Looking forward to 'strict protection': A critical review ... · 3.3.1.2 Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000.....18 3.3.1.3 The Conservation (Natural Habitats , &c.) Regulations

1WDCS is the global voice for the protection of whales, dolphins and their environment.

Looking forward to 'strict protection': A critical review of the current legal regime for cetaceans in UK waters

A WDCS Science report

Editors: Mick Green, Richard Caddell, Sonja Eisfeld, Sarah Dolman, Mark Simmonds

2

Looking forward to ‘strict protection’: A critical review of the current legal regime for cetaceans in UK waters

Mick Green1, Richard Caddell2, Sonja Eisfeld3, Sarah Dolman3, Mark Simmonds3

Published February 2012

Cover photographs © Charlie Phillips/WDCS, Terry Whittiker

ISBN 978-1-901386-33-2

WDCS, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation SocietyBrookfield House

38 St Paul StChippenham

WiltshireSN15 1LJ

Tel. 01249 449500Email: [email protected]: www.wdcs.org

WDCS is the global voice for the protection of cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises)and their environment.

Offices in: Argentina, Australia, Germany, the UK and the USA.

Registered Charity in England and Wales No. 1014705Registered Charity in Scotland No. SC040231Registered Company in the UK No. 2737421

1 EcologyMatters,Bronhaul,Pentrebach,Talybont,Ceredigion,SY245EH,Wales,UK2 InstituteofInternationalShippingandTradeLaw,SwanseaUniversity,SingletonPark,Swansea,SA28PP,Wales,UK3 WhaleandDolphinConservationSociety(WDCS),BrookfieldHouse,38StPaulStreet,Chippenham,WiltshireSN151LJ,UK

3

CONTENTS

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................52 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................73 REVIEW OF CURRENT LEGISLATION ............................................................................8

3.1 GlobalInternationalAgreements........................................................................................ 83.1.1 UnitedNationsConventionontheLawoftheSea1982.................................................. 83.1.2 InternationalConventionfortheRegulationofWhaling1946........................................... 83.1.3 BernConvention1979.................................................................................................. 83.1.4 ConventionontheConservationofMigratorySpeciesofWildAnimals1979..................... 93.1.5 ConventiononBiologicalDiversity1992...................................................................... 103.1.6 ConventionfortheProtectionoftheMarineEnvironmentoftheNorth-EastAtlantic...... 12

3.2 EuropeanLegislation....................................................................................................... 113.2.1 HabitatsDirective...................................................................................................... 11

3.2.1.1 ThedesignationofcetaceanSACs....................................................................... 113.2.1.2 ManagementofcetaceanSACs........................................................................... 123.2.1.3 ‘Strictprotection’measuresunderArticle12........................................................ 133.2.1.4 FisheriesissuesandtheimplementationoftheHabitatsDirective.......................... 14

3.2.2 MarineStrategyFrameworkDirective2008.................................................................. 153.2.3 EnvironmentalImpactAssessment(EIA)Directive1985................................................ 173.2.4 StrategicEnvironmentalAssessment(SEA)Directive2001............................................. 173.2.5 Whalingpolicies.......................................................................................................... 17

3.3 UKNationalLegislation................................................................................................... 183.3.1 InEnglandandWales.................................................................................................. 18

3.3.1.1 WildlifeandCountrysideAct1981...................................................................... 183.3.1.2 CountrysideandRightsofWay(CRoW)Act2000................................................ 183.3.1.3 TheConservation(NaturalHabitats,&c.)Regulations1994................................... 183.3.1.4 TheConservation(NaturalHabitats,&c.)(Amendment)Regulations2007............. 183.3.1.5 TheConservationofHabitatsandSpeciesRegulations2010.................................. 193.3.1.6 TheOffshoreMarineConservation(NaturalHabitats,&c.)Regulations2007.......... 193.3.1.7 TheOffshoreMarineConservation(NaturalHabitats,&c.)(Amendment) Regulations2009................................................................................................ 193.3.1.8 TheOffshoreMarineConservation(NaturalHabitats,&c.)(Amendment) Regulations2010................................................................................................ 193.3.1.9 TheOffshorePetroleumActivities(ConservationofHabitats)Regulations2001..... 193.3.1.10 TheOffshorePetroleumActivities(ConservationofHabitats)(Amendment) Regulations2007........................................................................................... 193.3.1.11 NaturalEnvironmentandRuralCommunitiesAct2006.................................... 193.3.1.12 WildMammals(Protection)Act1996.............................................................. 203.3.1.13 AnimalWelfareAct2006................................................................................ 203.3.1.14 Marine&CoastalAccessAct2009.................................................................. 20

3.3.2 InScotland................................................................................................................. 213.3.2.1 NatureConservation(Scotland)Act2004............................................................ 213.3.2.2 TheConservation(NaturalHabitats,&c)Amendment(Scotland)Regulations2004. 213.3.2.3 TheConservation(NaturalHabitats,&c)Amendment(Scotland)Regulations2007. 223.3.2.4 Marine(Scotland)Act2010................................................................................ 22

3.3.3 Widerprotectionregulationinthemarineenvironment................................................. 223.3.3.1 Offshoreindustry............................................................................................... 223.3.3.2 MinistryofDefence............................................................................................ 223.3.3.3 VoluntaryCodesofConduct............................................................................... 23

4 APPLICATION OF THE LAW ........................................................................................244.1 ImplementationofGlobalInternationalAgreements.......................................................... 24

4.1.1 ConventiononBiologicalDiversitythroughUKBiodiversityActionPlans(BAPs)............. 24

4

4.2 ImplementationofEuropeanProvisions............................................................................ 254.2.1 ASCOBANS............................................................................................................... 254.2.2 Fisherieslegislation..................................................................................................... 25

4.2.2.1 Applicationofby-catchissues.............................................................................. 254.2.3 NERCAct.................................................................................................................. 254.2.4 SEADirective............................................................................................................ 254.2.5 EIADirective............................................................................................................. 274.2.6 HabitatsDirective...................................................................................................... 27

4.2.6.1 InadequacyofSACs............................................................................................ 284.2.6.2 PoorlymanagedactivitiesconductedwithinSACs................................................. 314.2.6.3 ‘Strictprotectionmeasures’................................................................................ 33

4.3 ImplementationofNationalLegislation............................................................................. 344.3.1 DisturbanceinEnglandandWales................................................................................ 344.3.2 DisturbanceinScotland............................................................................................... 344.3.3 LicensinginEnglandandWales.................................................................................... 344.3.4 MPAsundertheMarineandCoastalAccessActandMarine(Scotland)Act..................... 36

4.3.4.1 WiderprotectionmeasuresundertheMarineActs............................................... 374.3.5 EffectivenessofCodesofConduct............................................................................... 38

4.3.5.1 CeredigionCountyCouncil,Wales...................................................................... 384.3.5.2 DolphinSpaceProgram,MorayFirth,Scotland..................................................... 38

5 CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................................................................405.1 Failingsinmanagementofcetaceanprotection.................................................................. 405.2 Recommendations.......................................................................................................... 41

5.2.1 Changestoexistinglaw............................................................................................... 415.2.2 MPAs......................................................................................................................... 415.2.3 Oversight................................................................................................................... 415.2.4 Data.......................................................................................................................... 425.2.5 Disturbance............................................................................................................... 425.2.6 Fisheries.................................................................................................................... 425.2.7 CodesofConduct...................................................................................................... 42

5.3 Acknowledgements......................................................................................................... 436 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................447 APPENDIX 1 ................................................................................................................47

Case Studies

1. Theprecautionaryapproachandcaselaw2. TheEIADirectiveandtheoil&gasindustry3. ApproachestoharbourporpoiseSACdesignation4. FisheriesManagementandprotectedsites:scallopdredgingwithCardiganBaySAC5. LicensingofactivitieswithinCardiganBayandMorayFirthSACs6. JNCCDisturbanceGuidance7. CetaceansinScottishMPAs

5

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Thelegalregimethatappliestocetaceans(whales,dolphinsandporpoises)–bothinternationalcommitmentsandtheUK’snationallaws–wasreviewed.Thiswasconsideredinthelightofthecurrentthreatstocetaceansinthisregion.TheseasaroundtheUKareunderpressureasneverbefore,includingthroughthedrivesformajoroffshoredevelopmentofmarinerenewablesandoffshoreoilandgasresources,alongwithincreasingpressuresfromleisureandtourism,boats,whale-watching,recreationalfishing,andthecontinuedmismanagementofourfisheries.

ThereviewhighlightedtheimportanceoftheHabitatsDirectiveforwildlifeprotectionand,inparticular,meetingitsrequirementtoprotectallcetaceans.However,existingUKlawshavechangedconsiderablyinrecentyearsanddonotprovideacomprehensiveandecologicallysoundstructuretoensurethelongtermfavourableconservationstatusoftheseanimals.Instead,insomerespects,itappearstohavetakenastepbackwardsandremainssubjecttoconsiderabledeficiencies.

Inaddition,overallthereisalackofcoordinationacrossdifferentsectors,withmarkedlydifferentapproachesfromthedifferentlicensingandregulatorybodies.Thisappearstobeincreasingwithdevolution.

ForthetwocetaceanspeciescurrentlylistedintheHabitatsDirectiveasrequiringthedesignationofSpecialAreasofConservation(SACs),harbourporpoiseandbottlenosedolphin,thereisstillno‘coherentnetwork’ofprotectedsites.TherearenonecurrentlyproposedintheUKfortheporpoiseandonlythreeestablishedforthebottlenosedolphin.Inaddition,althoughthereislikelytobemorescrutinyofaproposalforanactivitywithinaprotectedarea,thereisgrowingconcernabouttheextentofeffective‘protection’affordedtothesesites.

TheprotectiongiventocetaceanspeciesoutsideofthesesitesthatisneededtoimplementthewiderprotectionmeasuresrequiredbytheDirective,seemsweakandfromanenforcementpointofview,confusing.

Thedevelopmentofan‘ecologicallycoherentnetwork’ofsitesisbeingplannedinaverypiecemealwayandafurtherproblemisthelackofadequateknowledgeofstatusandtrends,makingthescaleofpossibleimpactsandimportanceofindividualsitesdifficulttoassess.

Overall,asweinvestigatedtherecentdevelopmentandimplementationofcurrentlegislationduringtheproductionofthisreport,wefoundthatapropercommitmentfromGovernmentstoprotectcetaceansandtheirhabitatswaslacking.Onlywhentherelevantprocessesarereinforcedwithabasicunderlyingprinciplethatembedsprotectionofcetaceansandtheirhabitatsintoalldecision-makingprocesseswillwebeabletoachievefavourableconservationstatusforourwhales,dolphinsandporpoises.

Bearingtheseissuesandconclusionsinmind,andtherequirementsofinternationallaw,thelegalregimeintheUKneedstoberevisedandimproved.Thefollowingseriesofrecommendationsweredeveloped:

• Intheshort-term,‘recklessness’needstobereinstatedintotheHabitatsRegulationsandtheWCA1981,tomakeitanoffencetodeliberatelyor‘recklessly’capture,kill,disturb,ortradeinananimalofEuropeanprotectedspecieswhichincludesalldolphins,whalesandporpoises;

• Changesarealsorequiredwithintheregulationstoallowtheprohibitionofthedeteriorationordestructionofbreedingandrestingsitestobedefinedandenforcedwithregardtomobilemarinespecies;

• Whereoffencesarecreated,meaningfulpenaltiesneedtobeapplied;• AnnexIIoftheHabitatsDirectiveshouldbeexpandedtoincludemorecetaceanspecies,inordertoincrease

theopportunitiesfortheDirectivetoaidcetaceanconservationthroughthecreationofSACs;• Toensurethatthereisa‘coherentnetwork’ofsitestoprotectcetaceans,manymoresitesneedtobe

designated;• Designationsshouldnotbea‘oneoff’exercisebutmustbeseenasanongoingprocesstobeinformedby

newresearchandsurveys.InitialsitescanbeidentifiedusingtheareasofcriticalhabitatidentifiedbyforexampleClarketal.(2010);

• Thedesignationofsuchanetworkneedstobecarefullyco-ordinatedacrossthevariousadministrationsinvolvedtoensurethatitiscoherent;

• Thereshouldbeapresumptionagainstanydevelopmentswithinprotectedareas,unlessrobustassessmentsshowbeyonddoubtthattherewillbenoadverseeffectsonthespeciesandhabitatsinvolvedaswellastheoverallintegrityofthesite;

6

• Comprehensiveresearchandassessmentsshouldbeundertakenwithappropriatepublicconsultationwheneveranydevelopment,planorprojectmayaffectasite(andthisincludesdevelopmentsoutwiththesites),andaprecautionaryapproachtodecisionstaken;

• ManagementplansforSACsneedtobeupdatedalongwithnewplansbeingdevelopedforsitesdesignatedundertheMarineActssothattheyreflectthispresumptionagainstdevelopmentandthestrictapplicationofassessments.Forlargersites,zoningofactivitiesmaybeappropriate;

• ThereneedstobebettercoordinationofplanningacrossallregionsandallindustrysectorsthroughouttheUK.Overallspatialplanning,licensingandenforcementneedstobeseparatedfromthosebodiespromotingindustrysectorstoensuretheprocessisunbiasedandtransparent,whilstindependenceneedstobesoughtacrossalloversight;

• Governmentsneedtoinvestincomprehensivebaseline,longtermresearchandsurveyprogrammescollectingbaselinecetaceandataoverthelongtermandfundedundera‘polluterpays’approach,whereindustriesareexpectedtosubstantiallycontributetothecostsoftheindependentresearchrequiredtoallowtheiractivitiesandthefundinggainedfromdevelopersshouldbeadministeredbyatrulyindependentbody/committee(madeupofexpertsinthevariousappropriatefields)andprovideindependentoversightofassessmentprocesses;

• SEAsandEIAsneedtobecarriedoutthatdonotpre-supposethatdevelopmentisinevitable;• Urgentmeasuresarerequiredtopreventdisturbance,protectbreedingandrestingplaces,controlnoise,

andensurecross-sectoralplanningandzoningofactivitiesandthiswillrequireabetterlegaldefinitionof‘disturbance’andonethatcanincluderecklessdisturbanceasdeliberateunderArticle12;

• Inaddition,adefinitionof‘breedingandrestingplaces’isrequiredformobilemarinespecies;• CodesofConductshouldbemadelegallyenforceableacrossallsectorswithaleadorganisation/smade

responsibleforenforcement.Impactstudiesshouldbeundertakeninareaswhererecreationalandcommercialpressuresmayexist,includinginbothbottlenosedolphinSACsinCardiganBayandtheMorayFirth;

• Effectivemethodsandincentivesthatpromotecompliancewithlawsneedtobeintroduced,includingviatheappointmentofmarinewildlifetourismofficerslocatedinareasofhighmarinetourismactivityand/orareaswhichareparticularlyvulnerable;andfinally

• Governmentneedstomakeafirmpubliccommitmenttocetaceanprotectionsothatitiscleartoallsectorsthatactivitiesatseashouldtakethisintoaccount.

7

2. INTRODUCTION

TheUKhasmorethantwodozenspeciesofwhales,porpoisesanddolphinslivinginitswaters.TheUKhasaresponsibilitytoprotectallthesespecies,derivedfromlegalrequirementsundertheEUHabitatsDirective(92/43/EEC),aswellasvariousobligationsunderinternationallaw.Cetaceanshaveintrinsicvalueasspeciesinthemselves,andalsofortheroletheyplaywithinecosystemsastoppredators.Assuch,onpaper,theyaresaidtobeprovidedwith‘strictprotection’underlaw.YetevidencecompiledheresuggeststhatthecurrentprotectionofferedinUKwatersmaybeineffectiveandhasrecentlybeendown-graded.

UKseasareunderpressureasneverbeforeseen.Thepushformassivelyandrapidlyincreasedmarinerenewableenergydevelopments,alongwithincreasingpressuresfromshipping,aswellasleisureandtourism,recreationalboatsandfishing,commercialmarinewildlifewatchingandsoon,andthecontinuedmismanagementofourfisheriesandaquaculture,allputpressuresonourmarinewildlife.Otherthreatsincludechemicalandnoisepollutionaswellasmilitaryactivities(Parsonset al.2010a&b;OSPAR2010,ASCOBANS2011andreferencestherein).

Climatechangeisalsoaffectingcetaceanpopulationsandoverallislikelytohaveanegativeimpactonthem(Simmonds&Elliott2009;Evanset al.2010).Somecetaceandistributionsarechanging.Forexample,Robinsonet al.(2010)recentlyreportedontheoccurrenceofshort-beakedcommondolphinsintheMorayFirthinnortheastScotlandfrom2001-2009.Priortothis,withfewhistoricalsightingsandjustahandfulofincidentalstrandingrecords,theshort-beakedcommondolphinhadbeenlistedasrareornotablyabsentfromthenorthernNorthSea(Reidet al.2003;MacLeodet al.2008).Accordingly,theregularoccurrenceofthespeciesintheouterMorayFirthpost-2005describedbyRobinsonet al.(2010),suggestsacomparativelyrecentcolonizationofthesenorthernwatersoverarelativelyshortperiodoftime.SimilarobservationsofcommondolphinoccurrencealongthewestcoastofScotlandhavealsobeendescribedbyMacLeodet al.(2005)andWeiret al.(2009),withrisingseatemperatureshavingbeenproposedasthemostplausibleexplanationforthisphenomenon(MacLeodet al.2008).The2010IWCworkshoponclimatechangeandsmallcetaceanshasalsorecentlycommentedonlikelydistributionalchangesintheNEAtlantic(IWC2011).

Newadditionstothecetaceancommunityinaparticularregionmightconceivablyleadtounexpectedcompetitionbetweenspeciesforcommonpreyoressentialhabitat,whilstrangechangesmayresultinunexpectedand,therefore,unplannedinteractionswithhumanactivities.Commondolphinsareparticularlyvulnerabletoby-catch,forexample,andanimalsprogressingnorthmaybegintointeractwithNorthSeafisherieswheretherewaspreviouslynoproblemandthereforefewornomitigatingmeasurescurrentlyexisttoaddressthis.

SeveralspeciesinScotlandareattheextremityoftheirnorthernrange.Thewhite-beakeddolphinisagoodexampleofaspeciesthatmayevenbelostfromUKwaters(MacLeodet al.2005&2008;MacLeod2009;IWC2011).

8

3. REVIEW OF CURRENT LEGISLATION

3.1 Global International AgreementsTheUKisapartytoanumberoftreaties,bothglobalandregionalinscope,thataddresscetaceans.TheoperationandapplicationoftheseinstrumentsinrelationtocetaceansisoutlinedinParsonset al.(2010a&b).TheseobligationsareeffectedthroughavarietyofmechanismsintheUK,rangingfromspecificimplementinglegislation,tolessbindinginstrumentssuchascodesofpractice,recommendationsandguidelines.Thekeytreatiesandprimaryobligationsareoutlinedbelow.

3.1.1 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982TheUnitedNationsConventionontheLawoftheSea1982(UNCLOS)ispopularlyconsidered“a constitution for the oceans”,establishingaglobalframeworkfortheexploitationandconservationofmarineresources.TheLOSCadoptsazonalapproachtomarinemanagement,withcoastalstatesaffordedvaryingdegreesofcontroloveroceanterritory.Cetaceanslocatedwithininternalwaters(waterslyingbehindthenationalbaseline)andwithintheterritorialsea(upto12nmfromthenationalbaseline)aresubjecttotheexclusivesovereigntyofthecoastalstate.TheUKthereforeexercisesfullcontrolovercoastalspecieslocatedwithinthesewatersinaccordancewithnationallaw.

WithintheExclusiveEconomicZone4,coastalstatesexercisesovereignrights“for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing”marinelivingresources,subjecttoobligationsunderArticles61and62totake“proper conservation and management measures”topreventover-exploitation.Coastalstatesalsoexercisesovereignrightsinrelationtoeconomicexploitationandexplorationoftheseareas,includingenergyproduction.Coastalstatesmayalsoexercisejurisdictionoverinter aliascientificresearchandtheprotectionandpreservationofthemarineenvironment.TheUKhasusedthesepowersintherecentpasttopreventaccesstoNorwegianandFaeroesevesselsconductingsightingsurveysonwhales5.

CetaceansareaddressedspecificallywithintheLOSCthroughArticles65and120.ThewordingofArticle65issomewhatcontroversialininternationallawfromavarietyofperspectives.Article65provides:

“Nothing in this Part restricts the right of a coastal State or the competence of an international organization, as appropriate, to prohibit, limit or regulate the exploitation of marine mammals more strictly than provided for in this Part. States shall cooperate with a view to the conservation of marine mammals and in the case of cetaceans shall in particular work through the appropriate international organizations for their conservation, management and study.”

Article120extendstheapplicationofthisprovisionmutatis mutandistothehighseas.

Articles65and120arecontroversialonmanysidesofthewhalingdebate.Somestateshaveexpressedconcernsthattheseprovisionspermitcoastalstatestointroduceverystrictrestrictionsonwhaling.OtherstateshaveraisedconcernsofafragmentationoftheregulatoryregimeduetothepluralityofsupervisorybodiesseeminglyendorsedbythetermsofArticle65.Thisreportdoesnotseektoenterintothisparticulardebate,whichhasbeenwell-troddenintheacademicliterature(seeforexample,McDorman,1998andFreelandandDrysdale,2005).TheUKhassoughttodischargethiscommitmentthroughparticipationwithintheInternationalWhalingCommission(IWC)aswellasotheragreementsandinstitutionswithanapplicationtospeciesofcetaceans.

3.1.2 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling 1946TheUKhasbeenapartytotheInternationalConventionfortheRegulationofWhaling(ICRW)sinceitsinceptionin1946,andhasplayedaveryactivepartintheoperationofthetreaty.TheICRW,whichseekstofacilitate“the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry”andisanoldandcontroversialtreaty.ThepositionoftheUK,atleastinrecentyears,hasbeentosupportthemoratoriumoncommercialwhalingandtoworkwithintheIWCtopromoteconservationandwelfaremeasuresforcetaceans.ThenegotiatingstanceoftheUKisnowlargelyalignedwiththatoftheotherEUcountries,asnotedinsection3.3below.

3.1.3 Bern Convention 1979TheConventionontheConservationofEuropeanWildlifeandNaturalHabitats1979(“BernConvention”)6enteredintoforceon6June1982andisabindinginternationallegalinstrumentinthefieldofnatureconservation,which

4.NB–TheUKhasdeclaredanExclusiveFishingZone(EFZ)andRenewableEnergyZone,ratherthanusingthenomenclatureprovidedbytheLOSC.TheEFZoperatesinthesamewayasanystandardEEZ.5. North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission: Annual Report 2001(Tromsø:NAMMCO,2001),at19-20;Parsonset al.(2010b)6.1982UKTS56.

9

coversmostofthenaturalheritageoftheEuropeancontinentandextendstosomeStatesofAfrica.ItsaimsaretoconservewildfloraandfaunaandtheirnaturalhabitatsandtopromoteEuropeanco-operationinthatfield.TheConventionplacesaparticularimportanceontheneedtoprotectendangerednaturalhabitatsandendangeredvulnerablespecies,includingmigratoryspecies.AllcountriesthathavesignedtheBernConventionmusttakeactionto:

• promotenationalpoliciesfortheconservationofwildfloraandfauna,andtheirnaturalhabitats;• haveregardtotheconservationofwildfloraandfaunaintheirplanninganddevelopmentpolicies,andintheir

measuresagainstpollution;• promoteeducationanddisseminategeneralinformationontheneedtoconservespeciesofwildfloraand

faunaandtheirhabitats;• encourageandco-ordinateresearchrelatedtothepurposesofthisConvention.

Theymustalsoco-operatetoenhancetheeffectivenessofthesemeasuresthrough:• co-ordinationofeffortstoprotectmigratoryspecies;• andtheexchangeofinformationandthesharingofexperienceandexpertise.

Inaddition,appropriatelegislativeandadministrativemeasuresmustbeadoptedtoconservethewildfaunaspecieslistedinAppendixII.Thefollowingareprohibited:

• allformsofdeliberatecaptureandkeepinganddeliberatekilling;• thedeliberatedamagetoordestructionofbreedingorrestingsites;• thedeliberatedisturbanceofwildfauna,particularlyduringtheperiodofbreeding,rearingandhibernation;• […]• thepossessionofandinternaltradeintheseanimals,aliveordead,includingstuffedanimalsandanypartor

derivativethereof.

SpecieswarrantingparticularregulatoryattentionarelistedonAppendicestotheBernConvention.CetaceansarewellrepresentedwithintheseAppendices:somethirtyspeciesarelistedonAppendixII,whileAppendixIIIappliesto“allspeciesnotmentionedinAppendixII”.Inpractice,thepartieshavesoughtprimarilytoimplementtheobjectivesoftheBernConventionconcerninghabitatprotectionthroughtheon-goingdevelopmentofacoordinatedseriesofprotectedareas,knownastheEmeraldnetwork.TheseobligationsarenowprimarilydischargedbytheUK–asisthecasewithotherEUMemberStates–throughadherencetotheHabitatsDirective.7

TheBernConventionhasdevelopedaninnovativesystemoftreatycompliancethatoffersapotentialavenuetochallengeparticularprojectsandincidentsaffectingtheconservationstatusofthevariousspeciessubjecttoitsregulatorypurview.Althoughthesemechanismshaveyettobewidelyappliedinthedistinctcontextofcetaceans,thereneverthelessappearstobeagrowingawarenessthattheseproceduresmaybeofpracticalutilityinindividualinstancesofmorelocalisedanthropogenicdegradationofhabitatsorinaddressingemergingthreatsthathavenottodatebeensuccessfullymitigatedwithinotherfora,suchasoceannoiseandhabitatdisturbance(Scott,2007).Thisremainssomewhatspeculativeatpresent,however.TheprimaryenforcementmechanismoftheBernConventionisitsinnovativesystemofcasefiles,wherebytheBernConvention’sinstitutionsrespondtocomplaintsallegingafailuretomeettherequisiteconservationstandards.Whilealmost100separatecasefileshavebeenestablishedduringtheConvention’stenure,onlytworelatetocetaceans–oneofwhichhasengagedtheUK.InDecember1989acasefilewasopenedinrelationtoanunacceptablelevelofsewagesea-outfallsanctionedbytheUKgovernmentintheMorayFirth,anareaofcriticalhabitatforbottlenosedolphins.8Afteraseriesofnegotiations,theStandingCommitteedeemedthemattertohavebeenresolvedandformallyclosedthefileinJanuary1991.TheUKhasnotsubsequentlybeenreferredtotheStandingCommitteeregardingcetaceans.

3.1.4 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals 1979TheConventionontheConservationofMigratorySpeciesofWildAnimals(CMS)enteredintoforceon1November1983andisthesoleinternationaltreatythatseekstospecificallyaddresstheconservationneedsofmigratoryanimals(Caddell2005).TheCMSrecognisesthatsuccessfulconservationandmanagementmeasuresinrelationtomigratoryanimalsrequires“the concerted action of all States within the national jurisdictional boundaries of which such species spend any part of their life cycle”(preamble).Tothisend,theCMSadoptsatwo-tierapproach,withthepartiesdrawingadistinctionbetweenspeciesidentifiedas“endangered”(listedinAppendixItotheCMS)andthose

7.ResolutionNo.5(1998)concerningtherulesfortheNetworkofAreasofSpecialConservationInterest(EmeraldNetwork).8.CaseFileNo.26.

10

consideredtohavean“unfavourableconservationstatus”(listedinAppendixIItotheCMS),withdifferingobligationsandpoliciesprescribedinrelationtoeachcategory.Indoingso,strictprotectionmeasuresareprescribedforsuchspecies,includingregulatinganthropogenicactivitiesthatmaycauseharmtosuchspeciesandortheirhabitats(ArticleIII).

