reason, the agreement of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency would be an essential precondition of any such measure.

Costs: A reduction in the speed of vessels may reduce fuel costs but bring an opportunity cost of time for the vessel and crew due to the speed reduction. As with the management measure of re-designating shipping lanes, the increased operation cost to shipping this management measure creates may be passed on to consumers. However, planning may help to reduce costs. If this potential management measure is implemented, the Department of Transport and the

52 Eunice Pinn, JNCC, personal communication, June 2011.

Page 271 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Maritime and Coastguard Agency are the governmental bodies responsible for implementation.

Relevance of measure and of costs: This management measure helps to decrease ambient noise in certain areas, which means that it could help reach targets for indicator 11.2.1 (trends in ambient noise). However, properly identifying the benefits relative to the cost (if this measure is to be implemented) needs to be done because the additionality of the benefits of this measure may be low (i.e. only a small proportion of organisms affected by noise actually benefit from the reduction in noise).

‘Soft-start’ practices for noisy activities ‘Soft-start’ means that noisy activities start at a lower intensity in order to allow marine mammals and other organisms to leave the area or to habituate (i.e. get used to) the noise. Soft-start is already used for engineering reasons, but it could be extended in order to reduce potential impacts on marine mammals (i.e. injury). It is recommended that the soft-start duration should not be less than 20 minutes (JNCC, 2009). This practice may be used during seismic surveys, pile driving and other noisy offshore construction activities, and is suitable for use in all UK waters. This practice is already recommended by JNCC to protect marine mammals and other sensitive organisms as part of the consents process. Even though there is no regulation to enforce soft-starts, there is widely practiced by the industry. Even with soft-start procedures in place, there is still the risk of injury to marine mammals due to underwater noise, therefore the JNCC guidelines has stated that noisy offshore activities cannot be started if there is a sighting of a marine mammal within 500 metres of the source during the 20 minute period53.

Costs: There is no special technology needed to implement a soft-start procedure, therefore no additional costs would be incurred relating to this. However, a trained marine mammal observer is needed prior to and during the soft-start procedure, therefore there is the cost involved in this. Additionally, pile driving operations usually involve, in general, a period of strikes with lower amplitude in order to protect the pile driver when entering the substrate. So in practice, the industry is already applying a soft start incurring no additional costs. Costs may change if regulations are put in which increases the length of the ‘soft-start’ phase of the activity. However, proper planning on how to best incorporate soft-start procedures during pile-driving or seismic survey activities may help to minimise the additional costs incurred.

53 http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/JNCC_Guidelines_Seismic%20Guidelines_Aug%202010.pdf

Page 272 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Pile driving as part of wider construction activity is regulated by the MMO, Marine Scotland, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Government and DECC and is likely to be subject to EIA. Seismic surveys are similarly consented by the MMO, Marine Scotland, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Government and DECC.

Relevance of measure and of costs: Soft start procedures are used in order to keep the injury zone (i.e. the 500 m radius around the pile driver) free from marine mammals, therefore reducing the risk of injury to them. The noise threshold in the proposed targets for indicator 11.1.1 are based on the temporary threshold shift (TTS) criteria by Southall et al (2007). These are suggested to ensure that no animals are exposed to sound at this level anywhere in the operation area (i.e. there could be animals within 1 m of the pile driver), therefore reducing behavioural disturbance such as marine mammals moving away from the area because of the underwater noise, thus changing their distribution within a particular area. However, soft start procedures do not reduce underwater noise during the duration of the pile driving activity, therefore it will not have a contribution to the achievement of targets for indicator 11.1.1. As briefly mentioned above, the piling industry already undertakes soft-start practices in order to protect equipment; therefore an extension of this soft-start practice will not be as disruptive compared to when the practice is not already in place.

The use of pile sleeves during pile driving A pile sleeve works in a similar way to a bubble curtain except that it is made from a different material. It surrounds a pile in order to reduce the noise emitted during pile driving, and the reduction can be up to 20 dB depending on the material the sleeve is made from (Nehls et al, 2007).

Pile driving is usually used by the renewable offshore industry in the construction of offshore wind farms. In relation to the Round 3 offshore wind farm programme, pile sleeves can be used in UK sea regions 1-5: the Northern North Sea, Southern North Sea, the Eastern Channel, the Western Channel and the Celtic Sea, and the Irish Sea. However, the use of this technical acoustic mitigation device is suitable for all of UK waters.

Costs: Pile sleeves can take two different forms: an inflatable piling sleeve and a telescopic double-wall steel tube (with foam in between the double wall). The costs of manufacturing and installation of these forms are shown in Table A13-1.

Page 273 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Table A13-1. Costs of Pile Sleeves

Inflatable piling sleeve Telescopic double-wall steel tube Manufacturing cost £2,391,000 £521,739 (midpoint of £2,173,913- £2,608,696) Installation cost per pile £17,390 £21,739 Cost for 100 piles £4,130,000 £2,696,000 Prices converted from € at £1=€1.15 Source: Nehls et al. (2007)

The costs in Table A13-1 do not include the costs of winches and other auxiliary devices.

Pile sleeves have been used in the construction of the Walney offshore wind farm in the UK (in the Irish Sea) before54, but these were used to aid in construction – to guide the pile driver into the seabed—rather than to mitigate noise (i.e. the pile sleeve may not be made of material which impedes noise). It may have had an effect in decreasing underwater noise, but the actual effects on underwater noise during construction of this specific wind farm was not observed or recorded. Since there is no legislation on the use of pile sleeves for offshore pile driving in the UK, pile sleeves are not widely used. The use of pile sleeves may not be compulsory, but will be on a case-by-case basis, dependent on the results of an Environmental Impact Assessment assessed by the relevant regulatory authority, which could be the MMO, Marine Scotland, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Government, or DECC.

Relevance of measure and of costs: As mentioned above, pile sleeves are already used in the construction phase of offshore wind farms in the UK, but the purpose of these are not necessarily for noise mitigation. The technology to construct a pile sleeve (that mitigates sound) is already available and it is better than bubble curtains at depths of more than 30 metres. It is also one of two technical measures (the other being bubble curtains) which helps to minimise the spatial zone where adverse impacts may occur. However, this measure is not likely to allow targets for underwater noise to be reached as it does not reduce noise down to proposed threshold levels. The costs presented above are estimates coming from experiments (Nehls et al, 2007) done on the effectiveness of pile sleeves in noise mitigation. Costs of applying this technology in the UK may not be significantly different from the estimates.

54 http://www.foundocean.com/webpac_content/global/documents/more/Case%20Studies/Case%20Study%20- %20Walney%20Offshore%20Windfarm%20Substation%20P1.pdf

Page 274 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

3. Interference with Hydrographical Processes

The potential management measures in relation to direct impacts on hydrographical processes address the pressures of:  Physical loss from the seabed;  Physical damage to the seabed;  Changes in turbidity;  Interference with hydrographical processes;  Changes in temperature, and  Barriers to species movement.

The main descriptor that is relevant to this set of measures is D7 – Hydrographical conditions. However, as these measures target a number of different pressures, there is a significant relevance to other descriptors, such as D1 - Biodiversity; D4 - Food webs; D6 - Sea floor integrity and D2 Non-indigenous Species. Note that measures to reduce physical damage to the seabed caused by fishing activities are considered separately in section 4 of this appendix as there is no direct link with D7 – Hydrographical conditions. The potential management measures assessed are applicable to large coastal and offshore infrastructure. Most of the potential measures to control interference with hydrographical processes deal with offshore construction and development. They fall into two broad groups: those that minimise impacts through planning decisions (e.g. by controlling the location, density and type of development) and those that minimise the impacts of the consented developments, during and after its construction. A further set of measures involves practices that directly alter hydrological conditions through coastal engineering.

3.1 Measures to Minimise Impacts through Planning Decisions

Controls or limitations on the scale of development The current development of a marine spatial planning system through the MMO’s powers under the Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009) and Marine Scotland’s under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 provides the ability to efficiently plan the use of the marine environment.

It should be noted that strategic spatial planning of the marine environment is not entirely new, having already been carried out in relation to use of assets (e.g. by The Crown Estate). Marine planning is undertaken by a single authority (the MMO for England and Wales and Marine Scotland for Scotland) with government determined objectives, which allows for the minimisation of conflicts. Therefore, spatial restrictions on marine sectors will not necessarily be additional. The level of additional impacts will depend on the development of the marine spatial planning system, and how it pursues its objectives, including contributing to the MSFD. It is too early to assess whether additional widespread controls or limitations on the scale of marine developments will be required to implement the MSFD. However, some

Page 275 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

specific potential restrictions on marine sectors can be considered in more detail as examples of potential implementation measures.

Density controls of offshore renewable development A major driver of development in the UK marine environment is the current programme to expand offshore renewable energy generation capacity due to the UK’s commitments to reducing carbon emissions. Although a number of technologies can potentially be used to generate renewable energy from the UK marine environment (e.g. wave, tidal, biofuels), only wind power is currently technologically advanced enough so as to be deployed at a commercial scale. While other technologies may reach that point before 2030, this analysis of renewables focuses on wind power.

Individual wind turbines are not likely to significantly affect hydrographical conditions. However, in the future, cumulative impacts from wind turbines and cables could adversely affect hydrographical conditions, although there is significant uncertainty in this area. The planned scale of deployment of wind power generation in UK marine waters is substantial. The growth of total offshore generation of renewable energy (installed capacity) across four scenarios defined by ODIS (2011) project a range of between just over 25GW of generation to 60GW of generation, by 2030. This range covers scenarios which will meet the EU targets for renewable energy generation by 2020 and are within the scope for transmitted energy capacity.

The impacts of potential measures to control the density of offshore wind power are difficult to predict. Several possible scenarios can be defined representing high, medium or low impacts from this measure:

 A high impact scenario is that the restrictions bring additional costs to offshore wind construction that mean it is no longer commercially viable in some parts of the UK marine environment. If this was the case across a significant area, it could have impacts on the UK’s ability to respond to the threat of climate change by reducing its emissions of greenhouse gases from energy generation. This could also have implications for the UK’s fledgling marine renewables sector (for example by deterring investors55). Should such impacts arise there would likely be a strong case to assess whether this measure was disproportionately costly.

55 A recent study commissioned by Renewable UK (2010) concludes that the success of the offshore wind farm industry is dependent on increased supply chain confidence which could bring about a reduction in capital costs of between 15 to 20%.

Page 276 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

 A medium scenario is that restrictions would marginally increase the costs of marine wind power construction but do not deter construction. These marginal costs could arise due to an increase in the level of information required before development consents are granted. These requirements may arise in environmental impact assessments of proposals and/or more intensive surveying may be required to ensure that planned locations of turbines are acceptable.

This may alter the extent and location of construction but not to the extent that it had overall impacts on the sector (as in the ‘high’ scenario above). In this case, the impacts depend on the baseline level of development that would have occurred had the restrictions not been in place. The baseline level of development will depend on the characteristics of potential areas of sea (e.g. in terms of water depth, access to Grid connections and other spatial restrictions). Areas further offshore are generally more expensive and shallow water is generally more attractive.

 A low impact scenario is that the restrictions, if built into the spatial planning process and into wind farm construction proposals from the outset, would not increase the costs of marine wind farm construction in the UK.

Relevance of this measure and costs: It is arguable if the planned density of offshore wind farm development in the UK is likely to have impacts on D7 – Hydrographical conditions, therefore this measure may be irrelevant in meeting the targets, once defined, of D7 – Hydrographical conditions. Note that the array scale and cumulative impacts are currently being investigated to further provide evidence in the implications of management measures for D7 – Hydrographical conditions. However, if restrictions from the MSFD are introduced in a way that prevents the construction of wind farms for which plans have already been progressed, there can be substantial costs to developers. For example, based on figures used to analyse the potential impacts of site restrictions on approximately 10GW of initial wind farm developments at Dogger Bank56, potential sunk development costs are estimated to approximately £10m per GW. However, it is assumed that most MSFD measures are planned over sufficiently long timescales and in consultation with stakeholders so that they will not impose constraints on development at short notice. Therefore, such costs could be assumed to be avoided.

56 http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/DoggerBankSAC_ConsultationIA160810.pdf

Page 277 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Placement of offshore renewable energy generating schemes that minimises impacts on important bird feeding areas This measure is intended to contribute to D1 - Biodiversity, but its impacts on marine activities would be expected to be similar to those identified for the measures to control or limit the scale or density of marine developments, in particular offshore renewable developments, discussed above.

A further issue is that controls on marine developments to deliver different aspects of GES (e.g. for Hydrography and for Seabirds) could, in combination, have greater effects than the sum of their parts if they raise costs to such a level that they deter development altogether, rather than just increase its costs. If this deters activities from using UK waters at all, this may have significant impacts on the UK economy.

Sector specific guidelines It is possible that potential measures to achieve GES for hydrographical conditions and other descriptors like D1 - Biodiversity and D6 - Sea Floor Integrity, would be carried out through changes to the guidelines given to the operation of specific marine activities. These could be implemented through voluntary/best practice guidelines or through licensing conditions in marine sectors.

The costs of adjusting specific guidelines could involve one-off costs in making the alterations, to both the body responsible for the guidelines and for those they applied to (e.g. through the need to alter company operating procedures), and any increased costs of implementing them. However, it is assumed that the current marine licensing regime is generally sound, so that the extent of any changes under this potential measure would not be likely to be extensive.

An indication of the costs of this potential measure can be ascertained from the costs already faced by those undertaking marine activities. For example, environmental impact assessments (EIA) for marine aggregates and the oil and gas sectors can vary from £200,000 to £800,00057. The costs of these assessments might be increased incrementally (e.g. by 10 – 20%) by this potential measure which could increase the costs of each EIA by £20,000 - £160,000.

The overall costs of more detailed EIA would depend on the number of activities facing this requirement. This would be determined by the level of activity in relevant marine sectors and the types and/or of activities the requirement applied to. The types and/or scale of activities covered could depend on the scale at which GES is assessed. The larger the scale it is assessed at, the larger the impacts of any one activity would need to be before it might be required to produce more detailed EIA.

57 http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/DoggerBankSAC_ConsultationIA160810.pdf

Page 278 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

There might also be costs from carrying out strategic environmental assessment for marine developments, to account for the cumulative effects of many individually minor activities.

Multiple use of marine area to maximise use of area Within the developing marine spatial planning systems in the UK, some stakeholders have suggested that optimal use of the marine area could be made by zoning areas of sea for simultaneous multiple uses. An example of this is the location of aquaculture between wind farm pylons.

Such suggestions have great potential to manage the spatial footprint of different marine activities and minimise their impacts on the environment. However, the potential for activities to co-locate in this way is largely speculative or theoretical. Relatively new marine sectors, like renewable energy generation, already face significant challenges in their own development and to manage their costs to become economically viable. Further complications arising from co-locating with other marine activities in multiple-use areas are considered too complex to deal with at present. Nevertheless, developing multiple uses of marine areas remains a measure with significant long-term potential.

It is difficult to assess which stakeholders would be affected by this measure, as this depends on what activities may be “put together” in future multiple use areas.

These potential measures addressing hydrographical conditions have overlaps with several other Descriptors. It could also contribute to delivery of descriptors 1 - Biodiversity, 4 – Food webs and 6 – Sea floor integrity. However, if it results in wind farms being built in more dispersed locations and/or across greater areas of UK marine water, it could have negative impacts on descriptors:

 D2 – Non-indigenous species, as the possibility of wind turbine bases acting as stepping stones for NIS would be increased, and  D11 – Underwater noise, as it could lead to a greater noise footprint during the construction of wind farms.

This potential measure to minimise impacts through planning decisions could obviously have significant consequences for the renewable energy industry. As described above, their implementation would involve the developing of marine spatial planning systems in UK waters. Many stakeholders in those systems could be affected by them, including a range of marine sectors, MMO, Marine Scotland, Welsh Government, DOENI, Defra, DECC, The Crown Estate and JNCC.

Measures to minimise impacts during/after the operation of offshore developments Once permission has been granted for marine activities to go ahead, the manner of their operation can still be controlled in order to manage their impacts on hydrographical conditions. This management can take place through conditions

Page 279 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

placed on activities when developments are licensed, or on activities that are part of those activities ongoing operations, e.g. discharges.

Discharges control (e.g. saline or freshwater discharges) During the operation of marine and coastal developments, discharges may be made to the marine environment. These can impact on the marine environment in a number of ways. In terms of introducing contaminants and/or nutrients, relevant measures are considered under descriptors 8 - Contaminants, 9 – Contaminants in seafood and 5 - Eutrophication. However, the volume of water discharged and its characteristics, e.g. temperature, could have impacts on hydrographical conditions, and controls on these impacts are considered here.

