Memorandum submitted by the British Geological
Survey
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The British Geological Survey welcomes the enquiry
into the UK marine environment and supports the marine landscape
and eco-system approach used in recent trials. It supports an
approach based on recognised centres of excellence in the main
scientific areas of geology, biology and oceanography working
together to improve monitoring and evaluation of the marine environment.
The marine environment is relatively poorly
understood and further information is required to define the most
important areas for conservation. Several sites have been recognised
to be of special interest and these may be designated as conservation
areas, but their detailed mapping and uniqueness or otherwise
is not always readily apparent. Resources to integrate existing
data collected by the offshore industries and scientific surveys,
and collect new data are required to reach informed decisions.
The introduction of Strategic Environmental
Assessments is a step in the right direction and has improved
the overall knowledge of the marine environment. They provide
a snapshot of the environment, but are not a replacement for long-term
monitoring or detailed site investigation studies.
One of the main threats to the marine environment
is the fishing industry. Site investigations for other developments
(windfarms, oil and gas, wave and tide power plants, aggregate
removal etc) help protect the environment. Delays in defining
Marine Environment High Risk Areas may be mitigated through SEAs
projects in local areas until an integrated multidisciplinary
habitats or eco-system understanding is developed based on the
marine landscape approach.
Comments addressing the Committee's terms of
reference to examine the effectiveness of Government policy for
the protection of the marine environment and in particular the
issues raised by the Safeguarding our Seas, Seas of Change reports
and subsequent developments.
1. The Government's policy for protection
of the Marine Environment has progressed quickly since publication
of the Department of Environment, Fisheries and Rural Affairs'
(DEFRA) report on "Safeguarding our Seas" in May 2002.
The results of the wide-ranging consultation that followed the
publication of that report, also published by DEFRA in November
2002 (Seas of Change), advocated the ecosystem-based approach
as proposed by the Malawi Principles of the 1992 Convention on
Biological Diversity. These principles were subsequently endorsed
by the Fifth North Sea Ministerial Conference, the International
Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) and the recently
reviewed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP); they are also the basis
of the European Commission's paper "Towards a strategy to
protect and conserve the marine environment" (COM(2002) 539,
October 2002). As such, the Government's approach to protection
of the marine environment is in line with, and indeed ahead of
current European and International policy.
2. BGS supports the key principles of the
ecosystem-based approach described in "Safeguarding our Seas"
based on an operational framework for ecosystem-based management,
which require a knowledge-base, strategic goals and objectives,
the use of strategic environmental assessments and environmental
impact assessments, marine protected areas and indicators of change
and progress.
3. The DEFRA reports describe progress on
a number of initiatives including the JNCC's Regional Sea Management
Scheme, Irish Sea Pilot project and the workshop on Delivering
Integrated Marine Mapping (DIMMUK) held in September 2002. The
JNCC's "Natura 2000 in UK Offshore Waters" and subsequent
workshop held in June 2002 to discuss the process for site identification
and selection of SAC's and SPA's in UK waters are also significant
contributions to the development of the UK's marine strategy.
4. The conclusions of these reports and
consultations are therefore particularly relevant to the questions
being addressed by the Committee. The British Geological Survey
(BGS) is able to provide evidence to the Committee's enquiry which
specifically address the issues of seabed data and mapping, which
underpins the broader ecological approach to well-informed marine
environmental management.
5. The Interim Reports of the Irish Sea
Pilot Project are based on the concept of marine landscapes as
developed by Roff and Taylor (2000) for Canadian waters. The concept
is based on geological, or "geophysical" features as
termed in the JNCC reports, which recognise the importance of
seabed geology in determining the nature of biological communities.
This is particularly suited to areas away from the coastline where
biological information is lacking and/or where the regulation
of human activity needs to be addressed at the large scale. The
use of geological information in this way, as a surrogate for
biological information as proposed by Roff and Taylor, is being
applied in other parts of Europe (eg Norway and Ireland), Australia
and the USA.
6. Geological information about seabed sediment
types and features which shape the morphology of the seabed are
therefore fundamental in characterising large areas of the seafloor
around the UK and which, in conjunction with marine biological
and oceanographic information, form the basis for habitat mapping.
The subsequent impact of habitat mapping on defining SAC's and
SPA's is well known, as well as the impact on commercial activities
such as fishing, aggregate extraction, hydrocarbon production
and renewable energy production.
7. The Irish Sea Pilot Project envisages
an "Implementation Framework" at a range of scales from
`wider seas' such as the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS) to a `Habitats/Species'
level aimed at the establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).
The BGS endorses this approach to habitat mapping and the JNCC
have used the BGS regional offshore maps (sea-bed sediment map
series) to construct their mapping methodology. Although the BGS
data have mainly been used at a regional scale, it is emphasised
that geological mapping of the seabed at the detailed scale is
equally important in terms of defining marine habitat boundaries.
