Transcript Marine Strategy Framework Directive Consultation on Good

Marine Strategy Framework Directive
Consultation on Good Environmental Status
How the Impact Assessment was developed
Kevin Brady
Marine Analytical Unit,
Marine Scotland Science
What this presentation will cover
•
•
•
•
•
•
Structure of the Impact Assessment
What the Impact Assessment covers
The ‘Business as Usual’ Scenario
Costs
Benefits
Way Forward
Structure of the Impact Assessment
•
•
•
•
Summary sheet
Executive Summary
Summary Table
Evidence Base
–
–
–
–
–
–
Introduction
Policy Rationale & Objectives
Methodology
Targets & costs
Benefits
Conclusion
• Annexes
• Supporting Documents
What the Impact Assessment covers
• Looking at the potential impacts of options for
targets and indicators of GES
• The following options were developed for the Impact
Assessment
– Option 0: Do Nothing (Business as Usual Scenario)
– Option 1: ‘Reasonable’ level of confidence that a target will achieve
GES
– Option 2: ‘Higher’ level of confidence that a target will achieve GES
• Benefits of the targets will be benefits of achieving
GES (cost of degradation in the Initial Assessment)
• Costs of targets are based on costs of illustrative
measures to achieve the targets
Business As Usual Scenario
• Study commissioned to
ABPMer and eftec
• Using DPSIR framework
• Improvement in state of
most descriptors; less
positive picture for others
• Highlights uncertainty
• Peer-reviewed evidence
Pressures
State
Drivers
Impact
Response
Costs of illustrative measures
• IA provides very high-level analysis of potential
additional illustrative measures needed to achieve
GES
– Fisheries measures to reduce impacts on birds and seafloor habitats (CFP
and inshore fisheries management)
– Fisheries measures to achieve MSY (CFP and inshore fisheries
management)
– Measures to reduce impacts on birds from non-indigenous mammals
– Measures to reduce litter levels
– Measures to reduce risk of introduction and spread of non-indigenous
species
– Creation of a noise registry for loud, low, impulsive sounds
• Given uncertainty, IA made assumptions and used
scenarios
• IA relied on a wide range of evidence to estimate
costs: supporting document (Cefas CBA report 2011)
peer reviewed
• Transparency on data sources, approach used and
assumptions
Benefits (Cost of Degradation)
State of
Descriptor x
GES
Degradation
MSFD
BAU
2016
2020
Year
Benefits (Cost of Degradation)
Setting targets and indicators
for descriptors
What does Environmental
State (ES) under GES look
like?
Changes in ES
between GES
and BAU
Human Activities
•
•
•
Pressures
Changes in
Ecosystem
services
Changes in
Human Welfare
What does
Environmental State
(ES) under
BAU look like?
Degradation identified for fisheries, marine litter, seafloor habitats and
birds
Looks at changes in terms of final ecosystem services (provisioning,
regulating and recreational services)
Relied on both quantitative estimates and qualitative descriptions to
tell the story
Way forward
• Improve evidence base
– Updating the baseline based on ongoing development in policies
– Recognised need for short and long term work to address evidence
gaps
– Develop future programme on actual measures
• Consultation questions
– Are the illustrative measures considered for this Descriptor a
reasonable assessment of the additional measures which might be
needed to achieve the proposed GES targets?
– Are there any other potential measures which might be necessary
in order to achieve the proposed GES targets for this Descriptor?
– Are you able to provide any more specific information on the likely
costs of the illustrative measures considered for this Descriptor?