ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil Advance Access originally published online on September 10, 2008
ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 2008 65(8):1402-1406; doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsn141
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appears in the following ICES Journal of Marine Science issue: Marine Environmental Indicators: Utility in Meeting Regulatory Needs [View the issue table of contents]
The regulatory framework for marine dredging indicators and their operational efficiency within the UK: a possible model for other nations?
1 Law School, University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull HU6 7RX, UK
2 c/o Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft Laboratory, Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk NR33 0HT, UK
Correspondence to E. Bayer: tel: +44 1482 466307; fax: +44 1482 466388; e-mail: e.bayer{at}2005.hull.ac.uk
Bayer, E., Barnes, R. A., and Rees, H. L. 2008. The regulatory framework for marine dredging indicators and their operational efficiency within the UK: a possible model for other nations? – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 1402–1406.The use of indicators within marine policy and legislation is a developing phenomenon worldwide. As governments begin to take a more holistic approach to marine management, it is inevitable that economic and social goals will increasingly become enshrined in environmental regulations. Consequently, it is imperative to reach an understanding as to how scientific, economic, and social goals are interconnected, and how they influence indicator development. Arguably, a more integrated framework is needed to provide policy-makers and legislators with a coherent approach to applying marine indicators within the context of sustainable development. We examine a variety of indicators used in support of the environmental management of the UK marine aggregate-extraction industry and discuss the current UK regulatory framework in relation to the requirements of two EC directives. Additionally, we explore the depth to which interfacing occurs between various policy goals (i.e. scientific, social, economic, and legal). The study highlights the importance of good communication between the various government agencies and disciplines to better achieve sustainable-development objectives. If effective interfacing can be achieved, with scientific aims properly embedded within policy and legislative agendas, then the UK could provide a useful regulatory model for other Member States.
Keywords: aggregate extraction, dredging, ecosystem-based approach, environmental legislation, indicators, management, policy, precautionary principle, regulatory framework, standards, sustainable development
Received 23 November 2007; accepted 18 June 2008; advance access publication 10 September 2008.
 |
Introduction |
|---|
 Top Introduction UK marine-dredging regulationsThe use of indicators...Effective integration of policy...Concluding remarksReferences |
|---|
The indicator concept is an important element of contemporary marine management and regulation (RCEP, 1998; FAO, 1999; Guttorp, 2000; EEA, 2002, 2003; Gubbay, 2004). Although not always explicitly identified in legislation and policy texts, indicators are nonetheless utilized widely in both (OSPAR, 1992; EC, 1992, 2000; UK, 2007b). Often, their utilization is masked by a variety of idioms—including standards, targets, thresholds, bench-mark values, and criteria—against which specific variables (i.e. indicators) are assessed (RCEP, 1998). The fixed and variable elements are therefore commonly inseparable in any discussion of indicator utility and operational efficiency in a regulatory context.
In cases where standards (or equivalent descriptors) can be determined with confidence, indicators are of vital importance, because they provide a conceptually simple expression of the need (if any) for management action, although the underlying science involved in their derivation may be complex. Such expressions have the advantage of transparency and can also reduce or eliminate disagreements between sometimes conflicting interests (DETR, 1999a, b; Gubbay, 2004). Yet, the use of indicators and associated standards may have to be revised repeatedly as our understanding of the marine environment improves (Rees et al., 2006; Pinedo et al., 2007). Furthermore, because they are employed at the interface of the science and law/policy disciplines, a change in perception in one field will necessarily affect the other. Indicators are intended to relay technical information in a simplified manner that allows policy-makers, legislators, and non-specialists to understand essential features of the marine environment (OECD, 1993; Gubbay, 2004; Sneddon et al., 2006). Therefore, with effective communication, scientists and regulators have a better opportunity to exchange information on spatial and temporal patterns in the environment, which can only help to ensure that human activities remain compatible with environmental management needs and that the success of current measures in meeting the wider policy agenda (sustainable development, healthy seas, precautionary principle, etc.) can be assessed (UN, 2002; UNEP, 2003; Gubbay, 2004; EC, 2005). Therefore, a clear understanding of indicator usage is essential.
