Productive Seas Evidence Group Draft Work Plan 2013+
The following tables highlights the key projects and areas of work that the Productive Seas
Evidence Group will be involved in from now until the end of 2013 (or beyond, in some
cases). These include workstreams that PSEG are leading on and others where the group
will support in an advisory capacity. It also includes a mixture of workstreams that are
discrete, self-contained and time-limited projects with identifiable outputs and others that are
longer-term with less tangible, although no less important, outputs (e.g. workstream 8 to
promote the role of social sciences, and economics in particular, within marine science and
policy).
Whilst intended to guide the work of the group as much as practicable over the coming 1218 months, it is inevitable that new, unanticipated demands will continue to arrive and so a
degree of flexibility is implicitly acknowledged within the workplan. It is also clear that the
timescales for some of the workstreams are dependent upon inputs from work elsewhere,
and that the timing of PSEG contributions may need to be adjusted accordingly.
PSEG
Product 1:
Contribute technical input on targets and
indicators for all GES descriptors, including in
particular required work on Articles 13 and 14.
Based upon:
Lead /
Support
Key partners:
Requirement of MSFD
Support work led by Defra and the DAs
Defra, Marine Scotland, WAG, AFBINI
Task
Manager:
Target Date:
Defra
Reference:
Comments:
Analysis completed by 2015 but will need to
commence sufficiently in advance to ensure no
delays.
MSFD
Article 13 - When drawing up the programme of
measures, Member States shall give due
consideration to sustainable development and, in
particular, to the social and economic impacts of
the measures envisaged. Member States shall
ensure that measures are cost-effective and
technically feasible, and shall carry out impact
assessments, including cost-benefit analyses, prior
to the introduction of any new measure
Article 14 - Member States shall develop and
implement all the elements of marine strategies,
but shall not be required to take specific steps
where the costs would be disproportionate taking
Update Oct 2014
Work on this product
has been discussed
but not yet formally
actioned.
account of the risks to the marine environment, and
provided that there is no further deterioration.
PSEG
Product 2:
Support programme of industry data collection Update Oct 2014
Based
upon:
Lead /
Support
Key partners:
Discussions within UKMMAS
Task
Manager:
Target Date:
MMO?
Reference:
-
Comments:
Greater clarity over roles required by respective
partners, but PSEG should have something to
contribute to this project.
Support
MMO, MILG, SAWG, MEDIN, MS
Ongoing
PSEG
Product 3:
Pilot industry-led, bottom-up approach to
regional social and economic valuation of
marine activities.
Based
upon:
Lead /
Support
Key
partners:
Task
Manager:
Target
Date:
Reference:
Desire of marine planning organisations to have
access to greater regional level.
Lead
Comments:
A sub-group has been established to take this
forward. The project will involve working with an
industry (on economic data) and organisations such
as local authorities (on social data) to develop and
test data collection guidelines and protocols in a
Proposal put forward
to commission a
review of current
industry data collection
and use. A draft
research specification
was produced and
circulated, along with
requests for funding.
Since then, work done
by the ORE Catapult
has come to light, with
significant overlaps.
The research spec has
been amended
accordingly.
Update Oct 2014
MMO, The Crown Estate, BMAPA, Marine Scotland
Replaced by a number
of initiatives at local
levels (e.g MMO
undertaking a number
of regional planning
exercises).
MMO
CLOSED.
End 2013
selected region.
PSEG
Product 4:
Explore the possibility of developing a ‘Best
practice in marine socio-economic
assessment’ document.
Based upon:
Internal dialogue regarding the consistency and
rigour of marine socio-economic assessment.
Lead
Lead /
Support
Key partners:
Task
Manager:
Target Date:
Reference:
Comments:
A draft spec for taking
forward the key
recommendations has
End 2013
been produced and
circulated – awaiting
One option is for this to collate a range of relevant a show of interest
documents (e.g. HMT Green Book, BIS Impact
from relevant
Assessment Guidance, UKFEN Best Practice
parties.
Guidance on Fishing Industry Economic Impact
Assessments) and in order to provide a one-stop
shop for relevant guidelines and information.
TBC
Develop a prioritised research and lead or
support, as appropriate, primary research to
address identified gaps in the marine socioeconomic evidence base.
Based
upon:
Charting progress 2 – Productive Seas Feeder
Report
Marine social and economic data: A critical review of
tools and methods to apply marine social and
economic data to decision making
A review of marine social and economic data
Lead the assessment of priority marine socioeconomic evidence gaps.