TheCMSisperhapsmostnotableforitsinnovativeregulatorysysteminrespectofAnnexIIspecies,forwhichthepartiesareencouragedtocooperatetoadvancetheconservationofsuchspecies,bymeansofsubsidiaryagreementsadoptedundertheauspicesofArticleIVoftheConvention.Inthisrespect,twobroadtypesofinstrumentsareenvisaged:AgreementsunderArticleIV(3)andAgreementsunderArticleIV(4)whichprescribedifferingobligationsandcriteriaforparticipations.Duetothisarrangement,aparticipanttoaCMSsubsidiaryAgreementneednotbeaformalpartytotheparentconvention,assuchinstrumentsareessentiallydesignedtobeself-sufficientoffshootsfromtheCMS.

AnumberofsubsidiaryagreementsrelatingtocetaceanshavebeenelaboratedundertheauspicesoftheCMS.TheUKisafullpartytotheAgreementontheConservationofSmallCetaceansoftheBalticSea,North-EastAtlantic,IrishandNorthSeas1991(ASCOBANS9),whichisthesoleinternationalinstrumentthataddressessmallcetaceansexclusively.ASCOBANSprescribesaseriesofcommitmentstowardsaddressingconcernsforsmallcetaceans,includingby-catches,pollutionanddisturbance.TheUKhasbeenanactiveparticipanttoASCOBANSsinceitsinception.TheUKhasalsoparticipatedin–althoughisnotafullpartyto–theAgreementontheConservationofCetaceansoftheBlackSea,MediterraneanSeaandContiguousAtlanticArea1996,throughtheincorporationofGibraltarianwaterswithintheAgreementArea.

AtitslatestConferenceofPartiesin2011,CMSagreedacomprehensiveglobalworkplanforcetaceanswithpotentiallywiderangingconsequencesforthesespecies10.Thisinitiativeistheculminationofalong-standinginterestintheplightofcetaceanswithintheCMS,whichhasadoptedaseriesofResolutionstoaddressthesespeciessinceitsinception–includingnumerouspoliciestowardsbycatches,oceannoise,marinedebris,data-deficienciesandotherimpedimentstotheiroptimumconservationstatus.AlthoughtheseResolutionsdonothaveformalbindingeffect,theyhavenonethelessguidedpolicydevelopmentswithinthesubsidiaryAgreementsandprovideanadditionalpoliticalimpetustowardscetaceanconservationbytheCMSparties.

3.1.5 Convention on Biological Diversity 1992TheConventiononBiologicalDiversity(CBD)wasdevelopedundertheauspicesoftheUNConferenceonEnvironmentandDevelopmentinRiodeJaneiroin1992,andremainsoneofthemostwidelyratifiedmultilateralinstrumentscurrentlyaddressingnatureconservationconcerns,with191partiestodate.

TheCBDisalengthydocument,butaimsprimarily“to anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity at source”(preamble),bypromotingcooperation,institutionbuildingandtheconservationofecosystemsandnaturalhabitatsandtherecoveryofendangeredspecies.Tothisend,whilerecognisingthesovereignrightofstatestoexploittheirownresourcespursuanttonationalenvironmentalpolicies,suchrightsareintertwinedwiththeresponsibilitytoensurethatactivitiesconductedwithintheirjurisdictiondonotcausedamagetootherstates(Article3).UnderArticle6,partiesareprimarilyrequiredtodevelopnationalstrategies,plansandpoliciesfortheconservationandsustainableuseofbiodiversityandtointegratesuchstrategiesintorelevantsectoralpolicies.Toattainsuchgoals,partiesarerequiredtocooperatethroughcompetentinternationalorganisations(Article5),aswellasestablishprotectedareas(Article8)andconductresearchprogrammes(Article9).

WhilecetaceanshavehistoricallyoccupiedperipheralattentionwithintheCBD,theTenthConferenceofthePartiesidentifiedaseriesofissuesofemergingconcern,includingecotourism,oceannoise,humanhealthconsiderationsandArcticbiodiversity,suggestingthatthisforummaybeofgreaterfuturevaluetointernationalconservationeffortsregardingcetaceans.Ofmostobviousdirectrelevance,however,isthefundamentalrequirementforpartiestodevelopNationalBiodiversityStrategiesandActionPlans(Article6).Tothisend,aseriesofBiodiversityActionPlansarebeingdevelopedbytheUKforcertainspeciesorgroupsofspecies..

3.1.6 Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic TheUKisapartytotheConventionfortheProtectionoftheMarineEnvironmentoftheNorth-EastAtlantic(OSPAR),underwhichaseriesofinitiativeshavebeenadvancedfortheconservationofcetaceans.TheOSPAR

9.Concluded1991,cameintoforcein1994;agreementareawasextendedandredefinedin2008.10.UNEP/CMSResolution10.15:GLOBALPROGRAMMEOFWORKFORCETACEANS

11

ConventionprescribescommitmentstowardstherestorationoftheecologicalintegrityoftheNorth-EastAtlanticand,especially,theconservationofmarineecosystems(Article2(1)).TheOSPARframeworkalsoofferspossibilitiesforthedevelopmentofmarineprotectedareaswithintheregion.Moreover,althoughOSPARdoesnothavecompetenceoverfisheries,ithasprescribedaseriesofprogrammesofEcologicalQualityObjectives(EcoQOs).AnEcoQOprojectwasestablishedin2005forby-catchesofNorthSeapopulationsofharbourporpoises.RecentdevelopmentswithinOSPARincludeattemptstoaddresstheproblemofanthropogenicoceannoise(e.g.OSPAR2010).

3.2 European LegislationTherelevantUKlegislationaddressingcetaceansisessentiallydrivenbytheneedtoeffectivelytransposepertinentEUobligations.TheEUhasalong-standingregulatoryinterestinrespectofcetaceans.ThemostsignificantprovisioninthisrespectistheHabitatsandSpeciesDirectiveadoptedin199211(hereafterreferredtoas‘TheHabitatsDirective’.Inaddition,theMarineStrategyFrameworkDirective(MSFD),adoptedin2008,willprovideaseriesofoverarchingpoliciestoaddressthedegradedstateofEUseaareas,whichalsohassignificantimplicationsforcetaceans.Specificmeasureshavealsobeenprescribedforfisheries,whiletheEuropeanCommissionhasalsopromotedacommonstanceonwhalingissueswithinpertinentinternationalbodies.

3.2.1 Habitats DirectiveTheHabitatsDirective,astheforemostprovisionofEUnatureconservationlaw,representstheprimarybasisforregulatoryactionforcetaceans,bothataEuropeanCommunitylevelandwithintheindividualMemberStates.TheDirectiveseeksto“contribute towards ensuring bio-diversity through the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora in the European territory of the Member States”(Article2(1)).Nationalactivitiesareaccordinglydesignedtomaintainorrestorenaturalhabitatsandspeciesof“Communityinterest”atFavourableConservationStatus(Article2(2).

Inpursuingtheseobjectives,theHabitatsDirectiveadvancesatwo-prongedapproachtotheconservationofEuropeanfaunaandflora.Firstly,theDirectiveaimstoestablishanetworkofSpecialAreasofConservation(SACs),knowncollectivelyas“Natura2000”.TheNaturanetworkcomprisessitesidentifiedbytheMemberStatesashostingparticularhabitattypes(listedinAnnexIofthedirective),orthehabitatsofparticularspecies(listedinAnnexII).Todate,onlytwospeciesofcetaceanshavebeenlistedonAnnexII,namelytheharbourporpoiseandthebottlenosedolphin.Secondly,MemberStatesarerequiredtoguaranteethestrictprotection,withintheirnaturalrange,ofallspecieslistedinAnnexIV(a)oftheDirective.SinceallspeciesofcetaceanshavebeenlistedinAnnexIV(a),theMemberStatesareaccordinglyrequiredtoensurethatthedistinctconservationandmanagementrequirementsestablishedforsuchspeciesareobservedthroughouttheirterritory(Article2(1)).Thereare27speciesofcetaceansrecordedinUKwaters(Reidet al.2003;Evans,2008).

3.2.1.1 The designation of cetacean SACsThedesignationprocessforcetaceanSACsisnodifferenttothatofanyotherspecies,whichispredicatedsolelyonrelevantscientificcriteria(Commissionv.France,CaseC-166/97[1999]ECRI-1719).MemberStatesfirstproposealistofappropriatenativesites,containingthenaturalhabitattypeslistedinAnnexI,aswellasthosehostingspecieslistedinAnnexII(Article4(1)),forwhichcriteriaforthedesignationofSACsareprovidedinAnnexIIIoftheDirective.Ingeneralterms,asfarasAnnexIIspeciesareconcerned,AnnexIIIlaysdownthefollowingconsiderationsassiteassessmentcriteria:

• Size and density of the population of the species present on the site in relation to the populations present within national territory.

• The degree of conservation of the features of the habitat which are important for the species concerned and restoration possibilities.

• The degree of isolation of the population present on the site in relation to the natural range of the species.• The global assessment of the value of the site for the conservation of the species concerned.

Onthebasisofthisinformation,theindicativelistofsuchareasproducedbytheMemberStateissubsequentlytransmittedtotheCommission,togetherwithrelevantevidenceandinformationofqualification(Article4(2)).Basedonthisinformation,theCommissionisresponsibleforproducingadraftlistofSitesofCommunityImportance(SCIs)inconsultationwiththeMemberState,whichwillthenbeformallyadopted.TheMemberStateisthenrequiredtoofficiallydesignateanysuchsitewithinitsjurisdictionasaSAC“as soon as possible and within six years at most”(Article4(4)).

11.CouncilDirective92/43/EECof21May1992ontheconservationofnaturalhabitatsandofwildfaunaandflora

12

ThedevelopmentofcetaceanSACsthroughoutEUwatershasbeenratherslow.Article4(1)providesthat“[f]or aquatic species which range over wide areas, such sites will be proposed only where there is a clearly identifiable area representing the physical and biological factors essential to their life and reproduction”.

Followinganexperts’meetinginBrusselson14December2000,DGEnvironmentconcludedthatitispossibletoidentifyareasrepresentingcrucialfactorsforthelifecycleofthisspecies,usingthefollowingbasisforsiteselection:

• Thecontinuousorregularpresenceofthespecies(althoughsubjectedtoseasonalvariations);• Goodpopulationdensity(inrelationtoneighbouringareas);and• Highratioofyoungtoadults(inrelationtoneighbouringareas)

Inaddition,otherbiologicalelementscanbecharacteristicsoftheseareas,suchasaverydevelopedsocialandsexuallife.Thisisfurtherdiscussedbelow.

DGEnvironmentadvocatedanapproachbasedontheabove-mentionedcharacteristicsandsuggestedthatitbeappliedwithaviewtositeselectionforthisspecies(seeInterpretationNote:Hab.01/05).

ThishasprovedtobepracticallychallengingformanyMemberStates(Caddell,2012).Difficultiesindemonstratingunequivocallythatareasofhighspeciesdensityarealsoinfact“essential to life and reproduction”,iscitedasaprimaryreasonfortruncatingtheparametersofakeySACforharbourporpoiseswithintheGermanEEZ(Pedersenet al.2009).SimilarproblemshavebeenexperiencedinDutchwaters(Dotinga&Trouwborst2009).

3.2.1.2 Management of cetacean SACsTheHabitatsDirectiveestablishesobligationsupontheMemberStatesinrelationtoSACs,mostnotablyunderArticle6,whichprovidesthebroadframeworkofprotectivemeasurestobetakenandthecoexistenceofconservationstrategiesandeconomicactivitieswithinthesesites.UnderArticle6(1),thenationalauthorities“shall establish the necessary conservation measures involving, if need be, appropriate management plans specifically designed for the sites or integrated into other development plans, and appropriate statutory, administrative or contractual measures which correspond to the ecological requirements”ofthehabitatsorspeciesinquestion.

ParticularobligationsapplytothehabitatsofAnnexIIcetaceansunderArticle6(2),whichbecomeoperationalassoonasasiteisdesignatedaSCI(Article4(5)).Thisprovisionprescribesatwo-prongedapproachtohabitatprotection,withMemberStatesto“take appropriate steps to avoid, in the Special Areas of Conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of this Directive”.TheDirectiveoffersnodefinitionofwhatismeantbya“significant”disturbance.TheGuidelines for the designation and management of specially protected marine areas(CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunity(CEC)2007,hereinafterreferredtoas“Marine Guidelines”)havecitedoilandgasexplorationandecotourismactivitiesasexamplesoftypicalsourcesofdisturbanceinthecetaceanenvironment.Accordingly,thedevelopmentoflocalisedguidelinestoaddresssuchactivitiesmaybeconsideredanincreasinglyimportantaspectofSACmanagementonthepartoftheMemberStates.Forinstance,Irishpracticeinrelationtotheestablishmentofdolphin-watchingoperationsintheShannonEstuarySACmandateswrittengovernmentconsent,withpermissioncontingentuponadherencetospecificCodesofPractice(Hoyt2005).

UnderArticle6.2oftheDirective,forSACs,MemberStatesarerequiredtoestablishthenecessaryconservationmeasures,involvingappropriatemanagementplanswhichcorrespondtotheecologicalrequirementsofthehabitatsandspeciespresentonthesites.MemberStatesarealsorequiredtotakeappropriatestepstoavoidthedeteriorationofnaturalhabitatsandhabitatsofspecies,andthesignificantdisturbanceofspeciesforwhichareashavebeendesignated.

DespitetheestablishmentofSACsforAnnexIIcetaceansundertheDirective,developmentactivitiesmaystilloccurwithintheseareas.Article6(3)providesthat“[a]ny plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives”.However,theDirectiveissilentonwhatconstitutesa“planorproject”forthepurposesofthisprovision.ApreliminaryrulingbytheECJ12hasclarifiedthisissuesomewhat,suggestingthat“theterms‘plan’or‘project’should

12.Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee, Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Vogelsv.Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij,CaseC-127/02

13

beinterpretedbroadly,notrestrictively”.MorerecentlyaUKHighCourt13decisionreinforcedthisinterpretationandthatanyactionthatcouldpotentiallyhaveanimpactshouldbeconsideredaplanorprojectandanAppropriateAssessmenttriggered.Likewise,theconceptofa“significant”effectisundefined.AsubstantialnegativeimpactofsuchactivitiescouldbepotentiallyexperiencedwithinaSAC,withoutnecessarilytriggeringasignificantimpactforthepurposesoftheconservationstatusoftheanimalsconcerned.

Moresignificantly,Article6(4)providesthat“[i]f, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected”.Thenotionof“imperative reasons of overriding public interest”isvagueandlargelyundefined.Thereisalsolittlepreciseindicationofthe“compensatory measures”requiredofthenationalauthorities.

WhereaMemberStateinvokesthisexemptiontopursueaparticularprojectinanareaforwhichAnnexIIspeciesarepresent,itmayonlycitethreebroadgroundsforproceedingonthisbasis,namelyconsiderationsofhumanhealthorpublicsafety,beneficialconsequencesofprimaryimportancefortheenvironmentor“further to an opinion from the Commission, to other reasons of overriding public interest”.

Giventhehighlylimitedpracticetodate,thegroundsuponwhichdevelopmentactivitiesmaybepermittedincetaceanSACsremainuncertain.Nevertheless,certainkeyindustrialactivitieshavebeenidentifiedwithintheMarineGuidelinesforwhichsupervisionwillberequiredwhencarriedoutinproximitytoorwithinSACs.Inadditiontoecotourismactivities,particularconcernhasbeenreservedforoilandgasexploitation,activesonaruse,vessel-basednoiseandacousticby-catchmitigationdevices,allofwhich“need to be regulated in accordance with the provisions of article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive if they are likely to have a significant effects [sic] on protected features at a Natura 2000 site”(MarineGuidelines).Likewise,fisheriesactivitiesmayalsorequiremanagementmeasureswithintheseareas.

3.2.1.3 ‘Strict protection’ measures under Article 12TheHabitatsDirectiverequiresthatMemberStates“shall take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex IV(a) in their natural range”(Article12(1)).Allspeciesofcetaceansarelisted.Thereislittlejudicialauthorityinrelationtotheserequirementsspecificallyaddressingthe“strictprotection”ofcetaceans,withonlyonecaseseeminglybroughttodate.

InCommissionv.Ireland (Case C-183/05),infringementproceedingswerebroughtforaseriesofallegedbreachesoftheHabitatsDirectiveconcerninganeclecticgroupofspecies,includingcetaceans.InthisrespecttwocentralcomplaintspertainingtocetaceanswereraisedbytheCommission.Firstly,itwasallegedthattheIrishauthoritieshadfailedtoestablishasystemofstrictprotectionduetoanabsenceofanationalactionplanforcetaceansandafailuretofulfilsurveillanceandmonitoringobligations.Secondly,concernswereraisedthataprojecttolayagaspipelineinBroadhavenBayinvolvedtheuseofexplosives,which,despiteacknowledgingthatthesoundcreatedwouldhaveanadverseimpactoncetaceans,wasnonethelessauthorisedbythegovernmentwithoutenteringaderogationunderArticle16.TheIrishauthoritiesrespondedthataspeciesactionplanwas“underway”andthatmonitoringprojectswerebeingconductedbyconservationvolunteersalongsidemorein-depthgovernmentstudiesincertainareas.Moreover,anationalrecordsdatabasehadsincebeenestablishedtogetherwithfulladherencetotheby-catchmonitoringobligationsprescribedunderrelevantfisherieslegislation,whilepermissionforseismicblastinghadbeengrantedinaccordancewithnationalrules.

TheEuropeanCourtofJustice(ECJ)foundIrelandtobeinbreachofitscommitmentsinrelationtoAnnexIV(a)cetaceansonbothcounts.Thefailuretoestablishspeciesactionplans,considered“an effective means of meeting the strict protection requirement under Article 12(1)”,wasdeemedtobeabreachoftheDirective.Particularcriticismwasalsoreservedforsurveillanceactivities,consideredwhileresourcesformarineconservationwere“especially meagre”andwildliferangers“focussed on terrestrial duties and do not have any meaningful seagoing capacity”.Accordingly,theCourtruledthatasystemofstrictprotectionhadnotbeendemonstrated.Furthermore,itwasheldthatthenationalauthorisationprocessforseismicsurveyingwastoopermissive,renderingbreedingandrestingsitesforcetaceans“subject to disturbances and threats which the Irish rules do not make it possible to prevent”.

TheUKgovernmenthasbeenconsideringplansforseismicexplorationandoilandgasdevelopmentadjacentto

13.R(ontheapplicationofAkesterandMelanaphy)vDefra&WightlinkLimited(Wightlink)

14

andinsidetheSACintheMorayFirthinNEScotlandwhichhasbottlenosedolphinsasoneofitsfeatures.Thisisconsideredfurtherbelowincasestudy5.

ScallopdredginginthebottlenosedolphinSACinCardiganBay,WestWalesisthesubjectofacomplainttoEuropebyanumberofnon-governmentalbodies,includingWDCS(thisisfurtherconsideredbelow).

3.2.1.4 Fisheries issues and the implementation of the Habitats DirectiveAsnotedabove,theprotectionofcetaceansunderEUlawhasbeenprimarilyguidedbyobligationsestablishedundertheHabitatsDirective.TheimplementationoftheNatura2000networkandsecuringthestrictprotectionofcetaceansinECwatershavebeenclearlyidentifiedasongoingprioritiesfortheMemberStatesinaddressingtheconservationneedsofmarinebiodiversity.Suchendeavourswillthereforeformtheprimaryfocusofinitiativestoprotectcetaceansinthemid-andlong-termfuture.However,despitethisstatedfocus,anunintentionalimpedimenttotheEUframeworkhasarisenduetothedivisionofcompetencesbetweentheEUinstitutionsandtheMemberStatesinthefieldoffisheries.Thishasbeenespeciallypronouncedinthecontextofmarinebiodiversity,asopposedtoterrestrialspecies,duetotheneedtoaddressfisheriesinteractions.Bycatchesareconsideredtoposeaseriousconservationthreattocetaceans,withtherisksposedbyEuropeanfisheriesdeemedespeciallyacute.ThereisaccordinglyanurgentneedtoaddressthisissueaspartofawiderpolicytoensurethestrictprotectionofcetaceansbytheMemberStatesandtoensuretheecologicalintegrityofSACs.

TheEUexplicitlyclaimedcompetenceoverfisheriesin1992byvirtueoftheTreatyonEuropeanUnion(Article3).Priortothis,fisheriesmeasureswereintroducedaspartoftheCommunity’sremittoregulateagriculturalproducts,whichincludedaspectsoffisheriesconcerns.In1981,theECJconfirmedthattheECexercisedexclusivecompetenceoverfisheries(CaseC-804/79;Commissionv.United Kingdom[1981]ECR1045).SubjecttopowersdelegatedtotheMemberStates,theEuropeanCouncilisthereforechargedwithestablishingtheconditionsregulatingfishingactivitiespursuedbyCommunityfleets.Thisincludesthedevelopmentoftechnicalmeasuresinrespectoffishingandtheconservationandexploitationoffisheriesresources.InthecontextoftheCommonFisheriesPolicy(CFP)14,thisisaddressedbytheCouncilthrougha“BasicRegulation”,withthecurrentversionadoptedin2002followingaroot-and-branchreformofcommunityfisheriesobjectives(CouncilRegulationEC2371/2002of20December2002ontheconservationandsustainabledevelopmentoffisheriesresourcesundertheCommonFisheriesPolicy).Asnotedbelow,suchpowershavespawnedaseriesofprotectivemeasurestoaddresstheparticularproblemofcetaceanby-catchesincommunityfisheries.However,thesearrangementshavealsocreatedconsiderabledifficultiesforMemberStatestopursueindividualpoliciestoaddressparticularconcernsovertheincidentalmortalityofcetaceanswithintheirjurisdictionalwaters.

Chronologically,thefirstmajorlegislativeacknowledgementbytheEUofthethreatposedtomarinewildlifefromincidentalcapturecamein1992throughtheHabitatsDirectiveasopposedtospecificfisherieslegislation.Inlinewithcommitmentstowardsindividualprotectedspecies,incidentalcatchesareaddressedunderArticle12(4)whichestablishesanobligationtoaddress,inter alia,by-catches:

“Member States shall establish a system to monitor the incidental capture and killing of the animal species listed in Annex IV(a). In light of the information gathered, Member States shall take further research or conservation measures as required to ensure that incidental capture and killing does not have a significant impact on the species concerned”. This requirement is further bolstered in Article 15 of the Directive, which requires Member States to prohibit “the use of all indiscriminate means capable of causing local disappearance of, or serious disturbance to, populations of such species”.

Forterrestrialspecies,thereislittleobviousimpedimenttothedevelopmentofpoliciesbytheindividualMemberStatestoimplementthisobligation.However,formarinespecies,dischargingcommitmentsunderArticle12(4)willinevitablyrequiretheintroductionofrestrictionsonfishingactivities.So,whileArticle12(4)maytechnicallymandatefurtherby-catchmitigationmeasures,inpractice,MemberStatesarenotfreelyabletoswiftlyadoptsuchpoliciesinthemannerenvisagedbythisprovision.

Instead,havingtransferredlegislativecompetenceoverfisheriestotheEC,aMemberStatewishingtointroduceprotectionmeasuresinthecontextofbycatchesmustinsteadrelyonpowersdelegatedbytheCouncil.Inthisrespect,theBasicRegulationprescribesahighlylimitedscopefortheunilateralimpositionofemergencyenvironmentalmeasures.Whereaparticularlypressingsituationarises,aMemberStatemust,inthefirstinstance,requestthattheCommissionintroducestemporaryemergencymeasures(Article7).MemberStatesretainapower

14.FormoreinformationontheCFPandfisheriesissuesseeNunny(2011).

15

underArticle8tointroducemeasuresforaperiodofuptothreemonthsinduration,butthedevelopmentofmitigationstrategiesonamoresustainedbasisremainstheresponsibilityoftheEU.ThispositionoffersconsiderablylessflexibilitytoMemberStatestomitigateindividualisedbycatchconcernsinnationalwatersthatmaynotbereplicatedonaCommunity-widebasisandmaythereforebelesslikelytocommandEUattention.

EuropeanCouncilRegulationNo812/2004ofApril2004laysdownmeasuresconcerningincidentalcatchesofcetaceansinfisheries andamendedRegulation(EC)No88/98.TheRegulationcontainstwomainprovisions:

1)theuseofacousticdeterrentdevices(pingers)ingillnetandtanglenetfisheries,and2)onboardobservermonitoringofbycatch.

TheRegulationEClaysdowninArticles2and3thatspecifiedbottom-setgillnetandentanglingnetfisheriesarerequiredtousepingersduringspecifiedperiodsorallyearintheareasindicatedinAnnexI.IntheNorthSeaarea,theseareICESareasIV(NorthSea),IIIa(Skagerrak),VIIe(WesternEnglishChannel)andVIId(EasternEnglishChannel).ThestartingdateofthisrequirementwasJune2005forareasIVandIIIa,January2006forVIIeandisJanuary2007forVIId.TheRegulationalsodetailsthetechnicalspecificationsofthepingerstobeusedinitsAnnexII).

MemberStatesmayauthorisethetemporaryuseofacousticdeterrentdeviceswhichdonotfulfilthetechnicalspecificationsorconditionsofusedefinedinannexIIoftheRegulation,providedthattheireffectonthereductionorincidentalcatchesofcetaceanshasbeensufficientlydocumented.Suchauthorisationsshallnotbevalidformorethantwoyears.

Articles4and5requireMemberStatestoestablishobserverschemestomonitortheincidentalcaptureofcetaceansinthefisheriesandatlevelsspecifiedinAnnexIII.However,thefisheriesthataresubjecttopingerrequirementsunderArticles2and3(whichcovermostoftheNorthSeaarea)arenotincludedinAnnexIII,butshouldbesubjecttoscientificstudiesorpilotprojectstomonitorandassesstheeffectsofpingeruseovertime.Fishingvesselswithanoveralllengthoflessthan15mareexemptfromtheobserverrequirement,butforthefisherieslistedinAnnexIII,thesevesselsshouldbemonitoredbyappropriatescientificstudiesorpilotprojects.Critically,theregulationincludesnorequirementtomonitorcetaceanbycatchbysmallvessels(<15m)inthefisheriesandareassubjecttothepingerrequirements(AnnexI).Thismeansthatmanyvessels,particularlyininshorefisheriesinareaswhereporpoisebycatchhasalreadybeenidentifiedasasignificantproblemarenotrequiredtobemonitored.

3.2.2 Marine Strategy Framework Directive 2008TheMarineStrategyFrameworkDirective(MSFD)15wasmandatedasakeycomponentofEUactivitytowardsthemarineenvironmentundertheSixthEnvironmentalActionProgramme,adoptedin2002.InitialCommissionproposalsforathematicmarinestrategywereunveiledinOctober2005(COM(2005)504),whichidentifiedaseriesofdeficiencieswithinthepre-existinglegislativeandpolicyframework.Inthisregard,particularconcernswereraisedbytheinadequateinstitutionalframeworkandadeficientknowledgebase,identifyinganeedtoproceedwithadualEU-regionalapproach,basedonecosystemconsiderationandMemberStateinteractioninframingfuturemarinepolicy.Followingalengthyprocessofconsultation,theMSFDwasadoptedinJune2008establishingaframeworkforcommunityactioninthefieldofmarineenvironmentalpolicy.TheMSFDisintendedtooperateasan“environmentalpillar”toadistinctMaritimePolicy,forwhichaGreenPaperwasadoptedinJune2006(SEC(2006)689),andworkiscurrentlyunderwaytodevelopaprogrammeofmeasuresunderthisbroadumbrella.

