Marine
Scotland
SCOTTISH MARINE REGIONS
Defining their boundaries – a consultation
Marine
Scotland
SCOTTISH MARINE REGIONS
Defining their boundaries – a consultation
The Scottish Government, Edinburgh 2010
© Crown copyright 2010
ISBN: 978-0-7559-9671-1
Marine Scotland
The Scottish Government
Victoria Quay
Edinburgh
EH6 6QQ
APS Group Scotland
DPPAS10766 (11/10)
Published by Marine Scotland, November 2010
Contents
1
Foreword
p.1
2
Introduction
p.2
3
The Marine (Scotland) Act
p.2
4
Existing spatial designations in the marine area around
Scotland
p.5
5
Possible approaches to identifying Scottish Marine Regions
p.20
6
Options for defining the boundaries of Scottish Marine
Regions
p.27
7
Equality assessment
p.34
8
Next stages
p.34
9
How to respond to this consultation
p.35
10
List of consultation questions
p.39
ANNEX A
p.41
1.
FOREWORD
The approval of the Marine (Scotland) Act earlier this year introduced a new era for
the management of Scotland’s seas. One of the key elements of the Act is the
marine planning provisions which will allow us to manage the competing demands
on marine resources more effectively.
We will look to balance resource use and resource protection to ensure sustainable
economic growth whilst safeguarding Scotland’s seas for future generations.
A National Marine Plan will set out the strategic objectives for the Scottish marine
area including important marine activities such as renewable energy, aquaculture,
conservation, recreation and tourism, ports, harbours and shipping, etc.
The plan will be developed to cover inshore and offshore waters through legislation
within the Marine (Scotland) Act and executive devolution provided through the UK
Marine and Coastal Access Act. We will review and measure our progress towards
our objectives over time.
The Marine (Scotland) Act is unique. It differs from the UK Marine and Coastal
Access Act in that it provides for the creation of marine regions and the ability to
delegate marine planning to a local level. This will allow for local accountability and
input into marine decision making.
As I stated in ‘Sustainable Seas for All’, a consultation on Scotland’s first marine bill,
Scottish Marine Regions would be created through secondary legislation once the
characteristics for establishing their boundaries are determined.
This consultation is about creating these Scottish Marine Regions. I hope you are
able to contribute your views on these proposals and I invite you to let us know what
you think.
Richard Lochhead MSP
Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment
1
2.
INTRODUCTION
The Marine (Scotland) Act introduces statutory marine planning for the first time in
the Scottish marine area. The Act provides for a National Marine Plan and for the
delegation of marine planning functions to a regional level.
The Scottish
Government’s intention is to delegate these functions to Marine Planning
Partnerships which will be responsible for developing regional marine plans.
The Marine (Scotland) Act provides that where these functions are delegated to a
group, this should comprise stakeholders that represent a range of interests in that
marine region, including public authorities, conservation, recreation and commercial
interests.
A key step in delivering this framework is the identification and designation of
appropriate Scottish Marine Regions (SMRs). This document seeks your views on
an appropriate set of marine regions to implement marine planning at a regional level
in Scotland.
3.
THE MARINE (SCOTLAND) ACT
The Marine (Scotland) Act received Royal Assent on 10 March 2010. It provides a
framework which will help balance competing demands on Scotland’s seas. The
main measures include:
•
Marine planning: a new statutory marine planning system to sustainably
manage the increasing demands on our seas and to provide powers to create
SMRs and delegate marine planning functions in relation to regional marine
plans.
•
Marine licensing: a simpler licensing system, minimising the number of
licences required for development in the marine environment to cut
bureaucracy and encourage economic investment.
•
Marine conservation: improved marine nature and historic conservation with
new powers to protect and manage areas of importance for marine wildlife,
habitats and historic monument.
•
Seal conservation:
much improved protection for seals and a new
comprehensive licence system to ensure appropriate management when
necessary.
•
Enforcement: a range of enhanced powers of marine conservation and
licensing enforcement.
•
Sea Fisheries: provides for modifications to the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act
1967.
2
National Marine Plan
The powers within the Marine (Scotland) Act extend from the Mean High Water
Spring (MHWS) tide to the seaward limits of Scottish territorial waters (12nm).
Executive devolution of marine planning, conservation, marine licensing and
enforcement from 12-200nm through the UK Marine and Coastal Access Act allows
Scottish Ministers to manage Scotland’s seas from 0-200nm. It is the intention that
the National Marine Plan will extend from 0-200nm1.
In addition to meeting our national interests, the National Marine Plan will deliver our
international responsibilities such as the measures within the Marine Strategy
Framework Directive (MSFD). The Scottish Ministers are the competent authority for
the MSFD in the Scottish inshore and offshore region.
A UK Marine Policy Statement (MPS), created and adopted by the UK and devolved
administrations, will facilitate an integrated approach to marine planning right across
the UK. This will guide the National Marine Plan, which in turn will guide the regional
marine plans. If the Scottish Ministers decide not to adopt the MPS then the
National Marine Plan will continue to direct regional plans.
The National Marine Plan will provide direction on what we wish to achieve for the
marine environment and in key areas such renewable energy, fishing, aquaculture,
conservation, recreation and tourism, ports and harbours and shipping etc. Nature
conservation and historic designated sites will be clearly identified within the plan.
In preparation for a National Marine Plan, Scottish Ministers must set economic,
social and marine ecosystem objectives, along with objectives relating to the
mitigation of, and adaption to, climate change. Scottish Ministers must also prepare
an assessment of the condition of the Scottish marine area at the time of preparing
the plan and a summary of the significant pressures and human impacts on the
relevant area.
The draft plan, with your input through a consultation process, will be considered by
the Scottish Parliament and will be adopted when the Scottish Ministers publish the
plan. Once the plan is published, authorisation and enforcement decisions such as
those relating to marine licensing or electricity consents must be in accordance with
the plan. All other decisions within the marine environment must have regard to the
plan. Therefore, for the first time, the use of marine space will be managed
according to a plan-led system.
Regional Planning
The Marine (Scotland) Act provides powers for Ministers to create SMRs through
secondary legislation and to delegate planning powers to the regional level.
Ministers intend to delegate regional planning functions to Marine Planning
Partnerships which will develop regional marine plans.
1
Throughout this document 0nm means from Mean High Water Spring tide as detailed in Section 2 of
the Marine (Scotland) Act and 200nm is measured from national baseline.
3
Marine Planning Partnerships will comprise representatives from a wide range of
stakeholder interests, including public authorities and representatives that reflect the
commercial, recreational and conservation interests of that region, for example,
renewable energy, oil and gas, sea fisheries, aquaculture, conservation, recreation
and tourism, ports, harbours and shipping. The Marine Planning Partnerships will be
required to create regional marine plans which will be appropriate for that area,
taking into account the National Marine Plan and any specific directions from
Ministers under sections 12-14 of the Marine (Scotland) Act.
Where Scottish Ministers agree to delegate regional marine planning responsibilities
to the Partnership, Marine Scotland officers will support the work of the Marine
Planning Partnerships by providing the necessary technical capacity either through
funding or by using Marine Scotland’s planning resources. Marine Scotland will also
initially provide a chairman for the Marine Planning Partnerships.
