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 Drivers Response Impact StatePressures

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) GES BAU MSFD Degradation State of Descriptor x Year

Benefits (Cost of Degradation) 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 Setting targets and indicators for descriptors What does Environmental State (ES) under GES look like? Changes in ES between GES and BAU What does Environmental State (ES) under BAU look like? PressuresHuman Activities Changes in Ecosystem services Changes in Human Welfare

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?