TheoverallobjectiveoftheMSFDistoprovide“a framework within which Member States shall take the necessary measures to achieve or maintain good environmental status within the marine environment by the year 2020 at the latest”(Article1(1)).A“good environmental status”involvestheprovisionof“ecologically diverse and dynamic oceans and seas which are clean, healthy and productive within their intrinsic conditions, and the use of the marine environment is at a level that is sustainable, thus safeguarding the potential for uses and activities by current and future generations”(Article3(5)).Implicitinthisoptimalconditionisthatconstituentmarineecosystemscanwithstandanthropogenicchange,andhabitatsandspeciesareprotected,whiletheanthropogenicimpactofsubstancesandenergy–includingnoise–intothemarineenvironmentdoesnotcausepollutioneffects.InascertainingtheenvironmentalstatusofCommunityseas,aseriesofindicatorsandqualitativedescriptorsareestablishedintheAnnexestotheDirective.

Inpursuingthisobjective,andinkeepingwiththeprincipleofsubsidiarity,theMSFDplacesresponsibilityformarinegovernanceprimarilyatanationalorregionallevel,subjecttoEUsupervision.Accordingly,inthefirstinstance,each

15.Directive2008/56/ECoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilof17June2008.

16

MemberStateisrequiredtodevelopamarinestrategyforitsnationalwaters,encompassingaclearassessmentoftheircurrentenvironmentalstatusandatargetedprogrammeofmeasurestobeintroducedby2016atthelatest(Article5(1)).Recognisingthatindividualcoastalstatesarecomponentsofawidermarineregionorsub-region,MemberStatesaretotake“dueaccount”ofthisposition(Article4(1))andcooperatetoensurethatagoodenvironmentalstatusisattainedinrespectoftheregionorsub-regionconcerned(Article5(2)).Inimplementingthesecommitments,nationalassessmentsshouldexamineessentialfeaturesandcharacteristicsoftheseareas,thepredominantpressuresuponthemandtheirprimaryeconomicandsocialuses(Article8(1)).Fromthisappraisalaseriesofenvironmentaltargetsshallbeidentified(Article10),aswellascoordinatedmonitoringprogrammesfortheongoingassessmentofthesewaters(Article11).Adetailedprogrammeofmeasuresisthentobedeveloped(Article13(1),includingcontributingtoprotectedareasundertheEUnatureconservationdirectives(Article13(4)).

TheMSFDcitesits“ultimateaim”as“maintaining biodiversity and providing diverse and dynamic oceans and seas which are clean, healthy and productive”.AparticularstrengthoftheDirectiveisitsemphasisupontheuseofexistingregionalstructures,focusinguponthepotentialapplicationoftheUnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramRegionalSeasAgreements(Article6(1)).ThefocusonregionalapproacheswithintheMSFDshouldalsoprovideopportunitiesforASCOBANSandACCOBAMS(AgreementontheConservationofCetaceansintheBlackSea,MediterraneanSeaandContiguousAtlanticArea)tocontributetotheenvisagedframeworkofmarineenvironmentalgovernanceinCommunitywaters.AlthoughbothACCOBAMSandASCOBANSwererathermarginalisedinthedraftingprocessoftheMSFD(Caddell,2008),theworkoftheirvariouscommitteesandworkinggroupscouldhaveaconsiderableroletoplayindevelopingbenchmarksfortheDirective’sprojectedactivities.Tothisend,ACCOBAMShasestablishedadesignatedWorkingGrouponthisissue.TheMSFDcouldhelpwithanumberofissuesincludingover-exploitationoffish,cetaceanbycatch,preydepletionandchemicalpollution.

TheMSFDalsoplacesparticularemphasisupontheproblemofoceannoiseinamannerunprecedentedatCommunityleveltodate.Indeed,inthisrespect,theMSFDmaybeconsideredthefirstcleartranslationofpoliticalconcernsonthisissueintobindinglegislationandpublicpolicy.ConcernsraisedbyanthropogenicoceannoisehaveoccupiedasmallbutsignificantaspectoftheEUpoliticalagenda,shortlyaftertheidentificationofnavalsonarasapotentiallyseriousthreattocetaceanwelfare(Simmonds&Lopez-Jurado1991;Frantzis1998).InOctober2004,theEuropeanParliamentadoptedaResolutioncallingforamoratoriumonthedeploymentofhigh-intensityactivesonars“until a global assessment of their cumulative environmental impact on marine mammals, fish and other marine life is completed”.Moreover,MemberStateswereto“urgently adopt”geographicrestrictionsontheuseofsuchsonarinsensitivemarinehabitatsandtoinitiate,inconjunctionwiththeCommission,aMultilateralTaskForcetodevelopinternationalagreementsregulatingoceannoise.

TheMSFDhastherebyestablishedaclearlegalbasisuponwhichanumberoftheseparticularaspirationsmayberealised.Inthefirstinstance,theconceptof“pollution”isbroadlydefinedintheDirectivetospecificallyinclude“human-induced marine underwater noise”(Article3(8)).Moreover,thequalitativedescriptorsfordemonstratinga“goodenvironmentalstatus”forthepurposesoftheDirective,listedinAnnexI,specificallyincludesunderwaternoise,whiletheindicativelistofpressuresuponthemarineenvironment,listedinAnnexIII,alsoincludesthissourceofdisturbance,citing“shipping,underwateracousticequipment”asparticularexamples.Thereissomeevidencetosuggestthatsuchsentimentsarebeginningtohaveatrickle-downeffectuponCommunitypolicies.Indeed,shortlyaftertheadoptionoftheDirective,inacommunicationrelatingtotheArcticregion,theCommissionidentifiedasakeyenvironmentalpolicytheneedto“[c]ontribute to assessing the impact on marine mammals of increased noise generated by human activities”(COM(2008)763).

Nevertheless,considerableproblemsremaininrelationtomilitaryusesofsonar(Papanicopolou2010).ThispositionhasbeenreflectedwithintheDirectiveitself,whichprecludesanapplicationto“activities the sole purpose of which is defence or national security”(Article2(2)).ThispositionistentativelysoftenedbyacommitmentforMemberStatesto“endeavour”toensurethatsuchactivitiesareconductedinamannerthatiscompatible“so far as reasonable and practicable”withthebroadobjectivesoftheMSFD.GiventhatonlySpainhastodateintroducednationalrestrictionsontheuseofmilitarysonar(Parsonset al.2010a&b),suchapositiondoesnotbodewellfortheswiftimplementationofvoluntarystandardsamongtheotherMemberStatesundertheDirective.

Finally,theMSFDisintendedtoactastheenvironmentalbasisofshippingandmaritimeaffairswithinCommunitywaters.Accordingly,theDirectivewillultimatelyadvanceaframeworkthroughwhichtoregulatekeyaspectsofshippingwiththepotentialtocausemarineenvironmentaldegradation.Asfarascetaceansareconcerned,thiscreatesparticularopportunitiestoaddressproblemssuchasvessel-sourcepollutionandshippingnoise,giventheemphasisaccordedtotheseissueswithintheDirective.Nevertheless,theemergenceofsuchmeasuresunderthe

17

MSFD/MaritimePolicyframeworkisalsolikelytoconstitutealonger-termprojectandthepreciseinter-relationshipbetweenthesetwobroadoceanframeworksremainsamatterofsomeuncertainty.

3.2.3 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive 1985TwoEuropeanDirectivesrequiretheenvironmentalimpactofprojectstobeassessedbeforepermissionisgranted.TheEnvironmentalImpactAssessment(EIA)Directive16datesfrom1985,yetitsUKApplicationwasinitiallyundertheTownandCountryPlanningAct,whichonlyappliestoterrestrialandtidalareasoftheUK.TheEIADirectivewasnotinitiallyappliedoffshoretoallsectors.However,followingacomplainttoEuropebyFriendsoftheEarthCymruandFriendsofCardiganBay(seechapter5.6.5),theDirectivewasappliedfortheoilandgasindustryundertheOffshore Petroleum Production and Pipe-lines (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1999 as amended andtheOffshore Petroleum Activities (Conservation of Habitats) Regulations, 2001which variouslyrequirethatallmajoractivitiesundertakeninconnectionwithUKoffshorehydrocarbonexplorationandproductionshouldbesubjecttoenvironmentalassessmentbeforeconsentisgivenfortheseactivities.Ithassincebeenappliedforvariousotherdevelopments,suchasrenewableenergydevelopments,underseparateregulationsaslistedbelow:

• TheEnvironmentalAssessmentofPlansandProgrammesRegulations2004–theseregulationsapplytoanyplanorprogrammewhichrelateseithertothewholeoranypartofEnglandortoEnglandandotherpartsoftheUK.TheregulationsalsoapplytotheterritorialwatersoftheUnitedKingdomthatarenotpartofNorthernIreland,ScotlandorWales,andwatersinanyareaforthetimebeingdesignatedunderSection1(7)oftheContinentalShelfAct1964.

• TheEnvironmentalAssessmentofPlansandProgrammes(Scotland)Regulations2004–theseregulationsapplytoplansorprogrammeswhichrelatesolelytothewholeoranypartofScotland.

• TheEnvironmentalAssessmentofPlansandProgrammes(Wales)Regulations2004-theseregulationsapplytoplansorprogrammeswhichrelatesolelytothewholeoranypartofWales.

• TheEnvironmentalAssessmentofPlansandProgrammesRegulations(NorthernIreland)2004–theseregulationsapplytoplansorprogrammeswhichrelatesolelytothewholeoranypartofNorthernIreland.

3.2.4 Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive 2001EUDirective2001/42/EC2001ontheassessmentoftheeffectsofcertainplansandprogrammesontheenvironmentrequiresanoverarchingassessmentof“plansorprogrammes”,basicallyGovernmentpolicies,tobesubjecttoaStrategicEnvironmentalAssessment.Thesehavebeenundertakenforoil&gasandrenewableenergylicensinginrecentyears.

TheDirective’sstatedobjectiveis“to provide for a high level of protection of the environment and to contribute to the integration of environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans and programmes with a view to promoting sustainable development, by ensuring that, in accordance with this Directive, an environmental assessment is carried out of certain plans and programmes which are likely to have significant effects on the environment”

3.2.5 Whaling policiesAsfarasthelethalcatchoflargecetaceansisconcerned,theEUasaninstitutionalcollectiveiscommittedto“continue its support of a continued international moratorium on commercial whaling”(COM(2008)864).StrongcriticismhasalsobeenvoicedbytheEuropeanCommissionoftheresumptionofcommercialwhalingunderareservationtotheICRWbyNorwayandIceland–attackedas“averynegativestepbackwards”–whilelethalscientificresearchconductedbyJapanprovokedanequallystridentresponse.SuchsentimentshavebeenrecentlyendorsedbytheEuropeanParliament,whichhascalledforthemaintenanceoftheglobalmoratoriumoncommercialwhalingandacessationoflethalresearch.TheEUnonethelessretainsbroadsupportforaboriginalsubsistencewhalingconductedthroughtheIWC,providedthat“conservation is not compromised, whaling operations are properly regulated and catches remain within the scope of documented and recognised sustainable needs”(COM(2008)763).

OfparticularsignificancetotheEUstanceoncommercialwhalinghasbeentheintroductionofstrictmeasuresunderrulesconcerningthecommonmarkettorestricttheimportofcetaceanproductsintotheCommunity(CouncilRegulation(EEC)No.348/81of20January1981oncommonrulesforimportsofwhalesorothercetaceanproducts).Theseprovisionsestablishedthat,from1January1982,theintroductionofcetaceanproductsintotheCommunityshallbesubjecttoanimportlicense,withnosuchlicensetobeissuedinrespectofproductstobeusedforcommercialpurposes.

16.CouncilDirective85/337/EECasamendedby97/11/ECand2003/35/EC

18

InDecember2007,theCommissionadoptedafurtherproposaltotheCounciltoadvanceacommonEUpositioninrespectofthevariousMemberStatespartytotheICRWtopursueatIWCMeetings(COM(2007)871).Tothisend,theCommissionconsideredthattheEUPartiesshouldadvocateattheIWCthecontinuationofthemoratoriumoncommercialhunting;thecreationoffurtherwhalesanctuaries;thefurtherregulationofscientificwhalingandthecontinuationofaboriginalsubsistencehunting;tosupporttheactivitiesoftheConservationCommitteeandotherrelevantforasuchasConventiononInternationalTradeinEndangeredSpeciesofWildFaunaandFlora(CITES);andtoencouragefurthertransparencywithintheIWCbyopposingtheincreaseduseofsecretballots.

3.3 UK National Legislation

3.3.1 In England and WalesThecurrentlegalframeworkinEnglandandWalesaddressingnatureconservationiscurrentlyundergoingacomprehensivelegislativereviewwithaviewtocodificationandreform.Thisistobegreatlywelcomed.Duetomultiplerevisionstothestatutoryprovisionsoutlinedbelow,thelawhasbecomehighlyfragmented,incoherentandextremelydifficulttoascertainandapply.TheongoingdevolutionprocessinWalesalsomandatesthatpowersoverwildlifewillalsobeexercisedbytheWelshGovernmentinfutureyears.Itistobeexpectedthatthecurrentframeworkwillbesignificantlyadjustedby2014.

3.3.1.1 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981ThemainUKenablinglegislationforEuropeanWildlifeDirectivesandconventionssuchastheBernConventionis,andhasbeenforalongperiodoftimetheWildlifeandCountrysideAct1981(WCA1981,asvariouslyamendedovertheyears).

UnderthisActithasbeenanoffence(subjecttocertainexceptions)tointentionallykill,injure,take,possessortradeinanywildanimallistedinSchedule5whichforcetaceansinitially,onlyincludedbottlenoseandcommondolphinsandharbourporpoise,butitwasextendedtoalldolphins,whalesandporpoisesatalaterrevision(TheWildlifeandCountrysideAct1981(VariationofSchedules)Order1988S.I.1988/288).

TheWCAalsomadeprovisionforthedesignationofMarineNatureReservesandgavepowerstoenactbyelawstoprotectsuchreserves.However,onlythreesuchreserveswereeverdesignated(LundyandSkomerIslandandStrangfordLough)andthesewere,ineffect,onlyverysmallareasofcoastalandtidalhabitat.Byelawstoprotectthesiteswerealsoslowincoming.Noreservesweredesignatedtoprotectcetaceans.

3.3.1.2 Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000TheWCAwasamendedbytheCountrysideandRightsofWay(CRoW)Act2000(inEnglandandWales).Thisservedtostrengthenthelegalprotectionforthreatenedspecies.CRoWextendedtheoffenceofdisturbing(andbyextensionkillingandharassing)animalstoincludeactionsundertaken‘recklessly’,inadditionto‘intentionally’,thisbeingappliedtoaplaceofrestorshelterofaprotectedanimaloranestsite.Additionally,“any person intentionally or recklessly disturbs any wild animal included in Schedule 5 as (a) a dolphin or whale (Cetacea), or (b) a basking shark, shall be guilty of an offence”.

JurisdictionofCRoWiscurrentlyappliedonlyasfarasthelimitofterritorialwaters(12nmfromthelowwatermark).

3.3.1.3 The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994TheConservation(NaturalHabitats,&c.)Regulations1994transposedtheHabitatsDirectiveintonationallaw.TheRegulationscameintoforceon30October1994.

TheRegulationsprovideforthedesignationandprotectionof‘Europeansites’,theprotectionof‘EuropeanProtectedSpecies’(EPS),andtheadaptationofplanningandothercontrolsfortheprotectionofEuropeansites.Theseregulationshavebeenrevoked.

3.3.1.4 The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) (Amendment) Regulations 2007TheWCAwasdisplacedasthemostimportantpieceofUKlegislationformuchwildlife,includingallcetaceans,bytheConservation(NaturalHabitats,&c.)(Amendment)Regulations2007.UnderthenewRegulations,theporpoiseappearstobeonlyprotectedfromtrade(underarticle9(5)),andnotfromdamagetoplacesofshelter(article9(4a))ordisturbancewhileoccupyingplacesofshelter(article9(4b)).Wheredolphinsandwhalesareconcerned,itremains

19

anoffencetointentionallyorrecklesslydestroy,orobstructaccessto,anystructureorplacewhichtheyuseforshelterorprotection(article9(4a))andtotradewiththem(article9(5)).

3.3.1.5 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 TheConservationofHabitatsandSpeciesRegulations2010consolidatedallthevariousamendmentsmadetotheConservation(NaturalHabitats,&c.)Regulations1994inrespecttoEnglandandWales.TheRegulationsmakeitanoffence(subjecttoexceptions)todeliberatelycapture,kill,disturb,ortradeintheanimalslistedinSchedule2,whichincludesalldolphins,whalesandporpoises.

However,theseactionscanbemadelawfulthroughthegrantingoflicensesbytheappropriateauthorities.Licensesmaybegrantedforanumberofpurposes(suchasscienceandeducation,conservation,preservingpublichealthandsafety),butonlyaftertheappropriateauthorityissatisfiedthattheyachievetheirobjectives,therearenosatisfactoryalternativesandthatsuchactionswillhavenodetrimentaleffectonwildpopulationsofthespeciesconcerned.

3.3.1.6 The Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2007TheOffshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2007transposedtheHabitatsDirectiveintonationallawinrelationtomarineareaswheretheUKhasjurisdictionbeyonditsterritorialsea(offshoremarinearea,offshoremarineinstallationsandcertainshipsandaircraft).TheRegulationscameintoforceon21stAugust2007.

TheRegulationsprovideforthedesignationandprotectionof‘Europeanoffshoremarinesites’,theprotectionof’wildanimalslistedinAnnexIV(a)totheHabitatsDirective’,andtheadaptationofplanningandothercontrolsfortheprotectionofEuropeanoffshoremarinesites.

3.3.1.7 The Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) (Amendment) Regulations 2009TheseRegulationscameintoforceon30thJanuary2009andamendedtheOffshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2007.Theyamendedthetermsofoffencesofdisturbingprotectedspecies.TheycontaindefencestotheoffencesrelatingtoEuropeanprotectedspeciesbyprovidingthatthedefencesdonotapplyiftheprosecutionshowsthattherewasasatisfactoryalternativetothedefendant’saction,orthattheactionwasdetrimentaltothemaintenanceofthepopulationofthespeciesconcernedatafavourableconservationstatusintheirnaturalrange.TheRegulationsspecifyingreaterdetailthearrangementstobemadeforsurveillanceoftheconservationstatusofnaturalhabitattypesandspeciesofCommunityinterest,andtoclarifythedutytotakeactioninthelightofthatsurveillance.

3.3.1.8 The Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) (Amendment) Regulations 2010TheseRegulationscameintoforceon1stApril2010andamendtheOffshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) (Amendment) Regulations 2007pursuanttotheenactmentofthePlanning Act 2008andtheMarine and Coastal Access Act 2009,andprovideforthedevolutiontotheScottishMinistersofcertainnatureconservationfunctionsoftheSecretaryofStateintheScottishoffshoreregion.

3.3.1.9 The Offshore Petroleum Activities (Conservation of Habitats) Regulations 2001TheseRegulationscameintoforceon31stmay2001andimplementtheHabitatsDirectiveinrelationtooilandgasactivitiescarriedoutwhollyorpartlyontheUKcontinentalshelf.Theyprovidefortheappropriateassessmentoftheeffectsofcertainoilandgasactivitieswheretheactivityislikelytohaveasignificanteffectonarelevantsite;andtheyrequiretheSecretaryofStatetogivedirectionsinthecircumstancessetout,inordertoavoid,reverse,reduceoreliminateadverseeffectsonrelevantsites,ordeteriorationordisturbanceofcertainnaturalhabitatsorspecies.

3.3.1.10 The Offshore Petroleum Activities (Conservation of Habitats) (Amendment) Regulations 2007TheseRegulationsamendtheOffshore Petroleum Activities (Conservation of Habitats) Regulations 2001 andcameintoforceon18thFebruary2007.TheyimplementArticles6(3)and6(4)oftheHabitatsDirectiveinrelationtolicensestobegrantedunderthePetroleum Act 1998,andtogeologicalsurveysrelatedtooilandgasactivitiesinUKwaters.AnypersonwhointendstocarryoutgeologicalsurveysinrelationtooilandgasactivitiesontheUKcontinentalshelforinUKwatersorwhointendstotestequipmenttobeusedingeologicalsurveysrelatingtooilandgasactivitiesontheUKcontinentalshelforinUKwatersisrequiredtoobtainpriorwrittenconsentoftheSecretaryofState.PriorwrittenconsentisrequiredirrespectiveofanyprovisioninalicenceawardedunderthePetroleum Act 1998.Beforesuchaconsentisgranted,theSecretaryofStatemustconsiderwhetheranappropriateassessmentisrequired.

3.3.1.11 Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006TheNaturalEnvironmentandRuralCommunities(NERC)Actprovidednodirectprotectionforcetaceans,butdid

20

conferaresponsibilityonallpublicbodiesto’haveregardto’biodiversity.This‘Dutytoconservebiodiversity’statesthat“Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity, and ….a Minister of the Crown, government department or the National Assembly for Wales must in particular have regard to the United Nations Environmental Programme Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992. Conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat.”

TheAct,whichonlyappliestoEnglandandWalesandouttothe12nmlimit,requiresthepublishingoflistsofspeciesandhabitatsconsidered“ofprincipal importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity”–thesearemainlylistsofprincipalBiodiversityActionSpecies(seebelow),withseparatelistsforEnglandandWales.Theseincludemostofthewhalesanddolphinsandtheharbourporpoise(16speciesinEngland,and14inWales).

3.3.1.12 Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996Thisactmakesprovisionsfortheprotectionofwildmammalsfromcertaincruelacts.Ifapersonmutilates,kicks,beats,nailsorotherwiseimpales,stabs,burns,stones,crushes,drowns,dragsorasphyxiatesanywildmammalwithintenttoinflictunnecessarysufferingheshallbeguiltyofanoffence.

ThisActdoesnotapplytoNorthernIreland.

3.3.1.13 Animal Welfare Act 2006WhilstthisisnotdirectlyrelevanttowildcetaceansitwouldhavebearingonanyeffortstoagainkeepcetaceansincaptivityintheUK.Itmakesownersandkeepersresponsibleforensuringthatthewelfareneedsoftheiranimalsaremet.

Theseincludetheneed:• Forasuitableenvironment(placetolive)• Forasuitablediet• Toexhibitnormalbehaviourpatterns• Tobehousedwith,orapartfrom,otheranimals(ifapplicable)• Tobeprotectedfrompain,injury,sufferinganddisease

Anyonewhoiscrueltoananimal,ordoesnotprovideforitswelfareneeds,maybebannedfromowninganimals,finedupto£20,000,and/orsenttoprison.

3.3.1.14 Marine & Coastal Access Act 2009TheMarine&CoastalAccessActintroducesanewsystemofmarinemanagementtoEnglandandWales.Thisincludesanewmarineplanningsystem,whichmakesprovisionforastatementoftheGovernment’sgeneralpolicies,andthegeneralpoliciesofeachofthedevolvedadministrationsforthemarineenvironment,andalsoformarineplanswhichwillsetoutinmoredetailwhatistohappeninthedifferentpartsoftheareastowhichtheyrelate.TheActincludesprovisionswhichchangethesystemforlicensingthecarryingoutofactivitiesinthemarineenvironment.ItalsoprovidesforthedesignationofMarineConservationZones(MCZs).Itchangesthewaythatmarinefisheriesaremanagedatanationalandalocallevelandmodifiesthewaylicensing,conservationandfisheriesrulesareenforced.ItallowsfordesignationofanExclusiveEconomicZonefortheUK,andforthecreationofaWelshZoneintheseaadjacenttoWales.TheActalsoamendsthesystemformanagingmigratoryandfreshwaterfish,andenablesrecreationalaccesstotheEnglishandWelshcoast.

Part1establishesanindependentbody,theMarineManagementOrganisation(MMO).TheMMOistodischargeanumberofmarinefunctionsonbehalfoftheUKGovernment,althoughmostofitsfunctionsapplytoEnglishandoffshorewaters.

Part2definestheUKmarinearea,usedbysubsequentPartsoftheActtodescribeareaswhereactivitiestakeplace.ItalsoallowsanExclusiveEconomicZonetobedesignated,andcreatestheWelshzone.

Part3introducesanewsystemofmarineplanning.TheplanningprovisionsprovideforthepreparationofaMarinePolicyStatementtoarticulatetheprioritiesandobjectivesoftheUKGovernment,theWelshAssemblyGovernment,theScottishExecutiveandtheDepartmentoftheEnvironmentinNorthernIrelandintheirmarineareas.ItalsoprovidesforthepreparationofmarineplansfortheUKmarineareawhichtakesaccountoftheMarinePolicyStatement.

21

Part4willreplacethelicensingandconsentcontrolscurrentlyexercisedunderPartIIoftheFoodandEnvironmentProtectionAct1985andPartIIoftheCoastProtectionAct1949(excludingScottishinshoreregion)withnewmarinelicensingprovisions.

Part5oftheActprovidesapower,acrossmostofUKwaters,todesignatenewMCZs,inplaceofMarineNatureReservesdesignatedundertheWildlifeandCountrysideAct1981.ThethreeexistingMarineNatureReserveswillbeconvertedintoMCZs.MCZswillcontributetoaUKnetworkofmarinesiteswhichwillincludeEuropeansites(e.g.SACs),SitesofSpecialScientificInterest(SSIs)andwetlandsprotectedundertheRamsarConvention(ConventiononWetlands,Ramsar,Iran,1971).ThiswillhelptheGovernmenttofulfiltheUK’scommitmentunderOSPARtoestablishanecologicallycoherentnetworkofmarineprotectedareas.TheActprovidesfornewdutiesonpublicbodiestoexercisetheirfunctionsinwaysthatfurthertheconservationobjectivessetforMCZs,andnottoauthoriseactivitiesordevelopmentwhichcarryasignificantriskofhinderingthoseconservationobjectives.Therewillalsobepowerstomakebyelawsororders,andinterimbyelawsororders,toprotectsites,andpotentialsites,fromotherwiseunregulatedactivitieswhichmaycauseharm.TheMCZprocesscurrentlyremainsinitsinfancy.InWales,astrategicdecisionhasbeenmadetofocusontheelaborationofasmallnumberofHighlyProtectedMarineConservationZones(HPMCZs)thatwillintegratewithinthecurrentnetworkofprotectedareasestablishedunderotherinternationalandregionalinstruments.Theemphasisisconsideredtofallonmaintainingecologicalcoherencebetweenprotectedareas,whileinadeparturefromotherinstruments,socio-economicconsiderationsmaybetakenintoaccountinthedesignationprocess.ItisnotyetclearexactlyhowtheHPMCZnetworkwillapplytocetaceans–althoughtheyarenotconsideredintheselectioncriteria-norindeedhowtheecologicalintegrityofsuchareasaretobeenforcedortheimpactthatsocio-economicconcernswillhaveontheirdesignation.

Part6changesthelegislationrelatingtotheestablishment,organisationandresponsibilitiesofSeaFisheriesCommittees,establishinginEnglandnewbodiescalledInshoreFisheriesandConservationAuthorities(IFCAs).WithintheWelshzone,thefisheriespowershavebeentaken‘in-house’bytheWelshAssemblyGovernment.

Part7containsseveralChaptersamendingexistinglegislationrelatingtomarineandfreshwaterfisheries.

Part8providesfortheappointmentofenforcementofficersandforasetofcommonenforcementpowersforenforcingrequirementsacrosslicensing,natureconservationandfishinginthemarinearea.Itprovidesnewpowersthatmaybeexercisedforthepurposesofenforcingseafisherieslegislation.

Part9introducesnewpowerstoextendrecreationalaccesstotheEnglishcoast.ItalsocontainsprovisionsenablingtheNationalAssemblyforWalestoallowrecreationalaccessaroundtheWelshcoast.

Part10amendslegislationinrelationtoNaturalEnglandandtheCountrysideCouncilforWales.ThefinalPartoftheAct,Part11,containssupplementaryprovisionsincludingcommencementarrangementsandrepeals.

3.3.2 In Scotland3.3.2.1 Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004ThisActoftheScottishParliamentcameintoforceinJune2004to“make provisions in relation to the conservation of biodiversity; to make further provision in relation to the conservation and enhancement of Scotland’s natural features; to amend the law relating to the protection of certain birds, animals and plants; and for connected purposes.”