Marine planning will be the core function of the Marine Planning Partnerships
involving stakeholder engagement, collection of data, preparation of plans,
consulting on draft plans, reporting and review. The regional plans are likely to be
more spatially detailed than the National Marine Plan reflecting the increased marine
activity that often occurs in the coastal zones. Integrated Coastal Zone Management
(ICZM) will also be a large part of the Planning Partnership role, recognising the
potential interactions of coastal activities with both terrestrial and marine
environments, and will require the integration of coastal and terrestrial planning and
conflict resolution.
The Financial Memorandum to the Marine Scotland Bill sets out estimates of the
costs associated with delivering SMRs and regional plans. Those estimates remain
valid, though in a period of public expenditure restraint we are required to assess
what savings can be made.
A further issue is the need for some guidance on the governance of Marine Planning
Partnerships. Marine Scotland has asked the Scottish Coastal Forum to consider
aspects related to the potential structures of Marine Planning Partnerships.
The experience of the different models utilised by ICZM Coastal Partnerships may
be a starting point for an assessment of the core elements that need to be consistent
across SMRs. However, it is recognised that a range of options may be appropriate
to best reflect the unique circumstances and stakeholders that will contribute to the
development of regional marine plans for distinctive areas and their coastal and
marine resources.
Do we wish to create Scottish Marine Regions?
There are various questions throughout this document on which we would welcome
your views. The first question below seeks to check that stakeholders remain
committed to the marine region concept. The Marine (Scotland) Act does not require
that Scottish Marine Regions are created or that regional marine plans are produced.
Nonetheless, Scottish Ministers continue to see value in identifying marine regions
and producing regional plans around the Scottish coast. Ministers believe it will take
time to create a Marine Planning Partnership for every region and to bring all the
4
regions up to full functionality. A five year time period to get to a complete and
functioning set of regions and Marine Planning Partnerships is not unreasonable.
The Marine (Scotland) Act does require the Scottish Ministers to prepare and adopt
a National Marine Plan. The National Marine Plan will be used to plan for all of the
Scottish marine area before SMRs come into existence or if they do not come into
existence. We would therefore like your views on whether SMRs should be created
or not.
Question 1. Do you believe that Scottish Marine Regions should be created for the
purposes of regional marine planning?
Yes
No
4.
EXISTING SPATIAL DESIGNATIONS IN THE MARINE AREA AROUND
SCOTLAND
There are many examples of dividing the seas into regions; one of the most notable
early examples is the shipping forecast regions originally created to reflect the
identification of an area by sea users.
There are a range of EU/international and UK regionalisation schemes established
for a variety of purposes.
4.1
Fisheries management areas
The EU, through the Common Fisheries Policy, manages marine fish stocks on the
basis of marine areas. These marine areas have been developed using, as their
basis, groupings of rectangles established by the International Council for the
Exploration of the Sea (ICES) for the recording of fisheries statistics (Fig1). For
example, the North Sea is usually defined as Areas IVa, IVb and IVc. The Areas are
further sub-divided into EU fisheries statistics areas.
5
Fig 1: ICES Areas used for the management of marine fisheries in the North Atlantic
6
4.2
OSPAR Regions
The OSPAR Convention is the international mechanism by which Governments of
the western coasts and catchments of Europe, together with the EU, cooperate to
protect the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic.
To assist in this task, OSPAR has defined five regions (Fig2) broadly on
environmental grounds e.g. Region I covers Arctic waters, and Region V the deep
Atlantic areas. The UK Marine Area is within two regions, Region II (Greater North
Sea) and Region III (Celtic Seas).
The OSPAR Regions extend well beyond the 200 nm limit. The EU will use them as
the geographical units in the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework
Directive.
However, it is clear that neither the ICES squares nor the OSPAR regions are at the
appropriate scale, or provide the necessary discrimination of area that is needed for
SMRs.
Fig 2 OSPAR Regions
7
4.3
Joint Nature Conservation Committee Marine Nature Conservation
Review
The Marine Nature Conservation Review (MNCR) was initiated to provide a
comprehensive baseline of information on marine habitats and species, to aid
coastal zone and sea-use management and to contribute to the identification of
areas of marine natural heritage importance throughout Great Britain.
In developing the framework for the MNCR, the Joint Nature Conservation
Committee (JNCC) recognised the links between coastal units with particular
physical characteristics and the associated ecological units. Physical units provided
the non-living variables for the creation of recognisable ecological (ecosystem) units.
The MNCR was an ambitious project which sought to describe the seabed
ecosystems around Great Britain, with particular, emphasis on coastal habitats and
communities. The project reported a wide range of physical and chemical conditions
around our shores and these combine to create a wide range of habitats for marine
life.
The location of Great Britain in the centre of the northern temperate region means
that our fauna contains both northern and more southern characteristics, giving a
marked north-south axis of change, supplemented by particularly rich fauna in the
south and west.
This great variability in the living and non-living characteristics of the seabed led the
MNCR to develop a set of geographical divisions (sectors) of the coastal areas that
reflected the differences in environments and associated fauna and flora. The
sectors are shown at Fig 3.
8
Fig 3 Marine Nature Conservation Review, Sector Boundaries
Note: The offshore extensions of areas are arbitrary, as are the directions taken by
the boundary lines in offshore waters.
4.4
UK Marine Monitoring and Assessment Strategy
One of the functions of the UK Marine Monitoring and Assessment Strategy
(UKMMAS) and its associated groups is to prepare periodic reviews of the status of
the marine environment in UK waters. The Charting Progress 2 report has recently
been published and can be found at: http://chartingprogress.defra.gov.uk/
In presenting a wide variety of marine data, UKMMAS found it helpful to develop
ways in which to regionalise the information. The data came to them from a range of
different processes, such as Water Framework Directive monitoring up to 3nm or
1nm beyond the national baseline2, and data to meet obligations under OSPAR.
The resultant regionalisation is complex, as it has to take account of a range of
underlying data structures, and also gives considerable emphasis to offshore areas
(in preparation for MSFD reporting).
The Scottish sea areas illustrated in Fig 4 are being used for the State of Scotland’s
Seas Atlas which will present much of the base data which will underpin the
preparation of the national and regional marine plans.
2
Depending on whether the data came from Scotland (to 3nm) or from the rest of the UK (to 1nm).
9
Fig 4 Sea Areas Used for Clean and Safe Seas Monitoring and Assessment
4.5
Coastal sub divisions within Scotland
Within Scotland there has been interest in developing regional arrangements around
Scotland’s coast for particular purposes.
4.5.1 Water Framework Directive - Area Advisory Groups
Responding to the EU Water Framework Directive led to the creation of the River
Basin Management Planning Area Advisory Groups (AAGs). These groups represent
the sub-basin districts of the Scotland and Solway – Tweed river basin districts and
were drawn up primarily on the basis of river catchments. However, the Water
Framework Directive extends out to 3nm from baseline and therefore quite a
significant portion of coastal and marine areas are included within the River Basin
Management Plans (RBMP). As a result, coastal interests are represented on the
AAGs. The Solway–Tweed is a cross-border river basin district and therefore
includes both Scottish and English water bodies.
