The Precautionary Principle inside and

outside Marine Protected Areas

Dr Becky Hitchin Offshore Industries Advice Manager

JNCC Marine Advice

Aberdeen

Overview

• Joint Nature Conservation Committee

• The Precautionary Principle

• Uncertainty in Scientific Knowledge

– Limitations of current evidence

– Limitations of analysis

– Understanding impact

– Natural variation

– Guideline / policy wording

• Conclusions

JNCC

Development / implementation of nature conservation

policies

within the UK

UK wide

internationally

Lead on nature conservation in UK offshore waters

JNCC

Contribute to the development and

understanding of UK evidence

base and evidence needs

UK coordination

Statutory advisor to Government on nature conservation

Marine Monitoring

JNCC marine workstreams

Marine Protected Areas (MPS)

Fisheries, Cetaceans and

Seabirds

Offshore Industry Advice (OIA)

Marine Evidence

Marine Ecosystem Assessment and

Advice

The Precautionary Principle

What is the Precautionary Principle?

“The fundamental principle underlying all environmental policy”

“a pointless distraction from the real issues”

“a safeguard for future generations”

“countering a tendency to overlook scientific uncertainties in an unscientific manner”

“anti-scientific, subject to abuse, inherently Northern, anti-innovation, and anti-sustainable”

“raises issues which are central to current international debates around environment, poverty, sustainable development and biodiversity”

(Cooney, 2004)

Definition considered here

(Cameron and Abouchar 19911)

“ensures that a[n] ... activity posing a threat to the

environment is prevented from adversely affecting

the environment, even if there is no conclusive

scientific proof linking that particular ...

activity to environmental damage.”

1 Cameron, J. and Abouchar, J. (1991) The

Precautionary Principle. Boston College International

And Comparative Law Review, 14(1): 1-27.

First part of a risk pathway

Application

Use of PP justified

Specific risk profiles

Use of PP not justified

Adequate evidence present

Adequate evidence absent

Cost

Operational

Thresholds

Reputation

Types of scientific uncertainty within

consenting process

Examples from JNCC teams and what we’re

doing to work on reducing uncertainty

Types of scientific uncertainty

Guideline and policy wording

Limitations of

current evidence

Developer

Natural variation

Limitations of

analyses

Understanding

impact

Science bodies

All

SNCBs / consultees

Regulators / Govt

Guideline and policy wording

Limitations of

current evidence

Developer

Natural variation

Limitations of

analyses

Understanding

impact

Science bodies

All

SNCBs / consultees

Regulators / Govt

OIA – survey evidence

• Distance from operations

• Date of surveys

• Survey techniques

MPS – Haig Fras site boundary changes

• Fishing vessels data 2009

showed reef habitat outwith the

existing site boundaries

• JNCC / Cefas surveys in 2011

and 2012 confirmed this

• Boundary amended to more

tightly reflect presence and

extent of Annex I feature

OIA – ornithology

Displacement and OWF

• Empirical evidence for displacement and energetic

costs lacking

• Often due to difficulties in

• Detecting change in mobile spp. distribution

• Quantifying the energetic costs of any change

• However, we know displacement can occur for

some species and there will be an energetic cost

• Use of ranges to estimate impact likelihood

• Use of proxies and / expert opinion

Guideline and policy wording

Limitations of

current evidence

Developer

Natural variation

Limitations of

analyses

Understanding

impact

Science bodies

All

SNCBs / consultees

Regulators / Govt

Evidence – Assessing Sabellaria reefs

Novel methodology developed

to assess Sabellaria spinulosa

“reefiness”

• video transects split into 5

second segments

• presence/absence

• percentage cover

• estimation of average tube

elevation

• image quality

JNCC – Assessing Arctica islandica

How to adequately survey quahog?

• East of Gannet survey

• Gear comparison studies

• Reworking of conservation

objectives

• Proportional, practical

advice

Video

Grabs ?