Predominantly a supportive role in the development
of research to fill such gaps
Defra, Marine Scotland, MMO.
Key
partners:
Task
Manager:
Target
Final report and
accompanying
implementation plan
almost ready for signoff.
MMO, Defra, Marine Scotland, MEDIN, ABPmer
PSEG
Product 5:
Lead /
Support
Update Oct 2014
Sam Anson
Analysis completed by 2015 but will need to
Update Oct 2014
PSEG have developed
a ‘live’ list of socioeconomic research
projects that are
underway across all
partners, to ensure
knowledge exchange,
avoid duplication and
help with identification
of outstanding gaps.
The intention is to
publish this on the
PSEG page of the
UKMMAS/Defra
Date:
Reference:
Comments:
commence sufficiently in advance to ensure no
delays.
http://chartingprogress.defra.gov.uk/productiveseas-feeder-report
http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/evidence/101
2a.htm
http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/evidence/101
2b.htm
The initial element of this (already in progress) is to
develop a comprehensive list of pre-identified
priority marine socio-economic evidence gaps. It will
be beyond the scope of PSEG to deliver all the
necessary work to fill such gaps, but the existence
of an overview will enable PSEG to divert their
resources to area of highest priority.
website – need an
appropriate portal..
This list forms the
basis of an agenda
item at each PSEG
meeting, so the group
can monitor the
progress of the
evidence base vis-àvis requirements
PSEG
Product 6:
Facilitate the delivery of required
improvements in the current practice of
socio-economic data management.
Based upon:
Lead / Support
A review of marine social and economic data Recommendations of
Support
MEDIN-led review
being taken forward by
MMO, Marine Scotland, MEDIN
MMO & MS, in
MMO & Marine Scotland
partnership with
MEDIN.
End-2013
http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/evide
Some of these being
nce/1012b.htm
delivered via the
UKMMAS SG on
spatial data collection
of human activities
and pressures (eg
pressures and
activities data
catalogues).
Key partners:
Task Manager:
Target Date:
Reference:
Comments:
Update Oct 2014
CLOSED
PSEG
Product 7:
Advise and contribute to UKMMAS
Steering Group on spatial data collation
on human activities, pressures and
impacts.
Based upon:
Identified requirement within UKMMAS
Lead / Support
Support
Key partners:
JNCC, Cefas, Marine Scotland
Task Manager:
JNCC & Cefas
Update Oct 2014
See Annex A
Target Date:
Reference:
Comments:
PSEG
Product 8:
Promote the role of social sciences, and
economics in particular, within marine
science and policy
Based upon:
Good practice
Lead / Support
Lead
Key partners:
Defra, Marine Scotland, MMO
Task Manager:
Sam Anson
Target Date:
Ongoing
Update Oct 2014
Ongoing.
Reference:
Comments:
One of the five
identified next steps in
the recent MSCC
Annual Progress
report is (my bold):
“Strengthened action
on existing priority
marine science issues
- such as monitoring
(including
understanding of
natural and climatic
change in the marine
environment), data
access, the increased
use of socioeconomics and
communications.”
Annex A: Update on UKMMAS Steering Group on spatial data collation on human
activities, pressures and impacts.
The group last met in June 2014. It had been planned to meet again before this MARG
meeting but this has not been possible due to the availability of various group members.
Outputs of the previous meeting include:
Definitions of activities
 JNCC have been doing on-going work to build on the activities list and complement it
with a definition of the activity.
 The group is keen to get a confirmed list into the public domain so that metadata can
begin to be tagged with standard pressures terms. The implementation of version control
to the document is needed as it is likely that it will be updated in the future.
Activity data catalogues
A catalogue of core data sets to be considered for pressure work was presented by Cefas.
The catalogue contains a list of high level data for users to go to and then source the specific
datasets for themselves, preventing the catalogue from providing out of date datasets or
duplicates of the same datasets held by different parties.
Update on Activity - Pressure matrix development
Plans to put the pressures matrix on the JNCC website with the caveat that the underpinning
evidence base will be provided through an ITT contract which should be going out at the end
of July with an expected delivery of March 2015 was discussed.
Update on approaches for pressure mapping
The status of the pressures approaches papers was discussed.
Papers from JNCC (abrasion, extraction) and Cefas have been sent to appropriate EGs for
review.
