FROM SCIENCE TO GOVERNANCE: THE DEMANDS AND CONSTRAINTS OF POLICY-MAKERS IN MANAGING THE BALTIC SEA

Professor Mike Elliott and Sue Boyes

Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies (IECS), University of Hull, Hull, UK

Challenges for science & management

There is only one big idea in

marine management: how to

maintain and protect ecological

structure and functioning while at

the same time allowing the

system to produce ecosystem

services from which we derive

societal benefits.

MSFD

MSPD

Holistic & adaptive marine environmental management

(red arrows denote linkages between topics; black arrows denote direction of influence)

Extractors (D, P) (econ., technol.)

Inputters (D, P) (econ., technol.)

Regulators (R) (leg., admin.)

Affectees (I) (soc., ethic., cult.)

Influencers (I) (polit.)

Beneficiaries (I) (soc., ethic, cult.)

Horizontal Integration across stakeholders (refer to DAPSI(W)R(M) and 10 tenets)

.... Ecosystem Services & deliver .....(I(W))

who raise awareness of ...... (comm.)

....Societal Benefits for the ...

uses/users providing .../affecting ........ who control the ...

…. fundamental processes (S) (ecol.) to create… (D+A+P) + R(M) ≠ S + I(W)

e.g. Conflict Res., 10 tenets, PPP, PP, EIA, CBA, MCA, LPI

Indicators + monitoring, e.g. EII

Maintaining, protecting and enhancing nature & .... (S) (ecol.)

The Ecosystem Approach

(b) localised human demands (endogenic managed pressures)

(a) wider pressures, e.g. climate change (exogenic unmanaged pressures)

Vertical Integration of governance across geopolitical levels

global

ecoregion

regional

national

local

Source of problems (activity-pressure-impact chain) which require ....

..... Risk assessment methods & response

to ensure no impact on .....

Management Questions:

• Where are the problems & What changes do they cause?

• What is the impact of these on ecosystem structure and functioning?

• What are the repercussions for ecosystem valuation based on economy-ecology interactions?

• What are the future environmental changes and economic futures?

• What governance framework is there, what do stakeholders need?

• What can we do about the problems?

• Where are the risks and how to address them now and in the future?

• What are the governance successes, failures and implications?

• How ‘good’ is the decision-making?

• What are the bottlenecks, showstoppers and train-wrecks?

Tackling the Problem - Management Framework:

• Setting Vision – the HELCOM-aim/vision is a good starting-point that can easily be tackled & tested (what has/has not been achieved)

• Agreeing Objectives – is the HELCOM BSAP ‘the only way’ forward?

• Defining priorities – how is this done and by whom?

• Deciding Action – what can be done

• Creating a management plan – then do it!

• Implementing Actions/Measures

• Determining if action is successful

• Iteration cycle to improve with each iteration

VISIONA healthy Baltic Sea environment, with diverse biological

components functioning in balance, resulting in good environmental/ecological status and supporting a wide

range of sustainable human economic and social activities.

(cf. UK vision for clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas)

Ecosystem services

of the Baltic Sea.

Underlying

ecosystem services

important for fish as

food are marked with

yellow arrows and

illustrate linkages

between different

ecosystem

services and benefits

(From SwAM 2013,

in Scharin et al., 2016)

Stage Detail1. Problem Formulation What needs to be assessed?2. Hazard Identification What can go wrong? (What are the hazards?)3. Cause Identification What can lead to the hazard occurring? (What causes the

hazard?)Quantitative: How often or how likely is it that these causes will occur?

4. Exposure Assessment(This is a quantitative step that is not necessary but adds value to the risk assessment)

Quantitative: How does the hazard reach the receptor? At what intensity? How long for and/or how frequently does the hazard reach or affect the receptor?Quantitative: How likely is it that the receptors will be exposed to the hazard?

5. Consequence or Effect Identification

What are the consequences of the hazard if it occurs?

6. Risk Characterisation and Estimation for Consequences

What are the risks (quantitative or qualitative measure)? Quantitative: What is the probability of the consequence happening? Estimated for both before and after preventative and mitigation measures are put in place.