Images on right (c) Bernard Picton

Guideline and policy wording

Limitations of

current evidence

Developer

Natural variation

Limitations of

analyses

Understanding

impact

Science bodies

All

SNCBs / consultees

Regulators / Govt

OIA - Marine mammals / noise

Limited evidence

• Marine mammal hearing thresholds – limited species / captive

animals

• Population distributions and localised populations

• Displacement behaviour / species sensitivity

• Advice currently precautionary even though the chance of a

mammal entering a marine noise mitigation zone is pretty low

• Implement JNCC marine noise mitigation guidelines (seismic, piling

and explosives) – currently under review

• PCoD – use of expert judgement

• Noise registry established to assess the distribution of

loud impulsive noise in space and time

MPS – Recovery in Faroe-Shetland Channel

Images (c) Daniel Jones

• Deep-water megafaunal

density and diversity

recovers partially from drilling

disturbance after 3 yr

• Impacts on epibenthic

megafaunal assemblages

are still distinguishable after

a decade

• Recovery studies can allow

us to decide on monitoring

remit and realistic impact

assessments

OIA – Understanding recovery from impact

• Aggregates industry /

CEFAS / RAG working

on UK wide dataset to

inform benthic impact

and recovery

• Each region will be

surveyed every 7

years

• Example of forward-

thinking good practice

in aggregates

Guideline and policy wording

Limitations of

current evidence

Developer

Natural variation

Limitations of

analyses

Understanding

impact

Science bodies

All

SNCBs / consultees

Regulators / Govt

Evidence – natural variation

• Defra contracts

• Analysis of existing data to study effects

of towed fishing gears against a

background of natural variability (Phase I

and II)

• Aggregates RSMP

• User-friendly update to UKDMOS

Types of scientific uncertainty

Limitations of

current evidence

Developer

Natural variation

Limitations of

analyses

Understanding

impact

Science bodies

All

SNCBs / consultees Policy wording Regulators / Govt

Guideline wording All

OIA / MPS – Understanding risk in policy “Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon”

• Levels of risk interpreted from laws or guidelines can

vary greatly among organisations

“When considering whether a function or act is capable of affecting (other than insignificantly) a protected feature of an MPA the following should be considered: •All existing data for the area •Scale, intensity, timing and duration of proposed function or act •Sensitivity of protected feature to the proposed function or act”

“If the authority believes that there is or may be a significant risk of the act hindering the achievement of the conservation objectives stated for the MCZ ...”

• Criteria for significance?

• How ‘high the bar should be’ for

testing whether effect is significant?

• What level of evidence base needed

to fulfil these criteria?

MPS – Conservation Advice

JNCC is revising conservation advice framework

• Consistent in approach and structure

• Ensure consistent approach

– MPA designations / similar protected features

• Provide quantified objectives where possible

• Clearly identify which activities are capable of

impacting a site’s features

• Conservation objectives

– attributes and targets

– scientific literature and expert

judgment

Monitoring – guidelines / standards

[2016]

Conclusions

Conclusions

• Very few industry applications within consenting processes have

adequate evidence for all impacts

• the PP is almost always applicable

• PP is a first step in a wider pathway of precaution

Major differences among conservation bodies, regulators, industry, NGOs etc

Oil and gas, aggregates, renewables – all treated the same? Should all be treated

the same?

Conclusions

• Further guidance is needed on how legislation should be

interpreted so that the levels of precaution associated

with different levels of risk can be better evaluated

“significant”

“likely”

“de minimis”

“not insignificant”

Conclusions

• PP needs to be considered by all participants in the

consenting process

• Regulators have a particular responsibility as their remit

lies at the heart of the PP:

1 Addressing Uncertainty: Law, Policy and the Development of

the Precautionary principle. Cameron, J and W. Wade-Gery.

CSERG working paper GEC 92-43

“The Precautionary Principle stipulates that where the environmental risks being run by regulatory inaction are in some way (a) uncertain, but (b) non-negligible, regulatory inaction is unjustified”1

What is the Precautionary Principle?

“The fundamental principle underlying all environmental policy”

“a pointless distraction from the real issues”

“a safeguard for future generations”

“countering a tendency to overlook scientific uncertainties in an unscientific manner”

“anti-scientific, subject to abuse, inherently Northern, anti-innovation, and anti-sustainable”

“raises issues which are central to current international debates around environment, poverty, sustainable development and biodiversity”

(Cooney, 2004)

Questions

Dr Becky Hitchin

Offshore Industries Advice Manager

JNCC Marine Advice

Aberdeen