TheActcoverssomeofthesamegroundforScotlandasCRoWandNERCinEnglandandWales.Itconferstheverysimilardutieswithregardstobiodiversity,andtopublishinglistsofprincipalspecies.ItalsobestowsadutyonScottishNaturalHeritage(SNH)toproducethe‘ScottishMarineWildlifeWatchingCode’whichmustsetoutrecommendations,adviceandinformationonactivitieslikelytodisturbmarinewildlife,circumstancesinwhichmarinewildlifemaybeapproached,andthemannerinwhichmarinewildlifemaybestbeviewedwithminimumdisturbance.Thisalsonowcovers“recklessorintentional”disturbance.ItwasunderthisActthatthefirstprosecutionforrecklessdisturbanceofcetaceansintheUKoccurredandthisisdiscussedinmoredetailbelow.

3.3.2.2 The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2004TheConservation(NaturalHabitats,&c)Amendment(Scotland)Regulations2004amendtheConservation(NaturalHabitats,&c)Regulations1994.TheRegulationsalsomakeprovisionsrelatingtositeprotectionofEuropeansitesassetoutinPart2oftheNatureConservation(Scotland)Act2004.FurtherprotectionisgiventoEuropeanprotectedspeciesthroughamendmentstoPartIIIoftheConservation(NaturalHabitats,&c)Regulations1994whichreflecttheprovisionsrelatingtospeciesprotectioncontainedinPartIoftheWCA1981.TheRegulationsmakeit“an offence

22

to deliberately or recklessly, harass any wild animal of a European protected species included in Schedule 2 as a dolphins, porpoise or whale (cetacean)”.

3.3.2.3 The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2007TheseRegulations,whichextendtoScotlandonly,makefurtherprovisionsforthetranspositionoftheHabitatsDirective.Indoingso,theyamendtheWCA 1981andtheConservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994.TheRegulationsmakeitanoffencetodeliberatelyorrecklesslyharass,disturb,capture,injureorkillawildanimalofaEuropeanprotectedspecies.Itis“an offence to deliberately or recklessly disturb any dolphin, porpoise or whale (cetacean)”.IncomparisontotheequivalentRegulationsforEnglandandWales,theseRegulationsarestricterandincludeadditionaloffences.3.3.2.4 Marine (Scotland) Act 2010ThisActprovidesScottishMinisterswithnewpowers,includingaclearframeworkformarineplanning,thecreationofanetworkofMarineProtectedAreas(MPAs)fornationallyimportantspeciesandsites,andanoverhaulofmarinelicensingandseallegislation.

UndertheAct,therearethreekindsofMPA:1)NatureConservationsites–fortheconservationofmarineflora,fauna,habitatsandgeodiversity(ncMPAs);2)DemonstrationandResearchsites-todemonstrate,orcarryoutresearchon,managementapproachesininshorewaters;and3)Historicsites–forthepurposeofpreservingmarinehistoricassets.

ThereisadutyonministerstocreateanetworkofNatureConservationMPAs.ThereisalsoadutytostatetheconservationobjectivesforeachNatureConservationMPA,andreportbackontheextenttowhichtheconservationobjectiveshavebeenachieved(~every6years).AswiththeUKActthereisapressingdeadlineforthedesignationofthesesites–2012–becauseofvariousUK/ScottishGovernmentcommitments,including:theCBD,theOSPARConventionandtheWorldSummitforSustainableDevelopment.

TheActgivesageneraldutyonministersforthesustainabledevelopment,protectionandenhancementofthehealthofScotland’sseasandageneraldutyonministersonthemitigationandadaptationtoclimatechange.

TheActlistsbroadcategoriesforlicensableactivitiesatsea,includingdredging,construction,incineration,butnotfishingwhichislicensedthroughotherlegislation.Someactivities,whichfallbelowa‘specifiedthresholdofenvironmentalimpact’willberegistered,asopposedtolicensed.

TheActmakesitanoffencetokill,injureortakealiveseal.However,seallicensescanstillbeissuedtoauthorisethekillingofsealsandthesewillcomewithsomeconditions,includingtheprovisionofinformationaboutdamagethatsealsmaybedoingtoafishfarm/fisheryandtheeffectivenessofnon-lethalalternatives.Alicensewillbegrantedtosomeonewithadequatefirearmstraining,andthelicencewillspecifyspecies(greysealorharbourseal),howmanysealsmaybekilledandtheproximitytothesealbeforeshootingisallowed.Thelicensewillrequirereportingonhowmanysealshavebeenkilledunderthatlicense.

TheActprovidesformarineenforcementofficerstoimplementmarineprotectionandnatureconservationlegislation,withfinesrelatingtocontraventionsoflaw.

3.3.3 Wider protection regulation in the marine environment

3.3.3.1 Offshore industryManyotherpotentiallydamagingoperationsintheoffshoremarineenvironmentarecoveredunderavarietyofUKActsincludingtheFoodandEnvironmentalProtectionAct(FEPA),theCoastalProtectionAct(CPA),ElectricityAct/EnergyAct,TelecommunicationsAct,andstatutoryplanningprocesstransposingtheEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentDirective97/11/EC.Inaddition,thewider,strategicandregionalenvironmentalimpactsofcertainsectoralactivities,suchasoffshorewindgenerationandoilandgasexploration,areaddressedthroughSEAs(seechapter2.2.4above).TheMarineActs(seeabove)replacesomeconsentingproceduresundertheabovemechanisms.

3.3.3.2 Ministry of DefenceTheSecretaryofStateforDefencehasstatedwithintheMODSustainableDevelopmentandEnvironmentManual

23

(JSP418-Volume1)that“within the United Kingdom, the Ministry of Defence will comply with relevant legislation, and with international treaties and protocols to which the UK is a signatory. Overseas, the MOD will apply UK standards so far as reasonably practicable, unless an international agreement or protocols indicate that in defined circumstances host nation standards should apply.”SowhilstenvironmentallawsarenotbindingtotheMOD,theyhaveundertakentocomplywiththem,inUKwatersatleast(MoD2005).

3.3.3.3 Voluntary Codes of ConductSeveralareaswheredolphinsareregularlyseenhaveintroduced‘CodesofConduct’designedtogivemembersofthepublicinformationabouthowtoactinthevicinityofcetaceanstoavoiddisturbingthem.Twocodesthathavebeenintroduced,forexample,areonebyCeredigionCountyCouncilinitiallycoveringtheCeredigionMarineHeritageCoast,andnowmoregenerallyappliedtotheCardiganBaySAC,andtheDolphinSpaceProgramme(DSP)whichappliestotheMorayFirthinNEScotland(anddiscussedfurtherbelow).

In ScotlandTheDolphinSpaceProgram(DSP)isanaccreditationschemeforwildlifetourboatoperatorsintheMorayFirthinNEScotland.Itisaninnovative,co-operativeapproachtosustainablewildlifetourism,launchedonWorldOceansDay,8June1995.TheaimoftheDSPistoencouragepeoplewhogoouttoobservedolphinsandothermarinewildlifeto“watchhowtheywatch”andtorespecttheanimal’sneedforspace.ThemissionoftheDSPistobeamodelofexcellenceinresponsiblewildlifetourismandtosupportthesustainable,positivedevelopmentofmarinewildlifewatchingintheMorayFirth,Scotland.

TheDSPisoverseenbyasteeringgroupwhichisinvolvedinthedevelopmentandrunningoftheDSPscheme.SteeringGroupmeetingsareusedtoreviewprogress,discussanyissueswhichmayhavearisensincethelastmeetingandtoplanfuturedevelopmentandimprovementoftheDSPscheme.ThesteeringgroupismadeupofvariousgroupswhoareinvolvedinonewayoranotherwithmarinewildlifetourismintheMorayFirth.

TheScottishMarineWildlifeWatchingCode(SMWWC)wasdesignedforallthosewhowatchmarinewildlifearoundScotland,whethertheyareontheshoreoratsea.Itisnotalaworregulation,itsover-ridingpurposebeingtoraiseawarenessandofferpracticalguidance.TheCodewillhelpuserstoenjoywatchingmarinewildlife,improvechancesofseeingwildlife,helpminimisedisturbancetomarinewildlife,provideastandardforthewildlifewatchingindustryandhelpuserstostaywithinthelaw.

In WalesThefirstcodeofconductwasintroducedbySeaWatchFoundationinconjunctionwithWWFandthelocalcouncilsbackintheearly1990s.Somethousandsofcopiesofsmallandlargeformatpostersweremadealongwithaleaflet.TheseweretranslatedintoWelshanddisplayedaroundthevariousharbours,etc,thenlaterdisseminatedaroundUKbytheDoE(Evans,pers.comm.).

AfurthercodewasproducedbyWDCSforuseinWales.ThiswasdistributedwidelyaroundtheWelshCoast.InGwynedd(NorthWales),theCouncilrequiresthelicensingofallpersonalcraftlaunchedfromCouncilSlipways.Alllicenseesareprovidedwithacopyofacodeofconductregardingcetaceans.

24

4. APPLICATION OF THE LAW

Inpractice,applicationoftherelevantlegalregimehaslongseemedpatchyandinadequate(see,forexample,Parsonset al.2010a&b)andgiventhefundamentalchangesthathavebeenmadeonlyveryrecently,assessingitseffectivenessnowisdifficultintheabsenceofcaselaw.

Theinclusionofaspeciesoritshabitatwithinlegislativeprotectivemeasuresdoesnotinanywayconferabsoluteprotection.Despitetheprotectivemeasuresthatwereorareinplaceandacommitmenttoprotectcetaceans,nosuccessfulprosecutionsforcrimesagainstmarinewildlifehadtakenplaceforover25years(HouseofCommons-EnvironmentalAuditCommitteeEnvironmentalCrime:WildlifeCrime2003-2004).

4.1 Implementation of Global International Agreements

4.1.1 Convention on Biological Diversity through UK Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs)InresponsetotheUK’scommitmentundertheCBDtodevelop“plans or programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity”,in1994theUKGovernmentbeganthedevelopmentofaseriesofnationalconservationactionplansforspeciesandhabitats–aprocessinitiatedbythevoluntaryconservationbodies.HabitatActionPlans(HAPs)weredevelopedforavarietyofmarinehabitatswhileMarineSpeciesActionPlans(SAPs)weredevelopedforvariousmarinespecies.Cetaceansarecurrentlyprovidedfornationallybytwo‘grouped’SpeciesActionPlans,oneforbaleenwhales,andanotherfortoothedwhalesanddolphins.TheharbourporpoisewasthefocusofasingleSpeciesActionPlan.

Progressonmarinehabitatsandspeciesplans,however,hasbeenmuchslowerandmorelimitedthanonland,andthecetaceanplansarenoexception.Targetshavebeenmissed;manyproposedactionshavenotbeenprogressedandthegoodqualitydataessentialtofeedintotheprocessremainsabsent.

Theaimsofthecetaceanplans,intheshort-term,aretomaintaintherangeandabundanceofthelistedcetaceans.Thelong-termgoalsoftheseplansarestatedasbeingtoincrease:

1. therangeofdolphinpopulations,2. baleenwhalepopulationsizesandranges,and3. toothedwhaleabundance

“by seeking to optimise conditions enabling their populations to increase”and,fortheharbourporpoise,to“ensure that no anthropogenic factors inhibit a return to waters that it previously occupied”.

VariousconservationactionsareproposedbythenationalBAPswhichtypicallyinvolvetryingtoreduce,mitigate,assessormonitoravarietyofthreats.Severalactionsalsoproposeinvestigating,evaluatingorinstigatingMPAs,orconductingresearchtoinvestigatehabitat.Progressinattemptingorcompletingtheseactionshasbeenslow,astheyattemptedtobetooambitious,withunrealistic(andoftenimprecise)targets.Also,sometimesseeminglybecauseofalackofwillorresourcesonthepartoftheexecutingbodywhilst,onotheroccasions,itappearstobeduetoinappropriatebodiestaskedtocompletetheaction.Inconsistenciesbetweentheplanswithrespecttowhichactionsarelistedandwhichbodiesaretaskedtotaketheseon,alsoseemproblematic(Parsonset al.(2007).

InadditiontoUK-wideplansforbiodiversityconservation,localauthoritieshavebeenchargedwithproducingregionalor‘Local’BiodiversityActionPlans(LBAPs).Typically,butnotalways,theactionsoutlinedinnationalBAPsareusedasabasisfortheLBAPs.

Ingeneralthough,therehasbeenlesseffortonmarinecomponentsofBAPsintheLBAPprocessandthereisalackofconsiderationforcetaceansintheLBAPprocessbymanyoftheregionswithcoastalwatersand/orinsufficientfundstopursuenecessarygoals.

ArevisedUKBAPstructurewasimplementedinlate2002,followinggovernmentacceptanceoftherecommendationsfromtheMillenniumBiodiversityReport.TheUKBiodiversityPartnership,comprisingallthoseinvolvedintheUKBAP,replacedtheUKBiodiversitySteeringGroup.AUKBiodiversityPartnershipStandingCommitteewasestablishedtomanagethebusinessoftheUKBiodiversityPartnership.Itisassistedinthisrolebytwoadvisorygroups-theBiodiversityReportingandInformationGroup(BRIG)andtheBiodiversityResearchAdvisoryGroup(BRAG).TherearealsodifferentapproachesintheDevolvedAdministrations.Forexample,inWales,aMarineEcosystemGrouphasbeenestablishedwhichreportsdirectlytoTheWelshAssemblyGovernment.

25

Withrespecttotheprotectionofcalvingareasandfeedingareas,forthemajorityofdolphinspeciesintheUK,thiswouldrequireadedicatedresearchprogramtoidentifysuchareas–thereisnoevidencethatsuchadedicated,in-depthprogrammewillbeforthcomingfromagenciessuchasDEFRAorJNCCinthenearfuture.

4.2 Implementation of European Provisions

4.2.1 ASCOBANSWhileintheory,ASCOBANSisamajorstepforwardintheconservationofcetaceans,aftermorethantwodecadessincetheAgreementcameintoeffect,progressontheconservationofsmallcetaceansintheAgreementareahasbeendescribedaslimitedandpatchy(Parsonset al.2010a&b).Forinstance,althoughamajorabundancesurveywasconductedintheareaundertheauspicesofASCOBANSin1994(knownastheSCANSsurvey)andanotherin2005(SCANSII),therehasbeenonlylimitedgovernment-fundedresearchonpopulationsize,structure,distributionandtrends.Moreover,ASCOBANShasyettoaddresssomeissues,mostnotablypreyavailability,whichisincreasinglyrecognisedtobeasignificantfactoraffectingthedistribution,ifnottheoverallstatusofcetaceanpopulationsintheregion.

However,ASCOBANSwasthemainforumforpressureonfisheriesby-catchissues17andhelpedunderpinthedevelopmentandeventualagreementofRegulationEC812/2004.

4.2.2 Fisheries legislationInareviewofcetaceanconservationwhichincludedanalysisoffisherieslegislation,Parsonset al.(2010a&b)pointoutthat“more than a decade has passed since the nature and scale of the cetacean bycatch problem in fisheries around the UK started to be understood. While the decline in certain fisheries may have reduced the problem incidentally in some areas, shifts in effort to different gears and stocks, means that bycatch is still likely to persist at significant levels. However, the inadequate information available on the operation and distribution of many, particularly static net fisheries renders the problem almost impossible to address effectively. In the UK there are still no mitigation measures in place to reduce what is likely to remain the main conservation and welfare problem affecting cetaceans around the UK”.

4.2.2.1 Application of by-catch issuesTheproblemsofthemis-matchoffisheriesregulationwiththeHabitatsDirectivehasbeenstrikinglyillustratedintheattemptsbytheUKtoreducesignificantcetaceanby-catchesfrompair-trawlingwithinitsterritorialsea,eventuallyleadingtoajudicialreviewofnationalpolicies(Greenpeace Ltdv.Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs[2005]EWHC2144(HighCourtjudgment);[2005]EWCACiv1656(CourtofAppealjudgment).Here,theCommissionhadrejectedanapplicationunderArticle7ofRegulation2371foremergencymeasures.TheUKauthoritiesrespondedwithtemporaryemergencymeasuresunderArticle8(South-WestTerritorialWaters(ProhibitionofPairTrawling)Order2004(SI2004/3397),amendedbySouth-WestTerritorialWaters(ProhibitionofPairTrawling)(Amendment)Order2005(SI2005/49)),buthavesincebeenrestrictedinattemptstodevelopamorepermanentnationalsolutioninthisparticularlocation,despitethedemandsofArticle12(4)oftheHabitatsDirective.Thedichotomybetweenenvironmentalandfisheriescompetencesthereforehasclearandnegativeimplicationsforthedevelopmentofeffectiveby-catchpoliciesandtheabilityofindividualMemberStatestorespondswiftlytoemergingthreatstostocksthroughfisheriesinteractions.

4.2.3 NERC ActTherequirementonallpublicbodiesundertheNERCActto“have regard…to the purpose of conserving biodiversity”andthefactthatthedutyincludes“in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat”onthefaceofitgivesamechanismtoimproveconservationwithinanydecisionmakingprocess.Inreality,theDutydoesnotyetseemtohavebeenrecognisedbymostDepartments.Consentsrarely,ifever,makereferencetohowadecisionhastakenaccountofthisduty.

4.2.4 SEA DirectiveThewiderstrategicprovisionshavealsoprovedunabletoproperlyaddresscetaceanprotection.TheDepartmentofTradeandIndustry(DTI,nowDECC)havebeenundertakingStrategicEnvironmentalAssessmentsforoilandgaslicensingsince1999.Precedingthe24thlicensinground,SEA6wasundertaken.TheSEAcataloguedthesignificantand,insomeareas,internationalimportanceofsomespeciesandhabitats,especiallyforbirdsandcetaceans.Despitethis,thethenDTIdecidedthatnoareasshouldbeofflimitsforoildrillingandseismicexploration,andthereshouldbenoexclusionswhatsoever.

17.NowICEStakesamajorroleinbycatchissuesaswell.

26

Afurther‘OffshoreenergySEA’publishedin2009coveringthe25thlicensinground,proposedoffshorewindfarmsandcarbonsequestration.Theconsultationdraftidentifiedthatareasofimportanceforcetaceansshouldbeavoidedforwindfarmdevelopments.However,inAppendix1oftheSEAPostConsultationReport,thepolicywaschangedtoonethatstated“it is recommended that within key areas of marine mammal sensitivity….operational criteria are established to limit the cumulative pulse noise ‘dose’ to which those areas are subjected”.

Suchoperationalcriteriaarelikelytobelessprotectivethanavoidinganarea.ThiscomparespoorlywiththesituationinotherEUcountries.ForexampletheDutchgovernmenthavea6monthclosedseason(Jan-June)forpiledriving,andtheGermangovernmenthaveimposedsoundexposurelimits.Giventhelackofknowledgeoflongtermimplicationsofhighlevelnoisesuchaspilingtocetaceanindividualsandpopulations,amoreprecautionaryapproach(seeCasestudy1below)shouldbetakenintheUK.Further,giventhemultinationaldevelopmentsoccurringintheNorthSea,acollaborativeandcomprehensiveapproachisrequired.

InanassessmentoftheoffshoreSEAprocess,Green(inprep)notedthatenvironmentalgroupsweresupportiveoftheprocessandbelievethatithasthepotentialtobeapositivetoolinintegratingenvironmentalconsiderationsintooffshoreoilandgasandrenewableenergylicensingplans.However,theywereconcernedthattheexistingSEAprocessisunabletoensureeffectiveenvironmentalprotectionandthereareseveralpartsoftheexistingSEAapproachthatneedurgentattention.Thesewere:

• DatagapsandthePrecautionaryApproach:ConsiderabledatagapshavebeenidentifiedbothintheSEAsandinindividualresponsesfromstakeholders,andinmanyareasinformationisnotcurrentlyavailabletoallowustomakeconfidentandinformeddecisions.Wherethisisthecaseaprecautionaryapproachneedstobetaken,asenshrinedinEUenvironmentallegislation.Thereisconcernthatthereisinsufficientevidenceofthepotentialriskspresentedbyoilandgasactivitiesincertainareas,suchthattheSEAcannotconfidentlyrefutetheneedforadditionalcontrolstoprotectsensitivereceptors.ThisweakenstheoverallconclusionsoftheSEAreport.

• Datagaps,theHabitatsandSpeciesDirectiveandthePrecautionaryApproach:WhiletheDTI(nowDECC)hasbeenfundingsomeimportantsurveysfortheSEAs,therearestillsignificantdatagapsthathavebeenidentifiedduringtheSEAs,forwhichtheredoesnotappeartobeanyco-ordinated,transparentattempttofill.Meanwhile,licensingcontinuesdespitethelackofinformation.Someofthesegapsinourknowledge,suchasthehabitatrequirementsofcertaincetaceanpopulations,aresosignificantthatanSEAshouldnotbeconsideredcompletewithoutthem.Someorganisationsremainsoconcernedaboutthesedatagapsthat,followingtheprecautionaryapproach,theybelievethatlicensingshouldnotgoaheadinsomeareasoftheseauntildataareavailabletoinformthedecisionmakingprocess.

• Cross-sectoral assessment. Current offshore SEAs have only been carried out for the energy sector, and then only oil and gas exploration, and exploitation and windfarms – ‘wet’ renewables (tide, wave etc) were not included. An SEA should also consider cumulative and in-combination effects. This is especially important in considering noise issues. Noise in a quiet area may be more significant than in an area where animals are habituated to background noise. Conversely, additional noise in an already noisy environment may take disturbance across a threshold rendering the area unusable.

Licenseconditionscannotbeassumedsufficienttoprotectsuchareasortoenabletheirconservationobjectivestobe

CASE STUDY 1: The Precautionary Approach and Case Law

InaJudgementoftheEuropeanCourt(The‘Waddenzeejudgement’–CaseC-127/02,2002),ithasbeenclearlyestablishedthat“the precautionary principle …. is one of the foundations of the high level of protection pursued by Community policy on the environment”andthatthe“plan or project in question may be granted authorisation only on the condition that the competent national authorities are convinced that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned. So, where doubt remains as to the absence of adverse effects on the integrity of the site linked to the plan or project being considered, the competent authority will have to refuse authorisation”andtheauthoritiesinthelightofthesite’sconservationobjectives,aretoauthorisesuchanactivityonlyiftheyhavemadecertainthatitwillnotadverselyaffecttheintegrityofthatsite,thatbeingthecaseifthereremainsnoreasonablescientificdoubtastotheabsenceofsucheffects”.GiventhelackofknowledgeoftheecologyofcetaceanpopulationsinUKwaters,thereisconsiderablescientificdoubtastotheeffectsofmanymarineactivities.

27

met.Inlinewiththeprecautionaryapproach,asdiscussedabove,thoseSACsandSPAsaswellasthoseareasknowntobeimportantforhabitatsandspecieswhichareparticularlyvulnerabletooilandgasimpacts,shouldbeidentifiedthroughtheSEAprocessandexcludedfromlicensing.Suchexclusionshouldalsoincludeasufficientbufferzonetoensurefullsiteprotection.OneexampleofsuchasiteisCardiganBaySACthatisdesignatedforbottlenosedolphins.Giventheknownandpotentialimpactsofseismictesting,piling,drillingandcontaminants(Green1996)fromoil&gas,thensuchasiteshouldbeexcludedfromlicensing.

TheUKhasnotconductedanSEAtoexaminethepotentialenvironmentaleffectsfromthedevelopmentofwaveandtidalpowerdevicesinEnglishandWelshcoastalwatersorinoffshoreUKwatersbetween12and200nm.Thisisanincreasinglyimportantneedasthedeploymentoftheseformsofenergygenerationaccelerates(Dolman&Simmonds2010).

In2005,theScottishGovernmentcommissionedanSEAtoexaminethepotentialenvironmentaleffectsfromthedevelopmentofbothwaveandtidalpowerdevicesoffthewestandnorthcoastofScotland,spanningfromShetlandtotheSolwayFirth,andouttoadistanceof12nmoffshore.TheSEAwasavailableforpublicconsultationin2007and,subsequently,anEnvironmentalReportwasproduced.TheSEAdeterminedthatbetween1,000MW(megawatts)and2,600MWofmarinerenewableenergygeneratingcapacitycouldbeachievedusingwaveandtidalpowerdevicesinthestudyarea.

TheScottishgovernmentisconductinganSEAformarinewindenergy.TheplannedSEAwillinfluencetheCrownEstateRound3decisionsaboutwheretositepotentialdevelopments.ItisnotcurrentlyclearhowtheUKandScottishSEAprocessesforoffshorewindfarmswillbelinked,althoughastrategicapproachtotheplanningofthedevelopmentofmarinerenewableenergyindustriesisimportant.

TheMinistryofDefencehasnotundertakenanexerciseareaSEA,althoughitroutinelyexercisesthroughoutUKwaters,andparticularlyinit’stwooffshoreexerciseareasoffthewestcoastofScotlandandtheSouthWestApproachestoEngland.

4.2.5 EIA DirectiveManyEIAshavebeenfoundtobeinadequateinassessingtheimpactsofmarinedevelopments(seecasestudy2below).Forexample,fortheoilandgasindustry,Green(2000)foundthatnoneoftheenvironmentalstatements(ESs)assessedmetEUguidelines.ESshaveimprovedpartially(EIACentre2007),butjustunderhalfofthestatementsreviewedwerestillunsatisfactory.Despitethis,alltheprojectsreviewedhadreceiveddevelopmentconsent.

TheInstituteofEcologyandEnvironmentalManagementhasproducedguidelinesforthepreparationofrobustecologicalimpactassessmentsformarineandcoastaldevelopments(IEEM2010).

4.2.6 Habitats Directive TheHabitatsDirectiveisavitalinstrumentfortheconservationofEuropeanspeciesofcetaceans,bothinitsprovisionsfortheestablishmentofprotectedareasanditsfacilitativeroleinensuringthestrictprotectionofallcetaceanspeciesthroughoutCommunitywaters.Nevertheless,thereareaseriesofunderlyingstructuraldeficiencieswithintheHabitatsDirective.Firstly,thedesignationofSACsisrestrictedtojusttwooutofthe27cetaceanspecies-harbourporpoiseandbottlenosedolphin.ThereasonsforthisarecontemporarytothedraftingoftheDirective,with

CASE STUDY 2: The EIA Directive and the oil and gas industry

WhenthelocalenvironmentalgroupFriendsofCardiganBayaskedtoseeanenvironmentalassessmentforproposeddrillinginsensitivewatersoffBardseyIsland,Wales,in1989,theyweretoldbyDTIthat“there are no environmental impacts; therefore we do not need to carry out an assessment”.AsoilandgasdrillingislistedinannexestotheDirectiveasrequiringmandatoryassessment,theUKwasinbreachoftheDirective.AformalComplainttoEurope,takenbyFriendsoftheEarthCymruandFriendsofCardiganBay,wasupheldbytheEU,atwhichpointtheDirectivewasappliedtotheoilandgasindustry.AlthoughfurtherregulationshaveappliedtheDirective toother sectors, includingoffshorewindfarms,more than twodecades later, there is stillnocomprehensiveimplementationofalltheprovisionsoftheDirectiveoffshore.

28

suchspeciesconsideredatthetimetobethemaincetaceansresidentininshorewaters(Hoyt2005).AstrongcasemaybemadetoexpandtherangeofspecieslistedonAnnexII,inordertoexpandtheconservationpossibilitiesoftheDirectiveforcetaceans.

Secondly,thedesignationcriteriaforSACsarenotpresentlyconducivetotheswiftestablishmentofanextensivenetworkofprotectedareasforcetaceans.Whiletheidentificationofbroadareasofimportancemaybepossible,furthertargeted,painstakingandtime-intensiveresearchmayoftenberequiredtodemarcatethepreciseareasoffundamentalsignificancetothespecies,inordertocreateaSACinlinewiththedemandsoftheDirective.ThishasparticularimplicationsforthedevelopmentofoffshoreNATURA2000sitesandexplainstoanextenttherelativelyslowrateofprogresstowardsacomprehensivenetworkofprotectedareasforcetaceans.