Governance:

• Policies – HELCOM, EU, Member States, Third states (Russia)

• Politics – different outlooks/philosophies/histories /environmental culture (Scandinavia vs Baltic States vs Germany/Poland vs Russia incl. Kaliningrad)

• Administrations

• Legislation

Governance: globally agreed underlying policies, politics, laws and administrations for the adoption of internationally recognised principles:

• ecologically sustainable development;

• Inter-generational equity;

• the precautionary principle;

• conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity and ecological valuation;

• economic valuation of environmental factors, including willingness to pay

• the polluter pays principle;

• waste minimisation, and

• public participation - the role of individuals and ethics!

Hazard leading to Risk (depending on assets)

A) Surface hydrological hazards

B) Surface physiographic removal by natural processes - chronic/long-term

C) Surface physiographic removal by human actions - chronic/long-term

D) Surface physiographic removal - acute/short-term

E) Climatological hazards - acute/short term

F) Climatological hazards - chronic/long term

G) Tectonic hazards - acute/short term

H) Tectonic hazards - chronic/ long term

I) Anthropogenic microbial biohazards

J) Anthropogenic macrobial biohazards

K) Anthropogenic introduced technological hazards

L) Anthropogenic extractive technological hazards

M) Anthropogenic acute chemical hazards

N) Anthropogenic chronic chemical hazards

Hazard & Risk Typology:

= Risk Assessment & Risk Management (RA&RM):

• Hazard Identification:• Risk Assessment:• Risk Management:• Risk Communication:

Drivers (societal basic needs)

Activities (of society)

Pressures (resulting from activities)

State change (on the natural system)

Impacts (on human Welfare) (changes affecting wealth

creation, quality of life)

Responses (economic, legal, etc) (Measures)

DAPSI(W)R(M) framework

(for each EnMP cf. ExUP)

Drivers = Basic Human Needs:

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

Relaxation & enjoyment

WELL-BEING

Employment

Health & welfare

Security & safety

Provision & delivery of

goods

Space, shelter

Results of provisioning

services (food, water, O2,

space shelter)

Activity

Aquaculture

Extraction of living

resources

Transport & Shipping

Renewable Energy

Non-renewable (fossil fuel)

Energy

Non-renewable (nuclear)

Energy

Extraction of non-living

resources

Navigational Dredging

Coastal Infrastructure

Land-based Industry

Agriculture

Tourism/Recreation

Military

Research

Carbon Sequestration

Activities contributing to Endogenic Managed Pressures (Elliott et al 2017)

Pressures

Smothering

Substratum loss

Changes in siltation

Abrasion

Selective extraction of

non-living resources

(habitat removal)

Underwater noise

Litter

Thermal regime change

Salinity regime change

Introduction of synthetic

compounds

Introduction of non-

synthetic compounds

Introduction of

radionuclides

Introduction of other

substances

Nitrogen and

phosphorus enrichment

Input of organic matter

Introduction of microbial

pathogens

Introduction of non-

indigenous species and

translocations

Selective extraction of

species

Death or injury by

collision

Barrier to species

movement

Emergence regime

change

Water flow rate changes

pH changes

Electromagnetic

changes

Change in wave

exposure

P

S

R(M)

P

S

DI(W)

R(M)

P

S

D

I(W)

R(M)

P

S

D

I(W) R(M)

A D

I(W)

Outside Management

Plan Area

Boundary

Management

Plan Area

Natural

Change

Natural

Change

Natural

Change

Natural

Change

ExUP

ExUP

ExUP

EnMP

A

A

A

ExUP

...N II

I

III

Vision of

Management

Plan

To be successful, management measures or responses to changes resulting from human activities should be:• Ecologically sustainable• Technologically feasible• Economically viable• Socially desirable/tolerable• Legally permissible• Administratively achievable• Politically expedient• Ethically defensible (morally

correct)• Culturally inclusive• Effectively communicable

The 10 tenets:

(cf. PESTLE)

Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)

(ACRE reports through Defra)

KEY

Ministerial Depts

Inte

rnational

Oblig

ations

Euro

pean

Unio

n

Planning Inspectorate

- Health & safety w ith respect to working at sea- Ships surveys & inspections

- Emergency response including search & rescue, counter pollution & response, receiver of w reck, maritime incident response group (MIRG) & resilience.