Some of these impacts on hydrographical conditions would be expected to be controlled by existing licensing for discharges, and in coastal waters would be expected to be controlled by measures under the Water Framework Directive. However, some controls on discharges could be additional to these existing controls. Impacts that need to be assessed potentially include:

 Tidal barrage proposals;  Tidal lagoons e.g. Swansea and Solway Firth;  Salinity plumes from the construction of gas storage reservoirs or from de-salination plants for fresh water; and  Thermal plumes from new power stations.

All of these activities involve relatively large-scale activities with significant economic value that could alter discharges of water into the marine environment. Any disruption to them from this potential measure could be expected to involve substantial financial costs and, therefore, to be an area where analysis could examine whether costs were disproportionate. The implementation of potential discharge control measures will also depend on the types and/or scale of activities covered and could depend on the scale at which GES is assessed. The larger the scale it is assessed at, the larger the impacts of any one activity would need to be before it might be subject to restrictions.

This potential measure has overlaps with:

 D1 – Biodiversity, through the influence of discharges on flora and fauna;  D2 – Non-indigenous species, as discharges can create environmental conditions more conducive to non-indigenous species; and  D3 – Commercial fish and shellfish, due to effects of discharges on marine fish and shellfish species.

The stakeholders potentially affected by discharge control measures include those making discharges to the marine environment (e.g. desalination, waste water sectors) and organisations that regulate activities that make significant discharges to

Page 280 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

the marine environment (e.g. Environment Agency, MMO, Marine Scotland, Welsh Government, DOENI, DARDNI, Defra, DECC, JNCC).

Decommissioning of installations and structures Decommissioning relates to the removal, disposal or re-use of a structure once it is no longer needed for its current purpose. This will be most relevant for a number of the approximately 470 offshore oil and gas installations in UK waters58, the majority of which can be found in the Northern, Central and Southern North Sea59, as well as for offshore wind turbines in the future.

OSPAR decision 98/3 prohibits “the dumping, and the leaving wholly or partly in place, of disused offshore installations within the maritime area”, with some derogation for footings of large steel installations installed before the 9th February 1999 (when the decision came into effect). The varying types of installation offer different options for decommissioning60.

Deloitte and Douglas-Westwood (2010)61 estimate that the UK will need to decommission more than 260 offshore oil and gas installations over the next 30 years, at a cost in excess of $30bn (excluding wells, pipelines, manifolds and umbilicals). The majority of this is expected to take place between 2017 and 2027, and investment in more vessels is likely to be required to avoid bottlenecking.

Oil & Gas UK (2010) estimate total decommissioning costs to be £21bn by 2030 and £26bn by 2040, with costs having risen around £3bn since the previous year. The costs of decommissioning vary across regions depending on the depth of the water, types of installations and the number of wells; central and northern North Sea fields are predicted to cost around £140m each to decommission compared to £40m in the southern North Sea. The report also provides a breakdown by activity.

DTI (2007) provides another estimate of the cost of decommissioning, at £15bn to £19bn over 30 years, with a range of £5m to £500m per project. However, of greater interest are estimates for decommissioning offshore wind turbines. The lack of previous experience generates a good deal of uncertainty, but they cite work by Climate Change Capital that estimates a cost of £40k/MW. Wave and tidal devices vary between £25k - £100k/MW.

This measure is already covered through existing regulation. However, if there is any scope under the MSFD scenario, it is likely to be to ensure that the works of

58 http://www.oilandgasuk.co.uk/knowledgecentre/decommissioning.cfm 59 https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/information/bb_updates/maps/Infrast_Off.pdf 60 Chapter 7, DECC Guidance Notes: Decommissioning of Offshore Oil and Gas Installations and Pipelines under the Petroleum Act 1998 (updated 2011) 61 UKCS Offshore Decommissioning Report 2010 - 2040

Page 281 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

decommissioning are below the MSFD thresholds for the relevant descriptors. Potential additional controls to minimise the impacts of marine activities through changes to decommissioning of marine installations has overlaps with:

 D1 - Biodiversity and D6 - Sea floor integrity, through the habitat that is left in place after decommissioning; and  D8 - Contaminants, as different approaches to decommissioning marine structures (e.g. oil and gas drilling platforms) can cause different releases of potential contaminants into the marine environment.

Potential additional controls for decommissioning could also have negative impacts on D11, noise, as different approaches to decommissioning marine structures (e.g. extent to which they are broken up and removed) can introduce different levels of noise into the marine environment.

The stakeholders potentially affected by decommissioning control measures include those using large structures in the marine environment (e.g. offshore renewable industry, coastal infrastructure, oil and gas), and organisations that regulate those activities (e.g., MMO, Marine Scotland, Welsh Government, DOENI, DARDNI, Defra, DECC, JNCC).

Direct measures to alter hydrographical conditions In addition to the measures to control impacts on hydrographical conditions, discussed in the two sections above, potential MSFD management measures will also need to consider interventions in the marine and coastal environment, through engineering projects that directly alter hydrographical conditions.

Measures to control deliberate hydrographical intervention for environmental and social gain Examples of interventions in the marine and coastal environment can alter hydrographical conditions include flood risk management measures, such as construction of structures like the Thames Barrier, and alteration of embankments through managed realignment. Such measures mainly impact on coastal and shallow water areas as interventions in deeper offshore areas that would alter hydrographical conditions are not currently feasible in an engineering sense.

The construction of marine and coastal structures that could have a negative impact on hydrographical conditions (such as flood defence or tidal barriers) are major engineering projects, and highly expensive. They already face significant environmental regulations, for example through the requirements of the Habitats Directive and Water Framework Directive (WFD). Under the Habitats Directive, damage to designated marine and coastal habitats (including many of the UK’s estuaries), would only be permitted if necessitated by activities with overriding public interest and meeting other conditions.

Page 282 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Most of these kinds of projects take place in coastal waters and are covered by the requirements of the WFD in relation to hydromorphology. Therefore, measures may not be additional due to the MSFD; the exception to this will be any projects which have a significant negative affect beyond coastal waters.

These current management powers, therefore, mean they are only likely to be undertaken when the benefits from doing so are judged to be very significant. Such significant benefits mean that any restrictions on them as a result of measures taken under the MSFD that prevented their construction in order to prevent deterioration of hydrographical conditions could impose very high costs and, therefore, could be assessed for disproportionate costs.

Alternatively, interventions such as managed realignment may have positive impacts on hydrographical conditions. The adoption of such practices as management measures under the MSFD would require them to be implemented at a scale sufficient to influence GES. This would either mean that GES was assessed at a local level, or that managed realignment was adopted on a very large scale. Managed realignment can be cost-neutral in certain circumstances. This is most likely if it replaces existing embankments that are in poor condition (so require investment of some kind already) and if it increases the protection offered to flood embankments by intertidal habitats, and therefore requires a lower standard of engineering, and cost, of embankment to deliver a certain level of flood risk management. In contrast, if implemented where embankments are in good condition and already well protected by intertidal habitat, it is likely to be less cost-effective.

Potential measures to control marine activities that directly alter hydrographical conditions have overlaps with D1, D3, D4, D5 and D6, biodiversity, fisheries, food webs, eutrophication and sea floor integrity, respectively. Each of these descriptors relies on good hydrographical conditions as part of the overall conditions necessary to achieve good environmental status.

They could also have negative impacts on D8 – Contaminants and 9 – Contaminants in seafood. The movement of contaminants in the marine environment is strongly influenced by hydrographical processes. Any restoration of those processes could make historical contaminants that are currently stored in marine sediments bio- available, therefore increasing their levels in marine waters, and in fish and shellfish for human consumption.

Placement of coastal defence and marine structures that minimises impacts on benthic habitats This measure is intended to contribute to D1 – Biodiversity, but its impacts on marine activities would be expected to be similar to those identified for the measure for deliberate hydrographical intervention for environmental and social gain, discussed above, and the controls or limits on the scale or density of marine developments, in particular offshore renewable developments, discussed earlier.

Page 283 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

4. Adverse By-products of Human and/or Sectoral Activities

Potential management measures that aim to address adverse by-products of human and/or sectoral activities are relevant to descriptors 5 – Eutrophication; 8 – Contaminants and 9 – Contaminants in seafood. Other descriptors that are (positively) affected by the potential management measures are 1 – Biodiversity; 4 – Food webs and 6 – Sea floor integrity.

The potential measures that have been discussed above aim to address the pressures of:

 Contamination by hazardous substances;  Systematic and/or intentional release of substances; and  Nutrient and organic matter enrichment.

The potential management measures considered can be divided into two groups: those that aim to address the by-products from human activities that enter the marine environment at source and those that aim to deal with their impacts after they have entered the marine environment.

When taken together, the effects of these management measures on the pressures they aim to alleviate may be large or high. However, management measures that address the pressure at their source are more effective compared to those that tackle the problem when it reaches the marine environment. Apart from addressing the pressures which may result in the increase of the provision of some ecosystem goods and services, these management measures may have other economic benefits. For example, non-toxic epoxy coatings for antifouling have higher longevity and can reduce the costs in repainting the hull of ships/vessels in the long run. Additionally, the future banning of slightly toxic copper based paint may incentivise the use of non-toxic paints because it will increase the value of (leisure) boats with non-toxic coatings (Johnson and Miller, 2003).

Assessing the consequences of these responses to the potential management measures is complex and undertaking it for the wide range of measures covered is beyond the scope of this interim analysis. Further analysis will be undertaken for selected measures, for example, where economic impacts appear to be important and which offer the best potential options for policy implementation.

4.1 Potential Management Measures to Address Adverse By-products at Source

Use of non-toxic anti-fouling paint for ships Anti-fouling paint is used on the hulls of ships and boats to reduce or remove the risk of barnacles, seaweed or slime creating bacteria attaching to the hull, thus reducing drag, increasing fuel efficiency and reducing the risk of the introduction of non-native species. However, some highly toxic paints have an adverse effect, such as

Page 284 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

imposex, on non-target marine organisms (especially ones found near ports or marinas). The use of highly toxic anti-fouling paint (e.g. tributyltin or TBT) is already banned but the use of slightly toxic paint (e.g. copper-based) is still permitted. This potential management measure can be implemented by requiring vessels operating under the UK flag to use non-toxic paints. However, this option is not considered effective since other ships (that operate with a different flag) that may have toxic surfaces would still be allowed to enter UK waters. It would put UK-flagged vessels at a competitive disadvantage, and given the ease of changing the flags ships are registered to, would be unlikely to be very effective. It could only be operated effectively through international agreement achieved via the IMO.

Alternatively, applying the potential measure in all of UK waters (in ports or marinas) would involve restricting access to UK waters of vessels that have toxic surfaces. Since monitoring activities on the ban of the use of highly toxic antifouling paint is already in place, extension of this activity to cover all toxic paints may incur modest additional monitoring and enforcement costs (e.g. for the Marine and Coastguard Agency, port authorities). Restricting toxic-surfaced boats from UK waters will also have significant economic implications as parts of the international fleet would be restricted from entering UK waters. In order to realise a high level of effectiveness of this measure there needs to be international cooperation.

Costs: The financial costs of applying non-toxic anti-fouling paint on boats/ship depends on the size of the ship and the type of paint/material used. The cost faced by boat and ship owners and operators may increase per paint coating. For example, for recreational boats, preparation and painting costs can range from £23.02/foot of boat length (copper-based) to £38.37/ft (non-toxic epoxy coatings) an increase of 66% (Johnson and Miller, 2003, costs for recreational boats, converted to £ using £1=$1.60). The efficacy (i.e. anti-fouling capacity) and longevity of the paint/coating and the time for preparation involved are other issues that need to be taken into consideration when assessing the economic cost to owners or operators of boats and ships of different approaches to coating ships. A further factor is that reducing fouling decreases drag resulting in greater fuel efficiency for ships. This can decrease fuel costs by 6% - 45% depending on the size of vessel (Magin et al, 2010), thereby also reducing carbon emissions.

There is a potentially negative impact of this management measure on descriptor 2 - Non-indigenous species. Use of low friction paints is less effective in reducing hull fouling compared to toxic paints and so increases the risk of introduction of non- indigenous species via fouled hulls of vessels.

Relevance of measure and of costs: The use of non-toxic anti-foul paint is not a dominant source of copper concentrations that exceeded EQS values; therefore, it is unlikely that this measure would have an effect on targets for contaminants, specifically indicators 8.1.1 - concentration of contaminants and 8.2.1 - biological effects of contaminants. Non-toxic anti-fouling paint is already widely available in the

Page 285 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

UK but the cost of these types of paint is significantly higher than standard anti- fouling paint. The estimates shown above may not be directly transferred to the UK but it shows the costs of different types of anti-fouling paint if it was felt that use of non-toxic anti-foul was a necessary measure.

Provision of port reception for oily wastes The International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78) requires States to provide ‘adequate’ port reception facilities and this includes reception facilities for oil and oily mixtures generated during the service of the ship. Regulation on the provision of port reception for wastes (including oil and oily waste) is already in place in the UK under the Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Port Waste Reception Facilities) Regulations 2003, which is a product of the EU Directive on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (EU Directive 2000/59/EC) and also pursues the same aim as the 73/78 MARPOL Convention.

Costs: This management measure already exists and is currently being applied to all of the UK. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) is responsible for overlooking this management measure. Port authorities are responsible for providing waste reception facilities and the revision to the Port Waste Reception Facilities Regulations 2003 states that vessel operators are responsible in:

 Notifying the port/terminal of the details of the waste it is carrying, and intends to land, in advance of arriving. Fishing vessels (of whatever size) or recreational craft authorised to carry, or designed to carry, no more than 12 passengers are exempt from this requirement;  Offloading all ship generated wastes to appropriate reception facilities (unless they have previously notified that they will be retaining wastes on board), and  Paying a mandatory fee with respect to the provision of port waste reception facilities.

This shows that the costs of disposing (oily) wastes are borne largely by the owner/operator of the vessel during each disposal activity; these costs include admin (e.g. filling out paper work on the details of the waste being disposed), disposal (e.g. man hours to offload waste) and the fee for the use of the waste facilities. As for the port authorities, there is the initial cost of providing the waste reception facilities and the additional costs of maintaining or replacing it, although this may be covered by the fee that is paid by each vessel during disposal. Contractors may also be brought in to dispose of the waste. The costs incurred by the MCA are largely due to monitoring and reporting of compliance to the EU Commission and to MARPOL.

Not all regulations in the existing Port Waste Directive (and the UK’s implementing Regulations) apply to all vessels. The costs of the provision of port reception facilities in future may depend on the revision of the Port Waste Directive. However, it is unlikely to cover all vessels in practice due to other agreements within MARPOL Convention because of their status and commitment to the state. Despite this, as

Page 286 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

mentioned before, there may be some scope to tighten controls, i.e. under notification requirement, and include those vessels that are exempt from this requirement.

Relevance of measure and of costs: Port Authorities already provide waste facilities, including facilities for oily waste, as this is a requirement of the Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Port Waste Reception Facilities) Regulations 2003. However, the main problem lies in the inadequate control and monitoring to ensure that vessels discharge their oily waste properly (i.e. do not discharge them at sea). This means that this regulation would need to be revised in order to decrease the volume of oily wastes being illegally dumped at sea. The costs incurred by the industry and the regulators would depend on the extent of the revision of the Port Waste Directive.

Improved sewage water treatment In the UK, there are different companies that are responsible for treating sewage/waste water, and there are about 9000 wastewater treatment works in the country62. There are four main stages in the treatment of waste water: preliminary, primary, secondary (biological) and tertiary treatment. The number of stages applied depends on the quality of discharge which will not have an adverse effect on the environment. A permit to discharge is required by all treatment works and these permits take the form of a consent from the Environment Agency in England and Wales, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Northern Ireland Environment and Heritage Service.

Costs: This management measure is already covered under the Water Framework Directive. Additionally, the waste water treatment industry is continuing to invest in improving treatment facilities63 which means that additional costs from this measure are likely to be minimal or none.

Improving the function, storage and efficiency of combined sewage overflows Improvements to the management of combined sewage overflows to reduce inputs of nutrients to the aquatic environment are already being undertaken in response to other regulations (e.g. EC Urban Waste Water Directive and the Water Framework Directives); therefore, additional costs of implementation in relation to the MSFD are not expected. There may be a need to extend UK eutrophication monitoring in relation to this potential measure, although this would probably be limited to sensitive regions

62 http://www.water.org.uk/home/news/press-releases/wastewater-pamphlet/wastewater-web--2-.pdf 63 http://www.water.org.uk/home/policy/positions/combined-sewer-overflows/csos-sept-09.pdf

Page 287 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Measures that directly address agricultural nutrients Agricultural nutrients cause eutrophication which can have adverse effects on pelagic habitats and the species which live in these habitats.