To some extent, information exchange occurs within the EC, but it can be argued that a much more integrated framework is needed to promote more effective communication and dissemination of information among the various agencies and disciplines. This requires a more coherent approach in management of the environment worldwide, one that embraces improved coordination within governments and enhanced international cooperation within a framework integrating all aspects of sustainable development in an operationally efficient manner (Defra, 2002; EC, 2002a, b).
We address the use of sustainable-development indicators in the UK, using the marine-aggregate and dredging industry as a case study, examine the current UK regulatory framework in relation to EC legislation, assess its effectiveness, and analyse the drivers of indicator development. The utility of environmental indicators in a regulatory context and the importance of integrating law and science at the development and application stages are also discussed.
|
UK marine-dredging regulations |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionUK marine-dredging regulationsThe use of indicators...Effective integration of policy...Concluding remarksReferences |
|---|
The marine-aggregate and dredging industry is controlled by a wide range of policy and legislative tools at all levels of government (local, national, and international; Boyes et al., 2003; Gubbay, 2005). As a consequence, management involves a wide array of regulators, agencies, and stakeholders (Table 1).
|
Aggregate extraction is licensed on a commercial basis by the owner(s) of the seabed (principally the Crown Estate in territorial waters), who also have (non-energy) mineral rights for the remainder of the UK continental shelf (DCLG, 2006). Consequently, companies seeking to extract minerals are obliged to obtain authorization from the Government and a license from the Crown Estate, before their project can legally commence (Gubbay, 2005).
Before the 2007 Regulations (UK, 2007b), applications for licenses to extract marine minerals were pursued via a non-statutory "Government View" procedure (GV; see review by Gubbay, 2005). If the proposed dredging activity was deemed to be environmentally acceptable, this led to a favourable GV and the issue of a license. During the past 20 years, applicants seeking permission to extract minerals were routinely required to supply an Environmental Statement, involving an initial scoping study for approval by government departments, their agencies, and relevant stakeholders, followed by an environmental-impact assessment, including any risk of coastal erosion arising from offshore dredging. Over these years, the information from several site-specific assessments (combined with other indicators) had the beneficial effect of improving the scientific basis for predicting the effects of extraction activities and the recovery of the ecosystem once operations ceased (Gubbay, 2005). Supplementary to the GV, extensive public consultations were required, which resulted in a précis that detailed the entire consultation process (DCLG, 2007). Throughout the entire process, the major burden of proof that the activity would not cause detrimental effects to the ecosystem resided with the applicant.
There were a number of problems with this approach (DCLG, 2007). First, it was a non-statutory and informal process. Although it incorporated many of the European requirements from the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (EC, 1985) and Habitats Directive (EC, 1992), these had not been transposed into UK law. Second, the process could at times be burdensome and administratively inefficient, because multi-agency involvement in the review process—requiring a substantial amount of information from the potential applicant—resulted in slow decision-making. Third, the decision-making process was not always based on readily accessible data and therefore could lack transparency. Therefore, the need emerged for a new regulatory system to streamline and expedite the consenting process, as well as to transpose the EC Directives formally into domestic legislation capable of guiding the conduct of the industry efficiently.
On 1 May 2007, the Environmental Impact Assessment and Natural Habitats Regulations 2007, designed to consolidate the EU Directives into the regulation of marine-minerals extraction within English and Northern Ireland waters, and to establish a means of statutory control over dredging for the purposes of construction, beach recharge, and other land-based activities (DCLG, 2006), officially entered into force (UK, 2007b). Other regulations and enforcement mechanisms exist for the disposal of dredged material at sea (typically arising from port/harbour maintenance and development; UK, 1949, 1985), and the 2007 Regulations do not apply here.