The AAGs were involved in producing the RBMPs for the river basin districts and the
Area Management Plan for each sub-basin district.
Those organisations
represented on the AAGs play a fundamental role in implementing the measures
required to restore the water environment to good status, each delivering what they
can according to their own remits and responsibilities.
10
Fig 5 Advisory Group Boundaries and Surface Waters
11
4.5.2 Inshore Fisheries Groups
Inshore Fisheries Groups (IFGs) are non-statutory industry-led groups whose
principal purpose is to develop management plans for the inshore fisheries in their
area, providing local operators and other fishing interests a strong voice in both local
fisheries management and wider marine developments. There are currently 6 pilot
IFGs, out of an originally envisaged 12 areas, in which co-ordinators are making
progress in developing plans. They may recommend a range of local management
measures for their area to the Scottish Government, some of which may also require
support through additional legislation.
Each IFG comprises an Executive Committee of fishermen and their representatives
with a demonstrable commercial fishing interest to operate in the area. An Advisory
Group of experts supports the Executive Committee, with its membership drawn
from Marine Scotland Science, Marine Scotland Compliance, SNH, conservation
interests such as RSPB and other interested bodies.
The original IFG areas were selected using natural geographical demarcations
based primarily on habitat distribution.
An early lessons and economic benefits review of the 6 pilot IFGs has recently been
completed and the Marine Scotland Inshore Fisheries Team is currently considering
its recommendations which includes a proposal for 6 or 7 IFGs across Scotland. See
also section 5 of this paper.
12
Fig 6 Inshore Fisheries Groups
13
4.5.3 Local Coastal Partnerships and Regional Policy Areas
Local Coastal Partnerships (LCPs) grew out of a SNH initiative to promote integrated
coastal management in the 1990s. The ‘Focus on Firths’ programme resulted in the
creation of 5 LCPs, based on the major Scottish Firths. Subsequently, 2 further
LCPs have been formed and currently there are 7 Partnerships that cover much of
the Scottish coastline - the Forth Estuary Forum, the Firth of Clyde Forum, the Moray
Firth Partnership, the Solway Firth Partnership, the Tay Estuary Forum, the East
Grampian Coastal Partnership and CoastHebrides in the Western Isles.
The Scottish Coastal Forum (SCF) was formed in 1996 to encourage debate at the
national level on coastal issues. Its members, including the LCPs, advise Marine
Scotland, from an operational perspective, on the development of policy relating to
marine planning and licensing within a sustainable marine environment. The Forum
also provides a network for circulating information and best practice in coastal
management amongst its own varied membership and the wider ICZM community.
In May 2006, the SCF proposed to the Advisory Group on Marine & Coastal Strategy
(AGMACS) that a series of Regional Policy Statements should be developed for the
Scottish coast, which would provide guidance for the use, development,
management and protection of coastal resources.
To achieve integrated coastal management through the preparation of Regional
Policy Statements, the SCF considered that the Scottish coast should be divided into
11 Regional Policy Areas (RPAs). In the majority of cases, the RPAs would be
based on existing Local Coastal Partnership but 3 new areas would be created
around Shetland, Orkney and the west and north Highland coastline to ensure
comprehensive coverage of proposals.
14
Fig 7 Regional policy areas identified by the Scottish Coastal Forum 2006
15
4.6
Preparatory work for SMRs undertaken by Scottish Coastal Forum
As part of the ongoing process to identify SMRs, Marine Scotland commissioned the
Scottish Coastal Forum to carry out a short project in 2009 to establish external
stakeholders’ views on the criteria by which SMR boundaries could be defined.
A workshop for over 70 external stakeholders was held in Edinburgh on 13 March
2009. It was designed to allow interested parties from a range of different
perspectives an opportunity to consider the criteria by which SMRs might eventually
be defined. A comprehensive report on the workshop can be found at:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/17888/0092157.pdf
In advance of the event, delegates were asked to identify the top 5 criteria that they
felt should be considered for defining Scottish Marine Region boundaries. Over 130
separate criteria were listed and a pre-event analysis broke down these criteria into 7
categories:
Criteria
Physical characteristics/ecosystems
Utilisation of existing models & units
Planning for specifically marine areas & features
Appropriate scale
Secondary legislation issues
Data availability
Other suggestions
Percentage of initial
response
19%
14%
13%
10%
7%
2%
35%
The workshop considered these pre-identified criteria as a preliminary to further
discussions in facilitated workgroups to see if they had broad support or if
adjustments needed to be made. Delegates were also able to consider an
illustration of existing administrative divisions on a graphical data layer map of
Scotland.
At the workshop, when asked to rank the key criteria in order of importance, physical
characteristics/ecosystem drivers retained its position at the top of the list of criteria,
narrowly beating existing administrative models into second place. All other potential
criteria received considerably less support from delegates.
However, stakeholders recognised that SMRs should be of a size that is efficient for
administration purposes but also offers local communities a sense of affinity and
ownership of issues. In effect, they recommended that some account should be
taken of “community affinity”.
The general view was that there should be between 5-10 SMRs, with 12 being the
absolute maximum. This number would ensure that regions would be large enough
to deal with strategic issues related to marine planning and achieving sustainable
economic development, but would not be too small to get bogged down in highly
specialised and localised issues.
16
The workshop sessions also considered the nature of the landward and seaward
limit of the SMRs.
4.7
Seaward Limits of Scottish Marine Regions
The Marine (Scotland) Act provides that the Mean High Water Spring tide mark
(MHWS) forms the landward limit of any marine plan whether National or regional.
In contrast, there are a number of considerations around how far out into the sea
from MHWS is appropriate for a regional plan.
While there is some experience of regional marine planning around Scotland through
the experience of the Scottish Sustainable Marine Environmental Initiative (SSMEI)
pilot projects, creating the first statutory marine plan for a region will be a large and
novel task for most Marine Planning Partnerships. The marine region boundaries
will be set out in secondary legislation and it is a requirement of the Act that a
regional marine plan is produced for the whole of the marine region.
The usual basis for any seaward measurement is the national baseline (as illustrated
in Figure 8). For example, the Area Advisory Groups for River Basin Management
Planning within the Water Framework Directive’s purposes extend out to a ‘baseline
plus 3nm’ boundary and IFGs extend to ‘baseline plus 6nm’.
The baseline measurement is different to MHWS, though the practical difference
between the two is limited in the east and north coasts and in the Northern Isles.
Ministers propose to use baseline for the east and north coasts and the Northern
Isles. On the west coast, baselines and MHWS can be very different. The use of a
baseline boundary would mean regions on the west coast planning for very large
areas of sea. The longer term vision must be that marine regions will plan out to a
baseline plus 3nm or 6nm. The key question here is whether this is a sensible
approach for a first regional plan.
On the west coast there are extensive ‘internal waters’ which would be caught by a
‘baseline plus 3nm’ approach. Figure 8 shows the 3 and 6 nm limits from baselines
around Scotland, which illustrate the expanse of sea captured within internal waters.
An alternative approach would be to use ‘MHWS plus 3nm or 6nm’ within the internal
waters from Mull of Kintyre to Cape Wrath. This would allow all the relevant
activities to be captured in the plan while making the scale of the project
manageable. Figure 8 also shows the 3 and 6nm limits from MHWS.