There are several specific measures that could be classified under this broad management measure. This may include the treatment of water runoff, proper soil management and the discontinuation of excessive fertiliser use.

Costs: The costs of management measures that directly address agricultural nutrients will differ according to the specific measure but the agricultural sector will be mostly affected due to necessary changes in existing practices. Regulators of these management measures such as Defra, the Environment Agency and the Devolved Administrations will also incur costs in implementation. However, several existing Directives (e.g. Nitrates Directive, Water Framework Directive) already address agricultural nutrients; therefore the costs of these management measures may not be additional to the MSFD. There may be a need for more stringent regulations but these can be extensions of ones that are already in place.

Control and manage discharge of hazardous chemicals and substances from source into the marine environment Improvements to the management of discharges of hazardous chemicals and substances into the marine environment are already being undertaken in response to other regulations (e.g. EC Urban Waste Water Directive and the Water Framework Directives); therefore, additional costs of implementation in relation to the MSFD are not expected.

Limits on aquaculture feed Uneaten feed that is used in finfish aquaculture can increase nutrient build-up in the water leading to eutrophication. By limiting the number of times fish are fed or the volume of feed used, there is less risk of waste which has an environmental and economic implication. There is a strong economic incentive to feed fish at the rate or amount wherein waste is minimised and the feed conversion rate (the fish’s efficiency in converting eaten feed mass into increased body mass) is maximised. Legislation on animal feed, which includes feed for farmed fish, is harmonised at EU level.

This management measure is applicable to all UK waters, especially where marine finfish aquaculture is concentrated: the Northern North Sea (UK sea region 1), the Irish Sea (region 5) and the Minches and Western Scotland (region 6). Most finfish aquaculture follows a cycle (from rearing to sale); therefore, the amount of feed that is used and the costs will vary on this cycle and the age of the fish.

The requirements of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) apply to aquaculture; therefore, the additional impacts of the MSFD in this area may be low or nil. The finfish aquaculture industry’s current response to the problem of nutrient build-up below aquaculture nets is to move to more exposed locations where currents quickly

Page 288 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

disperse waste, thereby reducing the risk of eutrophication. Additionally, improved fish husbandry practices are allowing the industry to have a smaller environmental impact. Even though there are no direct regulations on the amount of aquaculture feed that can be used at any one feeding schedule, aquaculture producers, under the WFD, are obliged to make sure that these activities do not result in adverse effects on the marine environment.

Costs: Limiting aquaculture feed can take different form: limiting the number of times the fish are fed, the type of feed that is used or the technique by which the feed is dispensed, and these entail different costs to the producers of finfish aquaculture products. In order not to sacrifice increase in fish body mass, limiting the number of times fish are fed may be compensated by increasing the volume of feed that is given. If statutory limits on (the amount of) aquaculture feed were put in place, then the additional cost of doing so may lie in the time used in filling out paperwork to record the amount of feed given.

The competent authority in the UK that is responsible for overseeing feed used in aquaculture is the Food Standards Agency, however, it does not have a remit in controlling the amount of feed used. Therefore, if the MSFD resulted in controls of aquaculture feed amounts it would require a new regulatory mechanism.

Relevance of measure and of costs: Most of the offshore aquaculture sites in the UK can be found on the west coast of Scotland (rearing Salmon), whilst the ones in England and Wales are shellfish aquaculture sites. Scotland’s Marine Atlas’ overall assessment has concluded that eutrophication is not an overall widespread problem in Scotland. However, there are some hotspots in the west coast of the country but it is not indicated whether these are in the immediate vicinity of aquaculture sites. This means that this management measure is not necessary for the purpose of the MSFD unless there is a significant expansion of the aquaculture industry.

Decrease in the use of pesticides Improvement to the management of pesticides in order to protect freshwater environments is already being undertaken in relation to the EC Water Framework Directive. Pesticides generally enter the marine environment via freshwater systems, there are not expected to be, therefore, additional costs of implementation in relation to the MSFD.

4.2 Potential Management Measures to Address Adverse By-products in the Marine Environment

Remediation of contaminated sediments This potential measure involves treating an area of seabed by removing the contaminated sediments. It removes the existing stock of contaminated sediments but does not address the source of the contamination. However, for historical sources of contamination, the source(s) are not relevant. Due to the potentially high costs of remediation, this potential management measure is usually only applied

Page 289 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

when there is a high risk of disturbing the contaminated sediments through some other activity (e.g. construction). If a planned activity will disturb sediments and contaminate the surrounding waters, then remediation may be considered to prevent this. An alternative scenario is that seabed erosion can also cause the redistribution of the contaminated sediments. This may be a factor if new areas become subject to erosion as a result of climate change (e.g. due to sea level rise and associated changes to coastal currents, especially around estuaries). It is not always clear as to who is responsible for paying for the remediation of contaminated sediments. The “polluter pays principle” is not so straightforward to apply since, most of the time, there are several sources of contamination and some of these sources may be historical (so do not exist anymore). In the UK, levels of contaminants in sediments are generally fairly low, apart from estuaries which have been previously heavily contaminated by industrial and domestic discharges (Clean Seas Feeder Report, Charting Progress 2). Application of this management measure is highly local; it is only applicable to areas of the UK seabed that have contaminated sediment and where this contamination carries a high risk of affecting the surrounding environment and organisms.

Relevance of measure and of costs: As this measure deals with relatively small scale localised impacts it may not have a significant effect on the overall achievement of targets for GES. The baseline would cover the cases where a developer wishes to dredge an area of contaminated sediment and must, therefore, treat it before disposal. The additional measure under MSFD scenario would be remediation of undisturbed contaminated sediments that would essentially require an operator, harbour authority or some other body to decontaminate certain areas of river/seabed because they are acting as a source of continuing pollution. There could be very significant costs on operator/harbour authority and regulatory authority (which could be the marine licensing authority or potentially the Environment Agency if the problem is upstream). The costs of undertaking the activity of remediating contaminated sediments would depend on the type of contaminant and the clean-up method that is used. A study by Mulligan et al (2001) looked at the costs of different techniques of remediating contaminated sediments that have been done in the US. In terms of dredging up the contaminated sediments, it has to be highlighted that this option cannot be applied if there is no viable option for treatment or disposal (Blake, 2009).

Bioremediation of oil spills Bioremediation is defined as the ‘act of adding materials to contaminated environments to cause an acceleration of the natural biodegradation process’ (US Congress Office of Technology Assessment, 1991). Bioremediation of oil spills can be done through fertilisation (method of adding nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, to a contaminated environment to stimulate the growth of indigenous micro-organisms which break down the oil) or seeding (adding of micro-organisms to the spill site which can break down the oil).

Page 290 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

For practical reasons, this management measure is usually applied in the UK on oiled beaches along the coast. In the open ocean, dispersants are always more effective because bioremediation requires the oil to be in a concentrated area. Shipping and oil platforms are the main sources of oil spills but there is also the possibility of oil seeping from pipelines. The oil and gas industries are primarily located in the Northern North Sea (UK sea region 1), the Irish Sea (region 5) and the Minches and Western Scotland (region 6); therefore, spills from oil platforms are most likely to be in these areas. On the other hand, shipping-related spills could be anywhere in the UK but tend to be concentrated in the Southern North Sea (region 2), Eastern Channel (region 3) and the Western Channel and the Celtic Sea (region 4). The majority of costs associated with this measure are variable costs in proportion to the scale of oil pollution incidents affecting the coasts. However, there are also fixed costs in relation to maintaining the UK’s oil-spill response systems and relevant resources that would be needed to implement it (e.g. equipment, staff).

Costs: The cost of bioremediation is usually lower than other remediation techniques because the equipment used and logistics involved are simpler and less labour intensive (US Congress Office of Technology Assessment, 1991), which means that this technique is a relatively cost-effective remediation approach. Costs will depend on the size of the area that needs to be treated and the severity of the problem. However, the total cost of clean-up needs to be considered and not just the cost of using the technique itself. Further research into the overall effectiveness of bioremediation still needs to be done, which may entail significant costs. It also has to be pointed out that environmental damage may be less if the oil spill is addressed straight away, rather than waiting until oil is deposited onto the shore. The costs of the level of environmental damage would need to be taken into account in assessing whether this is a cost-effective potential measure under the MSFD.

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) is the competent authority in the UK which has a National Contingency Plan to respond to Marine Pollution. Other agencies – local authorities and bodies with environmental responsibilities, may have a smaller scale plans including a responsibility to review industry specific oil pollution plans.

Relevance of measure and of costs: This technique is already used in the UK, therefore, there will be no additional costs under the MSFD. Additionally, the costs of using this management measure can be recouped from the international oil compensation fund, so there are no additional costs in implementing this measure. However, there may be further research into the overall effectiveness / appropriateness of bio-remediation needed and there will be costs involved in this.

Remediation by managed biology An example of this management measure is the use of shellfish (e.g. mussels) or sea plants to clean contaminated estuaries or areas that have high nutrient levels. This management measure is likely to be used in a highly localised manner, in areas

Page 291 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

of the UK that have problems of contamination. The temporal scale of implementation is also variable, depending on the habitat of the species involved (i.e. you can only use a species on areas that they can establish and flourish in). Although it is already widely known that shellfish can filter and remove contaminants and nutrients, further research is needed into this potential management measure’s effectiveness. An area that requires further work relates to descriptor 10 – Marine litter – there is increasing evidence that mussels can filter microplastics. Once fully understood, there will be further costs involved in sourcing the shellfish or sea plants used, and from managing them, and these will vary depending on the size of the site and the volume of shellfish or sea plants.

5. Biological Disturbance

The potential management measures under this heading address the pressures of:

 The selective extraction of target and non-target species (including by-catch);  The introduction of non-indigenous species and translocations;  The introduction of microbial pathogens;  Contamination by hazardous substances;  Physical loss of species and habitats, and  Physical damage to species and habitats.

The main descriptor that is relevant to this set of pressures is 1 – Biodiversity; but the measures are also relevant to other descriptors, including 2 - Non-Indigenous Species; 3 - Fisheries, 4 - Food webs and 6 - Sea floor integrity. The 2-3 March 2011 Cefas measures workshop identified 24 potential management measures in relation to biological disturbance:

 The majority of these management measures relate to controls on fisheries, so are dealt with under ‘controls on fisheries’ in the following section.  Another pressure that is addressed by a number of potential management measures is the introduction of non-indigenous species and translocations.

5.1 Potential management measures that address the introduction of non- indigenous species and translocations

England, Wales and Scotland have a joint strategy for addressing non-indigenous species and Northern Ireland is in the process of creating one. The GB (England, Wales and Scotland) Strategy 'provides a framework for a more co-ordinated and structured approach to dealing with non-native species and any potential invasive threat in or to Great Britain. It includes better co-ordinated and strategic prevention measures aimed at reducing the introduction of damaging non-native species into Great Britain. Its implementation will enable more rapid detection of potentially invasive non-native species through improved and better targeted monitoring and surveillance’ (Defra, 2008). It recognises that for the successful implementation of

Page 292 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

the strategy, there needs to be cooperation between all stakeholders and better public awareness and understanding of the issues surrounding non-indigenous species and their effects on the environment.

Eradication of invasive, non-indigenous mammals in seabird colonies Two thirds of the total population of seabirds in the UK breed on offshore islands (Mitchell and Ratcliffe, 2007) such as the ones in Western Scotland. On some of these islands there are mammals that predate on the eggs, chicks and the seabirds, which can have an adverse impact on the seabird populations. For example, by 2007, several islands in Western Scotland have lost all species of breeding seabirds due to mink predation (Craik, 2007).

Eradication of these invasive, non-indigenous species in seabird colonies refers to an intentional extermination in order to protect local wildlife, especially seabirds. There have been positive experiences in previous attempts to eradicate invasive mammals in seabird colonies in the UK such as the Brown Rat eradication programme in Handa Island in Sutherland, Scotland in 1997 (Stoneman and Zonfrillo, 2007). This eradication programme has resulted in benefits such as the increase in the range, colonisation and increase in population of some species.

Costs: There are several stakeholders that will implement the eradication programmes and bear the costs. These costs depend on the area where the planned eradication will take place and the species to be eradicated. These stakeholders may be wildlife or environmental authorities (e.g., Natural England, Countryside Council for Wales), other non-governmental organisations (e.g. Scottish Wildlife Trust, RSPB), and volunteers may be involved as well. The costs incurred will be due to planning, the purchase of the necessary equipment (or bait/poison/drugs) that will be used for eradication, the time involved in laying down the traps/bait/poison/drugs and the necessary follow-up such as monitoring the status of the invasive species. Planning may be the most expensive part of the operation as there is a need to clearly identify the feasibility of undertaking the programme and the steps and precautions needed during the eradication programme. Feasibility should be assessed ‘on the basis of the most relevant biological characteristics of the target species, the ecological relationships of the species with the invaded area, the socio-economic aspects, the political commitment, the legal framework, public support and the availability of funds’ (Invasive Species Ireland, Invasive Predatory Small Mammals on Islands Strategy, p.15). The size of the population of the invasive species, its distribution and the size of the area of its distribution will also influence the cost of the eradication programme.

This management measure may only have to be implemented once, or several times, depending on circumstances such as the effectiveness of the technique used and the probability of a new batch of invasive non-indigenous species re-colonising the area. However, there is evidence which shows the effectiveness of this

Page 293 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

management measure. Decisions on the implementation of this management measure are done on a case-by-case basis and they will be attributed to the requirements of the Birds and Habitats Directive, therefore will not be additional to the MSFD. However, it may not be feasible to apply this management measure to all seabird colony areas around the UK that also house invasive mammals. The risk or probability of the decline or collapse of the colony also needs to be taken into consideration. Additionally, the status of the invasive species (whether it is a protected species under different Directives or regulations) also needs to be taken into account as there will be a need to apply for a license to eradicate these species.

It has to be noted that although this management measure deals with invasive species, it is directly aimed towards achieving GES for Descriptors 1 - Biodiversity and 4 - Food webs and not for Descriptor 2 – Non-indigenous species.

Quarantine measures for mammals on vessels visiting important island seabird colonies There are several vessels which visit important island seabird colonies in the UK. These vessels are used for monitoring/research or tourism/nature watching purposes. Some invasive mammals such as rats can stow away in these vessels and colonise the islands with seabird colonies and this can have a significant negative impact on the population of the seabirds due to predation on the eggs or chicks of these birds or on the birds themselves. Quarantine for mammals on vessels may be done to prevent the invasion by, or re-introduction of, invasive mammals in important seabird colonies.

Costs: The cost of the implementation of this management measure will be borne by the owners/operators of the vessels which visit these islands and the regulators which are likely to be environmental & navigation authorities (e.g. Marine Scotland, MCA). The costs to the regulators will mainly be due to implementation of quarantine regulations or guidelines and monitoring compliance of vessels. On the other hand, costs to vessel owners/operators will be the cost of compliance - the costs of putting traps in vessels and the costs involved in admin required for reporting purposes. Effective quarantine measures may also increase the inconvenience for those who visit these islands for nature watching, which means that there may be a decrease in the number of visits (Oppel et al, 2010), reducing the revenue of tour operators.

To ensure the effectiveness of this management measure, it is necessary for it to be implemented permanently in order to reduce the risk of invasion or re-introduction. Additionally, it may not feasible to apply this measure to all seabird colonies around the UK which means that a risk-based approach (i.e. whether there is a high risk that invasive mammals will cause a decline or collapse in the populations of seabirds in a specific area/island) needs to be taken.

Page 294 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Like the previous management measure, this is directly aimed towards achieving GES for Descriptors 1 – Biodiversity and 4 – Food webs and not for Descriptor 2 – Non-indigenous species.

Prohibit imports of high risk species In the European Community Area, there is a ban on the import of four non-native species but there have been cases wherein the European Commission took action against a Member State which has banned certain non-native species (e.g. case C131/93—imports of live freshwater crayfish to Germany)64 as these have been viewed as a barrier to trade within the EU. Currently, there is no existing UK legislation on the ban of imports of certain species but there are existing controls on the import and keeping of non-native species65. There has also been a consultation on the proposal for the ban of sale of some non-native plant and animal species66.

Costs: The full ban of imports of high risk species within the EU is unlikely in the near future as this is seen as a barrier to trade. However, if this management measure is introduced the cost will mainly lie in monitoring entry points of these species (i.e. to make sure that none are smuggled into the UK). There will also be costs involved in prosecuting offenders.