This legislation makes it an offence for dredging to be carried out except where in accordance with a permission granted under Part 4 or when the dredging project is exempted for reasons stipulated in Regulation 5 (i.e. for national defence purposes, dredging that does not constitute a relevant project or a habitats project, or a project that was granted permission before the 2007 Regulations came into force). Furthermore, the legislation ensures that both EU Directives are implemented via a formal process, through which an application must "be made to the regulator, contain such information as the regulator may reasonably require ... [and] include an environmental statement ... " (Regulation 10). Any dredging without permission, and not granted exemption, is an offence and is liable to a fine, an indictment, and court proceedings, according to the seriousness of the offence (Regulation 27).
Minimum requirements for the now-statutory environmental statement are specified, together with an allowance for additional requirements or information to be determined by the regulator (UK, 2007b). In essence, the 2007 Regulations formally replaced the non-statutory GV procedure by fleshing-out the former process, resolving the associated problems, and authorizing it as a matter of law.
|
The use of indicators within the 2007 regulations |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionUK marine-dredging regulationsThe use of indicators...Effective integration of policy...Concluding remarksReferences |
|---|
Indicators are important to underpin environmental legislation because of their role in identifying, summarizing, and communicating relevant information on status and changes in regulated activities and their consequences. To assess their operational efficiency, indicators must be evaluated in the context of the relevant policy and regulatory frameworks.
The 2007 Regulations (UK, 2007b) require that applicants provide data that are theoretically capable of communicating the potential major effects of the proposed project on the environment and that allow the Regulator to determine whether it constitutes a relevant project based on specified "selection criteria". These criteria call for an assessment of the use of natural resources, the production of waste, pollution, and nuisances, the risks of accidents caused by substances or technologies employed, the "relative abundance, quality, and regenerative capacity of natural resources in the area", the overall environmental sensitivity of the geographical areas most likely to be affected, and the potential for cumulative consequences, taking into account other projects in the vicinity.
The required summary information includes estimated quantities of "residues and emissions (water, air, and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation, etc.) resulting from the operation of the proposed project". More specifically, obligatory information ("minimum requirements") that must be included by the applicant in the environmental statement includes such details as the geographical location of the area to be dredged, the quantities to be removed and the manner of their extraction, available data to assess the main effects that the project is likely to have on the environment, the potential measures to remedy significant adverse effects, and the rationale for the applicant's choice of project. "Additional requirements" that the applicant can reasonably be expected to provide include such factors as the main characteristics of the production processes, the ecosystem components likely to be significantly affected by the proposed project (e.g. fauna, flora, soil, and water), and any "indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the project". For both types of requirements, the regulations stipulate that the applicant must provide a non-technical summary of the information.
The information required, with accompanying summary metrics, was designed to be employed within Environmental Statements, providing the Regulator with the necessary information to issue or withhold a dredging permit. Ultimately, the information is also intended to measure the progress towards meeting the regulatory objectives.
Although the term indicator is not specifically mentioned in the legislative text and the use of specific indicators is not mandated, the above metrics clearly may be classified as such, because they provide the means to determine whether or not a standard or criterion is met (FAO, 1999). For example, to determine the effects that a "habitats project" may have on a "European site" designated in the UK, the application of environmental indicators will be needed to meet the obligation to provide relevant information within the Environmental Statement, as well as through the selection criteria. Therefore, although the 2007 Regulations list only explicit criteria and the general type of information needed to make an appropriate decision, indicators are obviously required. This is also implicit in the generic obligation of the Regulator to take account of any advice and reports provided to him, as well as to incorporate all published policies on the extraction of minerals by marine dredging, because indicators are routinely employed in scientific studies and policy schemas that form part of the review process (RCEP, 1998; Bock et al., 2005; Pinedo et al., 2007).
