Dr Alejandro Gallego Marine Scotland Science

1. Dr Alejandro Gallego Marine Scotland Science Marine Strategy Framework DirectiveConsultation on Good Environmental StatusDescriptor 7 – Hydrographical Conditions

2. Focus of this presentation • Quick reminder of D7 • Evidence base • Proposed GES Characteristics • Proposed GES Targets • Implications of the proposals • EU Coordination • Issues and Gaps

3. D7 – A Reminder Permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions does not adversely affect marine ecosystems.

4. How the targets were developed and what is the evidence base? • Expert opinion indicates there are currently no developments in • UK waters large enough to result in the broad scale alterations of • hydrographic conditions this Descriptor is intended to address • Initial advice developed by Cefas proposed two options • Target establishing development thresholds triggering further • assessment and monitoring discounted due to confidence in • existing regulatory regime • SEA, EIA, Habitats, Water Framework Directives and the planning • and licensing system are considered enough to ensure GES is • achieved • Stakeholder workshops and meetings have facilitated wider input • throughout the process

5. What scale of project is Descriptor 7 intended to address? Thames Hub/Boris Island Severn Barrage Large scale tidal array

6. Proposed GES Characteristics for D7 The nature and scale of any permanent changes to the prevailing hydrographical conditions (including but not limited to salinity, temperature, pH and hydrodynamics) resulting from anthropogenic activities (individual and cumulative), having taken into account climatic or long-term cyclical processes in the marine environment, do not lead to significant long term impacts on those biological components considered under Descriptors 1,4, and 6.

7. Proposed Hydrographical Conditions Targets Operational target – approach not directly covering the Commission Criteria/indicator.

8. What are the implications of the GES targets? • Key implications of the proposals: • No major implications for industry providing full compliance with • existing commitments • Small cost for the regulator associated with reviewing existing • regulatory regime & updating guidance. • Additional monitoring costs for Government and regulators in • providing a more comprehensive understanding of prevailing • environmental conditions • Key links to other policies and measures: • Implementation of the current licensing regime and compliance • with SEA, EIA, Habitats, and Water Framework Directives.

9. How well coordinated are the UK proposals within the NE Atlantic? • Relatively low level of coordination and commonality although higher level ambitions are broadly in line. • In practice reliance on licensing and existing requirements important. • GES Determinations are mainly qualitative but differ significantly in detail and language. • Targets • Ireland, the Netherlands, and the UK are most closely aligned – an • operational target based on existing regulatory framework. • Other countries using a mixture of pressure and state targets i.e. • measurable changes to hydrographical conditions or habitats

10. Issues and gaps • Outstanding issues and gaps include: • More work needed at an OSPAR level to better align approaches • Test whether the regulatory • regime can ensure GES through • case studies • Update guidance as appropriate • Improved understanding of prevailing environmental conditions • Improved ability to assess and manage cumulative effects.

11. Any Questions? (C) Sue Scott, JNCC