Finally,concernsmustalsoberaisedbytheoftenvagueandpermissivenatureoftheobligationsimposedupontheMemberStatesconcerningSACsunderArticle6,whichprovidesconsiderablescopeforthecontinuationofanthropogenicactivities,suchasoilandmineralexploration,withpotentiallyharmfuleffectsuponcetaceanswithintheseprotectedareas.

4.2.6.1 Inadequacy of SACsAsapreliminarypoint,itshouldbeobservedthatthedevelopmentoftheNatura2000networkwithinthemarineenvironmenthaslaggedsignificantlyincomparisontoterrestrialcoverage.ThisaccordinglypresentspracticalimplicationsfortheconservationvalueoftheHabitatsDirectiveinthespecificcontextofcetaceans.Thecausesofthisdiscrepancyarelargelyhistorical,andtwokeyfactorsmaybeconsideredtohaveinhibitedtheapplicationoftheDirectiveinthecontextofmarinefauna.

Inthefirstinstance,therehasbeenlimitedlegislativeandpoliticalmomentumtowardsaddressingthemarinedimensionsoftheHabitatsDirectiveuntilrelativelyrecently.WhiletheDirectivedrawsnodistinctionbetweenitsterrestrialandmarineremit,itsoperativeAnnexesremaindominatedbyterrestrialspeciesandhabitats.In2001,aseriesofBiodiversityActionPlansnotedtheneedforthefulltranspositionoftheHabitatsDirectiveinbothamaritimeandterrestrialcontextasakeycomponentofCommunityenvironmentalpolicy(COM(2001)0162).Inordertoprovideafurtherimpetustothedevelopmentofmarinesites,inMay2007,theCommissionadoptedaseriesofindicative,yetnon-binding,Guidelines for the designation and management of specially protected marine areas(CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunity(CEC)2007,hereinafterreferredtoas“Marine Guidelines”18).DespitetheDirectivehavingbeenadoptedin1992,thisdocumentconstitutesessentiallythefirstcentralarticulationofthemarineapplicationoftheDirective.Areasrepresentingthecrucialfactorsforthelife-cycleofthespecieswereconsideredidentifiable,where:

• Thereisacontinuousorregularpresenceofthespecies,subjecttoseasonalvariations.• Thereisagoodpopulationdensityinrelationtootherareas.• Thereisahighratioofyoungtoadultsduringcertainperiodsoftheyear.

Suchconsiderationsarenotconsideredtobeexhaustiveand“other biological elements are characteristic of these areas, such as very developed social and sexual life”mayalsoproveinformative.

Secondly,thesedifficultieswerecompoundedbyamarkedlackofclaritysurroundingtheprecisejurisdictionalapplicationoftheDirectiveinamarinecontextthroughoutitsinitialyearsofoperation.UnderArticle2(1),theHabitatsDirectiveisstatedtoapplywithin“Europeanterritory”oftheMemberStates,apositionthatwasseeminglyequatedwithintheinitialtransposinglegislationsolelytothe“territorialsea”,asopposedtothefullrangeofjurisdictionalwaters.ThejurisdictionaldimensionsoftheHabitatsDirectiveweresubsequentlyclarifiedfollowingajudicialreviewoftheUKlegislation:Rv.Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd [No. 2](2000)2CMLR94(QBD))Here,thecourtruledthat“aDirectivewhichincludesinitsaimstheprotectionofinter alia ...cetaceanswillonlyachievethoseaims,onapurposiveconstruction,ifitextendsbeyondterritorialwaters”.SuchsentimentswereconfirmedbytheEuropeanCourtofJustice(ECJ)inasubsequentcaseaddressingtheUK’slicensingpolicies(Commissionv.UK,CaseC-6/04[2005]ECRI-9017.

Onlytwospecies,bottlenosedolphinandharbourporpoise,areincludedonAnnexIIoftheHabitatsDirectiveandthusqualifyforSACdesignation.Furthermore,SACswillbeproposed‘only where there is a clearly identifiable area representing the physical and biological factors essential to their life and reproduction’.Thisisthereforeanothercase

18.TheseallegedlyweredrawnupespeciallyforharbourporpoisesduringameetingofexpertsinBrussels(Evans,pers.comm.)

29

wherethereisnocleardefinition,andargumentswithintheUKauthoritieshavemeantthatonlytworelativelysmallareashavebeendesignatedspecificallyforbottlenosedolphins,andnoneforharbourporpoises.Thiscannotbedescribedasa‘coherentnetwork’,andthereisincreasingevidencethattheexistingbottlenosedolphinSACsarenotsufficientto‘representthephysicalandbiologicalfactorsessentialtotheirlifeandreproduction’(Wilsonet al.2004;Pesanteet al.2008a,b).

SincetheestablishmentoftheMorayFirthbottlenosedolphinSAC,thedistributionofthepopulationhasexpanded(Wilsonet al.2004).Whilstprotectionshouldoccurthroughouttherangeofthedolphins,regardlessoftheboundariesoftheSAC,thishasimplicationsforhowindustriesviewtheirlegalrequirementsforenvironmentalassessmentanditalsohasresearchimplications.

TherehavebeenstudiestodeterminepotentialharbourporpoiseSACs(forexample,Evans&Wang2003;Marubiniet al.2009;Emblinget al.2009)whichidentifiedsitesofhighactivitythatcouldmeettheDirective’srequirements;andtothesecanbeaddedtherecentreviewbyWDCS(Clarket al.2010)whichidentifiedareasofcriticalhabitatforporpoises.Despitethis,JNCChaveconcludedthatnositesmeetanyofthecriteriaforSACsforporpoises.ThisconclusionincludestheDoggerBankintheNorthSea(seeCasestudy3).ThissitewasproposedasaSACwiththeharbourporpoiseasaqualifyingfeature,butturneddownbytheUKGovernment,despitethefactthattheGermansectoroftheBankisalreadydesignatedforharbourporpoise.GiventhattheSACnetwork,‘Natura2000’,ismeanttobeacoherentEuropeannetwork,thisdifferenceinapproachisdeeplyconcerningwhenitcomestoprotectingpopulationsthatinevitablycrossterritorialboundaries.

CASE STUDY 3:Approaches to Harbour Porpoise SAC Designation

Grading of Annex II species features in SACs ThecriteriaforselectingSACsforAnnexIIspeciesaresetoutinAnnexIIIoftheHabitatsDirective.Theyare:1.Sizeanddensityofthepopulationofthespeciespresentonthesiteinrelationtothepopulationspresentwithinthenationalterritory•A:>15%to100%ofnationalpopulation•B:>2%to15%ofnationalpopulation•C:>0%to2%ofnationalpopulation•D:non-significantpresence(ifgradedD,nofurtherconsiderationofadditionalcriteriaisrequired);2.Degreeofconservationofthefeaturesofthehabitatwhichareimportantforthespeciesconcernedandrestorationpossibilities•A:excellentconservation(regardlessofabilitytorestore)•B:goodconservation(wellconservedregardlessofpossibilitytorestoreORaverageorpartiallydegradedconditionandeasytorestore)•C:averageorreducedconservation(andallothercombinations);3.Degreeofisolationofthepopulationpresentonthesiteinrelationtothenaturalrangeofthespecies•A:population(almost)isolated•B:populationnotisolated,butonmarginsofareaofdistribution•C:populationnotisolatedwithinextendeddistributionrange;4.Global(overall)assessmentofthevalueofthesitefortheconservationofthespeciesconcerned•A:SitesupportsanoutstandingpopulationoftheAnnexIIspeciesinaEuropeancontext•B:SitesupportsanexcellentpopulationoftheAnnexIIspecies,butofsomewhatlowervaluethangradeAsites•C:PopulationofAnnexIIspeciesisofatleastnationalinterestbutnotsignificantlyabovethis.ThisspeciesisnottheprimaryreasonfortheSACbeingselected.

TheEuropeanCommissionemploysasystemofgradingusingA,B,CandDforsiteselection/evaluationpurposes.Thesegradesareappliedtoeachofthefourelementsreferredtoabove.AsiteforwhichanAnnexIIspeciesisidentifiedasaprimaryreasonforselectionwillneedtobegradedAorB.ForsitesgradedC,thespecieswillnotbeaprimaryreasonforselection,butthespecieswillbea‘qualifyingfeature’,requiringconservationobjectivesandmanagementmeasures(e.g.appropriateassessment).Whereaspeciesisgraded‘D’forthesite,itisconsideredtobea‘non-significantpresence’andwillnotrequireconservationobjectives.

30

CASE STUDY 3 continued: TheagreedUKpolicyforidentifyingsiteboundariesisbasedonoverallgradeAandBhabitatsandspeciesonly.GradeChabitatsandspeciesareaddedwheretheyoccurwithinthosesites,butthesiteboundariesarenotalteredorextendedtocapturegradeCfeatures(norsitesproposedonlyforgradeCfeatures).GradeDfeatureshavenospecificrequirementsbeyondmentionoftheirpresence.

InrelationtotheselectionofSACs,Article4.1oftheHabitatsDirectivestatesthat‘for animal species ranging over wide areas these sites shall correspond to the places within the natural range of such species which present the physical and biological factors essential to their life and reproduction. For aquatic species which range over wide areas, such sites will be proposed only where there is a clearly identifiable area representing the physical and biological factors essential to their life and reproduction.

Approaches to Harbour Porpoise SAC Designation: Dogger Bank proposed SACInGermany(asinseveralotherEUnations)threeselectioncriteriawereconsideredfordesignationofsites:

• continuousorregularpresenceoverMaytoAugust(coverageinautumnandwinterwasverylowbycomparisontothespring/summerdata);

• highpopulationdensity(approximately>2individualskm-2);and

• ahighratioofmother-calfpairs(60%ofsightings).

IntheNorthSea,onlyonesite,SyltOuterReef,qualifiedunderthesecriteria.Thedensitiesrecordedatthissitewere2.7animalskm

-2in2002and3.7animalskm

-2in2003.Despitetheseresults,Germanyhasalsodesignated

twootherharbourporpoiseSACsintheNorthSea:DoggerBankandBorkumReef.Densitiesrecordedatthesesiteswere1.0and1.5animalskm

-2in2002and2003respectivelyforDoggerBank,and0.4animalskm

-2atBorkum

Reefforbothyears.TheDoggerBanksitewasdesignatedforitssandbankshabitat,butisalsogradedBforharbourporpoises(PopulationB,ConservationB,IsolationC,GlobalB).ThiswasonaccountofthesitehavingahigherdensityofanimalspresentthansurroundingNorthSeaareasanditwasconsideredtorepresentacalvingarea(JNCC2009).

DespitetheGermandecision,JNCCdecidednottodesignatetheadjacentUKsectorofDoggerBankasaSACforporpoises.

Commentingonthisdecision,WDCSsaid:“Despiteawealthofrelevantscientificresearch,ongoingmonitoringandcontinuingassessmentoftheUK’scetaceanspecies,theharbourporpoiseiscurrentlycompletelyunprotectedeventhoughanumberofsiteshavebeenproposed.Therearelocationsknowntobeimportantforcetaceansthat,ifprotected,couldmakeavaluableandincreasinglynecessarycontributiontotheprotectionofthisspecies.Inyour2008assessment,youstatedthat“crudeestimatesindicatethatforsomeoftheyearapproximately5%oftheUKpopulationofharbourporpoisesusethedSAC”,YourreasoningalsoassumesthattheUKpopulationisonebighomogenouspopulationwhichweknowisnotthecase(Evans&Wang2003).

YouadmitthattheJCDdataheldbyJNCCandthatcollectedduringSCANSIIwerenotcurrentlyamenabletoanalysisastotheratioofcalvestoadults,andthereforeyoudidnotapplythiscriteriontothedSACinyour2008Assessment.Wecannotfindevidencethatyouhavedonethisanalysisinthe2010Assessmenteitherbutneverthelesshavemadethedecisiontoreclassifytheharbourporpoise?

TheEuropeanCommissionproposedthreekeycriteriatobeusedfortheassessmentofpotentialSACsitesforharbourporpoise,inadditiontotheselectioncriteriainAnnexIIItotheHabitatsDirectiveincludeshighratioofyoungtoadultsduringcertaintimesofyear.

ItappearsthispointhasnotbeentakenintoaccountwiththeAssessmentmadeonjusttwocriteria.WDCSbelievesthisrepresentsasignificantfailureinfulfillingEUlegalrequirements,ByomittingtolisttheharbourporpoiseasaqualifyingfeatureatDoggerBank(andpossiblyothersites),theUKisfailingtogivetheEuropeanCommissionacompletepictureofthestatusofthespecieswithintheUKand,hence,theterritoryoftheEU.”

EditedextractfromletterfromWDCStoJNCCJune2010.SeealsoEvanset al.,(2008).

ItmightalsobenotedherethatwhilsttheGermansandDutchhavesurveyedtheDoggerBankwatersforcetaceans,theUKauthoritieshavechosennotto.

31

4.2.6.2 Poorly managed activities conducted within SACsCoastal developmentsWithintheMorayFirthSAC,marinadevelopmentshaveoccurredatInvernessandAvochandhavebeenconsideredforadevelopmentatWhiteness.Allpotentialmarinadevelopmentsthatmighthaveasignificantimpactonthebottlenosedolphins(includingbyprovidingberthsthatleadtoincreasesinrecreationalvesselnumbersandcommercialmarinewildlifeoperators)shouldbesubjecttoappropriateassessmentsbeforetherelevantauthoritiesmakedecisionsaboutthem.Accordingtoarecentindependentscientificstudy(Donovanet al.2010),theinnerMorayFirthmayalreadybeatcarryingcapacityforrecreationalvessels.Whenyouaddcommercialcraft(includingfishingvessels,diveboats,powerboattrainingschoolsanddolphinwatchingoperators),itislikelythatthiscapacityisbeingfarexceeded.

TheScottishGovernmenthasrecentlymadeacommitmenttobeEurope’smostsustainabletourismdestinationby2015.ItisthereforehighlyappropriatethatthegovernmentensuresdevelopmentofeachofthesethreemarinasmeetstherequirementsoftheEUHabitatsDirective.Thisshouldincludetheprovisionofadequateappropriateassessmentsforeachmarinadevelopment;andstrivingtoensurethattheexistingdolphinwatchingindustryisenvironmentallysustainable.

NonewoperatorsshouldbeallowedtooperatewithintheSACuntilthisessentialpieceofresearchhasbeencompleted.Decisionsaboutrecreationalboatnumbersandlicensingandcappingofthedolphinwatchingindustrycanthenbemadebaseduponsoundscience.

CASE STUDY 4:Fisheries Management and protected sites: scallop dredging within Cardigan Bay SAC

ScallopdredginghasbeencarriedoutinCardiganBayforsomeyearstovaryingextents,although,generally,activityhasbeenlow.ThepossibilityofascallopfisherywasrecognisedintheCardiganBaySACManagementPlanandthelistedmanagementresponseis“Thereisaknownmechanismfortheactivitytohaveaneffect,butinsufficientevidenceatpresenttodeterminewhetherornotitishavingasignificantadverseeffect”.

TheCountrysideCouncilforWales’guidanceontheneedforAppropriateAssessmentstates:“Thecheckforlikelihoodofsignificanteffectsisaninitialfilter,andshouldbearelativelyquickwayofdecidingwhethertheprojectwouldbelikelytonegativelyaffectthesiteinasignificantway.Theinformationrequiredforthecheckingstagewillvaryfromprojecttoproject,butitisthesubsequentappropriateassessmentstagethatwillprobablyformthemoreindepthassessment.Theterm‘likelihood’isimportant.Thetestisalikelihoodofeffectsratherthanacertaintyofeffects.Thecheckshouldonlyallowthoseprojectstoproceedwhereitisclearthatanysignificanteffectisunlikely.Ifthereisdoubtandfurtherinformationisneeded,itshouldbeconcludedthatthereisalikelihoodofsignificanteffects.”

ItisclearfromtheManagementPlanassessmentthatthereisdoubtastothepotentialimpact,thereforeitshouldbeconcludedthatthereisalikelihoodofsignificanteffectsandanAppropriateAssessmentshouldbeundertaken.

In2006,upto60scallopdredgershadbeenreportedasoperatingwithinCardiganBayincludingwithintheboundariesoftheSAC.Therefollowedmanychangestothesituation,withpartialclosuresandre-opening,until2009.Followingmuchlobbyingbyconservationorganisations,theScallopOrdersthatenabledthefisherywerereviewed.TheWelshAssemblyGovernmentrealisedthattomakechangestheyhadtoundertakeconsultations.ThisledtothecompleteclosureoftheWelshScallopfisheryforthesecondhalfof2009whileconsultationsonitsfutureweremade.Aconsortium,ledbyWDCS,tookacomplainttoEuropeoverthelackofAppropriateAssessmentinissuingScallopinglicences.Thefisherywaspartiallyre-openedbetweenMarchandMay2010withasignificantpartoftheBaydeclaredofflimits.However,partoftheSACitselfwasstillleftopentothescallopers.DespiteadvicefromCCWthatthereweremanyuncertainties,noassessmentwasundertaken,andnopermanentscalloporderwasmade.

AtthetimeofwritingthesituationisstillunclearandtheWelshAssemblyGovernmenthavedeclinedtomeetwithWDCSandotherlocalgroupstodiscussthefishery.

32

Scallop dredgingTheinabilityofSeaFisheriesCommitteestoproperlycontroldamagingoperationssuchasscallopdredgingwithinSACs(seeCaseStudy4)alsounderlinesthelackofcomprehensiveprotectionforcetaceansandtheirhabitats,evenwithinsupposedlyprotectedareas.ThechangeoffisherymanagementregimeundertheMarineActmayhelphere,buttheexampleoftheWelshAssemblyGovernment’sfailuretocarryoutanAppropriateAssessmentforscallopingwithintheCardiganBaySAC,describedbelow,doesnotbodewellforfuturemanagement.

Commercial dolphin watching and recreational activitiesCurrentlynooversightofthecommercialbottlenosedolphinwatchingindustriesisrequiredineitherCardiganBayorintheMorayFirth.Commercialboatnumberscontinuetoincreaseuncheckedandwithnounderstandingofpotentialcumulativeimpactsofvesselsthatrepeatedlyseekoutandinteractwiththedolphins.

EventuallyworkbeingundertakenbyAberdeenUniversitymayleadustounderstandhowmanycommercialandrecreationalboatscansafelyoperateinthedolphins’rangewithintheMorayFirthwithoutcausingsignificantdisturbance.Untilthisworkiscompletedandasustainablenumberofvesselscanbedetermined,intheinterestsofprecautionandtherequirementsoftheHabitatsDirective,nonewvesselsshouldbeallowedtooperateintheinnerMorayFirth.

AreasofcriticalhabitatexistwithintheMorayFirthSACandinthewiderrangeofthedolphins(forexample,offAberdeenandinStAndrewsBay)althoughthesearelesswellstudiedandtheirsignificanceforthedolphinsarguablylesswellunderstood.Furtherresearchisneededtoassesswhichareasareofcriticalimportancetodolphinsandhowtheseareasshouldbeprotected.

InananalysisoftheprotectionofferedbySACs,Green(2006)concludedtherewaslittlethatcouldbeseenas‘special’intermsofadditionalprotectionwithinSACscomparedwiththewidersea.ThisistrueforbottlenosedolphinswithinthethreeexistingSACs.WhilstthedesignationofSACsmayhaveledtoincreasedlevelsofenvironmentalassessmentthroughtheproductionofAppropriateAssessments,theendresulthasbeenthesame,wherescallopdredgingactivitiesandoilandgasexplorationhavebeenlicensedwithinSACsdesignatedforthedolphins(seeCaseStudy5below).

CASE STUDY 5: Licensing of activities within Cardigan Bay and Moray Firth SACs

Ifanyplanorprogramme,suchasoilandgaslicensing,islikelytoaffectaEuropeanprotectedsite(SAC),an‘AppropriateAssessment’(AA)isrequiredundertheHabitatsDirective(foranexplanationofthelicensingprocessandpotentialimpacts,seeJLOGEC1996).

DECC(previouslyDTi)openedthe24throundwhichofferedlicencestoexploreforoilandgaswithinboththeCardiganBayandontheboundaryoftheMorayFirthSACs.Suchdevelopmenthadlongbeenopposedintheselocationsbycampaignsthatpre-datedthedesignationofthesites(Green&Simmonds2008).Despitethis,theGovernmentwentaheadwithlicensing,merelytemporarilywithholdingthoseblockswithinorimmediatelyadjacenttotheMorayFirthandCardiganBaySACs.Noproperassessmentofpossibleeffectsondesignatedsitesfromlicensingwasundertaken,noradequateassessmentofpossiblecumulativeeffects.

TheAAfailedtoguaranteetheprotectionofprotectedsites,andaccordingtotheCountrysideCouncilforWales(CCW),itfailedtoestablish“…with sufficient robustness or certainty that the plan will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of any European Site or potential European Sites”.AsecondAAwasthenundertaken.Theoriginalassessmentfailedtoguaranteeprotectionofthesitesandlicensingdidnottakeplace.Ifinformationisavailablethatwasnotincludedintheoriginalassessment,thenthatassessmentshouldbere-doneasawhole,notpiecemealtojustifyadecisionalreadytaken.ReassessmentconcludedtherewasinsufficientevidenceonwhichtomakeadecisionfortheWelshSAC(i.e.theycouldnotbesure‘beyond reasonable doubt’thattherewouldnotbedamagetofeaturesoftheSAC),andthisareawaswithdrawnfromthelicensinground.

The25thround,announcedinFebruary2008,offeredlicencestoconductseismicsurveysinwatersadjacenttobothsites,aswellaswithinthePenLlyna’rSarnauSACinnorth-westWales,whichhasthebottlenose

33

InresponsetoaconsultationontheproposedmanagementplanforCardiganBaySAC,WDCS(2007)notedthat“the proposed management response to all potentially serious impacts is merely to trigger an ‘Appropriate Assessment’.”WDCSbelieve“that as a ‘special’ and very important area there should be a presumption against damaging activities both within the site and within a broader zone of influence. Given the stated lack of information on the status of dolphins within the site, WDCS also believes that it should be assumed they are not in a favourable state and damaging activities avoided on a precautionary basis. There is no evidence that the Appropriate Assessment procedure is able to identify whether activities, beyond doubt, do not affect the features”.

4.2.6.3 ‘Strict protection measures’DespitetherequirementunderArticle12oftheHabitatsDirective,toestablishasystem of strict protection,therearelittleobviousrobustandenforcedmechanismsthatwouldputastopto all forms of deliberate capture or killing (e.g. bycatch);deliberate disturbance, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration (e.g.licensing,mitigatingandlimitingnoisyactivitiessuchasseismicsurveyworkwithinareasknowntobeimportanttocetaceans),normeasurestostopdeterioration and destruction of breeding sites or resting placesoutwithSACs.Thereisanurgentneedtodefinehow“breedingsitesorrestingplaces”areappliedformobilemarinespeciesandtoidentifyhowonecanbegintoprotectthem.Therehasalsobeennoattempttodefinethemeaningof‘features …major importance for wild fauna,,,’and‘linear and continuous structures’withinthemarineenvironmentunderArticle10oftheDirective.

Formobilespecies,suchascetaceans,protectionofthewiderenvironmentisespeciallyimportant.Indeedsomewillarguethatitiswiderandnon-siterelatedmeasuresthatshouldprovidetheprimaryprotectionforsuchanimals.Inthisregardmeasuresmightincludeforexampletheuseofpingersongillnetstoalertcetaceanstothemortechnicalmeasuressuchasbubblecurtainstolimitthespreadofnoisefrompiledriving.Itisbeyondthescopeofthisdocumenttoreviewwidermeasuresfullybutforthemomentthereislittleevidencethatanywidermeasuresaresignificantlyassistingcetaceanconservation.

NonethelessactionmustbetakentomeettheDirective’srequirementstoensurethefavourableconservationstatusofpopulationsofsomecetaceansoutsidedesignatedSACsaswellaswithinthem,andthiswillbepredicatedonhavingadequatedatatobeabletoshowthis.

Case study 5 continued:

dolphinlistedasaqualifyingfeature.Followingmuchlobbying,AAswereundertakenforthesites.FortheWelshsites,theseconcludedtherewasinsufficientevidenceonwhichtomakeadecision(i.e.theycouldnotbesure‘beyond reasonable doubt’thattherewouldnotbedamagetofeaturesoftheSAC)andthisareawaswithdrawnfromthelicensinground.

LicensingsubsequentlyoccurredintheMorayFirth,followingafinalAAbasedonfurtherdesk-basedandfieldresearchthatDECChascommissioned.Seismicsurveystookplaceinautumn2010andweawaittheresultsoftheimpactstudiesthatwereundertaken,The26thlicensingroundannouncedinJanuary2010againexcludestheCardiganBayandMorayFirthSACs,butincludesPenLlyna’rSarnauSAC.

ByannouncingthatnoareaswereofflimitstotheoilcompaniesbeforetheSEAandtheAAwerecompleted,theGovernmentispre-supposingtheoutcomeoftheassessmentprocess.Inre-doinganassessmentapparentlybecauseitfailstosupportthispositiononlyfurtherunderminestheflawedprocess.ThereseemslittlepointingoingthroughthelengthyprocessofdesignatingprotectedareassuchasSACsifthedesignationsarebeingignoredwhenitcomestooffshoreenergydevelopments.Thedecisioninthe24thlicensingroundtoofferallareaswithinSACstooilcompaniesshowsthatcurrentlymarinedesignationscarryverylittleweightwithdecisionmakers,andthereforeofferlittleornoprotection.InpreparationfortheseismicsurveysintheMorayFirth,variousgovernmentdepartmentsworkedcloselytofundamajorresearcheffortthatincludedbothbaselineandimpactresearch,thefirstofit’skindinUKwaters.SuchstudiesshouldberoutineaspartofDECCplanninganddecisionmaking,asisincreasinglybeingrequiredwiththedevelopmentofthemarinerenewableenergyindustry.

34

4.3 Implementation of National Legislation

4.3.1 Disturbance in England and Wales AconvictioninEngland,undertheWildlifeandCountrysideAct1981,forrecklesslydisturbingasolitarybottlenosedolphinwasachievedin2008.TwoinebriatedyoungmentookadvantageofthefactthatayoungsolitarydolphinwasveryaccessiblefromabeachinKent,SEEngland,andinteractedwithher.Evenafterbeingrepeatedlyaskedbypolicetocease,theycontinuedtointeract.Thisisarareexampleofasuccessfulprosecution;despitethefactthattherearemanyreportsofdolphinsbeingchasedorotherwiseharassedbyvessels.

Partoftheprobleminbringingprosecutionsisdefining‘disturbance’.Withoutspecialistknowledgeofcetaceanbehaviour,lawenforcementofficersand,indeed,courtsmightexpecthighlymobileanimals,suchasdolphins,tobeabletomovefromunpleasantstimuliandsimplytemporarilyorpermanentlyrelocateelsewhere.Tohumaneyes,theseasmaylooklikearelativelyhomogeneousenvironmentofferingforsuchananimaltotakeadvantageof,includingforittopotentiallyswimtoasaferdepth.However,dolphinsandallcetaceansneedtocometothesurfaceonaregularbasistobreathe.Indeed,dolphinscouldbesaidtobeanimalsthathaveevolvedtoprimarilyliveatorneartheair-waterinterface.Moreover,whilsttheextentoftheirhabitatmayseemlargeandtheyaretypicallyreferredtoas‘wide-roaming’,therewillbehabitatareaswhichareofimportancetothemforfeedingand/orbreedingandpossiblyotherpurposes(Simmonds&Eisfeld2010).

Anotherproblemisthattheresourcesforprosecutionarealsoseverelylimitedanditappearsthisareaisnotseenasapriorityforfundingeitherininvestigationsorawareness-raisinginsomeregions.