The ability to predict with reasonable certainty the effects of future dredging, and hence the capability of the Regulator to make sound licensing decisions, depends on the degree of prior knowledge of the environment in which the activity is to occur, a knowledge of the likely impacts of the activity itself, and the mitigating or accentuating role of any other anthropogenic or natural influences. Because the indicators required are not specified in the regulations other than in the context of explicit criteria and information needs, the applicant and advisory agencies have some freedom of choice in deciding on which are the most appropriate to use to satisfy the regulatory needs.
|
Effective integration of policy and science? |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionUK marine-dredging regulationsThe use of indicators...Effective integration of policy...Concluding remarksReferences |
|---|
We now examine the science underlying effective indicator applications and compare this with the information requirements of the legislation to assess the depth to which interfacing has occurred between science, policy, and law, and the degree to which indicators employed within the dredging industry are—or should be—science- or policy-driven.
Rees et al. (2006) outlined the many drivers for indicator development and the specificity (regarding location, activity, or contaminants) of indicator responses, as well as providing a context for their applicability at various scales. Scales may be local (nearfield investigations of direct effects), regional (cumulative effects of multiple activities), national (transposition of EC directives), and international (sea-wide evaluations of quality status). These drivers (e.g. indicator responses, scales) parallel the information needs of the 2007 Regulations (and implicitly, the indicator needs) through the legally binding criteria addressed within an Environmental Statement.
Rees et al. (2006) also employed two sets of criteria for evaluating the utility of "performance" and "descriptive" indicators (Table 2) in a case study addressing changes in benthic communities following the cessation of aggregate extraction activities (see also Boyd et al., 2005; Whomersley et al., 2008). The relative importance attached to such utility criteria may vary among agencies, but they have found wide support internationally. Although utility requirements are not specified in law, they are referred to implicitly within legislative texts as "the use of relevant scientific information" [UK, 2007a: Paragraph 7(2)] or the use of "current knowledge and methods of assessment" in developing an Environmental Statement [UK, 2007b: Paragraph 7(1)(b)].
|
A qualitative assessment of two widely used univariate measures listed in the 2007 Regulations (i.e. sediment structure and total abundance of benthic-fauna assemblages) against the utility criteria for descriptive indicators (Table 2) suggested that they would meet all five (Rees et al., 2006): they are scientifically valid indicators, are relatively simple and easy to communicate, have the ability to demonstrate spatial/temporal trends, are sensitive at least in terms of the direct effects on the seabed, and are cost-effective to measure. The authors noted, however, that effective applications of these benthic indicators are governed by a number of dependencies, including the adequacy of survey design, the capability to locate suitable reference locations, and sampling efficiency, all of which may vary from site to site. They also note that, ideally, an indicator should be sufficiently sensitive to provide an early warning of wider ecosystem consequences but need not itself be of any intrinsic significance, and that perceptions of the importance of observed changes in response to anthropogenic activities may differ among stakeholders depending on their interests (i.e. can be value-driven), and may also vary over time in response to improved scientific understanding. Boyd et al. (2004) demonstrated that perceptions of importance may vary according to the spatial extent of the impacts and to the recoverability over time.
Much of the information required by the 2007 Regulations relates to issues that are multivariate in nature. A particular challenge is the identification of indicators to predict the cumulative effects of the proposed dredging activity against those already existing, the relative regenerative capacity of the natural resources in the area, and the absorption capacity of the local environment. Flexibility may also be needed in the choice of indicators to reflect the different environmental circumstances prevailing among locations.