NI

Executive

Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC)

Department for Transport (DfT)

Cabinet Office

Home Office

Maritime and Coastguard Agency

Trinity House Lighthouse Service

Inte

rnatio

nal

Maritim

e

Org

anis

atio

n

(IM

O)

Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG)

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)

Wels

h

Gove

rnm

ent

Scott

ish

Gove

rnm

ent

UK

Ship

pin

g

Crown Estate

- Ow ns 55% of the foreshore (between mean high and mean low water) and approximately

half of the beds of estuarial areas and tidal rivers in the United Kingdom. - Ow ns the seabed out to the 12 mile territorial limit, including the rights to explore and exploit

the natural resources of the UK continental shelf, excluding oil, gas and coal.- Leases of easement for pipelines and cables, offshore renewable energy developments.

- Royalties from the extraction of minerals, principally marine aggregates.

Parliament

House of Commons

House of Lords

National Maritime Museum

Harbour Authorities

Local Authorities

Executive Agencies

National Infrastructure Directorate

Executive Non-Departmental Public Bodies

- Independent body examining applications for nationally signif icant infrastructure projects

(NSIPs) e.g. large w ind farms >100MW, pow er stations etc. Issue development consents under the Planning Act 2008 (Localism Act 2011)

- National Planning Policy Framew ork- Planning Policy Guidance (PPGs)

- Marine Minerals Guidance Notes (MMGs)- Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs)

Local Government Bodies

Ministry of Defence (MOD)

UK Hydrographic Office

- Waterborne security of HM dockyards and HM naval bases

- Jurisdiction w ithin territorial w aters- Enforce legislation e.g. Port Orders and Merchant Shipping Act

Defence Science & Technology Lab

Oil and Pipelines Agency

MOD Police Marine Unit

- Provide hydrographic services for UK w aters as required under (SOLAS)

Trading Fund Agency

- Maritime technology e.g. ships & submarines

- Operation of the Government Pipeline and Storage System (GPSS)

Committee on Climate Change - Advises government on emissions targets and reports greenhouse gases

- Oil & gas licensing under Petroleum Act 1998- Renew able energy – w ave, tidal and w ind &

Safety Zones for >100MW w indfarms- Energy Act 2008 & 2010; and Climate Change Act 2008- National Policy Statements (NPS) on energy Secretary of States

Representative for Maritime

Salvage & Intervention(SOREP)

- Represent the DECC (in relation to offshore installations) & the DfT(in relation to ships) by

removing or reducing the risk to safety, property and the UK environment arising from accidents involving ships, f ixed or f loating platforms or sub-sea infrastructure.

HM Coastguard

- Shipping, marine safety & security, inland w aterways, navigation, ships registers,

transport national planning guidance (NPG)

Advisory Committees

Marine Energy Programme Board

Please refer to Defra diagram

UK

GO

VE

RN

ME

NT

- Partnership of the main Government Departments, the Devolved Administrations of

Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales, the Environment Agencies & research bodies involved in funding and carrying out marine science in the UK. Co-ordination of marine

research & delivering the UK Marine Monitoring & Assessment Strategy (UKMMSS).

Marine Science Co-ordination Committee (MSCC)

Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE)

- Advice to UK Governments on the release & marketing of genetically modif ied organisms.

Department for Business Innovation & Skills (BIS)

UK Met Off ice

Food Standards Agency - Food safety and hygiene (e.g. chemical levels in shellf ish and f ish)

Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)

English Heritage

- Protected w recks, protection of marine historic environment, map historic seascapes,

fund coastal & marine heritage research. (Although the UK has not ratif ied the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underw ater Heritage, English Heritage follow

the Rules annexed to the Convention as representing best practice in marine underw ater archaeology projects).

Tenet:

Administratively

achievable

Favourable status of Baltic Sea biodiversityNatural marine and coastal landscapesThriving and balanced communities of plants and animalsViable populations of species

Enviromentally friendly maritime activitiesEnforcement of international regulations – no illegal dischargesSafe maritime traffic without accidental pollutionEfficient emergency and response capabilitiesMinimum sewage pollution from shipsNo introductions of alien species from shipsMinimum air pollution from shipsZero discharges from offshore platformsMinimum threats from offshore installations

Oil Pollution

Invasive Species

Over Fishing

Baltic Sea unaffected by eutrophication•Clear water•Natural level of algal blooms•Natural distribution and occurrence of plants and animals•Natural oxygen levels

Baltic Sea undisturbed by hazardous substances•Concentrations of hazardous substances close to natural levels•All fish are safe to eat•Healthy wildlife•Radioactivity at the pre-Chernobyl level

