What's Included in the Management Scheme

In response to an initiative from the ports in the Solent area, Hampshire County Council became the facilitating authority for the Solent EMS management scheme. A project officer was employed to facilitate the production of the management scheme through close working with the management group, cluster groups and advisory group.

The Solent EMS Management Scheme is concerned with promoting the sustainable use of a living, working coast. This is to ensure that the valuable natural resources of the area are there for the enjoyment and prosperity of both present and future generations. European marine sites have been selected with many activities already taking place and it is recognised that these are normally compatible with the conservation interest at their current levels. It is not the aim to exclude human activities from European marine sites, but rather to ensure that they are undertaken in ways that do not threaten the nature conservation interest. The SEMS Management Scheme has been written to ensure that the Relevant Authorities comply with the requirements of the Habitats Regulations. Activities with the potential to affect the site have been reviewed, and the effectiveness of current management measures for safeguarding the site have been assessed. This has resulted in the establishment of a framework for the effective management of the Solent EMS so that the conservation objectives are met.

Review of Site Management

In common with most other coastal and marine areas the Solent has a long history of human use ranging from industrial ports adjacent to large urban populations to recreational pursuits on quiet unspoilt stretches of the coast. The SEMS Management Scheme assessed all types of human use to determine whether impacts are occurring on the site. The Management Scheme indicates that nearly all activities may cause an impact on the site i.e. they cause one or more of the operations to which the site features are highly vulnerable and they can occur in the vicinity of those interest features. However many are plans and projects or have other systems in place; therefore, only a few of these activities have been identified as 'key risk areas'. The Management Scheme did not identify any evidence to suggest that any activities were currently causing damage or deterioration to the site, so a number of management considerations have been proposed. It is stressed that the potential for any of the activities in the 'key risk area' category to have an impact on a feature does not imply that it will have an impact. At present no evidence has been submitted to suggest that any of the activities are causing damage or deterioration to the site. The 'key risk areas' indicate where the greatest risks are most likely to occur. Further action beyond simply categorising an activity as a 'key risk area' will be required in order to investigate any potential link between deterioration or disturbance of a habitat or species and an activity. Therefore, until there is a clearer understanding of whether impacts are occurring these are only highlighted as potential risks.

English Nature will regularly monitor the site to establish whether the conservation objectives are being met; this will be on a rolling six-year timetable. As part of the monitoring process, where they have relevant information to report, each Relevant Authority will be expected to report to the Management Group on their implementation of the scheme.

Where there is reasonable evidence to indicate that a deterioration in the condition of a particular SEMS feature or species exists then further investigation will be required to ascertain the cause of deterioration. Discussions may take place between the appropriate Relevant Authority (ies) and English Nature to agree cause and effect between the activity and the deterioration and agree the course of action to be taken. Alternatively, where a number of Relevant Authorities are involved it may be appropriate for them to work co-operatively to address the problem and therefore they may set up a group from within a cluster or between clusters and other relevant organisations and interested parties may be invited: this would be a Topic Group.

The following table summarises the assessment of each activity and highlights the activities in the 'key risk area' category, further information is contained in the inventory in appendix 1 to the Management Scheme. The Management Considerations section outlines the key actions arising from the assessment of the activities.

The 'key risk areas' identified in the assessment can be grouped into categories as follows:

Access (access, airborne sports, angling, educational field trips, land based recreation).
Bait collection.
Commercial shipping.
Dredging (beneficial disposal of dredging, capital dredging, disposal of dredged spoil, foreshore recharge, maintenance dredging).
Fishing (shellfish collection, shellfish dredging, shellfish laying, fishing, mariculture).
Water Sports (anchoring, boat repair/maintenance, moorings (new), moorings (ongoing), navigation, other water sports, recreational boating - power, recreational boating - sail, slipway cleaning and maintenance).
Management Considerations for each activity are listed in the Management Scheme.

Topic Groups

A Topic Group should include all those with an interest in an issue which may include members of the Management Group, Strategic Advisory Group (or its successor) and any other legitimate stakeholders, the Relevant Authorities will decide which dditional organisations to invite. Topic Groups may be formed in the future where there is reasonable evidence to indicate that an activity included in the 'key risk area' category is causing damage, deterioration or disturbance to a feature of interest and where it is relevant to a number of Relevant Authorities (in some instances it may be that a single Relevant Authority can deal with the issue through direct discussions with other Relevant Authorities or English Nature). The need for a Topic Group will be agreed by the appropriate Relevant Authorities and reported to the Management Group. Topic Groups will not have any power to enforce other Relevant Authorities to take action. Additionally some Relevant Authorities may voluntarily form Topic Groups in order to consider whether evidence of impacts / decline in site condition exists or might easily be obtained. Such 'Voluntary Topic Groups' might also consider whether any existing evidence of damage to features is sufficient for them to consider changes to the current management of activities. 'Voluntary Topic Groups' will confine their investigations and recommendations to activities occurring within their own areas of jurisdiction.