In the short run, an approach based on MHWS may be appropriate for regions on
the west coast that may incorporate large areas of internal waters. Most marine
activities occur within 3nm of the coast so this is a crucial area for planning and at
the minimum the seaward limit should be 3nm from the mean high water mark. An
alternative seaward limit would be 6nm.
17
Question 2. Do you agree that for the first regional plans for those regions with
large amounts of internal seas, the seaward boundary should be measured from
MHWS? For subsequent plans a baseline boundary should be used.
Yes
No
Question 3. The seaward limit of Scottish Marine Region boundaries within the
west coast internal waters should be from MHWS to – (tick your preferred choice).
3nm
6nm
18
Fig 8 Scotland’s Sea Limits – Baseline versus MHWS
19
4.8
Strategic Sea Areas
The MHWS approach set out above may not deliver integrated management of
important water bodies such as the Pentland Firth, the Minches and the mouth of the
Clyde. While regional marine planning evolves Ministers propose to ensure the
integrated management of key marine areas is achieved by designating the Pentland
Firth, the Minches and the mouth of the Clyde as Strategic Sea Areas. During the
initial development of regional marine planning, the National Marine Plan will provide
the basis of integrated management of these areas. Over time, as west coast
regions become familiar with marine planning and grow out to a baseline plus 3nm or
6nm approach, this will not be a problem.
Question 4. At least initially, planning for Strategic Sea Areas not included within a
Scottish Marine Region should be undertaken within the National Marine Plan.
Yes
No
Comments:
5.
POSSIBLE
REGIONS
APPROACHES
TO
IDENTIFYING
SCOTTISH
MARINE
Existing regional arrangements and the output of the Scottish Coastal Forum
workshop, identify 3 basic criteria – physical/ecosystems characteristics, existing
administrative models and community affinity – as possible bases for Scottish Marine
Regions. The perfect identikit for a region would be one with an identifiable physical/
ecosystem base that broadly matched the existing administrative boundaries in the
area, was large enough to make a real difference while operating efficiently but was
at a scale that generated community engagement. Clearly it will be difficult if not
impossible to fully deliver this vision and any regionalisation will have to reflect tradeoffs between these issues.
5.1
Physical/ecosystem characteristics
A wide range of principles have been used in developing different regionalisation
structures for marine waters around Scotland. In general, the underlying purpose for
the regionalisation has strongly influenced the outcome. From a purely
environmental point of view, there is considerable attraction in an ecosystem
approach that uses aspects of the physical characteristics of our coastal waters as
its base. A discussion of the feasibility of pursuing a pure ecosystem approach is set
out at Annex A.
The broad conclusion from this discussion is that the pure ecosystem concept is not
practical as a tool to define meaningful regions around the Scottish coast.
Ecosystems can be defined on a very wide range of geographical scales depending
20
on the organisms or ecosystem functions that are of primary interest. Any system
developing SMRs for planning purposes will have a geographic scale of hundreds of
kilometres and will necessarily have to take account of sets of ecosystems which lie
wholly within the region boundary, which overlap the regional boundary, and those
which operate on much larger scales and need coordination at national or
international scale.
One approach that might deliver some of the benefits of an ecosystem approach is
to focus on physical characteristics. In this instance ‘physical characteristic’ is taken
to mean ’broad geographical characteristics‘. This approach suggests that regions
would be defined by such large scale geographical features such as Island groups
and large Firths. While the broad geography approach is not the same as the
ecosystem approach, it is likely that the broad geographical features of an inshore
area will generate a reasonably coherent set of ecosystems around that
geographical feature. For example, we might reasonably expect that the physical
characteristics of a Firth (e.g. tides, rates of flow, rates of sedimentation, etc.) would
generate, if not one ecosystem, a related subset of ecosystems within the envelope
set by the conditions of the Firth. Similar logic might apply to islands. From that
perspective, the ‘physical characteristics’ approach incorporates elements of an
ecosystems approach.
This approach would suggest a set of regions comprising the individual island
groupings: Shetland, Orkney and Western Isles and the major Firths: the Solway,
Clyde, Moray and Forth.
The outer boundaries of the Firths are already defined using existing divisions based
on physical characteristics, such as headland to headland or river to river so such an
approach would be straightforward for the Firth of Clyde, the Moray Firth, and the
Firth of Forth.
The Solway Firth, due to its cross border nature, would require to be split as the
southern half is part of the English inshore region and is legislated for under the UK
Marine and Coastal Access Act. Opportunities for cross-border co-ordination have
been agreed with the UK Government. The agreement can be viewed at:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/seamanagement/international/jointmps
However, this approach leaves the area outwith the major physical features
undifferentiated and treated as single regions e.g. on the west coast from Mull of
Kintyre to Cape Wrath, on the east coast from above the Forth to Rattray Head and
the north coast. While the north coast might operate as a single region, the east
and west coasts seem rather too large to be considered as regions in their own right.
This set of possibilities is illustrated in Figure 11 in the Options section.
21
5.2
Existing Administrative Models
There are 4 main coastal management units around the Scottish coast, Area
Advisory Groups for the purpose of the Water Framework Directive, the Inshore
Fisheries Groups for the management of inshore fisheries and Local Authorities
which act as planning authorities on land, and also for aquaculture developments in
coastal waters. In some areas, ports and harbour authorities exercise control over
development within their boundaries. The variety of divisions of the Scottish marine
area can be viewed on the data layer map which can be viewed by visiting
www.scotland.gov.uk/marinescotland then clicking on ‘Marine Planning and
Legislation’ and then selecting ‘Regional Planning’.
5.2.1 Inshore Fisheries Groups
There are currently 6 pilot IFGs in Scotland (see Fig 6); out of an originally
envisaged 12 IFGs. A recent early review of IFGs has suggested that there could be
6 or 7 IFGs covering Scotland. The membership comprises owners, skippers and
crew of Scottish or UK registered fishing vessels. The IFG areas were selected
using natural geographical demarcations based primarily on habitat distribution.
5.2.2 Area Advisory Groups
Area Advisory Groups’ (AAGs) were set up to advise SEPA of water management
pressures and impacts, raise the profile of river basin management planning and
assist with the production of the river basin district and area management plans (see
Fig 5). Those organisations represented on the AAGs also play a fundamental role
in implementing the measures required to restore Scotland’s water environment to
good status. The AAGs are made up of representatives of various stakeholders from
both the freshwater and coastal environments, including local authorities.
Figure 9 shows AAG boundaries matched against IFG boundaries. Given that they
were set up to achieve different aims for different stakeholders, there is little or no
matching of boundaries.
22
Fig 9. Data layers showing boundaries of SEPA’s Area Advisory Groups (out to
3nm) and the Inshore Fisheries Groups (out to 6nm)
23
5.2.3 Local Authorities
Twenty-five local authorities have a marine or coastal area within their boundaries.
The marine area ranges from extensive lengths of coastline e.g. Highland Council to
West Lothian which has a very limited coastline. Other local authorities such as
Falkirk or Stirling have frontage onto the Forth where it is still tidal but has a
markedly different character to the areas of the inner or outer estuary. As a
consequence, some authorities are more involved in marine matters than others.