Uncertainties currently associated with environmental indicator applications, in combination with temporal changes in indicator selection resulting from advances in scientific knowledge, explain why the 2007 Regulations have not been over-prescriptive in which indicators to use. Such a cautionary approach is to be recommended. However, further effort is required to ensure that criteria governing effective indicator applications are more rigorously applied. To achieve this for both criteria formulation and their use, wider stakeholder interests will have to be considered. Rice and Rochet (2005) suggest a framework for objectively selecting indicators that takes into account the needs of the users involved in both management and governance to ensure that the indicators are fit for purpose. If regulatory objectives are generically defined and provide little guidance on the selection of appropriate indicators, management bodies should transpose these into specific operational objectives (Rice and Rochet, 2005). In defining these operational objectives, involvement of those participating in the selection process as well as those ultimately responsible for their formulation would ensure that the criteria employed and indicators selected would fit both regulatory and scientific purposes, and therefore could be applied in an effective manner. Given that indicators are only implicitly mandated in the 2007 Regulations, scientists need to apply the criteria rigorously to ensure that the indicators employed are appropriate to support the regulatory framework and the operational objectives defined.
|
Concluding remarks |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionUK marine-dredging regulationsThe use of indicators...Effective integration of policy...Concluding remarksReferences |
|---|
The 2007 Regulations established a system that is flexible in its approach to managing marine-extraction projects and successfully crossed disciplines to meet integrated sustainable-development objectives. Though indicators are not explicitly mandated, they are implicitly referred to as a means of providing the necessary information to the Regulator. This allows for freedom of choice in indicator selection, assuming that the indicators chosen are appropriate to support the regulatory framework and the operational objectives devised. Consequently, the UK marine mineral-extraction industry is subject to an integrated framework for environmental management, in so far as it promotes more efficient communication, improved transparency, and dissemination of information among the various agencies.
The impending new integrative legislation for UK marine waters, the "Marine Bill" (Defra, 2007), offers an avenue to streamline the existing framework further by merging and simplifying the current licensing regime for all forms of dredging. This should make the process more concise, minimize unnecessary regulatory burdens, and maintain the promotion of successful integration between science, policy, and law. Thus far, the UK has successfully transposed the EC requirements, has demonstrated an acute understanding of the scientific indicators, and has reflected this comprehension within the current regulatory framework. As such, the UK 2007 Regulations may offer a useful model for other Member States with similar national legal obligations and indicator needs.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionUK marine-dredging regulationsThe use of indicators...Effective integration of policy...Concluding remarksReferences |
|---|
-
Bock M., Rossner G., Wissen M., Remm K., Langanke T., Lang S., Klug H., et al. Spatial indicators for nature conservation from European to local scale. Ecological Indicators (2005) 5:322–338.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Boyd S. E., Cooper K. M., Limpenny D. S., Kilbride R., Rees H. L., Dearnaley M. P., Stevenson J., et al. Assessment of the re-habilitation of the seabed following marine aggregate dredging. (2004) Cefas, Lowestoft, Science Series, Technical Report 121. 154.
Boyd S. E., Limpenny D. S., Rees H. L., Cooper K. M. The effects of marine sand and gravel extraction on the macrobenthos at a commercial dredging site (results 6 years post-dredging). ICES Journal of Marine Science (2005) 62:145–162.
Boyes S., Warren L., Elliott M. Regulatory responsibilities and enforcement mechanisms relevant to marine nature conservation in the United Kingdom. (2003) Institute of Estuarine Coastal Studies, Hull, Report to Joint Nature Conservation Committee No. 2. 52.
DCLG. Consultation Paper on Draft Marine Minerals Dredging Regulations and Procedural Guidance. (2006) London: Department for Communities and Local Government. 145.
DCLG. Explanatory Memorandum to the Environmental Impact Assessment and Natural Habitats (Extraction of Minerals by Marine Dredging) (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2007, No. 1067. (2007) London: Department for Communities and Local Government. 28.
Defra. Safeguarding Our Seas: A Strategy for the Conservation and Sustainable Development of our Marine Environment. (2002) London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 82.
Defra. A Sea of Change: A Marine Bill White Paper. (2007) London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 168.
DETR. A Better Quality of Life: a Strategy for Sustainable Development in the United Kingdom. (1999) a. London, Cm. 4345: Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. 96.
DETR. Quality of Life Counts: Indicators for a Strategy for Sustainable Development for the United Kingdom: a Baseline Assessment. (1999) b. London: Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. 310.