Bait Collection Topic Group

A Topic Group was set up during the production of the SEMS Management Scheme to consider bait collection and if necessary develop methods to minimise potential impacts. The Topic Group members included:

Chichester Harbour Conservancy (representing Solent harbour authorities),
Fareham Borough Council (representing Solent local authorities)
English Nature
The Crown Estate
National Federation of Sea Anglers (NFSA)
Solent Area Bait Diggers Association (SABDA)
Hampshire Police Marine Unit
Three representatives of the angling and bait collecting community.

The Topic Group produced a draft code of conduct which was discussed at five public meetings with anglers and bait collectors. The public meetings provided some good feedback and comments on the code and also helped create a shared sense of responsibility for the problems being faced and allayed fears and rumours that bait collection would be banned across the Solent. A final code was produced at the end of March 2003 and a leaflet and accompanying posters were widely distributed to tackleshops, angling clubs and through local angling press.

Key Principles

To help ensure that all Relevant Authorities are working to the same goal, a number of key principles were established which underlie the production of the Management Scheme for the SEMS.

Principle 1 - Favourable Condition

The SEMS has qualified for designation against the background of current use and there is a working assumption that the features for which the site is designated are in favourable condition from the time of designation. The Management Scheme and the monitoring to be carried out by 2006 will test this assumption.

Principle 2 - Sustainable Development

The aim of the Management Scheme is not to exclude human activities from SEMS, but rather to ensure that they are undertaken in ways which do not threaten the nature conservation interest, and wherever possible, in ways that support it. The Management Scheme should ensure a balance of social, economic and environmental objectives when considering the management of activities within the Solent.

Principle 3 - Regulatory Use of Bye-laws

New bye-laws may be used as a regulatory mechanism for the SEMS. These should only be introduced into the Management Scheme when all other options have been considered and it is the only effective solution.

Principle 4 - Links to Existing Management and Other Plans/Initiatives

Where appropriate the SEMS Management Scheme will directly utilise management actions from other existing management plans. The actions identified in the Management Scheme will therefore serve to inform and support existing management effects rather than duplicate them. The management measures identified in other plans will remain the mechanism through which these are to be implemented.

Principle 5 - Onus of Proof

The wording for principle 5 is based on the following three-stage process:

Stage 1 - Evidence must be established that a site feature is in deterioration. This evidence must be scientific, credible and unambiguous but it need not originate from English Nature itself. It is acknowledged that other Relevant Authorities will be undertaking monitoring regimes and if their programmes flag up something of interest, it would be expected that they would present it to English Nature for further comment and verification.
Stage 2 - English Nature, as the Government's body with responsibility for nature conservation, must believe that a site feature is in deterioration. If the evidence to support this view has come from their own monitoring - or if it has come from an external, authoritative source - EN should act as a conduit to demonstrate this fact to the Relevant Authority with responsibility for the management of the activity suspected of having detrimental effect.
Stage 3 - English Nature and the Relevant Authority (ies) involved should work together to establish any cause and effect relationship. From this, changes to management actions may be made.

Consideration of this process had lead to the following definition of onus of proof: If through their own site condition monitoring programme or that of another Relevant Authority, English Nature can demonstrate that they have reasonable evidence to indicate that a deterioration in the condition of a SEMS feature or species exists, then English Nature and the Relevant Authorities concerned will work together to identify any cause and effect relationship.

Principle 6 - Management Actions

Where reasonable evidence is found to clearly demonstrate the cause and effect relationship the Relevant Authorities involved will instigate changes to the management of the activity, which will be within a RAs statutory obligations and will provide a solution that is in accordance with the Regulations and be fair, balanced, proportionate and appropriate to the site and the activity. Where the cause and effect relationship is uncertain but deterioration in the condition is still significant the Relevant Authorities should consider any potential changes in management practices in light of the precautionary principle* and the cost effectiveness of proposed measures in preventing damage. However, the precautionary principle should not be used to prevent existing management actions continuing where there is no evidence of real risk of deterioration or significant disturbance to site features.

*All forms of environmental risk should be tested against the precautionary principle which means that where there are real risks to the site, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures that are likely to be cost effective in preventing such damage. It does not however imply that the suggested cause of such damage must be eradicated unless proved to be harmless and it cannot be used as a licence to invent hypothetical consequences. Moreover, it is important, when considering whether information available is sufficient, to take account of the associated balance of likely costs, including environmental costs, and benefits." (DETR & the Welsh Office, 1998).