Nature Conservation Advice from NatureScot and JNCC: Demersal Fisheries Management Plans

2 Approach to assessing risk

2.1 Indicative risk ratings

In contrast to the SNCBs routine advice around environmental sensitivity, the ‘indicative risk ratings’ developed for this advice consider the scale of risk associated with the different components of the demersal fisheries in Scottish waters to help identify where the greatest impacts are likely to occur. For example, the risk rating associated with a gear-feature/descriptor interaction may be lowered if the higher-risk activity only makes up a small proportion of the fishing activity covered by the FMP and thus there is low exposure of the feature/descriptor to the higher-risk activity.

Low Risk: An impact pathway exists, but evidence or expert opinion suggests that impacts are minimal or unlikely. This applies in the MPA context where a theoretical impact is either absent or the scale of impact is minimal. For PMFs, the fishery may have defined impact pathways, but it would be considered low risk where there is either no empirical evidence of significant adverse effects on the national status of PMFs or the impacts are negligible across relevant spatial and temporal scales. This rating is appropriate when interaction with PMFs is minimal or when existing mitigation measures effectively negate potential harm. For UK MS, impacts were rated low risk where fisheries were considered unlikely to adversely impact the achievement of GES.

Moderate Risk: Interactions rated as moderate risk typically have an evidenced impact or expert judgment indicates a genuine risk. For MPAs, this risk rating would be appropriate where the overall impact level might be ambiguous, possibly due to, limited spatial overlap between relevant gears and protected features, significant variation in impact over space and time, or differences between fisheries covered in the FMP and those from which the evidence base was derived. For PMFs, moderate risk was deemed appropriate where there is a clear linkage between the fishery's activities and potential adverse effects on the national status of PMFs, albeit mitigated by factors like limited spatial overlap, existing management measures, or the resilience of PMFs. It also covers scenarios where a potential impact pathway is identified although more evidence is required to enhance assessment confidence. For UK MS, moderate risk refers to instances where a clear impact pathway exists between the relevant fishing gears and the achievement of GES. However, further evidence might be needed, or other activities also significantly influence the current indicator status.

Such a precautionary approach to risk assessment is aimed at managing identified risks proactively while acknowledging gaps in current understanding. It is recommended that FMPs consider enhanced data collection or mitigation options if a moderate risk is identified, taking a proactive approach towards minimising impacts.

High Risk: Interactions identified as high risk are those where available evidence or expert opinion suggests there is an impact at such a scale as is likely to require mitigation. In the MPA context, this rating would be assigned where the scale of impact is likely to have an adverse effect or hinder the achievement of an MPAs’ conservation objectives, and the fishing activities managed by the FMP are believed to significantly contribute to these risks. For PMFs, the rating applies where activities or conditions within the fishery have well-documented, significant negative impacts on PMFs, threatening their national conservation status through direct harm or habitat degradation. High-risk scenarios are those where the intensity, scale, or nature of the impact could lead to a decline in PMF populations/extent or degradation of critical habitat, which would affect the national conservation status of that PMF in the absence of substantial mitigation measures. This rating would be given for UK MS where a well-evidenced link exists between the fishery and the failure to attain GES based on current indicators, with fishing activities covered by the FMP being assessed as contributing significantly to that failure.