Since this ban is related to trade, the regulatory agencies that would be responsible for this management measure are Defra and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS, formerly known as the Department for Trade and Industry), and the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Ban on keeping and sale of known invasive species (to eliminate risk of release/introduction into the wild) There is an increasing trend in the UK in the sale and keeping of non-indigenous species, not only for commercial (e.g. for aquaculture) or ornamental purposes, but also as pets. Currently, there are existing controls on the import and keeping of non- native species and the escape of and release (without a license) of non-indigenous species into the wild is illegal under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act67. Offences under section 14 of the Act carry a maximum penalty of £5,000 (£40,000 in Scotland) and/or 6 months imprisonment on summary conviction and an unlimited fine and/or 2 years imprisonment on indictment68.

64 https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/nonnativespecies/downloadDocument.cfm?id=155 65 http://archive.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/wildlife/management/non-native/documents/nn-import-leaflet.pdf 66 http://archive.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/wildlife/management/non-native/documents/consultation.pdf 67 http://archive.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/wildlife/management/non-native/documents/section-14-guidance.pdf 68 https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/nonnativespecies/index.cfm?pageid=67

Page 295 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Costs: A ban on the most invasive (and destructive) species is possible with the existing legislation in the UK69 but this needs complete cooperation with industry (e.g. ornamental and pet industry) and a comprehensive and effective monitoring and reporting system. This is to eliminate the risk of a black market for these species being established which can still result in their introduction into the wild. A ban on the keeping and sale of known invasive species may need to be incorporated with a ban on the import of these species. This is because usually the import of these species is the step prior to these species being sold and kept.

If a ban is implemented it would be throughout the whole of the UK. Defra, Marine Scotland, the Welsh Government and DOENI will be responsible for the implementation of the measure but other government agencies (e.g. JNCC, Scottish Natural Heritage) will also have responsibilities in monitoring.

Screening of international imports for disease and hitchhikers (live or dead) Trade can be a vector for the introduction of invasive species in the UK, as these species can “hitchhike” on plants, animals or other items. Screening imports, especially live plants or animals, can reduce the risk of the introduction of non- indigenous species (or the diseases of non-indigenous species). England, Wales and Scotland have a joint strategy for addressing non-indigenous species70, while Northern Ireland is in the process of developing its own71. These strategies do not explicitly mention the screening of imports but they imply that this may be implemented if a high risk of introduction through imports could be found. On the other hand, the 2005 Plant Health Strategy for England already inspects imported plants for diseases and other organisms which have the potential to turn into invasive alien species.

Costs: This management measure, if implemented will be put in place in the whole of the UK permanently. The complete removal of the possibility of invasive species being introduced through imports can only be done if all imports into the UK are screened. However, mandatory screening of all imports that may carry disease or hitchhikers in all of the UK will be expensive and time-consuming. A risk based assessment could instead be carried out in order to identify the most likely “carriers” of non-indigenous species or diseases and these potential carriers could then be screened.

69 http://teesvalleybiodiversity.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2009/03/reviewofnonativespecieslegislationandguidance_DEFRA.pdf 70 https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/nonnativespecies/downloadDocument.cfm?id=99 71 http://www.doeni.gov.uk/invasive_alien_species_strategy_consultation_document.pdf

Page 296 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

The regulatory bodies responsible for this measure are the relevant Defra agencies (e.g. Cefas for imports of fish), Marine Scotland, the Welsh Government and DOENI.

Management of ballast water Non-indigenous species can be transported into the UK via the ballast water of ships and these species can cause significant adverse environmental and economic effects. The UK is a signatory to the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, otherwise known as the Ballast Water Management Convention, which aims to ‘prevent the potentially devastating effects of the spread of harmful aquatic organisms carried by ships' ballast water from one region to another’72. This requires all signatories to adopt a ballast water and sediment management plan. The UK is not intending to ratify this convention in the near future as it has outstanding concerns related to enforcement and sampling73.

Costs: A legally binding ballast water management plan is not yet in place in the UK. However, shipping agents, ship owners and masters of UK Flag vessels are strongly urged to follow the existing and operational guidance in the 1997 ‘Guidelines for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water to Minimize the Transfer of Harmful Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens’. Under this Guideline, ships are required to carry ballast water management plans which include ballast water management for safe ballast water exchange at sea74. The last of these guidelines are expected to be agreed upon by the end of 2012. The UK has also been developing a regional Ballast Water Management Strategy for the North East Atlantic75 as part of international commitments. The role of this strategy is to allow provisional procedures to be put in place, but this strategy tries to reduce the risk of introduction rather than completely eliminate the risk of introduction.

As vessels are currently not legally bound to use specific ballast water treatment technologies. The costs of ballast water management vary according to how ballast water is managed and treated. If a specific statutory plan on ballast water management is put in place as an additional measure under the MSFD, the Department of Transport and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency will incur costs in developing and implementing this plan. There might also be costs incurred by these regulators in enforcing and possibly monitoring for compliance. On the other hand, the costs incurred by the owners or managers of vessels may be related to time

72 http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-for-the-Control-and- Management-of-Ships%27-Ballast-Water-and-Sediments-(BWM).aspx 73 Godfrey Souter, Department for Transport, personal communication, January 2012 74 Maritime and Coastguard Agency Marine Guidance Note 81 (M+F) 75 http://www.dft.gov.uk/mca/0607_ballast_water.pdf

Page 297 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

spent reporting and recording ballast water unloading activities, or the fees payable to use ballast water reception facilities, but these will depend on the exact requirements put in place in the management plan.

Additional management of hull cleansing, e.g. Making biofouling guidelines mandatory Currently, there are no mandatory or common guidelines that cover how vessels are cleaned from biofouling. There is some advice available on how to clean boats responsibly (i.e. lessen the risk of introducing non-indigenous species) but these are usually provided by non-governmental organisations. There is also an existing government initiative to stop the spread of invasive aquatic species76. This is targeted mainly to smaller vessels and individuals not to larger ships and vessels.

Costs: If a guideline on hull cleansing is developed, this would need to be applied permanently to cover all marinas, ports and harbours in the UK. The initial cost to the regulator, possibly the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, will be the cost of drawing up these guidelines. There may be additional costs due to monitoring (i.e. that guidelines are being followed). As for the owners or operators of vessels, the costs incurred will depend on what has been set out in the guidelines. For example, if the guidelines require vessel owners/operators to keep records of the hull cleaning activities, then this will result in time costs for keeping records. Also, if they are required to use certain equipment or techniques in removing biofouling, then this will incur costs as well.

Mandatory use of biosecure treatment facilities in marinas Vessels (mostly those that are less than 1500 gross weight tonnes) are treated from biofouling either by scrubbing the hull whilst the vessel is in the water or by removing the vessel from the water. However, there is evidence that removing vessels from the water for treatment has the risk of introducing (mobile) non-indigenous species (Coutts et al, 2010). The use of biosecure treatment facilities aims to reduce this risk of introduction.

Costs: If this management measure is implemented, then this would need to be applied permanently to all marinas and ports in the UK and compliance will be monitored by local port/marina/harbour authorities or the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.

There is no available evidence on the current use of biosecure treatment facilities in the UK. There is an available ‘closed-loop system’ that removes the risk of anti-foul

76http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Environmentandgreenerliving/Thewiderenvironment/Protectingwildlife/DG_196114? CID=EAL&PLA=url_mon&CRE=check_clean_dry

Page 298 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

paint residues being introduced into the environment from the water used to wash the vessel down77. This system, however, does not aim to eliminate the risk of NIS being released into the water during the hull cleansing process.

An estimation of the costs of enclosed treatment facilities for yachts (i.e. the costs of components and the different configurations, and operational costs) has been done by Aquenal Pty Ltd (2009) in New Zealand78. However, directly translating these costs into costs for the UK may be a bit misleading since some of the costs considered are shipping costs from Australia to New Zealand of the components (as most of them come from Australia) and the cost of operating the systems (e.g. cost of labour and rent fees in marinas) between the UK and New Zealand will be considerably different. Additionally, some of the equipment (e.g. pipes, pumps) and cleaning solutions (e.g. vinegar, acetic acid) are widely available in the UK and will also vary in cost. Table A13-2 shows the costs of the different system configurations, excluding shipping and installation costs. It has to be pointed out that there is very low confidence in the applicability of these costs in the UK because of the reasons stated above.

If the provision of these facilities is the responsibility of port authorities, then the majority of the cost of provision may come from the costs of acquiring and installing the facility and the cost of managing it. There may also be a cost attributable to monitoring compliance. However, these costs may be recovered by charging vessels for the use of the facilities. As for the vessels which use the treatment facilities, then the costs involved will be the user fee (annual or pay per use), labour or time costs (for cleaning the vessel) and the cost of other materials used for cleaning.

77http://www.rya.org.uk/sitecollectiondocuments/marketing/marketingpublications/Web%20Documents/ClosedLo opAntifoulFactSheet.pdf 78 http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/pests/salt-freshwater/yacht-enclosure-report.pdf

Page 299 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Table A13-2. Cost for the three IMProtector configuration systems

Item Cost inflated to 2011 prices, £ (£1= NZ$ 2)

Mobile System 15 x 6 metres IMProtector 5,191 Pump – petrol – 4 hp 600 L/min 50 mm 465 Filter – cartridge – 14.5 kg – 500 L/min – 50 mm 296 Plumbing – Flexible pipe and strainer box 27 Total cost 5,979

Canister system installed in a permanent marina berth 15 x 6 m Roll-up IMProtector 3,633 Canister and reel 19,888 Canister mounting 635 Mixing tank – 900 L plastic rainwater tank 264 Scavenger tank – 2100 L plastic rainwater tank 422.5 Pump – electric – 600 L/min – 50 mm 620 Filter – sand – 440 kg – 500 L/min – 50 mm 1,344 Plumbing – 48 m pipe, 6 valves, 6 x 90 angles, 4 x 374 T joiners, 5 m flexible pipe, strainer box Total cost 27,180.5

Canister system installed in an independently moored marina berth 15 x 6 m Roll-up IMProtector 3,633 Canister and reel 19,888 Canister mounting 635 Independent marina berth 22,409 Swing mooring for independent marina berth 10,324 Pile mooring for independent marina berth 6,538 Mixing tank – 425 L plastic rainwater tank 193 Scavenger tank – 900 L plastic rainwater tank 264 Pump – petrol – 4 hp 600 L/min 50 mm 465 Filter – cartridge – 14.5 kg – 500 L/min – 50 mm 296 Plumbing – 24 m pipe, 6 valves, 6 x 90 angles, 4 x 370 T joiners, 5 m flexible pipe, strainer box Total cost for system moored on piles 54,691 Total cost for system moored on swing mooring 58,477

Page 300 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Mandatory guidance on small vessel water exchange The Ballast Water Management Convention focuses mainly on ballast water of ships, as these are larger in volume and they travel great distances which means that the ballast water they take in is from a different ecosystem than where they release this water. This ballast water has a greater risk of carrying “stowaways” and then introducing them into other ecosystems. However, small vessels such as yachts also carry ballast water to aid with stability and this ballast water also has the potential to carry non-indigenous species.

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s Marine Guidance Note 363 (M+F) - The Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments - has been developed for ships and larger vessels and do not directly cover smaller ones.

Costs: If a mandatory guidance on small vessel ballast water exchange is to be created, the initial cost will lie in the development of this guidance and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency will incur this cost. The implementation of this management measure would need to be throughout the UK and would be permanent. Owners/operators of small vessels will also incur costs associated with the time involved in filling out forms and in the process of water exchange, especially if this exchange can only be done in a certain area in or outside the marina. Additionally, they may have to pay a fee to use any facilities/equipment which are built specifically for small vessel ballast water exchange.

Mandatory codes of practice for limiting spread of NIS (e.g. on aquaculture movements) Article 9.3.1 of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries states that efforts should be undertaken to minimize the harmful effects of introducing non- native species or genetically altered stocks used for aquaculture including culture- based fisheries into waters, especially where there is a significant potential for the spread of such non-native species or genetically altered stocks into waters under the jurisdiction of other States as well as waters under the jurisdiction of the State of origin79. However, in the UK, there is no mandatory existing code of practice for the aquaculture industry on fish movements in order to limit the spread of NIS.

In the UK, movements of live aquaculture products (e.g. fish, shellfish, baitworms) are monitored by the relevant Fish Health Inspectorates - Marine Scotland for Scotland, Cefas for England and Wales and the Department for Agriculture and Rural development in Northern Ireland (DARDNI). These bodies perform inspections/checks on aquaculture products that are transported within the country, and those that are imported. In England and Wales, aquaculture production

79 ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/v9878e/v9878e00.pdf

Page 301 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

businesses (APBs) need a ‘Section 30’ consent from the Environment Agency before live fish is moved to and from any inland waters80.

There are several existing legislations that cover aquaculture and the keeping and transport of non-native species, such as the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act and the prohibition of Keeping and Release of Live Fish (Specified Species) Order 1998 (as amended). These, in a way, limit the spread of non-indigenous species into the wild.

Costs: This management measure, if implemented, would be permanently applicable to all UK aquaculture production businesses. The likely governmental bodies that would draw up this code of practice would be Defra, Marine Scotland, the Welsh Government and DARDNI, and monitoring (for compliance) will likely to be under the remit of the Fish Health Inspectorates.

The initial cost would lie in the creation of a code of practice and it is likely that there would be consultations with the aquaculture industry and other stakeholders (e.g. angling industry), implying significant time costs. There would also be costs involved in monitoring compliance and costs involved in possible prosecutions/charges to those who are caught violating.

It has to be pointed out that the keeping and transport/movements of aquaculture products, especially non-native aquaculture products, already require licenses - in England, aquaculture production businesses are required to have the Imports of Live Fish Act (ILFA) License, the Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) License and the Section 30 Consent, depending on the nature of their business and where the fish are kept/released. For the aquaculture industry, the costs would depend on the details of the code of practice. If they are required to keep records of fish movements, then the cost will be none or minimal as this is already required by some existing legislation (e.g. ILFA). On the other hand, if the code of practice requires APBs to use certain technology/equipment to prevent the escape/unintentional introduction of a non-native species, then there would be a cost attributed to this.

Planned changes in aquaculture regulation or those that are currently being amended will also affect decisions on whether to draw up a code of practice for aquaculture. This is because a mandatory code of practice could be seen as an extra ‘regulatory burden’ on the industry, if put in place, and because regulations may be adequate in controlling the release of NIS into the wild.

80 http://www.defra.gov.uk/aahm/guidance/movements/

Page 302 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

5.2 Fisheries management measures

Management measures to control the adverse impacts of fisheries are a key aspect of controlling several of the pressures considered above, in particular physical loss and damage to the seabed, other physical disturbance and biological disturbance.

The 2-3 March 2011 Cefas measures workshop covered a range of measures relating to fisheries under the seabed disturbance and biological disturbance pressures. However, in order to consider the impacts on the sector as a whole, the measures involving fisheries are considered together here.

The list of potential fisheries measures considered is in Table A13-3.

Table A13-3. Potential Fisheries Measures to Address Impacts on the Seabed and Biological Features

Measure Ban of fishing gears that are most damaging to the seabed Measures re: seabed Modification of fishing gear that are most damaging to the seabed habitats Spatial restriction on areas that trawling/scallop dredging is allowed Fisheries management regime (Quotas) Fishing for litter scheme Measures re: biological Gear restrictions/modifications to prevent by-catch of mammals disturbance Less destructive fishing gear Rights-based management Capacity control measures Removing tax exemption on diesel Other effort restrictions Technical measures, e.g. Gear, mesh size, selectivity, etc. Measures to protect key shellfish life stages Size restrictions, e.g. Min/max landing sizes Stock enhancement

As shown in Table A13-3 the measures are divided into two groups, covering seabed habitats and biological disturbance. Many of these measures are extremely complex to assess, with impacts on certain fishing activity, potential consequences in terms of displacement of fishing effort and gear conflicts, and indirect effects on upstream and downstream activities on land all needing consideration. There are also significant overlaps, and synergies, between the potential measures within these groups. For these reasons not all of the measures were considered in detail. At this stage, analysis is proposed to involve detailed modelling of certain scenarios that represent a combination of some of these measures.

Measures re: Seabed Habitat The proposed measures in this group relate to the control of mobile demersal gear (MDG), either through bans, modifications or spatial restrictions, or through quotas that limit catches of species targeted using MDG. To analyse these measures a

Page 303 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

theoretical scenario has been developed that may be indicative of the scale of measures that could potentially be put in place.

 Ban on fishing gear that are most damaging to the seabed

The 2-3 March 2011 Cefas measures workshop identified that the most damaging fishing gears are mobile gears that have contact with the seabed – mobile demersal gears (MDGs). MDGs cause the removal of physical features, as well as altering both structural biota and habitat complexity, affecting the overall productivity of fishery. The control of damaging fishing gears, therefore, is considered as a potential management measure to minimise these pressures and improve the environmental status on the following descriptors: D1 – Biodiversity; D4 - Food webs and D6 - Sea floor integrity.