Oneareaofdifficultyinapplyingtheseprotectionmeasurestothewidermarineenvironmentandtospeciesliespartlyinthemeaningofdefinitions.Forexample,‘taking’isnotinterpretedintheUK,inthesamewayasitisintheUS19,tomean‘harass,harm,pursue,hunt,shoot,wound,kill,trap,captureorcollect’.Inaddition,thereislittlecaselawintheUKtoprovidedefinitionsandnoraretheyincludedintheActs,but‘taking’isusuallyinterpretedascaptureorkilling.ItisalsonotablethattheUSEndangeredSpeciesAct1973alsoextendsthisinterpretationtocoversignificanthabitatmodificationordegradationwhichaffectsthehabitatusebyspecies.Likewise,thereisnodefinitionof‘placesofshelterorprotection’.Whilstthesearemoreimmediatelyobviousinterrestrialspecies,suchasotters’holtsorbirds’nests,formobilemarinespeciestheyarelesseasytodefine;anditappearsthatratherthanattemptadefinitiontocoversuchspecies,thesubjecthasbeenlargelyignored.

Anotherpotentialproblem,asdescribedearlier,isthatdifferentregionsnowhavegreaterresponsibilitiesonanindividualbasistoaddressmarineenvironmentalconsiderations,whichcouldgiverisetoinconsistenciesinapproachesinfutureyears.

4.3.2 Disturbance in ScotlandTherehasnowbeenonesuccessfulprosecutionfordisturbanceofapodofbottlenosedolphinsbyanindividualusingajetskiintheMorayFirthinScotlandundertheConservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2004.TheincidentoccurredoutsideMacDuffAquarium,whereseveraldifferenteyewitnesseshadtheforesighttocollectimportantinformationincludingphotographsandthelicenseplateofthevesselinvolved,leadingtoasuccessfulprosecutionandapenaltyfine(£500).TheGrampianPoliceregionisoneofthefewregionsinScotlandtohaveadedicatedPAW(PartnershipforActionAgainstWildlifeCrime)WildlifeCrimeOfficer,whichmeantadequatepolicetimecouldbecommittedtopursuingthiscrime.

TheConservation(NaturalHabitats,&c.)Regulations1994,asamended,inScotland,[Regulation39(2)]takesadifferentandstricterlinethantheConservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010and,forexample,statesthat:‘Subject to the provisions of this Part, it is an offence to deliberately or recklessly disturb any dolphin, porpoise or whale (cetacean)’(seesection3.3.2.3foralladditionaloffences).GuidanceiscurrentlybeingdevelopedbyMarineScotlandanditwasanticipatedthatthiswouldbeavailableinSpring2011.

4.3.3 Licensing in England and WalesSomelicensingfunctionsinEnglandarebeingtransferredtothenewMarineManagementOrganisationundertheMarineAct,buttheyarerequiredtoconsultwithNaturalEnglandbeforeissuinglicences.AwildlifelicenceisrequiredfromtheMMObyanyonewhowishestocarryoutanactivityintheEnglishmarineenvironmentthatisprohibitedundernatureconservationlegislation,wheretheactivitycannotbesufficientlymitigated.Licencesmaybeneededfor

19.EndangeredSpeciesAct1973

35

CASE STUDY 6: JNCC Disturbance Guidance WDCS’sfullresponsecanbefoundinAppendix1.

“In 2008, JNCC consulted on guidance on a new disturbance offence under the Habitats Regulations 2007 forEnglandandWalesandtheOffshoreMarineRegulations2007.TheconsultationendedinJune2008andfeedbackwasconsideredinthefollowingmonths,muchimprovingthedocument.InJanuary2009,therewereamendmentsmadetotheregulations,whichmeantthattheguidancealsohadtobeslightlyamendedtoreflectthosechanges,andthishasresultedinadelayinitspublication.Currentlytheguidanceisindraftandshouldbepublishedin2011”(fromhttp://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-4226,accessedon9January2012).

InJune2009,JNCCalsoissuedGuidelines for minimising the risk of disturbance and injury to marine mammals whilst using explosivesand inAugust2010separateGuidelines for Minimising the Risk of Disturbance and Injury to Marine Mammals from Seismic Surveys.

Both sets of regulations contain a revised definition of ‘deliberate disturbance’ of European Protected Species.According to JNCC, “sound generated from seismic surveys have the potential to cause both injury and disturbance to marine mammals…and the potential to cause two offences as defined under Regulations.” Therefore, the 2009versionoftheGuidelinescontains“bestpracticeforoperatorstofollow”and“itisconsideredthatadherencetotherecommendationswillminimizetheriskofanoffencebeingcommitted.”

Thereappearstobeconsiderableconfusionastowhatconstitutes ‘disturbance’ forEuropeanProtectedSpeciesincluding,butnotlimitedto,cetaceans.Recentcaselawregardingbats(VivianMorgevHampshireCountyCouncil,10June2010*)concludedthatwhilstkillingoffencesappliedtokillingofindividualanimals,alltheoffencesregardingdisturbanceunder theHabitatsRegulations referredonly todisturbingapopulation.This isworryingandwouldprobablymakeitimpossibletoobtainconvictionsasthereisnodefinitionofwhatconstitutesapopulationorhowsuchapopulationmightbesignificantlydisturbed.ThisiscurrentlyunderreviewintheSupremeCourtandlookslikelytobeoverturned.

WDCS remains very concerned that the current JNCC draft disturbance guidance, as consulted on, remainsinadequate.Thedraftguidancecontainedsomeconsiderableflawsandifitwerefinalisedinitsconsultationform,itwouldnotofferEuropeanProtectedSpeciestheprotectionfromdisturbancethattheyarerequiredundertheEUHabitatsDirective.Ingeneral,WDCSbelievesthatmuchmoredetailedinformationaboutimportanthabitatsinUKwatersisrequired;andthattheUKgovernmentshouldfundfieldstudiestobetterunderstandthepopulationdistribution,abundanceandtrendsinUKwaters.

developmentactivitiesthatmaydisturbcetaceans,suchaspilingformarinerenewablefoundations,activenavalsonar,seismicsurveysoralicencetocarryoutscientificsurveys(seeCasestudy6).

*ThismatterwasalsoconsideredattheSupremeCourtinJanuary2011.

ScientificresearchalsorequireslicencesundertheUKMarineAct.LicencesaregivenbytheStatutoryNatureConservationAgencies(e.g.SNH,CCWandNE).Theyissuelicensestoresearchersto‘disturb’dolphinsduringphotoidentification(photoid)surveyswhenthescientificandconservationmanagementbenefitsoutweighanynegativeeffects,astheseinvolveapproachinganimalsclosely.ThesituationwithrespecttoSNHmaychangeunderthenewMarine(Scotland)Act(seeabove).

Inadditiontodisturbancelicences,theoilandgasindustryrequirelicencesfromtheDepartmentforEnergyandClimateChange(DECC),themarinerenewablesindustryrequirelicencesfromtheCrownEstateandUK/ScottishGovernment,andcommercialmarinewildlifeoperatorsrequirealicencefromtherelevantlocalauthority.Alltheselicencescanhaveenvironmentalconditionsattachedtothem.

36

4.3.4 MPAs under the Marine and Coastal Access Act and Marine (Scotland) ActMPAscomeinvariousguises.ThefirstintroducedintheUKwereMarineNatureReserves(MNRs)undertheWCA1981.Theseweredesignedtoprotectsmallsites,andonlythreewereeverdesignatedintheUK:SkomerandLundyIsland,andStrangfordLough(inNorthernIreland).

ThesewerefollowedbySpecialAreasofConservation(SACs),designatedundertheEUHabitatsDirective,whereonlytwo–CardiganBayinWalesandMorayFirthinScotland–havebeenspecificallydesignatedforcetaceans(bottlenosedolphins).AthirdSAC,atthenorthernendofCardiganBay,includesbottlenosedolphinsasaqualifyingfeature,butthesitewasnotspecificallydesignatedforthem.UndertheOSPARConvention,thedesignationofprotectedareasisrequiredandthesearetermedMarineProtectedAreas(MPAs).UndertheUKMarine&CoastalAccessAct,protectedareasaretermedMarineConservationZones(MCZs),andinWalestheremaybeadditionalHighlyProtectedMarineConservationZones(HPMCZs),whichmaybemoreakintotheconceptofMarineNatureReserves.InScotland,undertheMarine(Scotland)Act,thetermofMarineProtectedAreas(MPAs),relatingtotheOSPARagreement,isretained.

TherecentmeetingoftheConventiononBiologicalDiversityinJapanconfirmedthetargetthatatleast10%ofourseasshouldbeprotected.TheEU’sBiodiversityStrategy(themainsystemtoreachCBDtargets)failedtomeetitstargetofhaltingbiodiversitylossby2010,andtheprocessofre-settingthesewasinitiatedinJanuary2011withthepublicationoftheECCommunicationentitledOptions for an EU vision and target for biodiversity beyond 2010.AbigpartofthishasbeentheadditionofWildernessintheBiodiversityStrategy(intheseparateWildernessStrategythroughtheRe-WildingEuropeProject).Thisprimarilyconcernsensuringthat‘Wilderness’ismaintainedintheEU.Thisalsoappliestomarineareas;andthediversityofEuropeancetaceansisanimportantindicatorinthedefinitionofmarinewilderness.

TherearesomefundamentaldifferencesbetweentheEnglish/WelshMCZsandtheScottishMPAsthatarecurrentlybeingproposed.InEnglandandWalesmostmobilemarinespecieshavebeenexcludedfromNE/JNCC’sdraftecologicalnetworkguidancetotheregionalMCZprojects.ThisisdespitereferencetodesignatingsitesformobilespeciesinDefra’sdraftGuidanceNote1.Also,socio-economicfactorsareincludedindeterminingthesites.TheWelshAssemblyGovernmentareconsideringdesignatingaverysmallnumberofsmallhighlyprotectedMCZs.Only3-4arecurrentlyproposed(WAG2010),andmobilespecies(indeed,protectedspeciesgenerally)arenotincludedasprimaryreasonsforsiteselection.Itisobviousthat2-4smallsitescannotprovidean‘ecologicallycoherentnetwork’foranyspecies.Unlessmobilespecies,includinghighlymobilespecies,arelistedclearlyintheecologicalguidance,itisunlikelythattheregionalMCZprojectswillrecommendthesespeciesasprotectedfeatures,orindeedlocateMCZssoastomeetthespecies’conservationneeds.

ThesituationisbetterinScotland,wherethreecetaceanspecies(minkewhale,Risso’sdolphinandwhite-beakeddolphin)arecurrentlyincludedintheScottishMPAGuidanceasprioritymarinefeaturesthatwillunderpinMPAselection.Furthermore,designationofMPAsinScotlandisbasedonscienceandnotsocio-economicconsiderations.However,thisprocessisnotwithoutitsflaws(seeCaseStudy7).

Designationsaremeanttobecompletedby2012tomeettheUK’sinternationalobligations.ItcurrentlyseemslikelythattheUKwillfailcetaceans,asthereisnocross-borderapproachtodevelopanecologicallycoherentnetwork.RecentworkbyWDCS(Clarket al.2010)hasidentifiedareasofcriticalhabitatforcetaceanspeciesaroundtheUK,wheresufficientdataareavailable,andthereportproposeskeyareasforprotectiontohelpensurefavourablestatusfortheUKcetaceanpopulations.

Seabirds,sealsandtwospeciesofcetaceanrequireprotectionthroughthedesignationofSPAsandSACsundertheBirdsandHabitatsDirectives(aspartoftheNatura2000network)respectively.Inmanycases,siteshavenotyetbeendesignatedforthesespecies(seebelowformoredetail).Seabirds,sealsandcetaceanscouldthereforefallintothe‘gap’betweentheNatura2000processandtheMCZprocess.Furthermore,designatingEuropeansitesalonewillnotbesufficienttofulfiltheprotectionrequirementsforthesespeciesasitwillnotprotectnationallyimportantsites.Thereforeadditionalsites-MCZs-shouldbedesignatedfortheprotectionofthesemobilespecies,therebysignificantlycontributingtotheUKwideecologicallycoherentnetworkofMPAs.

TheomissionofmobilespeciesfromtheecologicalnetworkguidancecouldeffectivelyleavemostofthesespecieswithoutanydirectincreaseinprotectionresultingfromtheUKMarineAct.WithoutadditionalprotectionprovidedbyMCZs,thesespecieswillremainpoorlymanagedandsurelybeexposedtopotentialdeclines.

37

4.3.4.1 Wider protection measures under the Marine Acts Marine Spatial Planning in England and WalesCarefulconsiderationneedstobegiventothelocatingofallformsofenergygenerationincludingacrossnationalboundariesandwithinthewatersofneighbouringEuropeancountries.

APilotProjectinthelate1990sinvestigatedthepossibilitiesforaspatialplanningapproachforthemanagementofourseasusingtheIrishSeaasanexample.Theresultantreportwasverycomprehensiveandgavemanyrecommendationstotaketheprojectforward(DEFRA2004).AlthoughtheprojectundoubtedlyfedintothedevelopmentoftheMarineandCoastalAccessAct,muchofthedetailedrecommendationshavebeenlostandtheconsultationsontheimplementationoftheActarefarlessrobustthanthepilotprojectrecommended.

TheMarineandCoastalAccessActdoes,however,introducesomesortofspatialplanningforourseas.SectionThreeoftheActintroducestheconceptofMarinePlanswhichwillbedevelopedin8regionsasfollows:

(a)theEnglishinshoreregion;(b)theEnglishoffshoreregion;(c)theScottishinshoreregion;(d)theScottishoffshoreregion;(e)theWelshinshoreregion;(f)theWelshoffshoreregion;(g)theNorthernIrelandinshoreregion;(h)theNorthernIrelandoffshoreregion.

CASE STUDY 7: Cetaceans in Scottish MPAs

NeitherbottlenosedolphinsnorharbourporpoisesarecurrentlyontheproposedlistofPriorityMarineFeaturesforMPAstobedesignatedundertheMarine(Scotland)Act.TheseareamongstthetwomosticonicmarinemammalsfoundinScottishwatersand,aswithseabirds,therewillbegapsinprotectioniftheyarenotincludedinthelist.

TheSCANS(SmallCetaceanAbundanceintheNorthSeaandAdjacentwaters)surveysin1994and2005(Hammondet al,2002;SCANSII,2006)haveshownlargenumbersofharbourporpoisesarefoundinScotland’swatersandmanyparticularlyimportantsitescanbefoundhere.AsthemostabundantcoastalcetaceaninScotlandandtheUK,theharbourporpoisecanbeconsideredcharacteristicofScotland’smarineenvironment.

IntheNorthSea,theharbourporpoiseisconsideredunderthreatbecauseofhighbycatchlevels,andisincludedonOSPAR’slistofthreatenedand/ordecliningspecies.

Currently,ScotlandhasoneSACforbottlenosedolphinsintheMorayFirthandnoneforharbourporpoises.InadditiontothesmallpopulationofdolphinsintheMorayFirthnumberingaround195animals,Scotlandholdstwoothersmallandimportantpopulationsofbottlenosedolphinsoffthewestcoast(whosepopulationsconsistofsome40and15individuals).ScotlandalsohasthehighestdensitiesofharbourporpoisesinEurope.YetneitherofthesespecieswillbenefitbythenewprovisionsforMPAsundertheMarine(Scotland)Act,accordingtothecurrentSNHdraftguidelines.

Whilstminkewhales,Risso’sdolphinsandwhite-beakeddolphinsarebeingusedtounderpintheselectionofMPAs,protectionoftheotherspecieswillbeincidental.Thecurrentprocessallows,shouldevidencebeavailable,theresettingofboundariestoincludeotherspeciesonthePriorityMarineFeaturelist(e.g.harbourporpoiseandbottlenosedolphin),andaddingfurtherconservationandmanagementobjectivesforthesespeciestothencMPA.

Source:Briefing on Scottish Environment Link’s concerns on the draft MPA selection guidelines under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010.

38

Thoseinshoreareaswithinthedevolvedregionswillbeoverseenbythedevolvedadministrations,whilsttheEnglishinshoreandalloffshoreareaswillbeoverseenbythenewMMO.

However,itappearsthatthespatialplanningwillbelessthancomprehensive;thatzoningisnotcurrentlybeingconsidered,andthatthereistobenooverallcomprehensivespatialplanforouroceans.AtoplevelUK-wideMarinePolicyStatement(MPS),willprovideanoverarchingbroadsetofprinciplesformarineplanningacrossthewholeoftheUK,andisdueforcompletioninSpring2011.TherewillbedifferentapproachestomanagementinEngland,Scotland,WalesandNorthernIreland.TheMMOdoesnothavejurisdictionoveroilandgasdevelopments,militaryactivities,ormostrenewableenergydevelopments.TheformerremainswithDECC,whilethelatteriscurrentlydealtwithbytheInfrastructurePlanningCommittee(itselfsoontobeabolished,withitsreplacementunclear).Inaddition,mostfisheryissuesremainanEUmatter.ThismeansthattheMarineActappearstobeawastedopportunitytoputinplaceacomprehensiveandintegratedplanningsystemforourseas.

Marine Spatial Planning in ScotlandThereareprovisionsformarinespatialplanningwithintheMarine(Scotland)Act.Inaccordancewith,andsittingbelowtheUK-wideMarinePolicyStatement,willbetheScottishNationalMarinePlanandRegionalMarinePlans.Bothwillcontainmarineecosystemobjectives,economicobjectivesandsocialobjectives,andthesewillbereportedona5-yearlybasis.RegionalplansmaybesteeredbyMarinePlanningPartnerships,representingvariousstakeholdersforagivenregion(consultationunderway).

4.3.5 Effectiveness of Codes of Conduct

4.3.5.1 Ceredigion County Council, WalesCeredigionCountyCouncilhasmonitoredcompliancewiththeirCodesince1994,amassinganimpressive16yearsofdata.Ithasinvolvedalargenumberoflocalvolunteersandenableslocalbuy-intothecodeandtheprotectionofdolphins.Thelatestreport(Allanet al.2010)showedthatof494boatencountersexaminedforratesofcompliance/non-compliancewithcodesofconductforboatusers,compliancewiththecodeofconductwashigh.Atonesite,forexample,itwas95%.Ratesofcompliancewerelowerelsewhere.TheassociatedpublicawarenessprogrammewasalsoassessedasworkingwellatthekeysiteofNewQuay.

Mostcasesofnon-complianceinvolvedvesselstravellingtoofastwhenclosetodolphins.Operatorsofspeedboatsandmotorboatsweremostlikelynottofollowthecodeofconduct.Thereportconcludesthatcompliancewiththecodeofconductsignificantlyreducedtheincidenceofnegativeresponsebehavioursbybottlenosedolphins.

Inadditiontotheabovesurveys,theCardiganBaySACofficerhadaboatandwasinvolvedinamorehighprofileenforcement/educationprogrammeatkeysitesinthemaintouristseasons.Sincestaffandfundingchangesin2011thereisnolongeradedicatedSACofficerandthelevelofenforcementremainsunclearforthefuture.

Whilstcompliancewithcodesofconductisimperative,itisalsoimportanttounderstandthepotentialimpactsonthelongtermstatus,distributionandbehaviourofanimalsthatisthefocusofattention.Along-termandhighlycontrolledstudyinSharkBay,Australia(Bejder2006,2008)foundthatincreasingthenumberoftourvesselsevenfromonetotwoledtosignificantpopulationlevelimpactsontheresidentbottlenosedolphins;includingreducedsurvivalandhabitatabandonment.

4.3.5.2 Dolphin Space Program, Moray Firth, ScotlandAstudyconductedin2005indicatedthatcompliancewiththeDSPguidelineswasgenerallyveryhigh.Allinteractionsbetweenaccreditedtourvesselsandwildlifewereconsideredtobenon-invasive,withallcaptainsactinginaresponsiblemanner.Completecomplianceintermsofvesselconduct(i.e.speed,approachstrategy)withDSPguidelineswasdemonstratedin64%oftripssampled.Forthetripswherecompletecompliancewasnotachieved,non-compliancemostlyinvolvedperiodsoftravelathigherthanrecommendedspeeds,althoughneverincloseproximitytocetaceansorotherwildlife.

Setrouteswereadheredtobyallbusinessessampledwhilstonboardthesevessels.However,oneboatwasobservedoutsideitsagreedareawhilstobservationsonanotherboatwerebeingmade.Thisbreachincompliancesuggeststhatpressuretolocatecetaceanscancauseoperatorstodeviatefromfixedroutes.Therewerenoattemptstotouch,feedorswimwithcetaceansonanytrips.Wheneverpassengersmentionedsuchactivities,theresponsefromguidesandcaptainswasalwaystostronglydiscouragethesepractices,bothinordertopreventstresstocetaceansandforhumanandcetaceansafetyreasons.

39

Since2005,compliancehasremainedhighandregularseasonalmonitoringhasindicatedveryfewbreachesoftheDSPcode.Wherebreacheshaveoccurred,therehasgenerallybeenagoodreasone.g.travellingoutsideofsetroutesorareastoavoidbadweather,forpurposesofpassengerhealthandsafety.Therehave,however,beenafewrepeatedincidentsofareabreachesintheinnerMorayFirtharea.Thesewereonlyfromtwooperatorsandwerenotforsafetyreasons,butduetopressuretoseedolphinswhentheyhadnotbeenseeninagreedareasforlongperiodsoftime.Inthesesituations,theoperatorsinquestionwerespokentoandanewtemporaryagreementreached.Thisallowedtheoperatorsinquestiontotraveltoadifferentareawhereviewingdolphinswasmorelikely,butwasnotconsideredsucha‘sensitive’area.

In2010,anewcodeofconductwasintroducedfortheinnerareaoftheMorayFirthtodealwiththesepersistentproblemsofareabreaches.Thenewcodeallowstouroperatorsmoreflexibilityinregardtoareas,butimposesmorerestrictionsonbehaviour,speedandtimespentinsensitiveareas.Thesesensitiveareasnowalsohave‘nogo’or‘transitonly’zoneswhichoperatorshaveagreedtostayoutofcompletely,orwherenecessary,justusetoaccessotherareas.Thenewcodeiscurrentlybeingmonitoredtoensureitstillprovidesahighlevelofprotectionforthedolphins,whileallowingoperatorstoconducttheirbusinessinapragmaticfashion.

Whilstthecodeofconductislargelybeingobserved,theSACmayalreadybeatcapacity(Donovanet al.2010),andimpactresearchiscurrentlybeingconducted.

ThereiscurrentlynooversightofthecommercialmarinewildlifewatchingindustryintheUKasawhole.

40

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Failings in management of cetacean protection TheseasaroundtheUKareunderpressureasneverbefore.Thepushformassivelyincreasedmarinerenewableenergy,thedrivetocontinuemaximumexploitationofoffshoreoilandgasresources,alongwithincreasingpressuresfromleisureandtourism,boats,whale-watching,recreationalfishing,andthecontinuedmis-managementofourfisheriesallputescalatingpressuresonourmarinewildlife.

WhilstthelegislationcoveringtheprotectionofcetaceansandtheirhabitatsintheUKhaschangedconsiderablyinrecentyears,mainlydrivenbyEUlegislation,itstilldoesnotprovideacomprehensiveandecologicallysoundstructuretoensurethelongtermfavourableconservationstatusofourwhales,dolphinsandporpoises.Instead,asdiscussedabove,itappearsinsomerespectstohavetakenastepbackwardsandremainssubjecttoconsiderabledeficiencies.

Inaddition,overallthereisalackofcoordinationacrossdifferentsectors,withmarkedlydifferentapproachesfromthedifferentlicensingandregulatorybodies.Thisnotonlyleadstoconfusionforotherusersofthemarineenvironment,butmeansthereisnocomprehensivepackageofprotectionforcetaceans.Thislackofcoordinationappearstobeincreasingwithdevolution,withvaryinglegislationanddifferingwillingnesstoenforcecurrentprotectionmeasureswithinthevariousadministrationsandevenacrossadvisorssuchasNE,CCW,SNHandJNCC,whereproblemscouldarisefromcompetingandsomewhatblurredjurisdictions.

Thestatutorynatureconservationagenciescurrentlylargelyrelyonmarineusersapproachingtheminordertoprovideadviceonlegislativeresponsibilities.AnexampleofthisincludestheMinistryofDefence,whichonlybeganformallycommunicatingwithJNCCin2010andhadpreviously,webelieve,beenmakingdecisionsaboutlegislativeresponsibilitiessolelywithinitsowndepartments.Othersectors,suchasportsandharbours,aresubjecttoacomplexityoflegislation,whichcouldimpactonnatureconservationissues.

Historically,theUKhasappliedaverysite-basedapproachtoUKconservation.However,meaningfulboundariesatseaaredifficulttodefine,and,inanycase,mobilespecies,includingcetaceans,arenotsimplyconfinedtosuchgeographicboundaries,althoughasnotedearlier,particularareasmaybeimportanttothem.

ForthetwocetaceanspeciescurrentlylistedintheHabitatsDirectiveasrequiringthedesignationofSACs,harbourporpoiseandbottlenosedolphin,thereisstillno‘coherentnetwork’ofprotectedsitesproposed.TherearenonecurrentlyproposedintheUKfortheformerandonlythreeestablishedforthelatterwithnonewproposals.Inaddition,althoughthereislikelytobemorescrutinyofaproposalforanactivitywithinaprotectedarea,thereisgrowingconcernabouttheextentofeffective‘protection’affordedtothesesites.

TheprotectiongiventocetaceanspeciesoutsideofthesesitesthatisneededtoimplementthewiderprotectionmeasuresrequiredbytheDirective,seemsweakandfromanenforcementpointofview,confusing.

BothDEFRAandtheScottishGovernmentstatethathabitatsandspeciesthatareconservedunderEuropeanlegislationwillnotrequirefurtherprotectionthroughprotectedsites.Asaresult,therewillbenonewprotectedareasforbottlenosedolphinsoranyforharbourporpoises.Weanticipatethattherewillalsobenospecies-basedMCZsforcetaceansinEnglandorWales,underminingcetaceanconservation.

Thedevelopmentofan‘ecologicallycoherentnetwork’ofsitesisbeingplannedinaverypiecemealway.TheEnglishwatersarethesubjectofaseriesofregionalinitiatives,eachwithaslightlydifferentapproach.WelshwatersarebeingassessedbytheWelshGovernmentwithlimitedopportunitiesfordirectpublicinvolvement.Moreover,thelong-termdirectionofMCZpolicieswithinWelshwatersisnotespeciallyclearatthisjuncture.ThecurrentfocusremainsonidentifyingasmallnumberofHPMCZstointegratewithincurrentprotectedareas;thereislittleindicationasyetwhetherthispolicywillcontinueintothemid-termfuture,orwhethernewareasmaybeidentifiedasmoregeneralisedMCZsTheapproachundertheMarine(Scotland)Actisstilldevelopingwithinputfromsomestakeholders.

Afurtherproblemisthelackofadequateknowledgeofstatusandtrends,makingthescaleofpossibleimpactsandimportanceofindividualsitesdifficulttoassess.Itisdifficulttoapplyanylawswhenourknowledgeisbasedoninsufficientbaselinedata.TwoSCANSsurveys11yearsapart,conductedinasinglemonthandofvaryingextent,

41

regionaldedicatedsurveysalongwithcasualobservations(albeitcarefullycollatedbyvoluntaryorganisations),andsomeseabirdsurveysseeminglyformthebasisofourunderstandinguponwhichallcetaceanrelateddecisionssurroundingdevelopmentatseaaremade.

5.2 Recommendations

5.2.1 Changes to existing lawComprehensivelegislationneedstobeinplacetoprotectcetaceans.Theexistingbodyoflawdoesnotmeetthisrequirementandfortheimmediatefuture,‘recklessness’needstobereinstatedintotheHabitatsRegulationsandtheWCA1981,tomakeitanoffencetodeliberatelyor‘recklessly’capture,kill,disturb,ortradeinananimalofEuropeanprotectedspecieswhichincludesalldolphins,whalesandporpoises.

