Inshore Marine Protected Areas - draft Fisheries Assessment: methodology report

Definitions

The following definitions have been used to inform these draft Fisheries Assessments for SACs and SPAs, and are available from NatureScot, MarLIN and FeAST.

Likely effect

A “likely” effect is one that cannot be ruled out on the basis of objective information. The 2019 European Commission guidance on Managing Natura 2000 Sites: The provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC (hereafter known as the 2019 European Commission guidance) advises in section 4.5.1 that the test is whether there is a ‘likelihood’ of effects rather than a ‘certainty’. Paragraph 45 of the Waddenzee judgement (C-127/02) further states that:

“…any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site is to be subject to an appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives if it cannot be excluded, on the basis of objective information, that it will have a significant effect on that site, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects.”

In the light of the precautionary principle, therefore, ‘likely’ in this context should not simply be interpreted as ‘probable’ or ‘more likely than not’, but rather as whether a significant effect can be objectively ruled out.

Significant effect

Paragraph 49 of the Waddenzee judgement states:

“…where a plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a site is likely to undermine the site's conservation objectives, it must be considered likely to have a significant effect on that site. The assessment of that risk must be made in the light inter alia of the characteristics and specific environmental conditions of the site concerned by such a plan or project.”

The test of significance is therefore considering whether a plan or project could undermine the site’s conservation objectives. The assessment of that risk (of ‘significance’) must be made in the light, amongst other things, of the characteristics and specific environmental conditions of the site concerned. Each proposal should be considered on a case-by-case basis. The 2019 European Commission guidance states at section 4.5.2 “what may be significant in relation to one site may not be in relation to another”.

Appropriate

The term “appropriate” should be taken to mean ‘fit for the task’. There is no set formula as to what the assessment should cover, nor what format it should take. The 2004 Court of Justice of the European Union Waddenzee judgement provides the following, “…all the aspects of the plan or project which can, by themselves or in combination with other plans or projects, affect the site's conservation objectives must be identified in the light of the best scientific knowledge in the field”.

The implications of a proposal must be assessed in view of the conservation objectives for the site. The conservation objectives should ensure that the obligations of the Habitats Directive are met, including the obligation in Article 6(2) to avoid deterioration or significant disturbance of the qualifying interests. They will also ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained, or where necessary restored, and that each of the qualifying interests makes an appropriate contribution to favourable conservation status. The conservation objectives are available for all sites in Scotland on the Nature Scot SiteLink webpages. The appropriate assessment should consider the effect of the proposal on each of the conservation objectives to see whether they will be undermined.

Integrity

Integrity is not defined within the Habitats Directive or the Habitats Regulations.

Revised Circular 6/95 advises that the integrity of a site is “the coherence of its ecological structure and function, across its whole area, which enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and/or the levels of populations of the species for which it was classified”. The European Commission subscribes to a very similar definition as outlined in the 2019 European Commission guidance.

Mitigation

Mitigation measures are measures taken to avoid or reduce negative effects of a plan or project. Regulation 48 of The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c). Regulations 1994, as amended and regulation 28 of the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 allows conditions, including modifications to the proposal and mitigation to avoid adverse impacts or reduce them to an acceptable level, to be considered in coming to the final conclusion of whether adverse effects can be avoided. If discussions result in modifications being incorporated, the proposal in its modified form needs to be considered again through the full assessment process.

Definitions relevant to SACs, SPAs and NCMPAs:

The following additional definitions apply in relation to the assessments for SACs, SPAs and NCMPAs:

Exposure

The degree to which marine habitats and species overlap with pressures.

In-combination (cumulative) impacts or effects

Where multiple plans, projects or activities may or may not interact with each other, could have an impact on the same protected feature(s). These may or may not have a spatial and/or temporal element.

Pressure

Force acting upon the marine environment, for example smothering of seabed habitats and species.

Recovery

The ability to recover from disturbance or stress.

Sensitivity

The degree to which species or habitats are tolerant to change (resistance) and their ability to recover (resilience) when exposed to a given pressure.

Tolerance

The ability to absorb or resist change or disturbance.

Vulnerability

A combination of the sensitivity of a feature to a particular pressure/activity and its exposure to that pressure/activity.