The study, European Marine Sites Risk Review81, undertaken by Natural England, reviews the risk from all ongoing activities within European Marine Sites (EMS), in order to identify and prioritise action required to ensure site features are maintained or restored to favourable condition. The initial assessment indicated that 33 EMS were potentially subject to pressures from commercial fishing and all had potential to be at medium or high risk of significant effect. One of the activities considered as posing the highest risk to EMS was fishing with towed gear.

The study mentioned above and the 2-3 March 2011 Cefas measures workshop confirm the evidence that MDGs have a significant impact on the status of the marine environment, in relation to several of the GES descriptors of the MSFD. Therefore, this analysis examines the impacts of potential fisheries measure to control MDGs. This does not imply that such a measure will necessarily be implemented or should be preferred over other potential management measures, but it represents an area where some management action needs to be considered and more information on the potential effects of some illustrative measures are needed.

The potential management measure examined is a ban on the use of MDGs over a portion of the seabed. We use proposed Marine Conservation Zones (pMCZs) in non-Scottish UK waters as representative areas of the seabed and because new management measures are likely to build on existing management measures.

The formulation of this management measure is driven by a number of factors. It examines a ban because there are already some fisheries controls in place for other reasons, and looking at further permutations of those would provide less new information. A ban is also likely to be preferable on environmental grounds, as

81 http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/NERR038

Page 304 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

reductions of use (rather than bans) of MDGs lead to a less than proportionate reduction in damage to the seabed (as the first contact with the seabed does more damage than subsequent contacts) and so is unlikely to be cost-effective. However, it should be noted that banning MDGs within all MCZs is just one possible scenario that lies at the extreme end of a scale of potential management measures for MCZs.

Costs: The analysis performs a modelling exercise to analyse the potential economic costs of the potential management measure to ban MDGs. The aim of this modelling is to estimate the impact of the measure on the contribution that fisheries make to the UK economy – estimated in terms of changes in gross value added (GVA).

The impacts are assessed relative to a baseline of the current situation. This may not be realistic given the ongoing process of CFP reform but is a necessary simplification for this analysis. The costs identified, therefore, represent the total costs of this potential management measure, rather than the additional costs of adopting it for the purposes of implementation of the MSFD. The baseline against which its impacts should be considered is in reality uncertain, as further management of fisheries activity in pMCZs is a possibility. Bans on all fishing gears are expected with ‘Reference areas’ with MCZs, but as these make up around 3% of the total area of MCZs, their effect on the analysis is minimal. Therefore, the baseline has not been adjusted to take into account management measures in reference areas.

Fishing businesses will adapt to any additional management measures in different ways and it is difficult to predict whether, and to what extent, the contribution that fisheries make to the UK economy is affected. The impacts of the measure arise from changes in fishing levels and patterns, steaming time, species targeted, landings, gear types used and also from changes within the capacity of the fishing fleet. Because of the paucity of relevant data and difficulties in predictions of behavioural changes, the economic costs of impacts of banning MDGs within pMCZs are estimated as the loss in GVA based on the estimated average GVA for the UK national fleet. GVA has been estimated to be 40% of total fleet earnings in 2005- 200782.

The economic costs of the potential management measure to ban all MDGs within pMCZs are estimated by calculating the:

 Level of fishing effort and value of landings from use of MDGs in the proposed MCZs.

82 EC Annual Economic Report on the European Fishing Fleet (Anderson & Guillen (2009)).

Page 305 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

 Assuming that under a ban, 0-50% of this activity would continue elsewhere in UK waters, and 25-75% would cease to occur (would be lost to the economy).

 25% of the effort would be displaced into use of static gears in areas where this was not previously possible due to conflicts between static gear and MDGs.

The estimated impacts have a range of £0.201 million and £0.716 million per annum for vessels over 15m. For vessels under 15m, the results range between £0.193 million and a £0.563 million. Total costs could, therefore, range from approximately £0.393 million to £1.278 million loss of GVA, per year.

These ranges are large and reflect the potential high and low extremes of impacts. There may also be additional costs relating to impacts on the landings of MDG vessels and on the entire fishing industry, which is not captured in the data used for this analysis.

It must be noted that to make this measure effective would require it to apply to all vessels using UK waters and not just UK vessels. Therefore, it would need to be agreed at European level.

It must be stressed that the estimation of economic costs is based on data that has limitations and assumptions, which has to be recognised when interpreting these results. Appendix 14 gives details of the methodology, assumptions and data used for the estimation of economic costs. For the purpose of this analysis, we consider outputs to be representative of the activities potentially affected. The confidence level, that the actual cost of potential management measures would be expected to fall within the ranges estimated, is medium to low. However, the results suggest that reducing the use of most damaging gears, and the possibility of substituting them with less damaging gears, should be investigated in more detail.

Area: proposed Marine Conservation Zones (pMCZs) boundaries in English inshore waters and offshore waters next to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

 Modification of fishing gears that are most damaging to the seabed:

This measure involves alterations to mobile demersal gear, rather than banning it as considered above. Both the costs and benefits of this measure would be expected to be lower than the costs of a ban. Benefits would be lower because disturbance to seabed habitats would still take place. Costs would be lower because the reduction in GVA from the fishing industry would be expected to be smaller, although the one- off costs of changing fishing gears could be significant, particularly if undertaken over shorter timescales than exiting cycles of reinvesting in fishing gear.

It should be noted that the relatively high costs of fuel is already creating a transition to lighter (and therefore lower fuel cost) towed gears (e.g. in the Dutch Fleet where beam trawlers are switching to otter trawling).

Page 306 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Area: All UK waters

Measures re: Biological Disturbance

As described above, there are numerous overlapping potential measures to analyse here. The key measures that will be investigated are:

 Limits to landings to restore stocks.

Consideration of this issue is difficult due to the uncertainties about appropriate targets for many of the UK’s commercial fish and shellfish species. However, some consideration of the relative value of the stocks and landings, and possible implications of CFP measures (e.g. discard ban), is needed. The modelling within the eftec work for the Pew Trust (eftec, 2008) contains data on the level of reduction of catch necessary to allow stock recovery, so this can be used as a proxy for the short-term costs of achieving GES for descriptor 3 - Fisheries.

 Technical measures – such as changes to fishing gear and minimum and maximum landing sizes.

Technical measures are a catch-all term for the whole range of rules governing how and where fishers may fish. Technical measures include: minimum/maximum landing sizes, minimum mesh sizes for nets, closed areas and seasons, limits on by- catch, requirements to use more selective fishing gear (to reduce unwanted by- catch) and measures to prevent damage to the marine environment. Technical measures differ considerably from one sea basin to another, according to the local conditions.

Costs: The assessment of these types of measures is a complicated process and requires detailed information to estimate the likely environmental, social and economic effects, hence not considered within this analysis. However, a number of measures that could be attributed to this category are to a certain extent explored in the Impact Assessments (IAs) for many of the Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) designated or proposed in the UK waters. These IAs give the hypothetical estimates of a number of technical measures that were analysed and included as potential management measures applicable to the UK SACs. Note that these measures, included in Table A13-4, are not all the measures considered in these IAs, but examples for selected SACs to illustrate the likely ranges of costs to fishers if additional measures of such type would be implemented due to MSFD. The likely impacts of management measures analysed in these IAs have been informed by the outcomes of previous implementations of similar management measures in order to estimate the potential costs.

Page 307 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Table A13-4. Economic costs to fishers of impacts of technical measures

SACs Measure Costs (approx.) Inner Dowsing, Increase minimum landing size and £0.004 – 0.1 million per year Race Bank and introduce maximum landing size for North Ridge SAC crustaceans. final IA 3-month spatial closure of sensitive £0.002 - 0.129 million of landings Lune Deep, areas to all gears except potting. This per year Prawle Point aims to protect spawning/nursery SAC final IA grounds Cap on mortality consequent of all £0.129 million of landings per year Margate and activity except for potting; effort reduced Long Sands SAC by 25% (targeting effort reduces Final IA discarding of by-catch). Cap on the number of pots deployed for £0.008 – 0.330 million of landing Lyme Bay and crustaceans; reduction by 50%. per year Torbay SAC Cap on mortality consequent of all gear £0.129 million of landings per year Final IA with any bottom contact excluding potting; mortality reduced by 25%. Cap on mortality consequent of all £0.003 of landings per year activity; effort reduced by 25%. This aims to reduce the biomass of typical species taken from the site by reducing mortality.

 Removal of tax-free diesel.

Appendix 15 provides some analysis of the percentage of fisheries costs related to fuel and how removal of the current tax exemption would change that cost. There are pros and cons to fuel tax subsidy for the fishing industry. The pro is that the industry should not be contributing towards some of the costs linked to road fuel tax, such as maintenance of the road network. Cons are that it provides incentives for the industry to use more fuel than they would if the cost of fuel included tax. This results in environmental impacts in terms of:

 increased carbon emissions;  exacerbating over-fishing (with negative impacts on stocks, by-catch and the wider marine environment) as it lowers fishing input costs, resulting in an industry with greater catching capacity than if the subsidies did not exist; and  making higher-energy forms of fishing relatively more affordable. Higher- energy fishing methods are associated with specific aspects of environmental damage from fishing, in particular mobile demersal gear transfer energy to the seabed, causing physical damage and loss.

Page 308 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

The impacts of removing the UK fishing industry tax exemption such that they paid the same reduced tax rate as in agriculture could reduce profitability for most segments of the fishing fleet. For a minority of less profitable segments, reductions would be potentially equivalent to total profits – if these fishing segments could not adjust, their viability would be affected. However, Seafish research evidence83 on the response of the fishing industry to increased fuel prices shows they can reduce fuel use (per tonne of fish landed). The most common changes to do this were: changing trip planning practices, reducing towing and/or steaming speeds, changing landing port, replacing the engine, changing fishing method, changing target species, stopping fishing temporarily, modifying gear and undertaking preventative maintenance. A key factor in the impacts on competitiveness would be whether the UK acted unilaterally, disadvantaging UK fishing vessels, compared to other countries fleets that enjoy fuel subsidies, or could act in a coordinated manner, for example through the CFP.

 Measures to minimise seabird by-catch

The UK’s marine environment holds internationally important numbers of birds. These seabirds can suffer incidental mortality in fishing operations. Seabirds come into conflict with fisheries when they forage behind vessels for bait and fish waste (they can become ensnared by the hooks), or becoming entangled in trawl nets during shooting and hauling, or killed by collision with warp cable. It is argued that such seabird by-catch is unnecessary and could be significantly alleviated by adopting scientifically proven, practical and cost-effective mitigation measures, or combinations of mitigation measures. The evidence shows that those fisheries that had already enforced implementation of appropriate best-practice mitigation measures managed substantially to reduce the problem of seabird by-catch (Anderson et al, 2011).

Whilst much of the in-depth work has taken place elsewhere, i.e. the southern ocean, there has to date been little effort placed to develop a clear and coherent plan to tackle by-catch of seabirds at an EU level (Defra, 2010). The UK government and Devolved Administrations have been active in promoting the need to reduce by- catch, predominantly through the membership of the international Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP) and domestic measures of closure or restriction of fisheries activities during certain time periods, i.e. St. Ives Bay Gillnet Fishery Byelaw and Filey Fisheries Byelaw (Defra, 2010). However, given the likely

83 http://www.seafish.org/media/Publications/Options_for_Improving_Fuel_Efficiency_in_the_UK_Fishing_Fleet_.pd f

Page 309 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

extent of the problem, the focus is still to identify and institute the broad use of methods that will abate unnecessary by-catch of seabirds within UK waters.

The alleviation of the pressure stems from a decrease in fishing effort and/or greater and more effective use of technical mitigation measures. Decrease in fishing effort can a have substantial adverse impact on industry and therefore may not be potentially disproportionately costly. Recognising the likely opposition by industry, the further focus is on the use of technical mitigation measures rather than decrease in fishing effort.

It is shown that the use of technical mitigation measures, when used consistently, may reduce the number of seabirds killed and, at the same time, promote seabird- friendly fisheries. There are several technical measures that could be considered and implemented in the UK. For instance, mitigation measures that are tested in trawl or longline fisheries84. The former fishery measures are either based on the principle of deterring birds from coming into contact with gear or reducing the attractiveness of the vessel by managing the discharge of offal/factory waste. Meanwhile, mitigation measures of by-catch in longline fishery are designed to prevent contact between seabirds and hooks during their sinking period, i.e. underwater setting, or setting nets at night rather than day time. It is important to note here that this example demonstrates that there is no one size fits all approach. Therefore, the technical measures, if instituted, should be based on the specifics of the by-catch problem and the fishery that is likely to be obliged to use these measures.

Costs: the evidence of economic costs as a result of this measure is poor as many fisheries do not use the recommended best-practice mitigation measures (Anderson et al, 2011). Despite this, it is clear that the costs of different mitigation measures to alleviate seabird by-catch will vary greatly as some of the measures, like underwater setting, can be relatively costly (approximately £ 108,800 per vessel, assuming that $1=£0.544), others, like night setting, are much less expensive and in some cases- cost neutral (Defra, 2010). Gilman et al (2005) argues that some measures increases fishing efficiency, are practical and cost effective and, therefore, may have a potential common interest between conservation and fishery management perspectives. As the loss of bait to seabirds and concomitant reduction in fish and time lost through removing dead birds from nets can be significant, the use of seabird by-catch mitigation measures could be expected to be cost-saving (Gilman et al, 2005). However, before implementing any mitigation measures, the impacts

84 Birdlife International (2010) Bycatch mitigation introduction – Seabird bycatch mitigation measures, http://www.birdlife.org/seabirds/downloads/FS_Intro_final.pdf

Page 310 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

and applicability needs to be assessed in depth whilst further considering the economic impacts on affected fishing vessels, the practicality of measures and any safety implications, if relevant, before any judgement is made.

Area: All UK waters

 Gear restrictions/modifications to prevent by-catch of mammals

The incidental capture of marine mammals in fishing gear can result in significant impacts on their populations and subsequently alter the overall biodiversity of a fishery (i.e. due to the removal of top predators). The most frequent by-catch of dolphins and porpoises is detectable in certain static net fisheries with less frequent by-catch in some pelagic trawl fisheries in the UK waters. There is ongoing research to understand how and why animals get caught and how this problem could be prevented. Experiments are already being set to test acoustic warning devices. Some of the acoustic warning devices appear to be effective to minimize by-catch, but there are still challenges to be addressed such as the optimal spacing for acoustic warning devices, including research into alternative mitigation measures of by-catch of cetaceans, if this issue is to be resolved in the long term.

Costs: costs depend on what types of gears are restricted and likely substitution effects or, if gears are modified to mitigate by-catch, capital costs to switch to a modified gear that is more environmentally friendly. A modification may consist of a slight change (i.e. the use of pingers). If this is the case the introduction of minor modification implies a one-off, up front financial investment (that could be partially or totally subsidised), but long-term variable costs of the vessels are not likely to be affected as the total catches should remain the same. If the modification of gear requires substantial change, the capital costs automatically increase, increasing the short term financial burden to vessel owners. (Note: Section 2.2 of this appendix contains some information on cost implications of use of pingers)

Area: All UK waters

 Rights based fishery management

This management measure should aim to create a system that provides correct incentives to deliver optimal wealth from fish resources and supports a market of individual transferable quotas (ITQs). ITQs may promote economic efficiency and inter-temporal sustainable use of fishery resources.

Costs: it is arguable that if an ITQ system existed at certain cost levels, owners would be prepared to coordinate the fishery with others jointly and perform what are now regarded as government functions (i.e. result in cost savings in fisheries management). Also, if it delivered its objectives, this measure might result in significant cost savings in daily fishing activities to the industry. The costs of management measures of this type are highly complex and strongly linked to CFP

Page 311 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

reform options. Overall this potential measure could reduce financial costs by creating a more efficient consolidated industry, but could increase socio-economic costs.

Area: All UK waters

 Fleet control capacity measures

The rationale behind having fleet capacity control measures is to secure sustainable exploitation of fishing stocks. In order to achieve this, the fishing fleet has to be aligned with the available stocks they target.

Fishing capacity can be defined as an input or an output. To accommodate these two ways, Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has adopted a definition that captures both: the amount of fish (or fishing effort) that can be produced of a period of time (e.g. a year or a fishing season) by a vessel or a fleet if fully utilized and for a given resource condition85

In the UK, the MMO, Marine Scotland and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Northern Ireland are responsible for managing the UK fleet capacity, i.e. monitoring boats entering and leaving the industry, their composition, etc. The current measures might be more successful if narrowed down to a given area or fishery while making allowance for the possible switch of capacity between fisheries and areas. The effect of the measures might significantly vary within the range of small to large effect depending how much the fleet is reduced by.