Fig 10 shows those local authorities with coastal interests. The number of local
authorities and the large variation in the size of their coastal and marine areas
mitigate against using local authorities boundaries as the sole basis for regions.
Nonetheless, Local Authority boundaries might provide an appropriate way of
splitting some larger regions.
24
Figure 10 Local Authorities with a coastline
25
5.4.4 Local Coastal Partnerships
The 7 Local Coastal Partnerships (LCPs) were created to deliver Integrated Coastal
Zone Management (ICZM) initiatives by engaging with their membership of diverse
marine and community interests (see Fig 7). The LCPs deliver area-specific coastal
projects including community education and awareness-raising, surveys of
waterborne traffic, identification of data gaps for marine biodiversity and the
production of management strategies for promoting the sustainable development of
their area. The LCPs have clear-cut boundaries along the coast although their
landward limits are flexible and may depend on the nature of the coastal
management issue under consideration.
The Firth of Clyde Forum has been instrumental in facilitating the Clyde SSMEI pilot
project for marine planning.
Choosing any one existing administrative solution creates an immediate mismatch
with other administrative boundaries.
Question 5. What are the practical implications of any of the marine boundaries not
being aligned?
Comments:
Question 6. Should we align all marine boundaries?
Yes
No
Comments:
5.4.5 Community Affinity
The SCF workshop concluded that SMRs, as well as matching physical
characteristics/ecosystems and being of a size to deliver efficient administration,
should also offer local communities a sense of affinity and ownership of issues.
There is clearly a balance to be struck in identifying the right physical and
geographic scale and ensuring that some stakeholder groups do not feel lost within
their boundaries.
26
6.
OPTIONS FOR DEFINING THE BOUNDARIES OF SMRs
Chapter 5 sets out the possible approaches that are available to create a set of
options on which we would welcome your views. The 3 options are
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
6.1
Physical Characteristics
Existing Administrative Models
Physical characteristics with the west coast split into 2 regions
and the east coast boundaries varied
OPTION 1
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Under the initial version of this option there would be 10 SMRs as illustrated in Fig
11.
The regions would be:
•
•
•
•
•
Solway Firth
Clyde
West Coast from Mull of Kintyre
to Cape Wrath (Argyll, Minches
and Malin)
Western Isles
North Coast
•
•
•
•
•
Orkney
Shetland and the Fair Isles
Moray Firth
East Coast (from Fife Ness to
Rattray Head)
Forth
Advantages
The advantage of using physical characteristics to create SMRs is that there are
distinct islands and firths that are readily identified by stakeholders. Firths are a
focal point for local communities and, as with Island communities, some have
particularly strong cultural associations that link communities over a wide geographic
area.
The management of a Firth or island within one Scottish Marine Region would
ensure one marine plan for the whole of that area, bringing benefits in the
management of the promotion of industry and sustainable development and
protecting the marine environment.
The proposed SMRs also tend to match in broad terms the existing administrative
boundaries of the Inshore Fisheries Groups (IFGs) which have been partially
delineated according to physical and biological features.
All of the major Firths already have Coastal Partnerships. The Firth of Clyde and
Shetland Isles have hosted marine planning pilot schemes since 2006. In some
locations, existing experience of partnership working could be built on and existing
infrastructures developed to help deliver marine planning mechanisms.
27
Disadvantages
Although it might be desirable to focus on Firths as the basis for SMRs, it is
recognised that some water bodies are too big to have an effective community
element. It may well be the case that the east and west coast regions are too big to
be effective regions
Question 7. Do you support option 1?
Yes
No
Comments:
28
Figure 11
Scottish Marine Regions defined by physical characteristics
29
6.2
OPTION 2
EXISTING ADMINISTRATIVE MODELS
Under this option, SMRs could be created which would coincide with either the
boundaries of the IFGs or the AAGs.
If IFG boundaries were the preferred choice then there would be 12 SMRs as
illustrated in FIG 6. However, this choice should be taken in the context that these
boundaries may be subject to change depending on the outcome of the review of
IFGs as detailed in section 4.5.1.
If the AAGs boundaries were preferred, this would result in 10 SMRs as illustrated in
Fig 5.
Advantages
Both groups have stakeholders actively involved in planning for inshore fisheries or
for area management plans and are thus experienced in working together, albeit not
in marine planning. There is some overlap between the two groups of stakeholders
but it is not extensive due to the different nature of the roles. The local authorities,
particularly with the AAGs, provide a supportive role within a structure that is led by
SEPA.
One advantage of using an existing set of administrative boundaries is that it will
avoid creating another new set of boundaries. The boundaries of IFGs are based on
geographical demarcations based primarily on habitat distribution while the AAGs
are based on water catchment boundaries. Both, therefore, have a basis in sound
science and an element of ecosystem management though the IFG boundaries are
explicitly marine based.
Disadvantages
The IFGs and AAGs do not have identical boundaries and extend out to sea to
different distances. Choosing one set of administrative boundaries creates an
immediate mismatch with the other set of boundaries unless boundaries were
amended.
The boundaries of the IFGs are not that dissimilar to the boundaries discussed as
reflecting physical characteristics. It, therefore, appears too simplistic to choose
these models just because they already exist. The SMRs are being devised for a
specific reason, i.e. marine planning at the regional level, and there would need to be
a diverse range of stakeholders within the Marine Planning Partnerships to ensure
that all interests are taken into account in the planning process. Neither the IFGs nor
the AAGs encompass all those who would need to be involved and their functions
are different. Additionally, some of the terrestrial stakeholders in AAGs my have little
or no interest in marine planning.
Stakeholders from both these groups should be represented in the Marine Planning
Partnerships but neither existing group provides a ready-made and comprehensive
solution to the question of appropriate representation so that all appropriate interests
are taken into account during the marine planning process.
30
Question 8. Do you support option 2?
Yes
No
If you support option 2, do you wish SMR boundaries to be aligned with the
boundaries established for:
IFG
or
AAG
What do you believe are the benefits of option 2 over 1 and 3?
OPTION 3
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS WITH THE WEST COAST SPLIT
INTO 2 REGIONS AND THE EAST COAST BOUNDARIES VARIED
This option is similar to option 1 but would seek to address one of the possible
weaknesses of Option 1; the very large regions on the east and west coasts. Option
2 would create an additional region on the west coast, broadly covering the Mull of
Kintyre to the Sound of Mull. The east coast would be split into three Regions,
covering the Moray Firth, the eastern seaboard from Rattray Head to a point in
Angus and the south east of Scotland from Angus to Berwickshire incorporating both
the Firths of Tay and Forth. These regions would be created either using IFG, AAG
or Local Authority boundaries, depending which was considered most appropriate.
In this option there would be 11 SMRs as illustrated in Fig 12.
The regions would be as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Solway Firth
Clyde
West Coast from Mull of Kintyre to X
West Coast from X to Cape Wrath
Western Isles
North Coast
Orkney
Shetland and the Fair Isles
Moray Firth
East Coast from Rattray Head to Y
Y to Forth
The boundary X in the West Coast and Y in the East Coast could be aligned with the
existing IFG, AAG or local authority boundaries. In the East Coast, the IFG and local
authority boundaries are very similar and could be modified to overlap. These
options are illustrated in Fig 12.