EC. Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. Official Journal of the European Communities (1985) L175:40–48.
EC. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Official Journal of the European Communities (1992) L206:7–49.
EC. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for the community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities (2000) L206:1–73.
EC. Laying Down the Sixth Community Environment Action Program. (2002) a. Decision No. 1600/2002/EC. 15.
EC. Towards a Strategy to Protect and Conserve the Marine Environment. (2002) b. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, Brussels, 02/10/2002. COM/2002/539/Final.
EC. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Marine Environmental Policy (Marine Strategy Directive). COM/2005/505/Final. (2005).
EEA. Testing of Indicators for the Marine and Coastal Environment in Europe. 1. Eutrophication and Integrated Coastal Zone Management. (2002) European Environment Agency, Technical Report 84. 48.
EEA. Testing of Indicators for the Marine and Coastal Environment in Europe. 3. Present State and Development of Indicators for Eutrophication, Hazardous Substances, Oil and Ecological Quality. (2003) European Environment Agency, Technical Report 86. 64.
FAO. Indicators for Sustainable Development of Marine Capture Fisheries. (1999) FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, 8. 68.
Gubbay S. A Review of Marine Environmental Indicators Reporting on Biodiversity Aspects of Ecosystem Health. (2004) Sandy: The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. 73.
Gubbay S. A Review of Marine Aggregate Extraction in England and Wales, 1970–2005. (2005) London: The Crown Estate. 36.
Guttorp P. Setting Environmental Standards: a Statistician's Perspective. (2000) Seattle, WA: NRCSE Technical Report Series 048. 13.
OECD. OECD Core Set of Indicators for Environmental Performance Reviews. (1993) 83. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Environmental Monographs. 39.
OSPAR. Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, Annex V. (1992) The Protection and Conservation of the Ecosystems and Biological Diversity of the Maritime Areas. http://www.OSPAR.org.
Pinedo M. G., Satta M. P., Torres M., Ballesteros E. Rocky-shore communities as indicators of water quality: a case study in the northwestern Mediterranean. Marine Pollution Bulletin (2007) 55:126–135.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
RCEP. Setting Environmental Standards. (1998) London: Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 21st Report. 232.
Rees H. L., Boyd S. E., Schratzberger M., Murray L. A. Role of benthic indicators in regulating human activities at sea. Environmental Science and Policy (2006) 9:496–508.[CrossRef]
Rice J. C., Rochet J. A framework for selecting a suite of indicators for fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science (2005) 62:516–527.
Sneddon J., Rees H. L., Boyd S. E., Ware S. A comparative evaluation of biological indicators of change in response to human activities at sea. In: Monitoring the Quality of the Marine Environment, 2003–2004 (2006) Cefas, Lowestoft, Science Series, Aquatic Environment Monitoring Report 58. 82–97.
UN. Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development: Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August–4 September 2002. (2002) United Nations, New York, A/CONF.199/20. 167.
UNEP. Monitoring and Indicators: Designing National-level Monitoring Programmes and Indicators. Note by the Executive Secretary. Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice. Convention on Biological Diversity. (2003) UNEP/CBD/SBSSTA/9/10.
UK. Coast Protection Act 1949 (c.74). (1949) London: Office of Public Sector Information. 11.
UK. Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 (c.48). (1985) London: Office of Public Sector Information. 40.
UK. The Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2007. (2007) a. Office of Public Sector Information, London, SI 2007 No. 1842. 10.
UK. The Environmental Impact Assessment and Natural Habitats (Extraction of Minerals by Marine Dredging) (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2007. (2007) b. Office of Public Sector Information, London, SI 2007 No. 1067. 60.
Whomersley P., Ware S., Rees H. L., Mason C., Bolam T., Huxham M., Bates H. Biological indicators of disturbance at a dredged-material disposal site in Liverpool Bay, UK: an assessment using time-series data. ICES Journal of Marine Science (2008) 65:1414–1420.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||