Fleet capacity may decrease as fishing opportunities decrease. However, this reduction in fleet capacity significantly lags behind the reduction in opportunity. The decommissioning of fishing vessels scheme 200786 objective was to provide vessel owners with the opportunity to take a business decision about whether to remain in the fishery on the basis of a long-term view of prospects for the fishery under the terms of proposed fishery management plan. Simply, it was meant to reduce the previously described lag. It was recognised that some vessel owners could not afford to leave the industry because of their levels of debt; others had overly optimistic expectations about fishing opportunities in the future and others may have remained in the expectation of a further decommissioning scheme.

This particular scheme was targeted at beam trawlers fishing in Area VIIe (Western English Channel) with particular regulated gears. The estimated economic costs

85 http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/14856/en85 http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/14856/en 86http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20081023151136/opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/em/uksiem_20070 312_en.pdf

Page 312 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

suggested no direct financial costs for vessel owners and government expenditure of up to £5 million (envisaging that this would enable 8 – 10 vessels to be decommissioned).

The estimated economic benefits were that any vessel owner in receipt of a decommissioning grant, irrespective of the option taken, would benefit from receiving the grant money and retain the economic value of the Fixed Quota Allocations previously attached to their vessel, which could either be leased or sold. Responses to the consultation suggested that vessel owners would bid for decommissioning grant in the region of £3000 - £3500/ vessel tonne. Based on the average tonnage of vessels in this sector, a successful bid of £3500 would on average yield £325,500. However, at the top end of vessel tonnage, a successful bid could yield £1,305,500. It was acknowledged that the withdrawal of active vessels and associated licenses together with the plan that included a cut in days at sea would have a small beneficial effect on the stocks of sole with positive benefit to marine fauna and flora.

The costs of management measures of this type are highly complex and strongly linked to CFP reform options.

Costs: One-off.

Area: All UK waters

 Use of less destructive fishing gear

All fishing activities have some impact on the marine ecosystems and it is well described in the literature. These impacts may include reduction of targeted and non-target species, modification or destruction of the habitat, modification of the food chain, etc. These effects may largely be controlled if the use of less destructive fishing gear is adopted that may be based on specific features of biodiversity within a specified fishery. Favouring a less destructive fishing gear may result in significant benefits to the natural marine ecosystem. However, the least destructive fishing gears often require more time and energy (i.e. hook, line), or involve higher capital costs (i.e. long-line, deepwater net) increasing overall fishing costs.

Costs: In order to identify the costs, further research is needed to identify possible substitution effects based on specific fishing grounds. The scenarios analysed above to ban MDGs within pMCZs illustrates the potential impacts with regard to this measure if the switch from MDGs to static gears is considered.

Areas: All UK waters

 Measures to protect key shellfish life stages

This measure relates primarily to prohibitions on the landing of certain crustaceans when they are ovigerous (carrying or bearing eggs). A prohibition on landing ovigerous (berried) edible crabs is contained in UK National and local legislation

Page 313 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

implemented by sea fisheries committees/IFCAs. Similarly, ovigerous lobsters are protected by local legislation in several, but not all, of the IFCA areas.

Further measures to protect the landings of ovigerous lobsters nationally could increase the long-term benefits for all lobster fishermen, as well as local economies.

Costs: This measure may have relatively low cost, assuming there would be a marginal effort effect of going beyond what we already do.

Area: All UK waters

 Stock enhancement

The process of releasing cultured fish to increase yields beyond levels supported by natural recruitment is called ‘stock enhancement’. It is basically a strategy for replenishing depleted marine fish stocks. Despite clear rationale and potential benefits, the population dynamics with fisheries stock enhancement and potential of increased benefits is not well understood and actual performance of this measure has been mixed87. There are several programs for stock enhancement of demersal marine species that were documented to have encouraging rates of survival of released juveniles and were reported to be economically viable88. In other cases, high production costs for producing juveniles, or low survival rates, indicated that stock enhancement was not a viable option.

Economic costs and benefits of stock enhancement should be assessed at all stages of the measure, and it also involves bio-economic modelling. Basically, the economic feasibility of fisheries stock enhancement is highly dependent on the trade- offs between the costs of fishing and hatchery releases. Also, the economics of enhancement should be compared with other alternatives such as habitat protection, fishery regulation, and stricter enforcement.

Costs: the costs of releasing fish (one-off) and additional management if required (annual). In general, the costs are fishery specific and should be valued on the case by case basis identifying key parameters to which economic viability of stock enhancement programmes is especially sensitive. Economic feasibility of enhancement is subject to strong constraints, including trade-offs between the costs of fishing and hatchery releases. Costs of hatchery fish strongly influence optimal

87 Lorenzen, K. (2005).Population dynamics and potential of fisheries stock enhancement: practical theory for assessment and policy analysis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 260: 171-189 88 Munro, J.L., Bell, J.D (1997). Enhancement of marine fisheries resources. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 1064-1262, Volume 5, Issue 2, 185-222.

Page 314 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

policy, which may range from no enhancement at high cost to high levels of stocking and fishing effort at low cost.

There is some scientific evidence that hatchery reared European lobsters usually survive and grow if released into the sea. Lee (1994) developed a model to assess the benefits and costs of lobster stock enhancement programme involving the release of 500,000 juveniles per annum with a recapture rate of 10% and a delay between release and recapture of 5 years89. The benefit – cost ratio is estimated to be 0.312 with a discount rate of 5% implying that the total costs outweigh the benefits. The argument for this programme is that there should be significant improvements to reduce the total cost of juvenile production and recapture rates to make this programme economically viable.

Area: All UK waters (spatial dimension)

 Increased incentives for aquaculture of commercial species

Some Devolved Administrations within the UK facilitate, or are in the process of facilitating, strategies for aquaculture to expand within their regions. Technical issues are unlikely to be long term barriers to developing aquaculture in the UK but for strategies to succeed there is a need for economic and legislative support that enables the sector to compete with other forms of food production. The research is already undertaken to improve aquaculture perspectives to grow and develop further. For instance, the English Aquaculture plan is a stakeholder led plan to enable further aquaculture development. Government helped to facilitate this and will be consulting on it shortly but it is not a government plan implying that there is a scope for additional management measure.

Costs: There may be additional costs to MSFD to further promote aquaculture. Deeper analysis and research is required.

Area: All UK

89 Whitmarsh, D. (2001). Economic analysis of marine ranching. CEMARE Res. pap. no.152.

Page 315 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

6. References

ABPmer (2009), “Scoping Study for Elements of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive Impact Assessment Evidence Base”. Report to Defra.

Anderson, O.R.J., Small, C.J., Croxall, J.P., Dunn, E.K., Sullivan, B.J., Yates, O. & Black, A. (2011). A review of global seabird bycatch in longline fisheries, in Endangered Species Research Vol. 14: 91–106

Aquenal Pty Ltd., (2009), ‘A yacht enclosure system to mitigate biosecurity risks associated with biofouling’, report prepared for MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, Paper No: 2009/41.

Blake, S., (2009), ‘The first UK offshore contaminated dredge material capping trial: lessons learned’, a report prepared for Defra and the Marine and Fisheries Agency, accessed online on 29 March 2011.

Brown, J., Macfayden, G., Huntington, T., Magnus, J. & Tumilty, J.,(2005), Ghost fishing by lost fishing gear. Final report to DG Fisheries and Maritime Affairs of the European Commission. FISH/2004/20. Institute for European Environmental Policy/Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd joint report.

Brown, J. and Macfadyen, G. (2007), 'Ghost fishing in European Waters: Impacts and management responses', Marine Policy, Vol. 31, pp. 488-504

Cadman, J., Evans, S., Holland, M., and Boyd, R., (2005), Proposed Plastic Bag Levy - Extended Impact Assessment Final Report, a report prepared for the Scottish Executive.

Carstensen, J., Henriksen, O. D., and Teilmann, J., (2006), ‘Impacts of offshore wind farm construction on harbour porpoises: acoustic monitoring of echolocation activity using porpoise detectors (T-PODs)’, Marine Ecology-Progress Series, Vol. 321, pp. 295-308.

Craik, J. C. A., (2007), Mink and Seabirds in West Scotland, a presentation available from a conference proceeding paper from the ‘Tackling the Problem of invasive alien mammals on seabird colonies - Strategic approaches and practical experience’ conference, held on 18-19 September 2007, Education Centre, Edinburgh Zoo, paper accessed online on the 30th of June 2011.

Coutts, A. D. M., Valentine, J. P., Edgar, G. J., Davey, A., and Burgess-Wilson, B., (2010), ‘Removing vessels from the water for biofouling treatment has the potential

Page 316 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

to introduce mobile non-indigenous marine species’, in Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 60, Issue 9, pp. 1533-1540, September.

Defra, (2008), The Invasive Non-Native Species Framework Strategy for Great Britain: protecting our natural heritage from invasive species, Crown copyright.

Defra (2010), Proposed EU action plan for reducing incidental catches of seabirds in fishing gears. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland response to the European Commission

DTI, (2007), Decommissioning Offshore Energy Installations: A Consultation Document. eftec and Cefas, (2011), Handbook for Undertaking Socio-economic Analysis for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, handbook prepared for Defra under the ME5405 project. eftec, (2008), Costs of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing in EU Fisheries, Report to the Pew Environment Group.

Environment Agency (2010a) ‘Environment Agency acts to reduce sewage overflows into sea and rivers’, accessed online < http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/news/106831.aspx> on 30 March 2011

Gilman, E., Brothers, N.,Kobayashi, D., (2005). Principles and approaches to abate seabird by-catch in longline fisheries. Fish and Fisheries, Vol. 6, 35-49.

Gordon, J., Thompson, D., Gillespie, D., Lonergan, M., Calderan, S., Jaffey, B., and Todd, V. (2007), 'Assessment for the potential of acoustic deterrents to mitigate the impact on marine mammals of underwater noise arising from the construction of offshore windfarms', COWRIE DETER-01-2007, July, accessed online on 30 March 2011.

Hogg, T., Fletcher, D., Elliott, T., von Eye, M. (2010), ‘Have we got the bottle? Implementing a deposit refund scheme in the UK’, a report prepared for Campaign to Protect Rural England, accessed online on 29 March 2011.

Invasive Species Ireland, Invasive Predatory Small Mammals on Islands Strategy, accessed online on 30 June 2011.

Irwin, C. and Thomas, B. (2009), ‘UK sea fisheries statistics’, MMO London.

Page 317 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Johnson, L. T., and Miller, J. A., (2003), ‘Making dollars and sense of non-toxic antifouling strategies for boats’, California Sea Grant College Program Report No. T- 052, November, accessed online on 29 March 2011.

JNCC (2009), ‘Annex B— Statutory nature conservation agency protocol for minimising the risk of disturbance and injury to marine mammals from piling noise’, June 2009, accessed online on 30 March 2011

Lee, D.O., (1994). The potential economic impact of lobster stock enhancement, York, UK: University of York, Department of Economics and Related Studies, Based on dissertation submitted as part of MSc in Project Analysis, Finance and Development.

Lloyd’s Shipping Economist (2008), Record fuel prices stress carriers, September: pp.44-45

Longmuir, C. and Lively, T. (2001), ‘Bubble Curtain Systems Help Protect the Marine Environment’, PDCA Quarterly Newsletter, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 11-16.

Magin, C. M., Cooper, S.P., and Brennan, A.B., (2010), 'Non-toxic antifouling strategies', Materials Today, Vol 13, Issue 4, pp. 36-44, April.

Mitchell, I. and Ratcliffe N., (2007), Abundance & distribution of seabirds on UK islands – the impact of invasive mammals, a presentation available from a conference proceeding paper from the ‘Tackling the Problem of invasive alien mammals on seabird colonies - Strategic approaches and practical experience’ conference, held on 18-19 September 2007, Education Centre, Edinburgh Zoo, paper accessed online on the 30th of June 2011.

Mouat, J., Lopez-Lozano, R., Bateson, H. (2010), ‘Economic impacts of marine litter’, accessed online on 29 March 2011.

Mulligan, C. M., Yong, R.N., and Gibbs, B.F., (2001), 'An evaluation of technologies for the heavy metal remediation of contaminated sediments', Journal of Hazardous Materials, Vol 85, pp. 145-163.

Nehls, G., Betke, K., Eckelmann, S. and Ros, M. (2007), ‘Assessment and costs of potential engineering solutions for the mitigation of the impacts of underwater noise arising from the construction of offshore windfarms’. BioConsult SH report, Husum, Germany, on behalf of COWRIE Ltd, accessed online <

Page 318 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

http://www.offshorewindfarms.co.uk/Assets/COWRIE-ENGFinal270907.pdf> on 30 March 2011.

ODIS (2011) Offshore Development Information Statement: Future Scenarios Consultation, by the National Grid.

Oil and Gas UK, (2010), Economic Report ,accessed online on 16 April 2011.

Oppel, S., Beaven, B. M., Bolton M., Vickery, J., and Bodey, T. W., (2010), Eradication of Invasive Mammals on Islands Inhabited by Humans and Domestic Animals, in Conservation Biology, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp. 232-240.

OPRL Ltd. (2011), ‘The on-pack recycling label scheme’, accessed online on 30 March 2011.

OSPAR Commission (2009), ‘Assessment of the impacts of shipping on the marine environment’, Monitoring and assessment series, accessed online on 30 March 2011

Renilson Marine Consulting Pty Ltd. (2009), ‘Reducing Underwater Noise Pollution from Large Commercial Vessels’, a report commissioned by the International Fund for Animal Welfare, accessed online on 30 March 2011.

Reyff, J. A. (2009), ‘Reducing underwater sounds with air bubble curtains: protecting fish and marine mammals from pile driving noise’, TR News 262, May-June 2009, accessed online on 30 March 2011.

Southall, B.L., Bowles, A.E., Ellison, W.T., Finneran, J.J., Gentry, R.L., Greene, C.R.J., Kastak, D., Ketten, D.R., Miller, J.H., Nachtigall, P.E., Richardson, W.J., Thomas, J.A., and Tyack, P., (2007) ‘Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: initial scientific recommendations’, in Aquatic Mammals, 33:411-521.

Spence, J., Fischer, R., Bahtiarian, M., Boroditsky, L., Jones, N., and Dempsey, R. (2007), ‘Review of Existing and Future Potential Treatments for Reducing Underwater Sound from Oil and Gas Industry Activities’, NCE Report 07-001, accessed online on 30 March 2011.

Stoneman, J. and Zanfrillo, B., (2007), The Eradication of Brown Rats from Handa Island, Sutherland, a conference proceeding paper from the conference ‘Tackling the

Page 319 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Problem of invasive alien mammals on seabird colonies - Strategic approaches and practical experience’, held on 18-19 September 2007, Education Centre, Edinburgh Zoo, paper accessed online on the 30th of June 2011.

Tasker, M.L., Amundin, M., Andre, M., Hawkins, T., Lang, I., Merck, T., Scholik- Schlomer, A., Teilmann, J., Thomsen, F., Werner, S., Zakharia, M., (2010), Marine Strategy Framework Directive - Task Group 11 Report - Underwater noise and other forms of energy, European Commission Joint Research Centre and International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Luxembourg.

US Congress Office of Technology Assessment (1991), ‘Bioremediation for Marine Oil Spills— Background Paper, OTA-BP-O-70, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May

Water UK, (2009), ‘Combined sewer overflows: background briefing’, September, accessed online on 30 March 2011.

World Shipping Council (2008), ‘Record fuel prices place stress on ocean shipping’, May 2, 2008, accessed online < http://www.worldshipping.org/pdf/WSC_fuel_statement_final.pdf> on 30 March 2011

Page 320 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Appendix 14 - Method and data used for estimating the economic costs of the potential management measure to ban use of mobile demersal gears (MDGs)

This section describes how the primary fishing data available has been processed to estimate the value of landings affected by a potential ban on MDGs in proposed Marine Conservations Zones (MCZs) in English waters. Spatially, the measure is modelled by applying it to the proposed MCZ boundaries in English inshore waters and offshore waters next to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It has not been applied to the whole of the UK marine environment as it was considered unrealistic, not least because it could be disproportionately costly. Due to this, some subset of the UK marine environment needed to be identified, representing a significant minority of the UK seabed. The approach to modelling is to use the existing area of proposed MCZs. This is because these areas have already been identified as having some environmental value, and they are already proposed to be subject to management regimes, making further measures based on the same area more efficient than those based on different boundaries.