Eutrophication

Hazardous Substances

Drivers (societal basic needs)

Activities (of society)

Pressures (resulting from

activities)

State change (on the natural system)

Impacts (on human Welfare)

(changes affecting wealth creation, quality

of life)

Responses (economic, legal, etc)

(Measures)

DAPSI(W)R(M) framework

E.g. Indicators:

Ecosystem

service

Societal benefits

Human health

status

E.g. Indicators:

Number of

regulations

Economic costs

10-tenets values

E.g. Indicators:

Natural health status

Population levels

Community structure

E.g. Indicators:

Footprint of effects

Stressor intensity

E.g. Indicators:

Number of activities

Navigation routes

Size of fishing fleet

Indicator Abbreviated name

D1

Mammals

Distribution of cetaceans

Population growth rates, abundance and distribution of marine mammals

Abundance of seals

Nutritional status of seals

Abundance of cetaceans

Seal pup production

Pregnancy rates of other (non-seal) marine mammals

Mammals bycatch (number of drowned mammals in fishing gears)

D1 Birds Abundance marine birds

Abundance of overwintering waterbirds

Abundance of breeding waterbirds

Distribution of marine birds

Number of waterbirds being oiled annually

Breeding success of a dominant piscivorous seabird

Breeding success of seabirds

Seabird bycatch (number of drowned waterbirds in fishing gears)

Generic core indicators for Marine Biodiversity descriptors (based on

OSPAR and HELCOM core-indicators and MEDPOL indications) (1)

Abbreviations:BWD= Bathing Water Directive; BWM= Ballast Water Management Convention; CAP= Common Agricultural Policy; CFP= Common Fisheries Policy; EIA= Environmental Impact Assessment Directive; FRMD= Flood Risk Management Directive; FRMD (FRMP)= Flood Risk Management Directive (Flood Risk Management Plan); HD= Habitats Directive; MPS= Maritime Spatial Planning Directive; MSFD= Marine Strategy Framework Directive; Natura 2000= Habitats and Wild Birds directives; Nitrates Dir= Nitrates Directive;SAC= Special Area of Conservation; SEA Dir= Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive; SPA= Special Protection Area; UWWTD= Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive; WBD= Birds Directive; WFD= Water Framework Directive (with extension out to 12nm for chemical status); WFD (RBMP)= Water Framework Directive (River Basin Management Plan)

Geographical scope and

competencies of EU legislation

Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD,

2008/56/EC) (the marine environmental quality

directive!)

• Aim: ‘to promote sustainable use of the seasand conserve marine ecosystems’

• Achieve Good Environmental Status (GES),by 2020

• The concept of environmental statusaccommodates the structure, function andprocesses of the marine ecosystems togetherwith natural physiographic, geographic andclimatic factors, as well as physical andchemical conditions including those resultingfrom human activities in the area concerned

• Aim: “the sustainable growth of maritime and coastal economies and the sustainable use of marine and coastal resources”.

• MSP is about planning when and where human activities take place at sea – to ensure these are as efficient and sustainable as possible.

• ensure a coordinated approach to MSP throughout Europe;

• enable the efficient and smooth application of MSP in cross-border marine areas;

• to favour the development of maritime activities; and

• the protection of the marine environment based on a common framework

Maritime Spatial Planning (& Directive)

Challenge – to merge environmental quality management (e.g. MSFD)

with maritime spatial planning and Blue Growth initiatives (e.g. MSPD)

For existing activities: Which activities are there, how many and what is their duration and frequency?

What area do they occupy?

Is there a monitoring programme for the activity?

What are the near- and far-field footprints of the pressure(s) they give rise to?

Which of the activities overlap?

What proportion of the area to be managed is occupied by those footprints?

What is the effect of the cumulative footprints on the area environmental status

and quality?

Have the existing activities exceeded the assimilative capacity of the area?

Have the existing activities reduced the natural carrying capacity of the area?

Can we determine the assimilative and carrying capacities?

What is the influence on the occupied and unoccupied space from external

influences such as climate change?

Maritime Spatial Planning

But (and there is always a ‘but’):

Should a new activity be located: Where the developer wants it to be?

Where the regulator wants it to be?

Where all the stakeholders want it to be?

Where the conditions are suitable for it?

Where there is available space for it?

Where it is compatible with existing

activities?

Where the assimilative capacity of the

system can accommodate it?