Changesarealsorequiredwithintheregulationstoallowtheprohibitionofthedeteriorationordestructionofbreedingandrestingsitestobedefinedandenforcedwithregardtomobilemarinespecies.Whereoffencesarecreated,meaningfulpenaltiesneedtoapplied.

Moreover,asobservedabove,thecurrentwildlifelegislationhasbeensubjecttosubstantialamendmentsthroughoutthepastthirtyyears,forwhichtheLawCommissionhasexpresslyconsideredcreatessubstantialdifficultiesofinterpretationevenforspecialists.

5.2.2 MPAsToensurethatthereisa‘coherentnetwork’ofsitestoprotectcetaceans,manymoresitesneedtobedesignated.ForbottlenosedolphinsandharbourporpoisesthiscanbedoneundertheHabitatsDirectiveasSACs.These,however,needtobelargeenoughtocoverallkeyrequirementsofthespecies.ForothercetaceanspeciesthesecanbedesignatedasMCZsorMPAsundertheMarineActs.Duetotheoveralllackofknowledgeofdistributionandhabitatneeds,thedesignationsshouldnotbea‘oneoff’exercisebutmustbeseenasanongoingprocesstobeinformedbynewresearchandsurveys.InitialsitescanbeidentifiedusingtheareasofcriticalhabitatidentifiedbyforexampleClarket al.(2010).

Thedesignationofsuchanetworkneedstobecarefullyco-ordinatedacrossthevariousadministrationsinvolvedtoensurethatitisindeedcoherentandtherecommendationsoftheIrishSeaPilotStudyneedtobeimplemented(Robertset al.2003).Thesestatethat“a protected area network needs to be greater than the sum of its parts. The emphasis in Europe has so far been on selecting sites to protect specific attributes with little consideration given to how those sites interact with others. Management has been site specific rather than taking into account how a protected area affects and is affected by others. A central objective for a network is to ensure that there is ecological connectivity among protected area units. For species that move or disperse widely, populations in protected areas should be mutually supporting. Levels of coverage, replication, size and spacing of protected areas need to be set taking connectivity considerations into account.”

Sitesmustalsobeproperlyprotected.Thereshouldbeapresumptionagainstanydevelopmentswithinprotectedareas,unlessrobustassessmentsshowbeyonddoubtthattherewillbenoadverseeffectsonthespeciesandhabitatsinvolvedaswellastheoverallintegrityofthesite.Comprehensiveresearchandassessmentsshouldbeundertakenwithappropriatepublicconsultationwheneveranydevelopment,planorprojectmayaffectasite(andthisincludesdevelopmentsoutwiththesites),andaprecautionaryapproachtodecisionstaken.ManagementplansforSACsneedtobeupdatedalongwithnewplansbeingdevelopedforsitesdesignatedundertheMarineActssothattheyreflectthispresumptionagainstdevelopmentandthestrictapplicationofassessments.Forlargersites,zoningofactivitiesmaybeappropriate.

5.2.3 OversightTheMarineActsareessentiallypiecesofenablinglegislationand,atthetimeofwriting,manyconsultationsareoccurringwithregardtotheirimplementation.Alreadysomeproblemsareobvious.SomekeyissuesarebeyondthescopeoftheActsandthereforewillnotnecessarilybeincludedinspatialplanning.Oilandgaslicensing,forexample,remainswithDECCand‘major’developmentswillbecoveredbytheInfrastructurePlanningCommission(oritsprobablesuccessorwithinthePlanningInspectorate)inEnglandandWales;includingthelargescalewindfarmsproposedunderRound3licensing.TheMarineManagementOrganisationwillonlycoverEnglishwaters20and

20.WelshMinistershavethepowerunderboththisActandtheGovernmentofWalesAct2006to“buyin”expertisefromtheMMO.TheWelshGovernmenthascurrentlyshownlimitedinterestindoingthis.

42

offshoreWelshwaters,meaningtherewillbeacontinueddifferenceinapproachindifferentareas,and‘major’developmentprojectswillbeconsideredoutsideanyspecialorprotectivestructure.

ThereneedstobebettercoordinationofplanningacrossallregionsandallindustrysectorsthroughouttheUK.Overallspatialplanning,licensingandenforcementneedstobeseparatedfromthosebodiespromotingindustrysectorstoensuretheprocessisunbiasedandtransparent,whilstindependenceneedstobesoughtacrossalloversight.

5.2.4 DataThereisnoUK-widesurveillanceschemeforcetaceansandrobustpopulationestimatesexistforonlyafewspecies.Therefore,precautionshouldbeanintegralcomponentofdecisionmaking,butdespitetheclearstatementsmadeintheWadenzeejudgement,veryfewdecisionscanbeseentobeprecautionaryintheirapproach.Moreover,afailuretoupholdaneffectivemonitoringsystemforspeciessubjectto“strictprotection”undertheHabitatsDirectivehasbeenruledtobreachthislegislationbytheEuropeanCourtofJusticein2007(Commissionv.Ireland:Case183/07).WhilstdatagapshavebeenacknowledgedandhavedelayedtheprocessofdesignatedMPAsundertheMarineActs,thesamedatagapshavenotbeenseenasareasontodelaydevelopmentconsents.Therefore,governmentsneedtoinvestincomprehensivebaseline,longtermresearchandsurveyprogrammescollectingbaselinecetaceandataoverthelongtermwherethesearelacking.Thisshouldbetakenundera‘polluterpays’approach,whereindustriesareexpectedtosubstantiallycontributetothecostsoftheindependentresearchrequiredtoallowtheiractivities.Thisisquicklybecomingthenormforthemarinerenewableenergyindustry.Itshouldalsobearequirementfortheoilandgasindustry,theMinistryofDefenceandothermarineusers.

SuchanarrangementhasworkedwellintheouterMorayFirth,whereDECChasledathreeyearfundingprogramoffieldanddesk-basedresearchafterWDCSconductedstudiesinthearea(Eisfeldet al.2009),andraisedconcernsaboutdevelopmentthere.SucharesearchmodelshouldnotberestrictedtotheouterMorayFirthandgovernmentdepartmentssuchasDECCshouldbeworkingtowardssuchfinescaledatacollectiontoinformdecisionmakingwhereverindustryproposestooperate.

SEAsandEIAsneedtobecarriedoutthatdonotpre-supposethatdevelopmentisinevitable.

Inaddition,thefundinggainedfromdevelopersshouldbeadministeredbyatrulyindependentbody/committee(madeupofexpertsinthevariousappropriatefields)andprovideindependentoversightofassessmentprocesses.

5.2.5 DisturbanceOndirectprotection,therehasbeengreatdifficultyimplementinganddefiningprotectionfromdisturbance,despitethisbeingfundamentaltotheanimals’wellbeing.

Urgentmeasuresarerequiredtounderstandtheextentofandtoprevent(notjustminimise)disturbance,protectbreedingandrestingplaces,controlnoise,andensurecross-sectoralplanningandzoningofactivities.

Thiswillrequireabetterlegaldefinitionof‘disturbance’andonethatcanincluderecklessdisturbanceasdeliberateunderArticle12.Inaddition,adefinitionof‘breedingandrestingplaces’isrequiredformobilemarinespecies.

5.2.6 FisheriesBycatchofcetaceansanddestructionofhabitatfromfisheriesremainamajorproblemwithlargelyineffectiveattemptshavingbeenmadetoresolvethisissue.FullconsiderationofthiscomplexissueisbeyondthescopeofthisdocumentbutforarecentreviewpleaseseeNunny(2011).

5.2.7 Codes of ConductCodesofConductshouldbemadelegallyenforceableacrossallsectorswithaleadorganisation/smaderesponsibleforenforcement.Impactstudiesshouldbeundertakeninareaswhererecreationalandcommercialpressuresmayexist,includinginbothbottlenosedolphinSACsinCardiganBayandtheMorayFirth.

Effectivemethodsandincentivesthatpromotecompliancewithlawsorvoluntaryregulationsneedtobeintroduced,includingviatheappointmentofmarinewildlifetourismofficerslocatedinareasofhighmarinetourismactivityand/orareaswhichareparticularlyvulnerable.ThisshouldbeforallformsofmarinewildlifeandnotjustthebottlenosedolphinwithinSACs.)

43

Onlywhenanyprocessisreinforcedwithabasicunderlyingprinciplethatembedsprotectionofcetaceansandtheirhabitatsintoalldecision-makingprocesseswillwebeabletoachievefavourableconservationstatusforourwhales,dolphinsandporpoises.Unlessthishappensandtheprinciplesonwhichwebaseourdecision-makingprocessarechanged,thentheenvironmentwillstillbeinsufficientlyprotected21.

WhatisultimatelyrequiredisapropercommitmentfromGovernmenttoprotectcetaceansandtheirhabitats,whichissomethingthatwefoundlackingasweinvestigatedtherecentdevelopmentandimplementationofcurrentlegislationduringtheproductionofthisreport.

5.3 Acknowledgements

WearegratefultoPeterEvansandmanycolleagueswithinWDCSandthewiderUKconservationcommunityforeithercommentsonearlierdraftmanuscriptsandideasandinsightsincorporatedhere.Theconclusionsandrecommendationsareourown.

21.TherehasbeenarecentcommitmentfromtheUKgovernmenttoreviewhowtheHabitatsDirectiveisimplementedandthatthiswillbecompletedbeforethenextbudget(http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/autumn_statement.pdfPage34andseehttp://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2011/11/29/habitats-and-birds-directives/.

44

6. REFERENCES

AllanL,GreenMandKelsallK.2010.BottlenosedolphinsandboattrafficontheCeredigionCoast,WestWales,2008and2009.CeredigionCountyCouncil.

Anon.2008.CardiganBaySpecialAreaofConservation(SAC)ManagementPlan.http://www.cardiganbaysac.org.uk/pdf%20files/Cardigan_Bay_SAC_Management_Scheme_2008.pdf

ASCOBANS.2011.ReportoftheNoiseWorkingGroup.DocumentAC18/Doc4-08(WG)rev.1presentedatthe18thASCOBANSAdvisoryCommitteeMeeting.UNCampusBonn,Germany,.4–6May2011.31pp.

Bejder,L.,Samuels,A.,Whitehead,H.,Gales,N.,Mann,J.,Connor,R.,Heithaus,M.,Watson-Capps,J.J.,Flaherty,C.andKrützen,M.2006.Declineinrelativeabundanceofbottlenosedolphins(Tursiopssp)exposedtolong-termdisturbance.Conservation Biology.20(6):1791-1798.

Caddell,R.2005.InternationalLawandtheProtectionofMigratoryWildlife:AnAppraisalofTwenty-FiveYearsoftheBonnConvention.Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy16:113-156.

Caddell,R.2008.BiodiversityLossandtheProspectsforInternationalCooperation:EULawandtheConservationofMigratorySpeciesofWildAnimals.Yearbook of European Environmental Law8:218-264.

Caddell,R.2012.TheMaritimeApplicationoftheHabitatsDirective:PastChallengesandFutureOpportunities(inpress)

Clark,J.,Dolman,S.,andHoyt,E.2010.TowardsMarineProtectedAreasforCetaceansinEngland,ScotlandandWales.Ascientificreviewidentifyingcriticalhabitatwithkeyrecommendations.WDCS.Chippenham,UK.178pp.

CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunity(CEC).2007.Guidelines for the establishment of the Natura 2000 network in the marine environment.EuropeanCommissionDGEnvironment.

Dolman,S.J.andSimmonds,M.P.2010.TowardsbestenvironmentalpractiseforcetaceansindevelopingScotland’smarinerenewableenergy.Marine Policy34,1021-1027.

Donovan,C.,Mackenzie,M.andHastie,G.2009.Analysisofat-seadistributionofvesselswithintheMorayFirthSAC.ReporttoSNH.43pages.

DotingaH.andTrouwborstA.2009.TheNetherlandsandthedesignationofmarineprotectedareasintheNorthSea.ImplementinginternationalandEuropeanlaw.Utrecht Law Review.5:23.

Eisfeld,S.,Keith,S.,Pope.A.,Still,D.,Dolman,S.andSimmonds,M.2009.OuterMorayFirthCetaceanResearch2008.ProjectreportfortheBBCWildlifeFund.February2009.23pp.

Embling,C.B.,Gillibrand,P.A.,Gordon,J.,Shrimpton,J.,Stevick,P.T.andHammond,P.S.2009.Usinghabitatmodelstoidentifysuitablesitesformarineprotectedareasforharbourporpoises(Phocoenaphocoena).Biological Conservation143,267–279.

EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentCentre.2007.Qualityreviewofenvironmentalstatementsforoffshorepetroleumproductionandpipelinedevelopments.ReporttoDTI.UniversityofManchester.16pp.

EU,2005.Fisheriesreview.

Evans,P.G.H.(Compiler).2008.Whales,porpoisesanddolphins.OrderCetacea.Pp.655-779.In:Mammals of the British Isles.S.Harris&D.W.Yalden,(eds.).Handbook.4thEdition.TheMammalSociety.Southampton.800pp.

EvansPGHandWang,J.2003.Re-examinationofdistributiondatafortheharbourporpoisearoundWalesandtheUKwithaviewtositeselectionforthisspecies.Report for the Countryside Council for Wales.CountrysideCouncilforWalesContractScienceReportNo634:1-116.

Evans,P.G.H.,Boyd,I.L.,andMacLeod,C.D.2010.Impactsofclimatechangeonmarinemammals.Marine Climate Change Impacts Partnership (MCCIP) Annual Report Card 2009-2010 Scientific Review:1-14.

45

Evans,P.G.H.,Boyd,I.L.andMacLeod,C.D.2010.Impactsofclimatechangeonmarinemammals.Marine Climate Change Impacts Partnership (MCCIP) Annual Report Card 2009-2010. ScientificReview:1-14.

Evans,P.G.H.,Andersen,L.,Bjørge,A.,Fontaine,M.,Galatiu,A.,Kinze,C.C.,Lockyer,C.,Luna,C.de,Pierce,G.J.,Sveegaard,S.,Teilmann,J.,Tiedemann,R.,andWalton,M.(2008)Section8.2.ManagementUnitsforHarbourPorpoisePhocoena phocoena.Pp.61-85.In:Evans,P.G.H.andTeilmann,J.(Editors)(2009)Report of ASCOBANS/HELCOM Small Cetacean Population Structure Workshop.ASCOBANS/UNEPSecretariat,Bonn,Germany.140pp.

FryM(Ed).2008AManualofNatureConservationLaw.2ndEdition.NCWGPublishingNottingham.851pp.

Green,M(Ed).1996.PollutingtheOffshoreEnvironment–thepracticesandenvironmentaleffectsofBritain’soffshoreoilandgasindustry.JointLinksOilandGasEnvironmentalConsortium,Newtown.15pp

Green,M.2000.AreviewofEnvironmentalStatementsproducedforoffshoreoilandgasdevelopments.TheWildlifeTrusts/WWFUK.

GreenM.2006.SACsofPromise?–MarineSACprotection.ECOS27/2

GreenM.andSimmondsM.2008.RidingtheWaves–LessonsfromCampaigningonoilandgas.ECOS 29(3/4)

Hammond,P.,Berggren,P.,Benke,H.,Borchers,D.L.,Collet,A.,Heide-Jørgensen,M.P.,Heimlich,S.,Hiby,A.R.,Leopold,M.F.andØien,N.2002.Abundanceofharbourporpoise(Phocoena phocoena)andothercetaceansintheNorthSeaandadjacentwaters.Journal of Applied Ecology39:361-376.

Hoyt,E.2005.MarineProtectedAreasforWhales,DolphinsandPorpoises:AWorldHandbookforCetaceanHabitatConservation.Earthscan,London,516pp.

IEEM2010.EcologicalImpactAssessmentGuidelines–MarineandCoastal.www.ieem.net.

IWC2011.ReportoftheWorkshoponSmallCetaceansandClimateChange,heldattheFederalMinistryofAgriculture,Forestry,EnvironmentandWaterManagementinVienna,Austria,28November-1December2010.

JNCC2009.ThresholdfordesignationofSpecialAreasofConservationforharbourporpoisesandotherhighlymobile,widerangingmarinespecies.Annex1toJNCCCommitteepaperP10Sept08,amended13February2009.www.jncc.gov.uk

Lieberknecht,L.M.,Carwardine,J.Connor,Vincent,M.A.,Atkins,S.M.andLumb,C.M.2004.ReportontheidentificationofnationallyimportantmarineareasintheIrishSeaJNCCPeterborough

MacLeod,C.D.2009.Globalclimatechange,rangechangesandpotentialimplicationsfortheconservationofmarinecetaceans:areviewandsynthesis.EndangeredSpeciesResearch.7:125–136.

MacLeod,C.D.,Bannon,S.M.,Pierce,G.J.,Schweder,C.,Learmonth,J.A.,Reid,R.J.andHermanJ.S.2005.Climatechangeandthecetaceancommunityofnorth-westScotland.Biological Conservation124,477–483.

MacLeod,C.D.,Weir,C.R.,Santos,M.B.&Dunn,T.E.2008.Temperature-basedsummerhabitatpartitioningbetweenwhite-beakedandcommondolphinsaroundtheUnitedKingdomandRepublicofIreland.Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom88,1193–1198.

Marubini,F.,Gimona,A.,Evans,P.G.H.,Wright,P.J.andPierce,G.J.2009.HabitatpreferencesandinterannualvariabilityinoccurrenceoftheharbourporpoisePhocoena phocoenainthenorth-westofScotland.Marine Ecology Progress Series. 381:297-310.

MOD2005.MODSustainableDevelopmentandEnvironmentManual.JSP418-Volume1.

Nunny,L.2011.ThePriceofFish:Areviewofcetaceanbycatchinfisheriesinthenorth-eastAtlantic.ReportoftheWhaleandDolphinConservationSociety.Chippenham,61pp.

OSPAR.2010.QualityStatusReport2010.OSPARCommission.London.176pp.

46

Papanicopolou,I.2010.WarshipsandNoiseRegulation:TheInternationalLegalFrameworkMarine Pollution Bulletin63:35-39.

Parsons,E.C.M.,Clark,J.,WharamJandSimmonds,M.P.2010aTheConservationofBritishCetaceans:AReviewoftheThreatsandProtectionAffordedtoWhales,Dolphins,andPorpoisesinUKWaters,Part1Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, 13:1–62, 2010

Parsons,E.C.M.,Clark,J.andSimmonds,M.P.2010bTheConservationofBritishCetaceans:AReviewoftheThreatsandProtectionAffordedtoWhales,Dolphins,andPorpoisesinUKWaters,Part2,Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy,13:2,99—175

Pedersen,S.A.,Fock,H.,Krause,J.,Pusch,C.,Sell,A.L.,Böttcher,U.,Rogers,S.I.,Sköld,M.,Skøv,H.,Podolska,M.,Piet,G.J.,andRice,J.C.2009.Natura2000sitesandfisheriesinGermanoffshorewaters.ICESJournalofMarineScience,66:155–169.

Pesante,G.,Evans,P.G.H.,Baines,M.E.,andMcMath,M.2008aAbundance and Life History Parameters of Bottlenose Dolphin in Cardigan Bay: Monitoring 2005-2007.CCWMarineMonitoringReportNo.61:1-75.

Pesante,G.,Evans,P.G.H.,Anderwald,P.,Powell,D.,andMcMath,M.2008bConnectivity of bottlenose dolphins in Wales: North Wales photo-monitoring. CCWMarineMonitoringReportNo.62:1-42.

Roberts,C.M.,Gell,F.R.andHawkins,J.P.C.2003.ProtectingnationallyimportantmarineareasintheIrishSeaPilotProjectRegion.EnvironmentDepartment.UniversityofYork.UK.133pp.

RobinsonK.P.,EisfeldS.M.,CostaM.andSimmondsM.P.2010.Short-beakedcommondolphin(Delphinus delphis)occurrenceintheMorayFirth,northeastScotland.Marine Biodiversity Records 3:e55.

ReidJ.B.,EvansP.G.H.andNorthridgeS.P.2003.Atlasofcetaceandistributioninnorth-westEuropeanwaters.Peterborough:JointNatureConservationCommittee.76pp.

SCANSII.2006.SCANSIIFinalReport.LIFE04NAT/GB/000245.55pp.

ScottishEnvironmentLink2010.MarineProtectedAreasandtheMarine(Scotland)Act-BriefingonLink’sconcernsonthedraftMPAselectionguidelines.

Simmonds,M.P.,&Elliott,W.J.2009.Climatechangeandcetaceans:concernsandrecentdevelopments.JournaloftheMarineBiologicalAssociationoftheUnitedKingdom.89:203–210.

SimmondsM.PandEisfeldS.M.2010.WherearealltheUK’sdolphinsgoing?Mammal News,Autumn2010:16-17.

UKBAP.2008.Evidencefortheselectionofpriorityspecies.Availablefromhttp://www.ukbap.org.uk/NewPriorityList.aspx

WAG(WelshAssemblyGovernment)2010MarineConservationZoneProject–Wales.SiteSelectionGuidance.ConsultationDocument

WDCS2007.CardiganBayManagementPlanConsultation–AresponsefromWDCS.UnpublishedDocument.

WeirC.R.,MacLeodC.D.andCalderanS.V.(2009)Fine-scalehabitatselectionbywhite-beakedandcommondolphinsintheMinch(Scotland,UK):evidenceforinterspecificcompetitionorcoexistence?Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom89,951–960.

Wilson,B.,Reid,R.J.,Grellier,K.,Thompson,P.M.andHammond,P.S.(2004)Consideringthetemporalwhenmanagingthespatial:apopulationrangeexpansionimpactsprotectedareasbasedmanagementforbottlenosedolphins.Animal Conservation,7,331-338

47

7. APPENDIX 1

WDCS comments on JNCC Guidance on the deliberate disturbance of marine European Protected Species

Wewelcomeeffortstoprovidecomprehensiveguidancethatallowsindustrytomakeinformeddecisionsaboutmarinespeciesconservation.EuropeanProtectedSpecies(EPS)includeallspeciesofcetaceansandturtlesandthesturgeon,andsotheguidancewithinthedocumentshouldapplytoallthesespecies.

However,theguidancecontainssomeconsiderableflawsandwedonotbelievethatifitwerefinalisedinitscurrentformthatitwouldofferEPStheprotectionfromdisturbancethattheyarerequiredundertheEUHabitatsDirective.Ingeneral,muchmoredetailedinformationaboutimportanthabitatsinUKwatersisrequired.TheUKgovernmentshouldundertakefieldstudiestobetterunderstandthepopulationdistribution,abundanceandtrendsinUKwaters.SUMMARY Firstly,weareextremelyconcernedabouttheapparentconflictbetweenwhatisproposedbytheJNCCas

interpretationofthenewlaws(TheConservation(NaturalHabitats,&c.)(Amendment)Regulations2007andTheOffshoreMarineConservation(NaturalHabitats,&c.)Regulations2007)comparedwithwhatisalreadyinpracticewithin12nmprovidedbytheWildlifeandCountrysideAct(WCA)1981.TheWCA1981(anditsequivalentinScotland–theNatureConservationActScotland2004)hasbecomeincreasinglyimportantintermsofpreventingdisturbancetocetaceans,includinginteraliaarecentcourtcaseconcerningasolitarybottlenosedolphin.Becauseofitsgrowingimportanceintermsofpreventingdisturbance,undernocircumstancesshouldtheprovisionsofthislawbediluted,butwefearthatbyhavingasecondlawrelatingtomuchthesameissuesinplayinthesamearea(butwhichisinterpretedinafarlessprecautionarymanner),therewillbeundesirableconsequencesfortheprotectionalreadyinplace.

Wenotethatitwasrelativelyrecentlythatthe1981Actwasamended(viatheCountrysideandRightsofWayAct)toincludetheclause‘recklessdisturbance’andremovedtherequirementthattheoffencewastiedtoasite.Inbothcasesthesechangesweremadebecauseexperiencehasshownthat‘deliberate’and‘sitespecific’disturbancewereverydifficultoffencestoprosecute.Thegovernmentwasconvincedbythiscaseandthelawamended.WDCSwascloselyinvolvedinthesechangestolawandasnotedabovewebelievethattheinterpretationofferedwillprovidesignificantunhelpfulinterpretiveproblemsandpushthecurrentprotectioninanunhelpfuldirection.

WDCSwasnotconsultedonthechangesmadetotherelevantUKlawslastsummer.Ifwehadbeen,wewouldhaveraisedconcernsthen.ThesewouldhaveincludedaconcernrelatedtochangestothedefinitionofwhichspeciesarecoveredbytheWCA1981.Itappearstousthatharbourporpoiseshavenowbeenexcludedfromitsprovisions.Asfarasweareawaretherehasbeennodiscussionorexplanationforthis–but,ifwearecorrect,thisdown-gradingoftheprotectionaffordedtothisspeciesisaseriousmatter.

DataavailableonthedistributionandabundanceofmarineEPSisnotofasufficientscientificstandardtoenablereasonableestimatesofpopulationsize,populationunitsorstatus.Theresimplyarenotenoughdataavailableonpopulationstobeabletodeterminewithreasonableconfidenceapercentagecriterion.SCANSIIsurveyblocksprovidethebestavailableestimatesforthosecetaceanspeciesinUKwaters,predominantlyoccurringonthecontinentalshelf(i.e.harbourporpoise,minkewhale,white-beakeddolphinandbottlenosedolphin).ButtheSCANSsurveysareonlyoneseasonalsnapshotintime,witha10yeargapbetweencollectionofdatasets.ItisnotthereforeappropriatetoextrapolateSCANSbeyondthepurposeforwhichitwasdeveloped.SCANSdataarenotappropriatetobeusedforestimatesofdensityandfiner-scaleinformationarerequiredwheresuchdataarenotavailable.

It’snotclearhowcumulativeimpactsofalldisturbingactivitiesthatmightaffectapopulationaretobeaccountedfor.Thisisacriticalconsideration.

The chosen percentages for significance seem to be somewhat arbitrary.FormanycetaceanspeciesaroundtheUKtherearenopopulationestimatesoronlyestimatesforpartsoftheiroverallrangeandsuchanapproachcannotbecompletedwithanyconfidence–itisalsonotclearwhethertherearediscretesub-unitswithinwiderpopulationsaswemightexpectwithsuchspecies.ThegeneralnotiontakenbyJNCCthatcetaceansshouldbetreatedaslarge,ocean-wideunifiedpopulationsisnotprecautionaryandnotinthebestinterestsofconservation.Whilstitisleftopenthatwherescientificdatainthefutureshowstheretobesmaller‘conservationunits’theapproachmaychangewewouldurgethatadifferentapproachistaken.

Disturbanceguidanceshouldapplyequallytoallintensenoisesourcesandnotjustpiledriving,explosionsandseismicsurveying,includingnavalactivities.

48

Guidanceshouldbebestpractiseandshouldbeconsistentforallsources.Guidanceshouldbeclearandeasyforindustrytounderstandandapply.GuidanceshouldbeavailableforScotlandalso. BestpractisemeasuresarerequiredforsealsandothermarinespeciesthatarenotlistedasEuropean

ProtectedSpecies.Sealshavebeenshowntobevulnerabletonoiseimpactsandallmeasuresshouldapplytothem.

UnderSection1.DisturbanceOffence:• Onpage4,aninterpretationof‘significantgroup’isgivenwhichwouldincludedisturbanceofasingleanimal,

butonlywherethatwouldsignificantlyaffecttheabilityofasignificantgroupofanimalstosurvive,breedorrearornurturetheiryoung.JNCCsaysitseems‘unlikelythatdisturbanceofanindividualwouldsignificantlyaffectthelocaldistributionorabundanceofaspecies’.Thisiscertainlynotthecaseforsmall,sociablepopulationsincludingthatofthebottlenosedolphin,wherethepopulationintheMorayFirthforexample,isaround130animals.