There is also likely to be an overlap between proposed MCZs and Natura 2000 sites. For the purpose of this socio-economic analysis, it is assumed that all Natura 2000 sites, including those with draft and possible status (assuming they will be designated), will have management measures of banning MDG fishing in the future. It is highly unlikely that all sites (e.g. Dogger Bank) would have such measures implemented throughout the site as management measures depend on the special features of those sites to be maintained in favourable condition, but for this high level analysis we assume in our baseline that this is the case. This is in line with the expectation that MSFD management measures will build on existing marine management activities wherever possible.

For the purposes of this analysis, two scenarios are developed to be further evaluated against a baseline. The rationale and strategy followed for creating the two scenarios was to deal with high uncertainty and to provide contrast of the high- low effects of potential management measures. To assess the economic effects of this measure, we also have to consider the potential redistribution of fishing effort and possible changes in the composition of the fishing fleet. For instance, in considering a ban, we consider alternative uses of the seabed that are not compatible with MDGs (even at lower intensity), in particular increased use of static gears and displaced fishing activity.

The specifics of this measure imply that a certain proportion of the use of MDGs will be displaced to other fishing grounds, some use of MDGs will be replaced by alternative gear (i.e. static gear) and the rest will leave the fishing fleet. It is difficult to predict how exactly this redistribution may look; hence some expert judgment was used to develop hypothetical scenarios for this economic analysis.

Page 321 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

The actual displaced fishing activity depends on the increased time and expenses (increased steaming) and degree of profitability for moving to work on fishing grounds not covered by a ban on mobile gears (that is a function of distance from port, engine size/speed, fuel prices and expected catches). Meanwhile, the actual decisions of exiting the industry for those currently using MDGs depend on market responses; for example, changes in the market for the fish targeted (e.g. Dover sole, plaice) and the costs of redeployment of fishing vessels. The required information to make these estimates is often difficult to predict and value and it requires more detailed analysis that is not within the scope of this work. To ease the analysis, assumptions were developed to define possible scenarios based on study team expertise and advice from MMO90.

Taking into account the specifics of the measure (i.e. a ban of MDG), the team decided that it is reasonable to assume that at least 25% of effort affected in the Low Case scenario and 75% of effort affected in the High Case scenario will not be redeployed elsewhere. This is because MCZs cover a large area, therefore, the resulting change in the size of available fishing grounds may be significant in order to be absorbed by the industry. They are also relatively valuable habitats and therefore relatively good for fishing.

Whether or not a vessel would switch to alternative gear, i.e. static gear, will depend on technical feasibility and the economics of alternative fishing. A vessel that normally uses mobile gears (trawls/dredges), depending on the layout of the deck, should be able to move over to static gear. They would need to add a line/net hauler to one side of the vessel, which is obviously a one-off expense, as is buying new fishing equipment. However, some types of vessels such as Scallopers and Beam Trawlers will be very expensive to re-rig, maybe prohibitively so.

It is also reasonable to assume that limitations on static gears will be greater than limitations of MDGs, so static gears will not replace MDG in full. For example, static gear may be damaged by towed gear, so may have conflicts with pelagic gears. Sometimes these conflicts are managed by local informal agreements. The decision to change to static gear can also be affected by the status of the stocks that can be captured (e.g. are they quota species) or if the market is already saturated. For the purposes of this analysis, the team assumed that 25% of the effort from MDGs in both scenarios is moved to the use of static gear based on the arguments above.

In practice, larger vessels may find it more effective to switch grounds, whereas smaller vessels may find it more effective to switch gears. However, this was not considered within this analysis.

90 Neil Wellum, MMO, personal communication, 26 May, 2011

Page 322 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Scenarios

The analysis develops two hypothetical scenarios to estimate the range between low and high effects. In practice, this may not be the case but because of the overall complexity involved in predicting the effects it is assumed to represent the most likely outcomes.

 Impact of application of the measure in the High case scenario

‐ 75% loss of the MDG fishing activity due to the implementation of the potential management measure of a ban. No displacement of MDG effort to other fishing grounds.

‐ 25% of MDG effort is diverted to the use of static gear. For vessels under 15m, as there is no VMS data, the value of landings with static gears within the MCZs is assumed to increase by 25% of the lost value from MDGs.

 Impact of application of the measure in the Low case scenario

‐ 50% is displaced to areas outside of proposed MCZs, 25% of MDGs effort is lost

‐ 25% of the MDG effort is diverted to the use of static gear. Again, for vessels under 15m, value of landings with static gears within the MCZs is assumed to increase by 25% of the lost value from MDGs.

Data

As the potential management measure concentrates on the areas of potential Marine Conservation Zones (pMCZS), the shapefiles of pMCZs were obtained from four English Regional Projects covering the South-West (Finding Sanctuary Project), Irish Sea (Irish Sea Conservation Zones), North Sea (Net Gain) and Eastern Channel (Balanced Seas Project). The shapefiles of Natura 2000 sites were downloaded from the JNCC website. The fisheries data per ICES rectangle was sourced internally within Cefas.

Cefas GIS (Geographic Information System) experts have estimated the potential overlap between pMCZs and Natura 2000 sites. It was estimated to be less than 10%. We have decided to ignore this within our analysis recognizing that we may slightly overestimate the economic cost of the potential ban on the use of MDGs within pMCZs as certain areas may already be subject to this measure.

Analysis of vessels with VMS data

The shapefiles of pMCZs were used by Cefas GIS experts to map the fishing effort data for vessels over 15m per gear group to individual pMCZs. The total effort of vessels over 15m per gear group for individual pMCZs has been estimated separately for each pMCZ based on VMS data and held in GIS form by Cefas.

Page 323 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

The estimate of the total value of landings within the boundaries of pMCZs is based on the following steps. First, the total effort that was mapped to individual pMCZs is distributed to ICES rectangle units. Then, the effort of all pMCZs within the same ICES rectangle is summed up. An assumption that effort is equally distributed within pMCZs was made. This step is required because some of the pMCZ areas are spread over more than one ICES rectangle. If a pMCZ is within more than one ICES rectangle, the pMCZ has to be split into multiple areas located within different ICES rectangles and effort has to be redistributed in proportion to their size. The estimated effort in the pMCZs areas in each ICES rectangle is then summed to give the total effort in pMCZs in each ICES rectangle. The total effort of pMCZs areas within the same ICES rectangle is divided by the total effort within the ICES rectangle, and this proportion is applied to the total landings value per ICES rectangle to estimate the total landings value from the proposed pMCZs in each ICES rectangle. This is shown in the formula below:

The value of the fishery within the areas of pMCZs in each ICES rectangle

{Fishing effort within the areas of pMCZs in each ICES rectangle/Total Fishing effort within ICEs rectangle}x Landing value per ICES rectangle

This estimation is carried out separately for each gear type.

It is essential to break down pMCZs into multiple areas in each ICES rectangle as total figures of effort intensity and landing values per gear group are recorded to the ICES rectangle unit, hence the fishing effort data per pMCZs has to be consistent with the ICES rectangle boundaries to attribute the value of landings to pMCZs. This calculation gives the estimated fishing effort in all the pMCZs or parts of pMCZs in each ICES rectangle that would be affected by a ban.

The second part of the analysis is to model the effect of the measure and estimate the potential economic cost that could potentially arise if the measure would be enforced. The amount of MDGs effort that has been diverted to the use of static gear is simply the proportion (based on the scenario) of MDG effort attributed to pMCZs per ICES rectangle. This proportion of MDG effort is added to the amount of existing static effort attributed to pMCZs per ICES rectangle. This method is not ideal but is the best that is feasible with the available data.

Analysis for vessels without VMS data

For vessels under 15 m, VMS data is not available as there is no legal requirement for the smaller vessels to use the system; therefore data on fishing effort is not available. This implies that our analysis is slightly different compared to the analysis for vessels over 15 m.

Page 324 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

We used value maps on inshore fishing activities that were developed under the MB0106 project: Further development of marine pressure data layers and ensuring the socio-economic data and datalayers are developed for use in the planning of marine protected area networks91. Cefas was commissioned to bring together all sightings and boardings data and consider any other data for its suitability to be included in the analysis to produce data layers that could be further used in different projects when performing the analysis for vessels under 15 m. Note this project is a separate project from ME5405. We consider the outputs (i.e. value maps) of this project to be representative data for our analysis for vessels under 15 m. The value maps represent a snapshot of fishing activities between 2007 and 2008, within which variation in distribution of fishing effort is relatively low.

Cefas GIS experts were requested to map the shapefiles of pMCZs with these value maps that were produced by redistributing fish landings value data per ICES rectangle by the relative fishing effort per ICES rectangle. It is important to note here that we decided not to request the relative fishing effort data as the relative fishing effort data could not have been separated per gear groups required for our analysis. The relative effort is not separated between mobile demersal gears and mobile pelagic gears as the relative effort is based on the use of sightings data from patrol vessels that are not able to identify if a vessel is targeting demersal or pelagic fish group.

The value mapped to each pMCZ for vessels under 15 m is grouped into static and mobile gears as mentioned before as the relative effort is not broken down into the categories to estimate the value of landings for MDGs.

In order to account for the potential value of MDGs affected, the approximate proportion of MDGs to mobile gears per regional sea is estimated, based on the total value data per gear group per ICES rectangle. This proportion is applied to the value of landings of mobile gears in each pMCZ to give a rough indication of potential landings value for MDGs for vessels under 15 m.

Having identified the estimated MDGs values attributed to pMCZ relevant to economic analysis, we now analyse the effects of potential management measures under each scenario. For vessels under 15 m, we assume that the landings value of static gear increase by 25% of the value of landings from MDGs (as there is no VMS data for vessels under 15 m to make assumptions about effort). Lost and displaced

91 http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=MB0106_9391_FRP.pdf

Page 325 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

fishing activity of MDGs is estimated as a percentage of the total value attributed to pMCZs. Based on these figures, the net effect is calculated to estimate the total economic cost for fishing business under 15 m.

Uncertainty and limitations of the analysis

Vessels over 15 m

 Areas with effort data but without a landing value per ICES rectangle are excluded.

 Areas of Landing Value without fishing effort data are excluded.

 Total effort per pMCZ is assumed to be equally distributed across the whole area of pMCZ.

 Foreign vessels have been excluded from this analysis. The activity of foreign vessels in UK waters is also not accounted resulting in potentially significant underestimate of the total value of landings affected due to this potential management measure.

Vessels under 15 m

 From the analysis it has become evident that there is a lack of spatial information available regarding the fishing effort of the Non-VMS fleet (vessels under 15 m).

 The confidence in value maps used for this analysis varies spatially as they are produced based on sightings data. The confidence in data used is based on the frequency of patrol visits to each grid cell and the quality of the source of UK fisheries statistics. Issues are identified with both the frequency of patrol visits to each grid cell and the quality of the source of UK fisheries statistics implying that confidence level may be in between low-to- medium.

Page 326 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Appendix 15 - Analysis of Fuel Tax Subsidies

Environmentally harmful subsidies (EHS) are those subsidies which encourage activity that is damaging to the environment. These have come in for increasing attention both at a national level, in the context of the Green Economy programme, and at a World Trade Organization (WTO) level; of particular concern here are fuel tax subsidies to the fishing industry.

Fuel tax subsidies provide incentives for the fishing industry to use more fuel than they would in the absence of the subsidy. This results in increased carbon emissions and thus a direct negative environmental impact. Furthermore, the subsidy acts to reduce costs to the industry, increasing profits, leading to greater overall catching capacity. This exacerbates the problem of overfishing, with further negative impacts on stocks of fish, by-catch and the wider marine environment. When these negative impacts are not transmitted through the price system, they are known as negative externalities.

In other words, negative externalities arise when the market price associated with the consumption or production of a good or service reflects the private cost encountered, and not the social cost. The solution in economic theory is to introduce a Pigouvian tax which realigns the price of the good or service with its social cost. This price level ensures that the level of consumption or production of the good or service is at a socially optimal level.

Consumers in the UK pay the equivalent of 57.95 pence per litre (ppl) fuel tax on diesel92. The fuel used by the fishing (and agricultural) industry is slightly different: ‘red diesel’ is dyed gas oil, and is taxed at a much lower rate of 11.18 ppl. This discrepancy does not necessarily imply that red diesel is taxed too low: the higher rate of tax which is mainly paid by private road vehicle owners could be said to incorporate other externalities which do not apply to red diesel. These include the costs of maintaining the road network and congestion occurring on roads; these extra costs potentially justify a lower rate of fuel tax to agricultural and fishing uses.

Assuming that each litre of gas oil emits around 3 kg of CO2 equivalent Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)93 directly (excluding embodied emissions) the estimated social damage cost of using each litre is about 16 ppl94. This is clearly greater than the tax

92 http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget-updates/march2011/fuel-duty.pdf 93 http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/reporting/pdf/101006-guidelines-ghg-conversion-factors.pdf 94 It is direct because it does not include the indirect life cycle emissions associated with producing the gas oil. The 3kg are costed using DECC carbon valuation guidelines http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/what%20we%20do/a%20low%20carbon%20uk/carbon%20valuation/1_2010 0610131858_e_@@_carbonvalues.pdf

Page 327 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

rate currently applied to red diesel and this gap is exacerbated by the fact that the fishing industry receives a rebate on fuel tax, making it duty free. The consumption of red diesel is thus above the socially optimal level; this contributes to environmental degradation in the manner detailed above and is being implicitly funded by the taxpayer.

This data appears to support an economic argument to tax red diesel at 16ppl at a minimum in order to ensure the fishing industry takes its impact on the climate into account when undertaking its activities. This is also in keeping with the government’s policy of adopting a more consistent approach to carbon taxation. However, fuel duty rates in general are not set as corrective measures but rather as revenue raising instruments; in this regard, 16ppl could be too low a tax rate given the government’s objectives for deficit reduction.

Impact on industry of removing the fuel tax subsidy

The removal of the fuel tax subsidy constitutes an increase in industry costs. This would have a number of effects:

1. Reduce profits: If costs rise with no expected change of revenue, profits must fall. These will vary between fisheries fleet segments95 (those with highest fuel intensity will see greatest drop in profits). 2. Behavioural impacts: In order to return to profit-maximising behaviour, the industry would be expected to adjust its behaviour by fishing fewer days, more fuel-efficient techniques or fishing closer to the shore. Seafish research evidence on the response of the fishing industry to increased fuel prices shows they can reduce fuel use (per tonne of fish landed). The most common changes to do this were: changing trip planning practices, reducing towing and/or steaming speeds, changing landing port, replacing the engine, changing fishing method, changing target species, stopping fishing temporarily, modifying gear and undertaking preventative maintenance. 3. Longer term: Investment may occur across the fleet to improve fuel efficiency measures. This could be achieved by changing gear or upgrading engines.

In internationally competitive sectors, the overall impact of removing fuel tax subsidies is dependent on co-ordination with other countries. If the UK were to ‘go it alone’ with regards to removing fuel tax subsidies, then the UK fleet would effectively be operating at a competitive disadvantage, affecting their profits to an even greater extent. Furthermore, the international fleet would likely maintain the existing pressures on the marine environment of overfishing and greenhouse gas emissions.

95 http://www.seafish.org/media/Publications/2009_Fleet_Economic_Short_Report_Final_6May11.pdf

Page 328 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Table A15-1 compares the gas oil tax rates for retail and industry sectors in a range of EU countries, and calculates the percentage reductions. Many EU countries have substantial percentage reductions, even greater than the UK.

Table A15-1 Gas oil tax rates96

Member State Retail gas oil Gas oil excise duty for Percentage reduction excise duty (euros ‘agriculture, per 1000 litres)97 horticulture, pisciculture, forestry’ (euros per 1000 litres) Belgium 408/393 0 100% Bulgaria 314 n.a. - Czech Republic 448 - - Denmark 393 40.51 90% Germany 486/470 255.60 46% – 47% Estonia 393 110.95 72% Greece 412 n.a. - Reimbursement Spain 331 between 60% and 85% France 428 56.60 87% Ireland 466 43.60 91% Italy 423 93.06 78% Cyprus 330 0 100% Latvia 330 0 100% Lithuania 302 0 100% Luxembourg 323/320 0 100% Hungary 355 71.10 80% Malta 382 - - Netherlands 424/434 254.53 40% - 41% Austria 397/425 - - Poland 327 - - Portugal 364 77.51 79% Romania 303 - - Slovenia 420 n.a. - Slovakia 386/368 - - Finland 364 28.50 92% Sweden 493/521/536 124.12 75% - 77% UK 679 130.59 81%

96 http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/excise_duties/energy_products/rates/index_en.htm 97 Some countries have multiple retail tax rates to account for different types of gas oil

Page 329 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Appendix 16 - UK Marine Valuation Studies

Economic values are the values placed by individuals on resources, goods and services of any kind. The theory behind economic values is discussed in more detail in Annex 3 of The Handbook (eftec & Cefas, 2011). Values are expressed in relative terms based on individuals’ preferences for given changes in the quality and/or quantity of resources and services. The unit used for economic valuation is money – as it is a common unit making the comparison of financial and other (environmental, social) costs and benefits possible. Using this unit, preferences are measured in terms of individuals’ willingness to pay (WTP) money to avoid a loss or to secure a gain. For market transactions, the price paid represents buyers’ WTP. However, even resources, goods and services that are not traded in markets generate economic values. A complete economic analysis should include the changes in both market and non-market values.