And, if the capacity cannot accommodate it,

will the environmental regulator say it

cannot be allowed despite prevailing

economic drivers or other imperative

reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI)?

Can we predict the change in the

assimilative and carrying capacities if new

activities are permitted?

(65 km coast, 3462 km2)

(1) that an area has a finite environmental quality status

which is intact in the pristine state and then decreases with

each activity permitted;

(2) that an area has an assimilative capacity to absorb the

effects of an activity;

(3) that the reduction in environmental quality status and

assimilative capacity in an area depends on the precise

activity, its spatial and temporal footprint, and the

cumulative and in-combination effects;

(4) that these also depend on any mitigation and/or

compensation measures performed on any components/

habitat, and on the particular descriptor in question;

(5) that the environmental quality status and the

assimilative capacity is regained with mitigation or

compensation;

(6) that GES can still be achieved with the permitted

activities in place.

Good environmental status and successful maritime spatial planning – theoretical compatibility – assumptions:

Assimilative Capacity/Carrying Capacity

Previously Proposed

Assimilative capacity

the ability of a body of

water to assimilate a

contaminant without

showing adverse

changes

the amount of an activity

or activities allowed in a

body of water before it

adversely affects the

quality

Carrying capacity

the amount of biota

(e.g. number of birds

or fishes) that a given

habitat can support

the ability of a body of

water to support a given

amount of activity or

activities or ecological

component

No activities

GES threshold (∑ of 11 MSFD Descriptors)

Existingmarine

Offshore Renewables

Aquaculture

BiotechnologyTourism

Trajectory of environmental quality as the marine area is used by multiple activities

Regained environmental quality with mitigation and/or compensation measures

Deep seamining

Envi

ronm

enta

lQ

ua

lity

Pristine marine environment with no activities

KEY

Ass

imila

tive

Cap

acit

y

Pressure

Environmental Quality Model incl. mitigation measures

for cumulative Blue Growth Activities

Calculation of impact of activities and their footprints as a % of the whole marine area

(* a pressure rather than an activity but used here as a surrogate for the net result of all discharges (diffuse and point source) to the catchment)

Activity % of Area

Aquaculture 0.29

Biotechnology 0.11

Estuarine outflow (from mouth of estuary) (*) 3.69

Fisheries 14.77

Infrastructure (bridges, groynes, sea-defences) 0.30

Navigation and ports 6.37

Offshore energy (including cables) 3.69

Oil and gas (including pipelines) 1.76

Seabed Mining 2.44

Shore-based discharges (from HW) 0.27

Tourism/recreation (from HW) 1.23

Total Area (%) 34.92

Windroses: median

score of the activity

effect levels on each

Descriptor (the central

value represents the

overall median score,

calculated across all

activities)

(from Elliott et al., in review)

Estimated values of % Area

Weighted Effect on overall Good

Environmental Status(from Elliott et al., in review)

But EITR: Climate change - Basic Premise:

• Exogenic (outside the management area) and endogenic

(inside the management area) pressures produce

individual, in-combination and cumulative effects.

• Global climate change is an exogenic unmanaged

pressure where management has to respond to the

consequences rather than the causes of that change.

• We can summarise our understanding as conceptual

models (‘horrendograms’) to inform future natural and

social science research and management.

• This presents managers with the sequence of responses

by the natural and human systems, and hence indicate

impediments to the implementation of legislation such as

European Directives.

Figure 2 Primary drivers and consequences of marine global climate change (cross-

referring to other figures)

Increased atmospheric CO2

Altered temperature

regime

Physico-chemical

water changes

Loss of polar

ice-cover

(Fig. 10)

Increase in relative

sea level

Physiographic

changes (Fig.

5)

Physiological

responses

(Fig. 4) Changes to

coastal

hydrodynamics

(Fig. 6)

Ocean

acidification

(Fig. 9)

Species re-

distribution (Fig.

3)

Changes to

climate patterns

Changes to

estuarine

hydrodynamics

(Fig. 8)

Changes to

NAO/EAO and

rainfall run-off

(Fig. 7)

Hazard leading to Risk (depending on assets)

A) Surface hydrological hazards

B) Surface physiographic removal by natural processes - chronic/long-term

C) Surface physiographic removal by human actions - chronic/long-term

D) Surface physiographic removal - acute/short-term

E) Climatological hazards - acute/short term

F) Climatological hazards - chronic/long term

G) Tectonic hazards - acute/short term

H) Tectonic hazards - chronic/ long term

I) Anthropogenic microbial biohazards

J) Anthropogenic macrobial biohazards

K) Anthropogenic introduced technological hazards

L) Anthropogenic extractive technological hazards

M) Anthropogenic acute chemical hazards

N) Anthropogenic chronic chemical hazards

CC – hazards caused or exacerbated by climate change or societal responses to climate change!!