31
Advantages/Disadvantages
The advantages of this option are the same as option 1 above and the option is
designed to address the major disadvantage of option 1 i.e. the large regions
on the east and west coasts.
Question 9. Do you support option 3?
Yes
No
Do you have any views on how the west coast should be split? (tick your preferred
choice)
X should align with IFG
X should align with AAG
X should align with LA
Do you have any views on how the east coast should be split? (tick your preferred
choice)
Y should align with AAG
Y should align with IFG/LA
Any other comments?
32
Figure 12
Physical characteristics and East/West coast divisions
33
7.
EQUALITY ASSESSMENT
The Scottish Government must ensure that any policies that it implements do not
unduly discriminate against persons defined by age, gender, disability, sexual
orientation, race and religion and belief. We would welcome your views on whether
the creation of SMRs will unduly impact on any of these groups mentioned.
Question 10. Do you believe that the creation of Scottish Marine Regions
discriminates disproportionately between persons defined by age, disability, sexual
orientation, gender, race and religion and belief?
Yes
No
Question 11. If you answered yes to Question 10 in what way do you believe that
the creation of Scottish Marine Regions is discriminatory?
8.
NEXT STAGES
After the analysis of responses Statutory Instruments defining the boundaries of
each marine region will be drafted and laid before the Scottish Parliament.
Once the SMRs are created, the Marine Planning Partnerships will become fully
operational and start the function of creating regional marine plans. Regional marine
plans can not be created until after the National Marine Plan is fully functional, which
is expected to be during 2012.
The Financial Memorandum to the Marine (Scotland) Bill based its estimates on the
assumption that there would be 2 plans starting in each of 2012-13, 2013-14, 201415, 2015-16, 2016-17, although this is not absolute.
Those estimates remain valid, though in a period of public expenditure restraint we
are required to assess what savings can be made.
34
9.
HOW TO RESPOND
Responding to this consultation
You are invited to respond to this consultation by 18 February 2011. Please note
that no extensions to this date can be permitted.
Response method
Responses can be sent by email, by post or by online electronic response form:
Email: marineconsultation@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
Post: Scottish Marine Regions Consultation
Scottish Government
Marine Planning and Policy Division
Area 1-A South
Victoria Quay
Edinburgh
EH6 6QQ
On line: www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations
If you have any enquiries please send them to
marineconsultation@scotland.gsi.gov.uk or call Sarah Smith on 0131 244 0028
If responding by email or post, please clearly indicate in your response which
questions or parts of the consultation you are responding to.
You do not have to respond to all questions in this consultation.
Feel free to answer just a few questions relating only to your interests or expertise.
Please also provide:
Your name
Your contact details
The organisation that you represent (if applicable)
The main area of interest you identify with (one only):
Nature conservation
Fisheries
Industry/transport
Aquaculture
Local authority
Community group
Public sector/Regulatory body
Local Coastal Partnership
Other (please state)
This will assist with our analysis of responses received.
35
Handling your response
We need to know how you wish your response to be handled and, in particular,
whether you are happy for your response to be made public. Please complete and
return the Respondent Information Form enclosed in this consultation paper as this
will ensure that we treat your response appropriately. If you ask for your response
not to be published we will regard it as confidential, and we will treat it accordingly.
All respondents should be aware that the Scottish Government is subject to the
provisions of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and would therefore
have to consider any request made to it under the Act for information relating to
responses made to this consultation exercise.
Response checklist
If responding by email or post, please ensure you include:
Your name, address and e-mail
The organisation you represent
The main area of interest you identify with (as above)
Identification of the part(s) and question(s) you are responding to
Respondent information form
Consultation availability
Hard copies of this consultation document can be requested from:
Sarah Smith
Marine Scotland
Marine Planning and Policy
Area 1-A South
Victoria Quay
Edinburgh EH6 6QQ
Email: marineconsultation@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
Tel: 0131 244 0028
This consultation can be viewed online at www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations
The Scottish Government now has an email alert system for consultations (SEconsult:
http://Scotland.gov.uk/consultations/seconsult.aspx. This system allows stakeholder
individuals and organisations to register and receive a weekly email containing
details of all new consultations (including web link). SEconsult complements, but in
no way replaces Scottish Government distribution lists and is designed to allow
stakeholders to keep up to date with all Scottish Government consultation activity,
and therefore be alerted at the earliest opportunity to those of most interest. We
would encourage you to register.
36
Next steps in the process
Where respondents have given permission for their response to be made public (see
the enclosed Respondent Information Form), these will be made available to the
public in the Scottish Government Library and on the Scottish Government
consultation web pages in late May 2011. We will check all responses where
agreement to publish has been given for any potentially defamatory material before
lodging them in the library or placing them on the website. You can make
arrangements to view responses by contacting the Scottish Government Library on
0131 244 4565. Responses can be copied and sent to you, but a charge may be
made for this service.
What happens next?
Following the closing date on 18 February 2011, all responses will be analysed and
considered along with any other available evidence to help us reach a decision on a
marine legislative framework.
Comments and complaints
If you have any comments about how this consultation exercise has been conducted,
please send them to Sarah Smith at the above address.
37
38
10.
LIST OF CONSULTATION QUESTIONS
Q1. Do you believe that Scottish Marine Regions should be created for the
purposes of regional marine planning?
Yes
No
Q2. Do you agree that for the first regional plans for those regions with large
amounts of internal seas, the seaward boundary should be measured from
MHWS? For subsequent plans a baseline boundary should be used.
Yes
No
Q3. The seaward limit of the Scottish Marine Regions boundaries within the
west coast internal waters should be from MHWS to - (tick your preferred
choice).
3nm
6nm
Q4. At least initially, planning for Strategic Sea Areas not included within a
Scottish Marine Region should be undertaken within the National Marine Plan.
Yes
No
Comments
Q5. What are the practical implications of any of the marine boundaries not
being aligned?
Comments
Q6. Should we align all marine boundaries?
Yes
No
Comments
Q7
Yes
Do you support option 1?
No
Comments
39
Q8.
Yes
Do you support option 2?
No
If you support option 2 do you wish SMR boundaries to be aligned with the
boundaries established for:
IFG
or
AAG
What do you believe are the benefits of option 2 over 1 and 3?
Comments
Q9.
Yes
Do you support option 3?
No
Do you have any views on how the west coast should be split?(tick your preferred
choice)
X should align with IFG
X should align with AAG
X should align with LA
Do you have any views on how the east coast should be split? (tick your preferred
choice)
Y should align with AAG
Y should align with IFG/LA
Comments
Q10. Do you believe that the creation of Scottish Marine Regions discriminates
disproportionately between persons defined by age, disability, sexual
orientation, gender, race and religion and belief?
Yes
No
Q11. If you answered yes to Question 10 in what way do you believe that the
creation of Scottish Marine Regions is discriminatory?
Comments
40
Annex A
The possibility of an ecosystem approach to the definition of Scottish Marine
Regions for marine planning purposes.