People have several motivations for having positive WTP to protect ecosystem services. These motivations are analysed within the so called Total Economic Value (TEV) typology: Use value involves some interaction with the resource, either directly or indirectly; Non-use value is associated with benefits derived simply from the knowledge that ecosystems are maintained. In other words, non-use value is not associated with any use of an ecosystem.

Assessment of the economic value of the marine environment is challenging due to a shortage of information in a number of areas. For example, the application of ecosystem services analysis to the benefits of MSFD measures is difficult due to a lack of information. In particular, two types of information are lacking. Firstly, there is limited understanding of how many potential marine management measures will change the ecosystem services provided by the marine environment to society. This may be because the response of the environment to the management measure is not known (e.g. how will fish stocks be affected by areas closed to fishing?) and/or because how the environmental response translates into ecosystem services changes is not quantified (e.g. how will increased fish stocks affect the value of fish landings?).

Secondly, the economic value of changes in ecosystem services to society is not always known (e.g. how does society value the conservation of marine biodiversity?). This is particularly a problem for the many marine ecosystem services, which, unlike fish stocks, are non-market goods and, therefore, market price data is not available to assess their value to society. This leads to the challenges of non-market valuation approaches to assess WTP, which are beyond the scope of the current analysis.

This section reviews some of the information available on the economic value of the marine environment: a study valuing different marine ecosystem services (Beaumont

Page 330 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

et al. (2008)), and work for Defra valuing marine conservation zones (SAC et al. 2008).

Beaumont et al. (2008) This paper identifies the economic value of marine ecosystem goods and services as a way to determine the value of marine biodiversity in the UK. This approach is defined in Beaumont et al. (2007), and each service is analysed in the context of UK marine biodiversity. The values identified are summarised here:

Food Provision:  The extraction of marine organisms for human consumption.  In 2004, the UK fishing fleet landed 654,000 tonnes of sea fish, with a total value of £513m (first point of sale).  70% of all landings were caught in 3 areas: West coast Scotland, Northern North Sea and the Central North Sea.  The fleet comprised of 11,559 fishermen, 84% of these were employed full time.  This value may be an underestimate because the added value of fish processing, employment in retail sales and exports are not included; fish processing employs 18,180 people including 1,300 fishmongers.  Also it does not include unreported catches.

Raw Materials  The extraction of marine organisms for all purposes, except human consumption.  Examples: seaweed for industry and fertiliser; fishmeal for aquaculture and farming; pharmaceuticals; and ornamental goods.  Estimated total gross income from seaweed in 1994: £270,000 - £450,000  In 2004, 192,000 tonnes of fishmeal were used in the UK, with 50,000 tonnes of that produced locally – the total value of the UK fishmeal market was £81m.  Other marine raw materials are not valued.

Gas and Climate Regulation  The balance and maintenance of the chemical composition of the atmosphere and oceans by marine living organisms.  Average annual primary production (carbon sequestered by phytoplankton) calculated to be 0.07 +/- 0.04 Gt carbon/yr (just over 0.1% global production).  Valued using value/tonne carbon in Clarkson (2002); range £6 – 121, giving a total value of £420m - £8.47bn. This figure is an underestimate as it only covers carbon sequestered by primary production and can now be updated using DECC’s non-market carbon value.

Disturbance alleviation, prevention  The dampening of environmental disturbances by biogenic structures.

Page 331 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

 King and Lester (1995) identified that an 80m width of saltmarsh could result in cost savings (in terms of sea defences not having to be constructed) of £0.38 – 0.71m per hectare in capital costs and £71,000 p/ha in annual maintenance.  For an area of 45,500 ha, this value is used to aggregate a total of £17 – 32bn for capital costs saved and £0.3bn maintenance saved. This may be an underestimate as it only accounts for saltmarshes; but aggregating values over other habitats is not reliable (environment types are non-uniform and it does not account for variations in per unit value as environment is exploited – as the resource is diminished its value may increase).

Bioremediation of waste  Removal of pollutants through storage, burial and recycling.  Breaux et al. (1995): value of bioremediation function of wetlands in terms of potential savings over waste water treatment. Present value of wetlands, calculated over 30 years with a discount rate of 9%, is £1096.8 – 1236.5 per acre. However, these values cannot be readily extrapolated to the UK as it is not specific to saltmarshes.

Cognitive values  Cognitive development, including education and research, resulting from marine organisms.  Pugh and Skinner (2002): data on marine research funding (including higher education, public sector, industrial sector) suggest value added of research and development in the marine sector to be £292m; education and training valued at £24.8m. This overestimates the value of biodiversity as it values all marine research areas.

Leisure and Recreation  The refreshment and stimulations of the human body and mind through the perusal and study of, and engagement with, living marine organisms in their natural environment.  Pugh and Skinner (2002): net value of marine leisure and recreation is £11.77bn. 0.25m tourists are involved with whale-tourism activities annually in West Scotland; total income generated £7.8m (1994). Seal watching provided at least £36m to UK economy in 1996  Total expenditure by sea and fish anglers resident in England &Wales estimated at £538m per year from 12.7m angler days of activity (Drew Associates, 2004). First round impacts: 18,889 jobs, £71m in suppliers’ income.

Non-Use values  Benefit which is derived from marine organisms without using them.

Page 332 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

 Hageman (1985), Loomis & White (1996): average household WTP to ensure continued survival of various sea mammals between £19 and £36 annually. Assumed that WTP to maintain one is equal to that of ALL (because this value is in the context that they have a fixed budget to reallocate repeatedly). Estimated total value of marine mammals between £469m and £1,136m.

Nutrient cycling  The storage, cycling and maintenance of nutrients by living marine organisms.  Costanza et al. (1997): replacement cost method for valuation of environment in nutrient cycling capacity. Proposed values are £0.10 – 0.29 per metre cubed (2004 prices). Area of 161,200km, assumptions about depth, replacement cost for nutrient cycling lead to a value between £800bn and £2320bn to treat entire UK waters once – this data is theoretical and if all nutrient cycling stopped, entire marine system would breakdown.

The study was not able to value cultural heritage and identity, option use, resilience and resistance and biologically mediated habitat in a quantitative nature.

SAC (2008) This study applied stated preference methods to estimate the potential benefits that could be derived from the implementation of Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs), with a particular focus on the non-use component of this value.

Both contingent valuation (CV) and choice experiment (CE) methods were used to value a hypothetical scenario taken from Richardson et al. (2006). These scenarios were to be paid for by some increase in the annual tax paid by the household.

The CE survey presented pairs of scenarios allowing an estimation of their price, while the CV survey was similar, but respondents were presented with one policy scenario which they were asked to accept or reject. This proposal was framed by a starting bid level, which was followed by a higher or lower bid depending on their response. Those individuals that declined the proposal on the basis of a ‘protest’ response were omitted from the survey results.

The basic description of attributes and levels presented in the CE survey were:

Biodiversity 1 = continued loss of biodiversity (current situation); 2 = halt the loss of biodiversity; 3 = increased biodiversity.

Benefits provided by the marine environment 1 = continued loss of marine benefits (current situation); 2 = halt the loss of environmental benefits; 3 = increased environmental benefits.

Page 333 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Restrictions on resource extraction and development within marine conservation zones 1 = current restrictions; 2 = moderate restrictions; 3 = highly restricted.

Price (additional annual tax paid by household) £5 £10 £20 £50 £75 £100

Other variables controlled for include socio-economic variables and various activities and interactions with features of the marine environment and the goods and services it provides.

The ‘halt loss of biodiversity’ level of the biodiversity attribute was considered to be the most representative measure of non-use value in the CE study. Mean implicit levels ranged from £21 to £206 per house hold (£1611m to £1810m aggregated), with median values ranging from £20 to £128 per household (respective aggregate value of £1,170m). The value based on median values was thought to be more representative as it is not influenced by extreme values.

The CV results represent a total economic value for the provisions in the Marine Bill when aggregated (£698m), corresponding to household mean WTP £26.91 and median £26.93. This aggregated value assumed that the mean or median is applied to all UK households. However, this value is likely to be biased, as the values were not based on a random sample across the whole UK population. Adjusting for the UK population structure lowered the average WTP - suggesting an aggregate WTP of £487m per year.

These estimates were combined to generate a range of £487m to £1,170m as the non-use values of the benefits arising from the introduction of MCZs. It is important to note that this valuation was based on ex ante assessment of the benefits of MCZs, and as such, this may not reflect the benefits actually realised. Furthermore, the timescale over which the benefits arise was not indicated and defining it could change the value estimates.

Page 334 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

Appendix 17 - Note of workshop on Disproportionate Costs Analysis

The disproportionate costs assessment (DCA) workshop was held at Defra on Friday 10th June. Presentations on the implications of disproportionate costs under the MSFD (Ian Dickie, eftec) and DCA in the WFD (Anna Maria Giacomello, EA) were followed by group discussions addressing the following points:

Group 1: Controlling noise impacts from marine construction.

Noise impacts from marine construction (like noise from drilling for gas or wind turbine developments) can be mitigated using different noise reduction technologies. These technology options (sleeves, bubble curtains, soft start) have different costs and effectiveness. How to assess whether costs to industry are disproportionate?

Group lead: Frank Thomsen (technical knowledge), Chris Durham (economics)

Group 2: Assessing distributional impacts of measures.

There are a number of possible fisheries measures that would reduce the value of UK fisheries (e.g. restrictions on mobile demersal gear). At the expected scale, these marginal measures are unlikely to be significant to UK plc, but their impacts might be concentrated in specific communities (often described as ‘fisheries dependent’ but the evidence behind this term is unclear). How should the concentration of impacts in specific social groups be looked at?

Group lead: Mansi Konar (economics)

Group 1

The discussion was focused on indicator 11.1.1, which corresponds to loud, low, impulsive sounds and is concerned with avoiding large scale gaps in the distribution of marine mammals. There are several alternative measures for achieving what is desired under the MSFD, including managing the spatial distribution of the noise and reducing the level or amount of the noise produced in the first place below a certain level.

It was assumed that managing the spatial distribution of noise would be the more cost effective of these alternatives, and therefore DCA only needs to be carried out for this option. The group noted a number of challenges in engaging in DCA:

 Benefit assessment is difficult - there is some good valuation evidence to attach to the existence of iconic marine mammal species but it is more problematic to generate robust scenarios for impacts on marine mammal populations. There may be some opportunity to apply evidence from porpoise displacement.

Page 335 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

 Implicit costs – if the measure would result in the failure to deliver on the UK’s renewable energy targets then these costs would need to be included.  Developer input required – in order to ascertain costs of applying such a measure (may slow development or restrict ability to operate out of certain ports). Also need confidence in these industry estimates.  Consideration of temporal aspects – e.g. the construction phase is not permanent but may last for several decades.  Comparing the costs and benefits on the basis of the same scenarios.  Details of measures – being able to provide certainty about the measures at an early stage would reduce costs.  Trans-boundary costs and benefits – particularly relevant when assessing benefits, i.e. could be disproportionately costly if applied by the UK alone but not if applied across the whole OSPAR region.

The group noted that the prioritisation of resources for this task was difficult and suggested that scoping should be carried out at an early stage across all potential measures in order to identify which ones warrant further analysis. There is also more time pressure associated with this indicator because a vast amount of wind farm licensing is happening presently.

Group 2

The discussion began by looking at why the value of UK fisheries would reduce with restrictions on mobile demersal gear (MDG) and it was noted that this would depend on whether or not the fishermen were price takers in the market (in which case they would have very little influence on the market price). Other impacts were also considered: displacement effects could lead to competition within existing fishing grounds and decrease profits there; some boats may have to travel further in order to fish and the longer stay in the sea could reduce the freshness of the fish. The benefits should not be ignored and there is a temporal context: even if fishermen suffer a loss of revenue in the short term, the recovery of the stock through conservation measures could lead to higher revenues in the future.

Focusing on the impacts on a community of restricting MDGs in some marine conservation zones (MCZs), the likely direct economic impacts were noted as loss of income and employment but the social impacts were harder to quantify. Such impacts include those on community cohesion, lifestyle, health, wellbeing and feeling of social insecurity from a lack of employment. The size of the impacts would depend on the size and strength of the fishing industry in comparison to the relevant community; if over-represented, employing a large proportion of the population, then it is likely that the impacts would be relatively large.

The strength of the fishing industry also applies to the supply chain; the multiplier effect of reducing income to fishermen would reduce income to suppliers as well as to the wider community. It is thus important to understand the indirect and

Page 336 of 337

Proposed UK Targets for achieving GES and Cost-Benefit Analysis for the MSFD: Final Report (appendix)

secondary links the fishing sector has to the rest of the local economy; these knock on impacts could generate further social impacts such as multiple deprivation etc. The issue of food security was also discussed but imports in particular were thought to be able to account for this.

Potential benefits to the community were discussed, insofar as better environmental conditions could increase the inflow of tourists (including sea anglers and divers), resulting in more business to the community. The net effect would depend on the ability of the community to transfer its skills to capitalise on the growth of a different sector. The possibility that tourism could suffer was also discussed, noting that this could be the case if tourism was already a part of the local economy, and based around the fishing industry itself.

In order to address any potential negative social impacts, the group discussed two options. The first option would be to compensate the fishermen in the community, perhaps through a means such as transfer payments . It was thought that this may not be a particularly effective solution if the rest of the local businesses are dependent on the income generated via fishing, and thus the secondary impacts down the chain would not be addressed. Concerns were raised about the political feasibility of such a measure, given the current financial situation of the UK government.

The second option discussed was, rather than banning fishing activities, to increase the accountability of the fishermen with regards to their environmental impact. The group highlighted the fact that the fishing sector is the only sector that does not need to do an environmental impact assessment (EIA). Although setting up any sort of environmental assessment might be burdensome for individual fishermen, it could be possible to set up a union or committee (represented by the fishermen) to carry out any such assessment.

In assessing the social impacts of local measures, the group discussed a possible prioritisation exercise which could rank communities on their susceptibility to MDG bans. This could need to consider many of the points raised during the discussion, to include the long term benefits of the measure, how the economy could adjust to the measure (i.e. if diversification to renewable and tourism etc. was possible) as well as utilising local economic indicators as to the size of the fishing industry and the supply and service chain that depends on it. It was noted that an assessment similar to this had been conducted by Marine Scotland, which could provide the basis for further application.

Both groups noted that ultimately the final decision on whether or not a measure is disproportionately costly lies with the minister and the concern should be to provide all possible information on the likely impacts in order to aid the minister in their decision.

Page 337 of 337

About us Customer focus Cefas is a multi-disciplinary scientific research and With our unique facilities and our breadth of expertise in consultancy centre providing a comprehensive range environmental and fisheries management, we can rapidly put of services in fisheries management, environmental together a multi-disciplinary team of experienced specialists, monitoring and assessment, and aquaculture to a large fully supported by our comprehensive in-house resources. number of clients worldwide. Our existing customers are drawn from a broad spectrum We have more than 500 staff based in 2 laboratories, with wide ranging interests. Clients include: our own ocean-going research vessel, and over 100 years of fisheries experience. • international and UK government departments We have a long and successful track record in • the European Commission delivering high-quality services to clients in a confidential • the World Bank and impartial manner. • Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (www.cefas.co.uk) (FAO) • oil, water, chemical, pharmaceutical, agro-chemical, Cefas Technology Limited (CTL) is a wholly owned aggregate and marine industries subsidiary of Cefas specialising in the application of Cefas • non-governmental and environmental organisations technology to specific customer needs in a cost-effective • regulators and enforcement agencies and focussed manner. • local authorities and other public bodies CTL systems and services are developed by teams that are experienced in fisheries, environmental management We also work successfully in partnership with other and aquaculture, and in working closely with clients to organisations, operate in international consortia and have ensure that their needs are fully met. several joint ventures commercialising our intellectual (www.cefastechnology.co.uk) property

Head office Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk NR33 0HT UK

Tel +44 (0) 1502 56 2244 Fax +44 (0) 1502 51 3865 Web www.cefas.defra.gov.uk

printed on paper made from a minimum 75% de-inked post-consumer waste