CC

CC

CC

CC

CC

CC

CC

CC

CC

CC

CC

CC

CC

CC

Hazard & Risk Typology:

Topics Descriptor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

I Altered temperature regime – species re-

distribution and community response

II Altered temperature regime – individual

physiological/phenological response

III Increased relative sea-level rise -

physiographic changes

IV Increased climate variability effects on

coastal hydrodynamics

V Changes to large scale climatic patterns

due to land run-off

VI Increased relative sea-level rise

changing estuarine hydrodynamics

VII Increased ocean acidification and

seawater physico-chemical changes

VIII Loss of polar ice cover and global

transport repercussions

Sum categories 8 3 6 8 3 7 5 2 2 1 1

Summary: Marine consequences of climate change and their

influence on the GEnS descriptors

MSFD Wording:

In the proposed MSFD (CEC 2005), the highly variable nature of marine ecosystems and the changes over time in human activities and pressures, were cited as the reasons for having an adaptive, flexible and dynamic definition of GEnS.

The wording had then changed in the final Directive to: ‘In view of the dynamic nature of marine ecosystems and their natural variability, and given that the pressures and impacts on them may vary with the evolvement of different patterns of human activity and the impact of climate change, it is essential to recognise that the determination of good environmental status may have to be adapted over time.’

Art. 14 of MSFD and Art. 2 of WFD – not meeting GEnS or GEcS?

47

a) action or inaction for which the Member State concerned is not responsible,

b) natural causes,

c) force majeure,

d) modifications or alterations to the physical characteristics of marine waters brought about by actions taken for reasons of overriding public interest which outweigh the negative impact on the environment, including any transboundary impact,

e) natural conditions which do not allow timely improvement in the status of the marine waters concerned.

Force majeure:

“Force majeure is literally translated as ‘superior forces’. In contractual terms, it is recognised as the occurrence of an unexpected event / events beyond the control of either contracting party which disrupts the operation of the contract such that the contracting parties are excused from their liabilities and/or obligations under the contract.

It is however not intended to excuse any negligence or malfeasance. It can also suspend the performance of an obligation or extend the time to perform the same.

This would include an "Act of God" / "forces of nature" event but can also extend to extraneous human intervention events.”

(Legal Dictionary)

‘Bottlenecks, Showstoppers &

Trainwrecks’:

Bottlenecks Showstoppers Trainwrecks

Lack of clear objectivesNo stakeholder forumPoor scientific understandingPoor adviceConfusing planning systemManageable hazardsPoor communication

Complex regulationPoor knowledgePoor trainingOverlapping designationConflicting designationSectoral managementPoor administrationEconomic prerogativeLack of technologiesLack of toolsIncreasing governanceSlow planning systemNon-integrated planning systemManageable hazards

IntransigenceLack of fundingLegal challengesPolitical willUnwillingness to adopt joint aims/visionInflexible planning systemUnmanageable hazardsLack of permissionsCultural conflictsIconic ecologyEthically immoral

(but does climate

change become the

biggest ‘get-out’

clause?!)

Moving Baselines - difficult to detect anthropogenic change against background variability

• Historic modification – new, accepted system,

• Climate change - temperature regimes,

• Climate change - relative sea level,

• Climate change - species presence – alien species

• Population dynamics and species abundance,

• Isostatic rebound vs sea level rise.

So what? – the legal repercussions?

2012 Assessment

report baseline

2012 status with increased variability

Moving Baselines (MSFD)?

Fixed baseline 2012 Extended baseline

Moving baseline?