As part of the process towards the definition of boundaries for Scottish Marine
Regions, Marine Scotland asked Marine Scotland Science to undertake a brief
review of the opportunities to develop a system of boundaries from first principles,
emphasising ecological factors rather than existing administrative or other divisions.
Marine Scotland Science adopted two approaches to the question:
a)
b)
Could the concept of ecosystems be used in this way, particularly bearing
in mind the spatial context of coastal planning?
What work has been carried out in Scottish coastal areas that
approximates to the development of an ecosystem-base set of boundaries.
The concept of ecosystems
A recent report prepared for the Countryside Council for Wales contains a discussion
of the ecosystems and ecosystem functioning, which is very relevant to the question
of SMRs. The text below draws heavily on this report:
What is an Ecosystem?
A commonly quoted definition of the term “ecosystem” is:
‘a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their nonliving environment interacting as a functional unit’ (CBD, 2000).
As a concept, an ecosystem can be at one of many spatial scales from the whole
planet, through a regional sea down to a single rockpool and as such its
understanding and functioning also have to be considered at those levels (Likens,
1992). Hence, the above definition then requires a spatial dimension, for example
Likens (1992) regards it as a 'spatially explicit' unit in which all the abiotic and biotic
processes occur within its boundaries.
There is no widely accepted agreement by ecologists regarding the absolute size of
that ‘spatially explicit’ unit and while an ecosystem can be small or large, the links
between systems will influence its size. For example, while such a spatially-defined
unit is more easily defined and discussed in relation to the land and terrestrial
systems, this is not the case with unbounded aquatic marine systems and large
freshwater systems in which the flow of materials and organisms is easier between
different parts.
An ecosystem can be regarded as the net result of a set of sequential and interlinked
components and processes in which the physico-chemical factors play a
fundamental role as forcing variables. The ecosystem consists of a set of structural
elements or components and then the pathways and transfer of material or energy
41
flux between them create the rate processes which constitute ecosystem functioning.
These somewhat abstract concepts are introduced here as:
a) ‘environment-biology' processes whereby the physico-chemical system and
regimes create the fundamental niche for colonisation by the biological
community;
b) ‘biology-biology’ processes whereby the resultant biological community is
modified by biological processes;
c) and ‘biology-environment’ processes whereby the biota may modify and
influence the physico-chemical system (the environmental regime);
d) finally, human influences then have the capability to modify each of these
physical, chemical and biological systems.
What is meant by the structure of an ecosystem?
At its most basic, the structure of an ecosystem relates to the quantity and
composition of the components in it at any one time. In more detail, ecosystem
structure may be defined as
‘the composition of the biological community including species, numbers, biomass,
life history and distribution in space of populations; the quantity and distribution of
the abiotic (non-living) materials such as nutrients, water, etc; the range, or gradient,
of conditions of existence such as temperature, light etc.’ (Odum, 1962; Mathews et
al., 1982).
Using a modification of the approach suggested by Mathews et al. (1982),
ecosystem structure can be separated into two sets of components - the abiotic
attributes which encompass the environmental physico-chemical characteristics,
such as substratum type which will influence benthic communities, and the biotic
attributes, which relate to the presence of species. Within this classification, certain
attributes may fall into both the biotic and abiotic categories e.g. saltmarsh contains
biological species (biotic) but also has a structural element with respect to coastal
protection or forming a physical presence which encourages the development of
other biota (abiotic). As a second example, a mussel bed is a biogenic reef
composed of a species but it also creates hard substrata for other species to
colonise.
The structure of a community or ecosystem can be determined and represented as
one or more of 3 types of attribute (McLusky & Elliott, 2004). Firstly, and most
commonly this is using a taxonomic approach in which all species are identified
and the patterns between those species are determined. Secondly, size and/or
biomass spectra may be determined in which the identities of organisms are less
important than their role in the system as determined by their size or individual
biomass. Finally, the latter idea is expanded by determining functional groups
which combine species with similar ecological characteristics (e.g. Elliott & Dewailly,
1995). Hooper et al. (2002) discuss functional diversity compared to species
42
diversity in ecosystems and suggests the former brings together species showing
either similar responses to the environmental changes or having similar effects on
the major ecosystem processes. Raffaelli et al. (2002) emphasised the value of the
functional group approach in understanding ecosystems given the difficulty of
determining precisely the feeding behaviour of individual species. The term
functional group is synonymous with functional type, guild, ecotrophic guild,
ecological group and is most useful in determining the overall role of organisms
irrespective of their taxonomic names, for example whether an organism is a
bioengineer which modifies sediments or a major carnivore in depleting prey (Elliott
& Dewailly, 1995).
What is meant by the functioning of an ecosystem?
At its most basic, the term 'functioning of ecosystems' describes the rate processes
within and between the biological structural components, i.e. changes in any
component with time and thus it may be regarded as the sum total of all the
processes which occur within the system. In particular, this involves the transfer and
cycling of energy and materials such as organic matter and nutrients, for example
feeding and predator-prey relationships or the remineralisation of materials by the
decomposers. The functioning of ecosystems incorporates the processes within
individual populations such as recruitment, growth and mortality which combine to
give the population dynamics of each species.
The functioning of ecosystems can be described as the merging of bottom-up and
top-down processes. While there are many texts that describe marine food webs in
detail, it is necessary here to indicate the main features of the ecosystem. For the
bottom-up processes, the physico-chemical system will create a niche (the space or
place in the ecosystem occupied by an organism) and influence the ability of
individuals or species to occupy the niche, to acquire energy and to produce
food/biomass. The latter biological production, both as gametes or body (somatic)
material, will then increase the population size and biomass of a species and
eventually provide material to the higher predators or the decomposer food chain.
The upper levels of the system, the top predators which will include the groups of
high conservation importance such as wading birds, fishes or marine mammals, will
then exert population controls on the lower levels; hence the latter are regarded as
top-down processes. In addition, any higher level influence on a lower level can also
be viewed as a top-down control, e.g. suspension feeding by filter feeders will effect
a control on phytoplankton, as will grazing by limpets on seaweed (Kaiser et al.,
2005).
Ecosystem functioning can therefore be seen to describe the major or higher level
processes that occur within an ecosystem; where these lead to benefits for Man,
such as the provision of food, then they are termed ‘ecosystem services’. In more
detail, ecosystem functioning may be described as:
‘the rate of biological flow through the system, that is, the rates of production and the
rates of respiration of the populations and community; the rate of material and
nutrient cycling, that is the biogeochemical cycles; biological or ecological regulation
43
and for example, in photoperiodism) and regulation of environment by organisms
(as, for example, in nitrogen fixation by microorganisms)’ (Odum, 1962; Mathews et
al., 1982).
As with ecosystem structure, ecosystem functioning can be separated into two sets
of components - the 'biotic' attributes, which relate to biological identities and the
'abiotic' attributes that encompass environmental physico-chemical parameters, such
as erosion-deposition cycles of differing substrata that will influence benthic
communities. The biotic attributes include and are influenced by the population and
community dynamics, for example changes in the presence of species, due to
differing tolerances to changes in environmental variables, hence modifying
community structure, and predator-prey relationships and recruitment rates. This
hierarchical and complex system is the essence of the need for the Ecosystem
Approach since the biotic and abiotic factors are closely interrelated and the
functional interplay in a system is extremely complex.