8. The marine geological data is primarily
based on surveys completed by BGS. In 1974 funding for these surveys
was transferred to the Department of Energy. This programme was
originally designed to underpin new hydrocarbon exploration on
the UKCS. When the main phase of surveys of the North Sea and
inner Atlantic margin was completed in 1993, DEn saw no reason
to continue funding to enable frontier areas to be properly mapped
or to fund a continuing science programme to address emerging
environmental and geohazard issues. This has particular implications
for the "white ribbon" of very near-shore shallow areas
that are most subject to change, though which were not surveyed
due to operational limitations at the time. BGS has maintained
a limited offshore programme, with support from the oil and gas
industry, but nowhere near the level justified by the size of
the UKCS and its economic and environmental importance. Data from
site investigations, new data types such as swath, back scatter,
3D seismic data etc should all be used to enhance the fundamental
seabed geological data to develop the marine landscape and habitat
assessment.
9. There is acceptance in recent reviews
of marine science that there is a requirement for improved and
better co-ordinated data management to provide the knowledge-base
required for ecosystem-based management. The Irish Sea Pilot Project
recommendations agree with those of the DIMMUK workshop report,
that a new UK-wide information system should be based on harmonisation
rather than integration of data and information. This would however
require responsibilities to be placed on Departments and Agencies
to manage data for which they are responsible to standards suitable
for a variety of requirements. The DIMMUK workshop also proposes
Centres of Excellence should be established for the collection
and holding of different types of data and for agreeing protocols
and standards. Both the Irish Sea and DIMMUK reports consider
that basic core data should be available free or at low cost,
but that funding will be needed to set up and maintain this infrastructure.
10. The BGS supports the need for harmonised
data management and supports the recommendations of the Irish
Sea Pilot Project for a web-based marine environmental database
similar to Digital Energy Atlas and Library (www.ukdeal.co.uk)
which is run for the oil and gas industry UKCS data. Furthermore,
the DIMMUK report cites the Natural Environment Research Council
(NERC) as a good example of an organisation with strategic rules
for data provision and archiving. Within the NERC, these rules
are cross-sectoral, as the component institutes and surveys specialise
in geology (BGS), oceanography (Southampton Oceanography Centre
(SOC), Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory (POL)) and biology (Plymouth
Marine Laboratory (PML)). As cross-sectoral issues are frequently
identified as barriers to progress in marine science, not only
is the NERC model for data management worth considering at national
level, but also the NERC institutes would fulfil the criteria
for Centres of Excellence in its three main scientific disciplines.
11. In the context of harmonised data it
would be valid for the Government to consider the value that could
be derived, not only from making public information available
free or at low cost (as is currently the NERC policy), but also
from making statutory requirements for private industry to deposit
data derived from commercial activities with the nominated Centre
of Excellence for geological information. This requirement currently
applies to the deep geological information from the hydrocarbon
industry, therefore an extension of this policy to environmental
information from site surveys carried out by the oil and gas industry,
offshore renewables sector, aggregates industry etc, would make
a vast source of information available for update of geological
mapping of the UK seabed at low cost.
12. As impartial government research organisations,
the NERC and BGS are familiar with holding data subject to confidentiality
restrictions, but which may be used to maintain and update their
national mapping commitments. This model of data acquisition would
be particularly appropriate during periods of reduced funding
for data acquisition, but it would be equally applicable if funding
for more detailed geological surveying in support of habitat mapping
were made available in the future, as it would provide complementary
information. Furthermore, these arrangements would involve closer
collaboration between stakeholders and scientists, which is a
key principle of the ecosystem-based approach to marine management.
The Irish Sea Pilot Project recommends that data collected by
the private sector should be added to national data networks in
exchange for publicly managed data, however the BGS believes that
the current system of purchasing public data either by direct
sale or licensing agreements could be adapted to ensure that best
use is made of all data available from both the public and private
sector.
Evidence on the likely impact of designating SACs
and SPAs, introducing SEAs and delay in identifying MEHRAs.
13. Only four habitat types listed in Annex
1 to the Habitats Directive are known to, or potentially, occur
in UK Offshore waters (sandbanks which are slightly covered by
sea water all the time; reefs; submarine structure made by leaking
gases; submerged or partially submerged sea caves). Further work
will be required to determine if some UK examples of pockmarks
in offshore waters fit within the definition of structures made
by leaking gas. No sea caves have been identified in UK offshore
waters.
14. The four species listed in Annex II
of the Habitats Directive known to occur in UK offshore waters
for which selection of SACs will be considered (grey seal; common
seal; bottlenose dolphin; harbour porpoise) are all wide ranging,
making it difficult to identify specific areas that may be deemed
essential to their life and reproduction. The identification of
marine SPAs is primarily associated with feeding areas.
15. The Offshore Natura 2000 seminar in
June 2002 highlighted some of the main problems with habitat definitions.
— Annex 1 does not represent the full
range of habitats within the marine environment and the habitat
definitions are deficient for marine environments.
— Consistency of definitions is required.