2020 status

2032 status

2026 status

2038 status

2044 status

2050 status

2056 status

2062 status

2068 status

2074 status

Impediments to achieving GEnS with regard to

Climate Change (1)

(1) We have a good conceptual science-base but poor

precise links between changes in biota and climate features;

(2) Climate change produces ‘shifting baselines’ which need

to be accommodated in monitoring together with ‘unbounded

boundaries’;

(3) Despite budget cuts, more cost-effective spatial and

temporal monitoring is required otherwise there is poor

predictability;

(4) ‘Wicked problem’ - determine GEnS on a Descriptor-by-

Descriptor basis or by 2020 vs. aggregation; will an area be

‘unhealthy’ or just different;

(5) Challenge of detecting local anthropogenic change

against wide climate change;

Impediments to achieving GEnS with regard to

Climate Change (2)

(6) Climate change-induced geographical disparity

to achieving GEnS;

(7) How to resolve non-achieving GEnS for the

Ecosystem Services and Societal Benefits against

climate change;

(8) Unknown unknowns – legal challenges if

climate change treated as a force majeure?

(9) Challenge of making the core generic RSC

indicators SMART and robust to climate change?

(10) Lessons are applicable to all seas and marine

directives.

The Grand Premise and Challenge for marine science and management to achieving GEnS with regard to Climate Change:

Premise:

“changing systems are not a problem for the

ecology as it will adjust to any new situation and

create a new equilibrium, they are only a problem

for society, i.e. we might not be able to obtain the

societal benefits from ecosystem services that we

wish to and we may not like the new ecology but

eventually we will have to accept it”

Challenge:

“for management to deal with especially

unpredictable exogenic unmanaged

pressures when it cannot manage the causes

but can only respond to the consequences, it

has to realise what is manageable and what

is not”

PS - But (and there is always a ‘but’!):

Climate change will make it more complicated!

Quality Assurance in Marine Decision-making

Knowledge

Information

Data

Evidence ‘Mining’

Sources

Audit Trail / ProofCoastal Futures, SOAS, 23-24 January 2013

Importance of audit trails,

defendable actions and

policies

16th May 2017

The future –

increasing litigation,

challenges to our the

quality of our science

and management!

(http://www.scottishlegal.com/2017

/05/16/rspb-challenge-against-

north-sea-wind-farms-dismissed-

as-scottish-ministers-win-appeals-

over-consents/#)

Summary:

• Several laws: “what is or will be in an area, what should be there, if

different do something unless economic imperative”!

• Movement from sectoral to more holistic and framework legislation

is encouraging – increasing spatial and temporal integration

• Some States increasing holistic and integrated approach, giving

greater clarification and a consolidated legislative approach for

marine management.

• No coordinated approach to monitoring across and between the

laws

• Complexity of marine legislation and the number of implementing

government departments

• Most States with still no single marine body with overall

responsibility – many different bodies having a marine

management role

• Uncertainty on cumulative and in-combination effects, footprints of

activities and footprints of laws

Grand Challenges (to be addressed):• Ensure competent authorities are the same for MSFD and MSPD or accommodate different ones• Resolve jurisdiction areas (e.g. Directive limits, Land planning to low water)• Ensure within and between MS transborder coordination - with other MS and 3rd Countries• Implementation using Regional Seas Conventions and harmonise assessments• Determine if each activity affects each descriptor in different ways and has different spatial and temporal footprints• Take land-sea interactions into account (e.g. erosion and dredging)• Determine how much assimilative capacity can you use before breaching GES•Determine whether Blue Growth or GES-achievement takes precedence

For discussion:

• Are the rules and implementation effective?• Would the results of the governance be seen within reasonable timescales?• Can the legal framework cope with moving baselines and highly variable systems?• Is the science and management overwhelming reactive instead of proactive?• Is science still focussing on the ‘nice-to-know’ instead of the ‘need-to-know’?• Does science- and evidence-based management conflict with the desire for ‘quick-fixes’?• Are the available indicators really SMART and valid in relation to BSAP?• Does vertical and horizontal integration on management and governance exist for the Baltic?•Should there be a joint Baltic science and policy panel?

A premise –

“We have all the visions, tools, frameworks,

philosophies and conceptual models needed for

integrated marine management;

we have all the elements of governance and sectoral

administrations both within and between countries;

we have 4 decades of Regional Sea Commission

experience and a century of detailed science;

we understand where our problems are coming from

and what we need to do to solve them;

we know which things are in our control and which not

– we now just have to put all of this together in the right

order!” Discuss!

Thank youFor more information visitwww.hull.ac.uk

Mike.Elliott@hull.ac.ukhttp://www.hull.ac.uk/Faculties/staff-profiles/Professor-Mike-Elliott.aspx (Open Access book)