What is meant by an ecosystem process?
As with ecosystem functioning, the term ‘ecosystem process’ implies an action and
the incorporation of a rate change, i.e. a feature of the system that changes with
time, and as such the terms may be regarded as being synonymous. Such
processes will include any interactions that link organisms with each other and with
their environment, for example, predation, mutualism, primary production, and
nutrient cycling. An ecosystem function will normally be influenced by many
processes occurring within the environment. For example, primary productivity is an
important ecosystem function that is affected by processes determining light regime,
nutrient supply and temperature as well as others. In general, the environmental
processes will create and modify an organism’s environment and habitat and thereby
many of the biological processes relate to an organism’s ability to utilise the available
biological, physical and chemical resources; this leads to competition between
organisms, within species (intra-specific/intra-population) and between species
(interspecific/ inter-population) for available resources such as food, nutrients, light,
space and reproductive partners/products. These concepts are discussed further
below.
Relationships between Ecosystem Structure and Functioning
It is necessary to provide and expand upon the basic concepts whereby the
structural and functional components interlink through a set of processes. These
processes relate to the following inter-relationships between the environmental and
biotic attributes:
• ‘environment-biology’ processes whereby the physico-chemical system (e.g.
salinity, temperature, sediment, geology, hydrography, etc) creates the
fundamental niche for colonisation by organisms; for example, reduced water
currents will allow the development of muddy substrata which will be
colonised by deposit-feeding organisms; biogeographic regimes and physico-
44
chemical oceanographic processes and gradients will thus create the
conditions likely to be colonised by organisms;
• ‘biology-biology’ processes whereby the resultant community is modified by
biological processes and interactions such as predator-prey relationships,
competition, and recruitment processes such as propagule supply and
settlement; for example the mud-dwelling invertebrates then compete with
each other for space but also provide food for wading birds and fishes;
• and ‘biology-environment’ processes whereby the biology may influence the
physicochemical system and the import and export of materials into and out of
the system; for example, benthic invertebrates bioturbate and alter the
sedimentary regime leading to chemical changes, or the oxygen demand
created by a large number of organisms occurring together.
The sum total of these interlinked processes therefore creates the observed
ecosystem. In turn, anthropogenic change and distortions to the natural system
caused by human uses are then superimposed on this set of fundamental
relationships.
Over what geographical scales does marine functioning operate?
The highly dynamic nature of the marine environment, in contrast to terrestrial
systems and to a greater extent than in freshwater systems, dictates that some
ecosystem processes may operate over large spatial scales; other processes may
operate over very localised spatial scales. Management must therefore be
considered at the scale most appropriate to the process. The particular scale may
be dependent on the mobility of the organism or its dispersal stages; for example,
cetaceans may operate at an NE Atlantic level whereas a population of broodproducing amphipods will operate within a small sedimentary area. The largest
scale is ecoregions or biogeographical regions such as Boreal, Atlantic, Lusitanian,
etc. whereby the dominant structuring force for invertebrates and marine plants, may
be their temperature tolerances.
Ecosystems can operate at a number of spatial scales hence the difficulty faced by
ecologists in identifying the spatial extent of an ecosystem and appropriate spatial
management units. In Australia, one approach to categorising the various scales of
an ecosystem which emphasises the geological or sedimentary control has been
suggested by Butler et al. (2001):
•
•
•
•
Provinces: based upon broad-scale geological patterns and 1000s of km in
extent e.g. continental blocks and abyssal basins.
Biomes: nested within provinces and at a regional (100s of km) scale, which
show broad-scale geomorphology, e.g. coast, continental shelf, slope and
abyssal plain.
Geomorphic units: within each Biome at the local (10s of km) scale, are areas
of similar seabed geomorphology and which usually have distinct biotas, e.g.
seamounts, canyons, rocky banks, and coral reefs.
Primary biotopes: are soft, hard, and mixed substratum-based units, together
with their associated biological communities also at a local scale (10s of km).
45
•
•
Secondary biotopes: are substructural units within primary biotopes that are
distinguished by the types of physical or biological substrata within soft, hard,
or mixed types at the site (<10km) scale, e.g. limestone, granites, shelly
sands, or seagrasses.
Biological facies: are site (<10km) scale units defined by a biological indicator,
such as a species of seagrass, or group of hard corals, sponges, or other
macrofauna linked to the facies.
In the Netherlands, De Jong (2000) suggested a similar approach which emphasises
the spatial scale as being the primary factor, with higher scaled eco levels including
a number of lower scaled eco levels and differing elements, as below: .
Table: Suggested scales of an ecosystem (De Jong, 2000)
The ecosystem management unit may be a geographical unit with recognisable
biological characteristics, for example a coastal sediment cell, a seagrass bed, a
saltmarsh, or an estuary, or it may be a larger interlinked area such as a regional
sea. The management of geographical areas such as estuaries which include many
different habitats may have to be through the management of those individual
habitats. However, it is emphasised that management will have to reflect the
different spatial scales, i.e. while the management of a seagrass bed can
concentrate on the immediate area, thus suggesting a relatively self-contained
ecosystem, the management of an SPA for overwintering migratory birds has to take
account of events at areas outside the SPA used by the birds, for example for
breeding (Stillman et al., 2005). Similarly, other highly mobile organisms such as the
fishes and cetaceans will use one ecosystem for part of the time and then another
for the remainder, a feature particularly important in the open sea - estuarine freshwater continuum (Elliott & Hemingway, 2002). Similarly, species will rely on
different marine areas at different times, for example, rays may feed on subtidal
sandbanks but then migrate outwards to other areas where they rest or reproduce.
While coastal, semi-enclosed and fringing habitats may be suitable management
units, the open marine system has less defined boundaries and thus the influences
by organisms and on organisms require to be considered over greater scales
(Hawkins, 2004). For example, open coastal and marine systems may be influenced
by the import and exchange of physicochemical materials and by the exchange of
reproductive products and recruits between populations over large scales (Giller et
al., 2004). In particular, organic material produced at one site may be used at large
46
distances from that site (Hawkins, 2004). Because of this, there is the need to
consider the appropriate scales for both ecosystem assessment and ecosystembased management.
Conclusion
Ecosystems can be defined on a very wide range of geographical scales depending
in the organisms or ecosystem functions that are of primary interest. Any system of
SMRs for planning purposes will probably comprise units in the scale of tens to
hundreds of Km and will necessarily have to take account of ecological units and
functions which are fully encompassed within the region boundary, and those which
operate on much larger scales and need coordination at national or international
scale.
Reference:
M. Elliott, D. Burdon and K.L. Hemingway, 2008. Marine ecosystem structure,
functioning, health and management and potential approaches to marine ecosystem
recovery: a synthesis of current understanding. Report to CCW Institute of Estuarine
and Coastal Studies University of Hull. Report No. YBB092-F-2006, 122 pp.
47
© Crown copyright 2010
This document is also available on the Scottish Government website:
www.scotland.gov.uk
APS Group Scotland
DPPAS10766 (11/10)
ISBN: 978-0-7559-9671-1
w w w .
s
c o t
l
a
n
d
.
g o v .
u
k