Paper on fisheries data requirements
Cefas presented a 2 page document on fisheries data requirements with recommendations
(see overpage). The group was asked to review and accept the recommendations and
consider the most appropriate avenues to distribute the results.
The availability and use of fishing pressure data:
responses from UKMMAS community
The UKMMAS Steering Group on the collation and activities and pressures data
identified a need to review the use of and requirement for fishing activity and
pressure data by the UKMMAS community.
A short questionnaire was sent to key organisations in October 2013 asking for
details of their use/requirement for data describing fishing activities and pressure.
Furthermore, the outcomes from an MMO-hosted workshop into the delineation of
core fishing grounds (held in February 2014) provided additional insight into data
requirements.
Based on the responses provided, the following key recommendations were
identified:







There are several policy drivers for data on fishing activities and pressures,
including MSFD, Habitats Directive, marine planning and sustainable fishing.
The range in policy drivers also results in a range of different data requirements,
from regional to local assessments, from presence to impact, from vessel to fleet.
The requirements highlighted that there is not a single solution that can meet the
requirements of all end-users.
No data are currently collected specifically to meet the user needs. Instead, data
collected for other purposes (e.g. fisheries enforcement) are used as a proxy,
recognising the limitations this presents. There is no single proxy dataset that covers
all user needs, instead several (incompatible) datasets have to be used. Some data
remain missing or inaccessible.
Several organisations were found to have the same requirements and currently
undertaken own analysis of the same data. Further agreement on methods used for
data analysis methods should be sought and a mechanism for efficient data
sharing should be explored.
The lack of data relating to the inshore (<12m) fleet, both with regard to their fishing
activity and to the social and economic value of that activity was identified by all
users. Currently proxy (sightings) or subjective (Fishermap/Scotmap) data are used
but have major limitations in terms of spatial resolution and temporal updates.
The meet the requirements identified, both spatially and temporally detailed data
on inshore fishing activities are required. Inshore VMS systems have been trialled
successfully and MMO have developed a system specification for approval testing.
Inshore Fishing and Conservation Authorities are considering the use of such
technology to meet specific, local management needs.
Although these
developments are encouraging, only when rolled out to all vessels operating inshore,
in all areas around the UK, and reporting frequently at all times, will the current and
future user requirements be met.
The availability of VMS data for larger vessels has significant benefits over the data
available for inshore areas. However, users identified the low temporal resolution
(2 hourly) as a major limiting factor, especially where end-users need to undertake
assessments at small spatial scales (e.g. marine protected areas). It is therefore
recommended that increasing the temporal resolution of VMS data is considered to
meet user requirements.






Users commented that VMS data (as well as iVMS) remains proxy datasets due to
the lack of start and positions for actual fishing events. Consideration should
therefore be given to include status reporting as part of future systems.
Both for inshore and offshore assessments the availability of landings data at ICES
rectangles was identified as a significant limiting factor, especially where policy
requires assessment of economic impacts at small spatial scales (e.g. marine
protected areas). Furthermore, limitations were identified due to the reporting by
smaller fishing vessels (<10m), which results in underreporting of actual landings and
landings values.
In offshore areas where both UK and extensive non-UK fleets operate, there are
challenges in accessing data for foreign fleets. The lack of detailed gear and
landings data limits the ability to meet policy requirements or confidence in the
advice.
Whereas significant progress has been made in describing the fishing activity from
the available data, for marine planning a main challenge remains the social and
economic assessment of management proposals. Approaches are being trialled
and used to meet immediate needs. It is recommended that work is undertaken to
ensure consistency in meeting social and economic assessment needs across all
policy needs.
In addition to the need for activity data, a requirement for more detailed data on the
distribution of species, and their spawning and nursery grounds, was identified.
Some of the recommendations identified above are based on the understanding of
the limitations of the currently available data. In some cases, assessment of the
inaccuracy or confidence in the data may negate the need for more extensive data
collection.
The UKMMAS Steering Group on the collation of activity and pressures data has
identified current and future gaps in the availability of fishing activity and related data
to meet policy needs. Summary responses can be found on the following pages of
this document.
Activity and pressure data are considered to be used as a proxy to undertake status
assessments. Considering the gaps and limitations discussed above, significant
challenges remain outstanding before activity and pressure data can become an
operational proxy dataset.
It is beyond the scope of the UKMMAS Steering Group to implement these
recommendations. Instead, it is for the wider community to consider these
recommendations and their implementation.