Use evidence based resources and expert advice.
Train up private sector consultancies to support decision making
What would this look like, how to make it happen
Barriers in place, how to overcome barriers
What action can we commit
English
English
Cymraeg
there is minimal evidence to use - need access to evidence
I agree and disagree with this 🙂. There is a rapidly-growing evidence base for actions that can be taken to enhance biodiversity on marine artificial structures (cannot speak for wider practice). But there is a lack of awareness of, access to, and confidence in the evidence base. There are certainly a lot of gaps that need to be plugged too. I've attached the paper I mentioned in which we summarise the evidence base and discuss these issues.
The Ecostructure project aims to plug some of the key gaps through experimental testing of enhancement actions around Wales. We're also collating the global evidence base into a more accessible resource via the Conservation Evidence project https://www.conservationevidence.com/ . This will provide a freely-available catalogue of options for actions that can be taken to enhance biodiversity on structures - a summary of the evidence in plain English - what has been done, where, when, how, how many times, over what duration, and what were the outcomes - along with an assessment of the reliability of the evidence. This will help people decide if a particular course of action is likely to work as desired in their circumstances.
Conservation Evidence have already produced summaries of the evidence to conserve/enhance a number of terrestrial and freshwater habitats/species. Marine is new on their agenda, but there are a number of synopses underway: benthic invertebrates (recently-published), marine fish, marine artificial structures, wetlands (including saltmarsh, mangroves I think as well as fresh). If people want to see more of these then please get in touch with them (or I can put you in touch). They also need funding support, though.
Section 6 of the Env Act - should grant providers consider this when deciding on capital or revenue grants? Doesn't seem that it factors currently as most grants are capital funding only
Legislation has to be more specific, so that a planner is clearer about requirements.
We very briefly touched on whether considering biodiversity enhancements could/should be made a statutory requirement as part of the planning/licensing process. But we certainly didn't have time to unpack this or consider the full implications. Obviously there will be scenarios when it is not appropriate/possible/beneficial. But a tentative suggestion none-the-less. The catch-22 is that if it comes too early in the process, there is a risk of it becoming a tick box to more easily gain consents; yet if it comes too late, it may not be fully-integrated in the design envelope and instead becomes a bolt-on afterthought which might present more risks to budgets, integrity, acceptance, etc...
Would you need to identify what a reasonable state of biodiversity and ecosystem resilience is, in order to identify how much enhancement is needed and reasonable?
Absolutely, a golden rule in any restoration/enhancement efforts. The goals/objectives of enhancements should be clear from the start and appropriate to the local context.
planning / consenting conditions are a barrier to trying something new. If a developer suggests that something MIGHT work and that then becomes a CONDITION, they are REQUIRED to make it work. This is offputting
Ally Evans: Open up a conversation about how the Marine Licensing system can be adapted/applied for biodiversity enhancement/restoration proposals, including for research trials. It is difficult to get permissions under the same framework as development proposals and other activities.
At present the cost of the marine licence can be prohibitive to research
Work with Marine Planning, LA or developer wanting to try something new, be able to predict potential impacts. Might become condition of planning/development consent. Need flexibility and support if things don't work as they are supposed to.
More expensive, at planning stage competing with other developments (cost usually deciding factors). Marine licencing depends on regulation and legislation in place. Not down specifically in regulations as a condition to put eco-engineering in place, falls back on traditional legislation, protecting specific features, H&S. Gap between existing legislation and regulations in place.
Planning policies in Marine Plan - written negatively - shown not to have an adverse impact on people. Doesn't encourage to do positive things - applications looked on favourably if includes biodiversity enhancements etc. Builds evidence base
In the draft marine plan there was some really explicit encouraging wording on this topic but it didn't appear in the final plan. Is there another policy document where this more specific guidance can be pitched?
Change language in policy - more positive. Policies trying to achieve same outcome - use more positive and encouraging language, accessible
Pre-application discussions used to highlight opportunities for eco engineering. Price is too high from MLT.
Time and effort to understand subjects - engineering, and engineers to understand ecology needs. Lack of communication and understanding of contrasting topics to make eco-engineering happen.
Regarding Marine Renewables - the Consenting Strategic Advisory Group work could support some of this. This is a P1 project as part of Green Recovery Delivery, something to consider.
Dan Ward (Team chat): Working with experts and communities to identify how much is being missed out on currently by not having healthy restored ecosystems - in fishing, local economies, tourism, water quality, flood risk reduction etc. Lets change the angle of conversation.
J. Vevers (Teams Chat): Research into the effects of commercial potting on benthic communities.
Room 2 discussion on this touched on how there is currently no requirement for any enhancement and no place for it in marine advice provided by NRW. An action could be to make biodiversity enhancement a prerequisite and to have a funding pot to help deliver it (developers are not likely to pay for something they don't need)
Interestingly 'public bodies' also include community councils...which brings the importance of inclusion of communities into this particular topic too! I'm sure those who know their local areas very well could come up with some good ideas and practical considerations for biodiversity enhancements.
Hi Sue, this is a very strong letter. I wasn't aware of this at all - does it apply to marine planning decisions too? Thanks, Ally
@Ally Evans I would have thought so? For a planning authority it is applicable to them 'in the exercise of their functions' (so in their area of jurisdiction). Where outside of local authority jurisdiction this will be Welsh Government.