UnderSection2.Assessingthelikelihoodofadisturbanceoffence:• Wewelcometheactivity-specificapproach(singleactmayfallbelowthethresholdof‘significantdisturbance’,

butarepetitionofthesameactmayresultinthethresholdbeingreached’).WhereactivitiesrepeatedlyoccurinaregionbroaderconsiderationoftheirpotentialimpactsshouldberequiredthroughEnvironmentalImpactAssessment(EIA)asrequiredundertheEUEIADirective.Activitiescannoteffectivelybeconsideredonanindividualactivitybyactivitybasis.Tobegintounderstandandmitigatefordisturbance,thisshouldbeundertakenatthesamescaleasthepopulationisaffected-onacumulativeandregionbyregionecosystemscale.StrategicEnvironmentalAssessment(SEA)isalsorequiredsothatavarietyofsourcescanbeconsideredinaregionalcontext.Whilstanumberofactivitiesarelistedintheguidancedocument,populations(andparticularlyincoastalwaters)arelikelytoencounteranumberofthem,routinely.

• Wewelcomethespecies-specificapproach(‘differentspeciesmayhavedifferentsensitivitiesorreactionstothesametypeofdisturbance’.‘Thesensitivityofaspeciestodisturbancemayalsobedifferentdependingontheseasonoronstagesinitslifecycle’),butdisagreewiththestatement‘Also,forcetaceans,currentlythereisnoevidencetosupporttheperceivedideathatmothersandnewborncalveswillbemorevulnerabletodisturbancethansay,forexample,maturefemalesandjuveniles’.Forexample,cow/calfpairsareintheauthor’sexperiencemorelikelytoexhibitanavoidanceresponsetoman-madesoundstheyareunaccustomedto.Thusanymanagementissuesrelatingtoseismicsurveysshouldconsiderthecow/calfresponsesasthedefininglimits(McCauleyetal.,2000).

• Under2.2.:Whathappenswherethereisnobestpopulationabundanceestimateandgeneticstructuringavailable,asisthecaseforthemajorityofcetaceanspeciesinUKwaters?Asaprominentexample,howcanbeakedwhalesorbluewhalesbeeffectivelyprotectedfromthecombinedeffectsofongoingseismicsurveysandnavalactivitiesoccurringintheAtlanticFrontier,whenwedonothaverealisticestimatesofpopulationsizes?

• Wedonotagreewiththestatementthat‘harbourporpoise,themostabundantmarinemammalspeciesinUKandadjacentwaters,areknowntoformlargepopulationswhoseindividualsmayrangeoververylargedistances(e.g.thewholeoftheBritishNorthSea)’.WhilstharbourporpoisesmaybeoneoftheUK’smoreabundantspecies,wehavelimitedknowledgeoftheirpopulationstructureandtrends.Populationlevelimpactsareknowntobeoccurringinthesouth-westoftheUK.ItisnotcleartoWDCShowthedisturbanceguidancewillleadtobetterprotectionfortheseanimals.

• Thisdocumentisverycontradictingandislikelytobeconfusingforindustrythatareexpectedtoapplyit:JNCCsay:‘Cetaceanspecies,bycontrast,formgroupsofvarioussizes,dependingonthespecies,theirbehaviour,thetimeoftheyearandtheregion.(…).Thegregariousbehaviourofcetaceansthereforemakesthemmorevulnerabletodisturbance,sincesignificantgroupsofanimalscouldpotentiallybeaffectedbyshorter-termactivitieswithsmallerrangesofimpact’.WhereasearlierJNCCstatethatisseemsunlikelythatdisturbanceofanindividualwouldsignificantlyaffectthelocaldistributionorabundanceofaspecies.

• WewelcometheconsiderationofadistinctionbetweenspeciesforwhichtheFCSwasassessedasfavourableandthoseforwhichtheFCSwasassessedasunknownorunfavourable(eventhoughthereasoningforgivingonepopulationfavourableconservationstatusandanotherunfavourableisunclear).However,sincethebottlenosedolphinwasassessedtobefavourablein2006,thelateststatisticalanalysisisreportingthatthebottlenosedolphinsintheMorayFirthshowsthatthepopulationismorelikelytobeindeclinethanincreasing(Corkreyetal.,inpress).

• Thearticlesreferencedfortheannual,potentialcetaceanpopulationrateofincrease(estimated,usingmodels,tobeintheorderof4%)arefrom1991and1998.Theseareoldandinsufficienttouseforall

49

differentspeciesofcetaceans.Alldatasetsavailablearesurroundedbyconsiderableuncertaintyandtheyarenotreliableenoughtobasesuchbigmanagementdecisionson.Wherelowstatisticalpowerisdemonstrated,considerableuncertaintyinaccuracyprevails.Asanexample,annualabundanceestimatesforbottlenosedolphinshaveahighcoefficientofvariation,andthestatisticalpowertodetecttrendsislow(Gerrodette,1987).AsshowninWilsonetal.(1999)andfurtherdevelopedinThompsonetal.(2000),thismeansthatitwouldtakearound20yearstohaveahigh(>95%)probabilityofdetectinga2%annualdeclineinthepopulation.Consequently,thelackofacleartrendinannualabundanceestimatesaspresentedinThompsonetal.(2006)cannotbetakenascertainevidenceofnochangeinpopulationsize.

• JNCCwelcomesviewsonthresholdstohelpdeterminewhatwouldconstituteasignificantgroup–theirsuggestionforcetaceanspecieswithunfavourableorunknownFCS(favourableconservationstatus)shouldbeeither1or2%ofbestavailablepopulationestimate,forcetaceanspecieswheretheFCSisfavourable,thethresholdshouldbeeither2or4%.The chosen percentages seem to be totally arbitrary.FormanycetaceanspeciesaroundtheUKtherearenopopulationestimatesoronlyestimatesforpartsoftheiroverallrange.Furthermore,theseestimatesaregeneratedinfrequentlyandareassociatedwithconsiderableuncertainty.Forallthereasonsdescribedabove,wedonotbelievethatitispossibleorappropriatetousethismethodtodeterminesignificance.

UnderSection3.Theactivities:• Wewelcometheconsiderationofcumulativeeffectsofactivities.Thisiscriticaltobeginningtounderstand

thelongertermandmultiplicativeeffectsofdisturbance.• Seafishingisexemptfromdisturbanceas‘allactivitiesrelatedtoseafishingareregulatedwithinthe

frameworkoftheCommonFisheriesPolicy’(“thedefendantshallnotbetakendeliberatelytohavecaused‘significantdisturbance’wherehedidnotintendthatdisturbancetooccurandhadtakenreasonablestepstocomplywithrequirementsofrelevantCommunityinstruments”ThisapproachdoesnottakethehighbycatchofcommondolphinsintheEnglishChannelintoaccount.Fishermenfishthereknowingwellthattheriskofbycatchishigh.Foracumulativeapproachtobesuccessful,allknownthreatshavetobeconsidered.

3.24.Constructionworks:• “InordertoobtainalicenseitmaybenecessarytocarryoutanEIA”.Unlessitcanbedemonstrated

thatnoimpactwilloccur,thereshouldalwaysbeanEIAbeforemarineconstructionwork.ClearandprecautionaryguidanceisrequiredfromJNCC.

Pile driving:• “Mitigationshouldbe(andisusually)includedintheprojectproposalbythedeveloper,andfurtherdeveloped

aspartoftheEIAprocess”Mitigationmeasurescannotbereliedupontoprotectanimalsfromharm.Otherthanthecompleteexclusionofactivitiesfromanarea,therearenomitigationmeasuresthathavebeenscientificallyproventoprotectanimalsfromshorttermobservablebehaviouraleffectsofanumberofactivitiesthatoccurinthemarineenvironment.Siteselectioniskeyinbestenvironmentalpracticeandshouldbethefirsttierofdecisionmaking.Moreemphasisshouldbeplacedontheuseofalternativeandmorebenignsourcesasameansofprotectingpopulations.Mitigationmeasuresshouldthenbeusedasasecondtierofresponsibleaction,oncesuitablesitingofactivitieshasbeendemonstrated.

Activitycommences,withrealtimemitigationandmonitoringwhereappropriate.

Suitablesitingofactivity,includingconsiderationofotherregionalactivities.

Appropriatemitigationtoprotectanimalsintheregion.

50

Rock dumping:• “Nodataareavailableonwhatthenoiselevelsgeneratedbyrockdumpingmightbe,howeverthiswill

typicallybeofshortduration,andhaslowlikelihoodofapotentialimpactoncetaceansfromthegenerationofnoise”.Lackofdataisinterpretedaslackofharmandthisisnotsufficienttoprotectmarineanimalsfromdisturbance.

3.2.5.Decommissioning,includingwellabandonment• Mitigationby“simplyhavingamemberoftheship’screwmakingsuretheareaisclearofcetaceansbefore

startingtheexplosions,tomoresophisticatedmitigationmeasures”Explosionshaveafastrisetimeandcankillmarinemammals.Decommissioningcanhaveconsiderableenvironmentalimpactsandthereareanumberofrequirementsthatneedtobefulfilledbeforeexplosiveuseisallowedtogoahead.Notleastofall,considerationoftherequirementforexplosivesinthefutureshouldbeaccountedforintheplanningstagesofadevelopmentandshouldnotbeallowedinparticularlysensitivehabitatswhereasuitablelevelofmitigationcannotbeobtained.ThereshouldbearequirementfortrainedandindependentMMOs,pluspassiveacousticmonitoring(PAM).HowevermitigationcannotensureprotectionofEuropeanProtectedSpecies.SeecommentsonAnnexBformoredetailedrequirements.

3.2.7.Electromagneticsurveys• “Notmuchisknownaboutthepotentialeffectsofthistechniqueoncetaceans”.Surveysarecarriedout

already,eventhough“noguidelinesexistongoodpracticeduringtheuseofthistechnique”.EffortstoinvestigateandunderstandpotentialimpactsofelectromagneticspeciesonEuropeanProtectedSpeciesareclearlyarequirement.Untildemonstratedotherwise,guidanceshouldberequiredaswithotheractivitiesthathavethepotentialtodisturb,injureorkillEPS.

3.2.8.Explosiveuse• ‘Itisconsideredthattherewouldbealowlikelihoodofdisturbanceoccurringthatwouldconstitutean

offenceundertheHRandOMRifsuitablemitigationwasinplaceforactivitiesthatmakeuseofexplosivesforarelativelyshortperiodoftime’Guidanceshouldprovidestraightforwardguidanceastowhatconstitutesa‘relativelyshortperiodoftime’.Onceagainwereiteratethatmitigationmeasurescannotbereliedupontoprotectanimalsfromharm.

3.2.14.SeismicandothergeophysicalsurveysSeismic surveys:• JNCCguidanceadmitsthat“mostspeciesofcetaceanmaybeexposedtosoundsproducedduringseismic

surveys”,andtheysaythat“evidenceofavoidanceorshort-termbehaviouralresponsesiscontradictoryandmightvarydependingonthespecies”thisdoesnotmeanthattheremightnotbeanimpactonthespecies.Theguidancealsosaysthat“usingappropriatemitigationmeasuresthepotentialforinjuryanddisturbanceshouldbemuchreduced”“shouldbe”asmitigationmeasuresremainlargelyunproven(Weir&Dolman,2007).Whilstcauseandeffectaredifficulttoprove,theEUHabitatsDirectiverequiresstrictprotection(92/43/EEC).Applyingavoidancemeasuresfirstisalogicalandprecautionarywaytopreventdisturbance.Applyingmitigationandbestpracticeguidelinesareworthyofconsideration,howeveronlyinthecapacitythattheyhavebeenshowntobeeffective.Themajorityofmitigationmethodsareasyetuntested,andsowhilsttheymaybe‘commonsense’wedonotbelievethatthisisadequatetomeettherequiredstandardoftheEUHabitatsDirective.WereferyoutoWeir&Dolman(2007)andothersimilarpublications,whichdocumentindetailthelimitationsofonboardmitigationmeasuresfortheprotectionofmarinespeciesduringseismicsurveys.Forthemostpart,theselimitationsareextendedtoboththeuseofpiledrivingandexplosives,inthatmanyofthemonitoringandmitigationmeasuresarethesame.Forintensenoisesourceswheremitigationmethodscannotpreventsignificantdisturbance,broadermeasuresarerequiredtoprotectmarineEuropeanProtectedSpecies(EPS),includingthroughspatio-temporalrestrictions.

• Forseismicsurveys,companiesdonotapplyforawildlifelicense,butratherforconsentfromBERRwithconsultationofJNCC.Weneedaunifiedsystemforlicensingtoenabletheconsiderationofcumulativeimpacts.

Side scan sonar surveys• “Thepotentialimpactsofsidescansonaronmarinemammalsarenotwellunderstood”,butJNCCguidance

concludesthat“theriskofanypotentialimpactwillbeextremelylocalised”whichmeansthereremainsarisk.Thereforeguidanceisrequired.

51

Sub-bottom profiling (pingers, boomers, sparkers and chirp systems)• Thereisverylittlepublishedinformationonthesoundpressurelevelsgeneratedfromsub-bottomprofiling

equipment.Noguidelinesareinexistencefortheuseofsub-bottomprofilingequipmentintheUKand“theneedforthesewillbere-assessediffurtherevidenceoftheeffectsgeneratedbysub-bottomprofilingequipmentcomestolight”ThisisnotapplyingtheprecautionaryapproachasisrequiredundertheEUHabitatsDirective.Effortsshouldbeundertakentoinvestigatesoundpressurelevelsandtosetguidanceinaprecautionarymannerinthemeantime.

3.2.15.Shippingandvesselmovements• NogoodpracticeguidelinesforminimisationofdisturbancebyshippingcurrentlyintheUKAgain,these

arerequiredandshouldbeconsultedupon.Boatdisturbanceisaconsiderableissueforsomepopulationsofcoastalspeciesinsomeregionsand/orduringparticularseasonsandeffortsneedtobemade,beyondWildlifeWatchingCodes,toprotectcoastalpopulationsfromthelongtermandcumulativeimpactsthatmayresult.

UnderSection4.MarineEPSs–Speciesspecificguidance4.1.Cetaceans(dolphins,porpoisesandwhales)• “…thereisinsufficientdatalinkinghumanactivitiestodisturbanceandtoitslong-termeffectsatthespecies,

populationorevenindividuallevels”Yet,onp.24JNCClistdirectresponsesofcetaceanstodisturbancewhichinclude:“movingawayfromanareaforaperiodoftime,divingbehaviourchanges(e.g.reducedsurfacingtime),vocalisationchangesandseparationofmothersandcalves”.Also,inSection2,p.2JNCCsay“also,forcetaceans,currentlythereisnoevidencetosupporttheperceivedideathatmothersandnewborncalveswillbemorevulnerabletodisturbancethansay,forexample,maturefemalesandjuveniles.”Contradictionsandinconsistencieswillnothelpindustrytomakesounddecisions.Guidanceneedstobeclearandstraightforward.

• Thedataprovidedintheguidancedocumentwasmostlycollectedinthesummermonthsandonlygivesasnapshotintime.

Common species in UK waters (FCS is favourable):• ThereisnoexplanationinthisguidancedocumentonhowJNCCchoosewhichpopulationshaveafavourable

conservationstatusandwhichdonot.Itisstillnotapparenthowthechoiceoffavourable,unfavourableorunknownconservationstatusismade.Thisshouldbeclear.

• DataavailableonthedistributionandabundanceofmarineEPSisnotofasufficientscientificstandardtoenablereasonableestimatesofpopulationsizeorstatus.Ifweconsiderthebottlenosedolphin,aspeciesthathasbeenstudiedthemostextensivelyinUKwatersoverthelast15years,therearestillconsiderableuncertaintyaboutthepopulationsize,extentofrangeandthepopulationtrend.Whilstpreviouspopulationestimateshaveshownanincreaseinsize,thelateststudyshowsthatthepopulationismorelikelytobedeclining.Ifourunderstandingofbasicpopulationparametersisnotclearforourmoststudiedcetaceanspecies,wecannothaveconfidencegiventheavailabledataforallothercetaceanspecies.Wehavenowhereneartherequiredlevelofdataforanyothercetaceanspecies.Populationestimatesthathavebeengeneratedfrominfrequentsurveyshaveconsiderableuncertaintysurroundingthem.

• LegislatedboundariesarearbitrarytomarineEPS.ThatguidanceforScotlandistobedifferenttoguidanceforEnglish,WelshandtheUKoffshoremarineareawillbechallengingandrequiredongoingcommunicationandcollaborationbetweenrelevantgovernmentdepartments.

• FormostcetaceansaroundtheUK,thereisinsufficientdataaboutpopulationboundaries(again,thelackofevidenceofsubdivisionsinpopulationsdoesnotmeanthattherearenosubdivisionsinexistence).Althoughsomedataongeneticstructureexistforsomespeciesthatsuggestsomespatialpopulationsubdivisions,thisdatashouldnotbeconsideredtheonlytooltodefineapopulation.TheInternationalWhalingCommissionconsideredanappropriateunitformanagementforhumpbackwhaleswasthatofthefeedingsub-stock,inotherwordsgroupsofanimalsreturningtothesamefeedinglocation.Thisconcept,basedonlongtermstudies,mightwellbeappliedtootherspeciesifmoredatabecomesavailable.JNCCshouldinitiatealongtermresearchprogrammetobegintoanswerthesebasicquestions.

Bottlenose dolphin• ItisnotcleariftheoffshorepopulationinthenorthAtlanticandtheresidentpopulationsintheMorayFirth

andCardiganBayaregoingtobeconsideredasseparateentitiesornot.Clearlytheyshouldbe.• Itisnotclearwhatfigureswereusedtoconcludethat2–4animalscouldbeconsideredasignificantgroup

forcoastalpopulations.AsanexamplefortheMorayFirthestimateof129animals,thenitshouldbe3–4animalsas2%of129is2.58whichroundsupto3.

52

• IntermsoffindingsbyEisfeldetal.(inprep.)fortheMorayFirthandMagileviciute(http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/cardigan-dolphins734.html)forCardiganBay,therearesentinelorsatellitedolphinsthatconnectdistinctgroupsofanimalswitheachother,iftheseanimalsareremovedforwhateverreason,theconnectionbetweenthegroupsisdisruptedandcommunicationfailsandpotentialbreedinglinksmightbelost.

Applicationofpercentagecriterioningeneral• WedisagreewiththeapproachtakenbyJNCC.It’simpractical,becauseitwillnotbepossibletoprovethat

suchhighnumbersasJNCCpropose(e.g.forharbourporpoise:4,600porpoiseintheNorthSeaor1,900animalsintheIrishandCelticSea)aredisturbedorinanywayaffected,especiallyasharbourporpoisearemostlyseeninverysmallgroups.ThisholdstrueforalltheotherspeciesJNCCisconsideringinthisguidance,evenforthespecieswithunknownorunfavourableFCS,asmostofthemoccurinsmallgroups.Inaddition,toapplyapercentagecriterion,recentdataonlocalabundancewithinanareaarerequired,ratherthanknowledgethataparticularareawasusedbycetaceansandinmostcasesthiskindofdatadonotexist.

Other species requiring protectionBestpractisemeasuresarerequiredforsealsandothermarinespeciesthatarenotlistedasEuropeanProtectedSpecies.Sealshavebeenshowntobevulnerabletonoiseimpactsandallmeasuresshouldapplytothem.

AnnexesGenerally,guidanceonpiling,explosivesandseismicsurveyshavesomecommoncomponents.Theseshouldinclude:

1) ConsiderationofEPSintheplanningstagesandsuitablesitingofactivities;2) areasofexclusionwheremitigationisnotsufficienttominimisedisturbance;3) comparablemonitoringmeasuresincludingadequatenumbersofMMOsandPAMoperatorstoconductafull

survey;4) noactivitiesatnightorinadverseweatherconditions;5) exclusionzonesincludingshutdownwhenananimalsentersthatEZ;and,6) adequatereportingbackinatimelymanner.

JNCCshouldendeavourtomonitorandreviewguidanceregularlytoinformadaptivemanagement.Inaddition,effortstoinvestigatetheeffectivenessofanumberofthemitigationmeasuresspecifiedarerequiredandshouldbeundertaken.

Annex A – Statutory nature conservation agency protocol for mitigation of wind farm piling noise at sea – March 2008

WDCSsupportappropriatelysitedmarinerenewabledevelopments.WereferyoutoDolmanetal.2007andSimmonds&Dolman,2008.

Co-ordinationbetweendevelopmentsinUKandScottishwatersisrequired.

GuidanceshouldapplytoallEuropeanProtectedSpecies,andshouldalsoincludeseals.Theguidanceisconfusinginsomeplacesinthatitspecifiescetaceans,andmarinemammalsinothers,wesuggestchangingcetaceanstomarinemammalsthroughout.

Consideringthatmitigationmeasuresarelargelyuntestedandthattheyarelimitedintheireffectiveness(seeWeir&Dolman,2007forfullerdiscussion),weconcurthatadditionalmeasuresshouldberequiredinareaswhereEIAssuggesthighabundancesorsensitivities.However,firstly,itshouldnotbeagiventhatdevelopmentswillbeallowedtooccurinsuchareaswhereimpactsarelikelytobesignificanttopopulations.Secondly,whenconditionscanbemet,additionalmeasuresshouldbespecifiedinthisguidance.

Sufficientreportingbackofmitigationandmonitoringshouldberequiredandwithinareasonabletimeframe.Assessmentofmeasuresshouldbeundertakenonaregularbasis,asstatedintheguidance,andnotmorethanevery5years,andamendmentsmadeasappropriateandsubjecttopublicconsultationandscrutiny.

Underthesectionentitled‘Riskmanagementandtheprecautionaryprinciple’itshouldbespecifiedthatactivitiesdonotnecessarilyhavetooccurwithinanSACtoimpactuponthem(asstatedintheEuropeanCommission,2000).

53

MarineMammalObservers(MMOs)andPassiveAcousticMonitoring(PAM)operatorsshouldbetrainedandavailableinsufficientnumberstomonitoreffectivelythroughouttheworkperiod.

PilingshouldbeshutdownifmarinemammalsenterthespecifiedExclusionZone(EZ).Ifguidanceonthispointisnotauthoritative,itwillnotoccur.Itshouldbearequirement.

Itshouldbespecifiedthatwhenseasonalrestrictionsaren’tsuitable(becauseanimalsarepresentallyearforexample)thatmorestringentmeasureswillberequiredoralternativetechniques.

Guidanceisalsorequiredformarinewaveandtidaldevices.

Annex B – JNCC Guidelines for Minimising Acoustic Disturbance to Marine Mammals whilst using explosives – March 2008Guidanceprovidedduringtheplanningstagesarelogicalandwellconsidered.However,giventheimpulsivenatureofexplosivesandthepotentialfordamageandinjuryatconsiderabledistancesfromthesource,theuseofMMOsandPAMshouldbearequirementtoensuredisturbanceimpactstoEuropeanProtectedSpeciesareminimised.Thelanguageneedsrevisingsothatitreflectsthatthisisastandardrequirementratherthana‘consideration’asitcurrentlystands.ItwillnotbepossibletoprovideanMMOreportandtomonitorimplementationandeffectivenessofmonitoringandmitigationmeasuresifMMOsarenotused.

Inaddition,guidanceshouldbeprovidedonactivitiesproposedinoradjacenttoSpecialAreasofConservation(SACs)andotherareaswhereaggregationsofEPSarefound.

Aswithpiledrivingandwithseismicsurveys,guidanceisrequiredforlimitationofoperationsinadverseweatherconditionsandatnight.

Annex C – Draft guidelines for minimising acoustic disturbance to marine mammals from seismic surveysTobeginwith,wereferyoutoWeir&Dolman(2007)andothersimilarpublications,allofwhichdocumentindetailthelimitationsofonboardmitigationmeasuresfortheprotectionofmarinespeciesduringseismicsurveys.

UseofPAMshouldbeencouragedbutitslimitationsshouldbespecified.Forexample,ithasalmostnoutilityfortheprotectionofminkewhales,aspeciesregularlyencounteredinUKandScottishwaters.

Thedateandlocationofsurveyshouldbeprovidedtoasufficientlevelofdetailtobeusefulforanalysispurposes.

MMOsshouldreceiveregulartrainingandshouldbededicatedandavailableinsufficientnumberstoconductacomprehensivesurvey.PAMoperatorsshouldbeavailableinadditiontovisualMMOs.

ReferencesCorkrey,R.Brooks,S.,Lusseau,D.,Parsons,K.,Durban,J.W.,Hammond,P.S.andThompson,P.M.(inpress).ABayesiancapture-recapturepopulationmodelwithsimultaneousestimationofheterogeneity.Journal of the American Statistical Association.

Dolman,S.J.,Green,M.,Simmonds,M.P.(2007).Marinerenewableenergyandcetaceans.PaperSC/59/E10submittedtotheScientificCommitteeoftheInternationalWhalingCommission(unpublished).

Eisfeld,S.M.,Robinson,K.P.,deMasi,G.(inprep.).Thegroupcharacteristicsandsocialfidelityofbottlenosedolphins(Tursiops truncatus)usingtheoutersouthernMorayFirth,NEScotland.

EuropeanCommission.(2000).ManagingNatura2000Sites.TheprovisionsofArticle6oftheHabitatsDirective(92/43/EEC).

Gerrodette,T.(1987).Apoweranalysisfordetectingtrends.Ecology,68,1364-1372.

McCauley,R.D.,Fretwell,J.,Duncan,A.J.,Jenner,C.,Jenner,M-N.,Penrose,J.D.,Prince,R.I.T.,Adhitya,A.,Murdich,J.&K.McCabe.(2000).Marineseismicsurveys–astudyofenvironmentalimplications.APPEAJournal:692-798.http://www.cwr.org.au/publications/appea2000.pdf

54

Simmonds,M.P.,Dolman,S.J.(2008).Allatsea:renewableenergyproductioninthecontextofmarinenatureconservation.ProceedingsoftheASCOBANS/ECSworkshopOffshore wind farms and marine mammals: impacts & methodologies for assessing impacts.Heldatthe21stAnnualConferenceoftheEuropeanCetaceanSociety,SanSebastian,Spain,21stApril,2007.

Thompson,P.M.,Tufft,N.S.,Grellier,K.,&Durban,J.W.(2000).Evaluationoftechniquesformonitoringtheabundanceandbehaviourofbottlenosedolphins-TheKessockchannelasacasestudy,Rep.No.F99LE01.ScottishNaturalHeritage,Dingwall.

Thompson,P.M.,CorkreyR.Lusseau,D.,Lusseau,S.M.,Quick,N.,Durban,J.W.,Parsons,K.M.&Hammond,P.S.(2006).AnassessmentofthecurrentconditionoftheMorayFirthbottlenosedolphinpopulation.ScottishNaturalHeritageCommissionedReportNo.175(ROAMENo.F02AC409).

Weir,C.,Dolman,S.J.(2007).Comparativereviewoftheregionalmarinemammalmitigationguidelinesimplementedduringindustrialseismicsurveys,andguidancetowardsaworldwidestandard.Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy,10:1-27.

Wilson,B.,Hammond,P.S.&Thompson,P.M.(1999).Estimatingsizeandassessingstatusofacoastalbottlenosedolphinpopulation.Ecological Applications,9:288-300.

ConfidentialityAccordingtotherequirementsoftheFreedomofInformationAct(2000),allinformationcontainedinanyconsultationresponses-includingpersonalinformation-maybesubjecttopublicationordisclosure.Attheendoftheconsultationperiodcopiesoftheresponseswereceivemaybemadepubliclyavailable,ortheinformationtheycontainmaybepublishedonourwebsiteinasummaryofresponses.Ifyouwishtorequestthatinformationgiveninresponsetotheconsultationbekeptconfidential,thiswillonlybepossibleifitisconsistentwithfreedomofinformationobligations.

Documents

Looking forward to 'strict protection': A critical review ... · 3.3.1.2 Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000.....18 3.3.1.3 The Conservation (Natural Habitats , &c.) Regulations