— Sandbanks related to the 20m water-depth
contour are a main area of different interpretations and also
ignore deep sandbanks and areas of sand between sandbanks.
— Reefs: Finer gravel areas are
accepted as a habitat missing from Annex 1. Consideration of the
ecology of the seabed eg substratum stable enough to support an
epifaunal community should be included when deciding whether or
not to include stony seabed as areas of reef.
16. The Irish Sea Pilot project recognised
that geological information was the most useful information for
identifying broad areas of relevant habitat, as demonstrated by
the extensive use of BGS data in JNCC Report 325 (Natura 2000
in UK Offshore Waters). However, the seminar suggested that BGS
data were not adequate on their own because of the low resolution
(published mapping scale 1:250,000).
17. It was concluded that defining habitats
for mobile species is a problem. However, this could be addressed
through "food-chain" studies based on the premise that
the lowest common denominator probably lives on or near the seabed,
so preservation of these habitats is essential for higher mammals.
This argument could also be applied to SPAs although most of these
are inshore and are offshore extensions of land SPAs.
18. One of the most significant outcomes
from the Offshore Natura 2002 seminar was that the EC representative
warned against defining an area that further scientific evidence
would suggest should be deselected. In cases where an area was
considered being proposed for designation as an SAC or SPA, the
EC recommends that further information be acquired for the suggested
area.
19. The results of this seminar, which included
advice from other EU member states, indicate a number of issues
that are relevant to the Committee's inquiry:
20. Current habitat classification schemes
are deficient for marine environments. Although the EC recognise
this deficiency, they acknowledge that it is unlikely to be changed
in the short term. The Fifth Ministerial North Sea Conference
also recognised the need for further development of the European
Nature Information System (EUNIS) marine habitat classification
system to meet the requirements for mapping and assessment of
the conservation of marine habitats.
21. In other parts of Europe and the world,
such as Norway, Canada, Australia and the United States, geological
organisations are compiling habitat classification schemes in
conjunction with marine biologists and oceanographers. These organisations
recognise the need for a standard to be established that can be
accepted by the scientific community, so that habitat types can
be compared and contrasted across a wide spectrum of habitat scales.
UK geologists are involved in collaboration with international
organisations and can provide advice on habitat classifications
based on the geology of the sea floor.
22. The EC view that designated SAC or SPAs
should not be considered if they may be deselected in the future
raises a number of questions. The EC advise data acquisition prior
to selection if necessary. This in itself raises problems, as
data acquisition in potential designated areas provides better
information for that area, but does not investigate the area in
a regional context.
23. The Irish Sea Pilot project identifies
this problem in considering the way in which protected or designated
areas relate to nationally important areas. Their suggested process
for identification of nationally important areas (Section 8: The
identification of nationally important marine areas in the Irish
Sea (Lieberknecht et al., 2003)) assumes sufficient data coverage
for marine landscape types. As this is not the case for biological
data in the offshore area, one option is to identify areas with
the lowest levels of known human impact (naturalness), however
this makes the assumption that these areas represent the full
range of features of marine landscapes (typicalness) and that
they are the most diverse regions. This process can only be informed
by a better, more complete understanding of offshore marine environments.
24. One potential barrier to better marine
management includes communications between legislators and economic
stakeholders. For example, the fishing industry has been forced
to give up economic benefits with no assurance of the long-term
benefits. This may be solved by closer involvement of the industry
in strategic planning related to issues such as habitat mapping.
A scientific barrier may be removed if the requirement to deposit
industry data with national centres of excellence became statutory.
25. Recent work in Canada to develop a framework
for identification of marine protected areas has set out three
phases that culminate in the application of socio-economic and
cultural criteria to propose a network of candidate MPAs that
meet ecological and economic goals. The first phase of this work
involves the definition of "seascapes", the equivalent
of the JNCC's proposed marine landscapes based on physical factors
as a basis for representation.
26. BGS has participated in the DTI Strategic
Environment Assessments prior to future licensing rounds. One
obstacle to the best-possible informed implementation of policy
has been the urgency driven by the timing of new licensing rounds.
Such urgency has not allowed due time for incorporation of technical
advice into the licensing process.
CONCLUSION
27. There is a recurring theme in the work
of government organisations which have reviewed the approach to
protection of the marine environment, that of the need for good
geological and physical data from the seabed. Government policy
in the UK is correctly taking the ecosystem-based approach, but
it is important that this policy builds on the existing knowledge
base in the three main fields of marine biology, geology and oceanography.
A move towards harmonisation of these scientific disciplines should
focus on a structure that improves the interaction between these
disciplines, but also strengthens the individual sciences through
better co-ordination of national data. The acquisition of new
information is essential to the effectiveness of marine policy.
New data such as that derived from initiatives such as Strategic
Environmental Assessments as well as archived information in both
the public and private sectors should be harmonised to obtain
the best possible scientific interpretations which can inform
government strategy.
12 September 2003
| 
