What's Included in the Management Scheme

The First SEMS Management Scheme

The first SEMS MS was produced in 2004 and was written to ensure that the Relevant Authorities comply with the requirements of the Habitats Regulations. This resulted in the establishment of a framework for the effective management of the SEMS so that the conservation objectives are met. The scheme recognised that there was no evidence submitted to suggest that any activitie3.0 ABPmer update to SEMS Management Scheme

The original MS was produced in 2004 by the Management Group (MG) of RAs in consultation with the Strategic Stakeholder Group (SSG) to ensure that the European marine site (EMS) is managed in line with the Habitats and Birds Directives and prevent damage or deterioration to the habitats and species for which it is designated.

To bring the SEMS MS up to date, this report has reviewed new information available since the original SEMS MS, as well as comments from the RAs. It can be considered as an addendum to the original document. The key objectives of this review process are summarised as follows:

To ensure the conservation objectives of the SEMS continue to be met;
To ensure that changes in site usage are updated; and
To ensure that improvements in knowledge and information are taken into account (including condition of the habitats and species for which the site is designated).

The work has comprised undertaking a review of the current environment, in the context of climate change. This has included undertaking an appraisal of climate change projects and programmes relevant to the SEMS area. In summary, the effects of climate change will have implications when planning for future sea defences and in turn for the management of the SEMS. Spatial planning and integration of the range of plans and strategies concerning the coast, in particular the North Solent and Isle of Wight Shoreline Management Plans (SMP) and ensuing work of the Regional Habitat Creation Programme, will be of fundamental importance for ensuring that a consistent approach is applied to protecting and enhancing the SEMS, whilst creating new areas for biodiversity that will survive in a changing climate.

Any updates and changes in legislation and associated strategies, plans and projects relevant to the SEMS area have been reviewed. One key change to the legislation is the 2009 Habitats Regulations Amendments which have extended the provisions of Special Nature Conservation Orders (SNCOs) from land to water, providing an additional mechanism for restricting certain marine operations within European sites. All the legislative drivers and the application of associated strategies, plans and projects will continue to contribute to the management of the SEMS. This falls in line with one of the principles of the SEMS MS to integrate the sustainable management of the site wherever possible with both existing and future plans and initiatives (statutory and non-statutory) to avoid duplication of effort. The management measures identified in other plans and initiatives will remain the mechanisms through which these are implemented.

Natural England’s draft condition assessments have identified that the ‘seagrass’ attribute of the Solent Maritime SAC sub-feature, ‘intertidal muddy sand communities’ is in unfavourable condition. This unfavourable condition has been maintained in the Western Solent since the baseline status was established and has shown a decline at Chichester and Langstone Harbours and Southampton Water. The reasons attributed to this change in trend are green algae pollution (from eutrophication), shellfish dredging and bait digging. The only other SEMS qualifying interest features with confirmed unfavourable condition status are Shelduck and Sanderling at Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA (Natural England, 2010c).

There are two other Solent Maritime SAC features that have been identified to date as unfavourable, although the draft condition assessments for these features are incomplete. These are ‘Atlantic salt meadow’ and ‘Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand’. Based on available evidence, the reasons for this draft unfavourable judgement have been considered to be saltmarsh erosion and coastal squeeze mostly due to coastal defences along the coast, and water pollution (and excessive algal growth) from agriculture and discharges.

Localised changes in Special Site of Scientific Interest (SSSI) condition comprising the SEMS have been reported within the annual SEMS monitoring reports. Overall, where deterioration in site condition has occurred, this has been primarily attributed to coastal squeeze, diffuse pollution (resulting in eutrophication and green algae pollution), bait digging and public access/disturbance issues.

A key piece of work that has informed the SEMS MS review is Defra’s EMS risk review. Defra commissioned Natural England to undertake a strategic review of risks from all ongoing activities within EMS, in order to identify and prioritise actions required to ensure site features are maintained or restored to favourable condition. Activities were classified as those which could pose a high, medium, low, or no risk to EMS features. Activities which could pose a high risk were those which have been prioritised by Natural England as potentially requiring additional management measures to avoid deterioration and disturbance in line with the obligations under the Habitats Directive. High risk activities that have been identified to be an issue in the SEMS are bait digging, clam dredging and recreational activities causing disturbance. Activities classified as a medium or low risk were considered to have existing management systems in place and/or less potential to pose harm to site features.

New and/or changes to existing activities occurring within the SEMS were identified by undertaking a review of SEMS annual monitoring reports and interviewing each of the RAs. New activities that have been highlighted as potentially damaging the SEMS and have been monitored intermittently are kite surfing and hovercrafting. The main impacts that are likely to result from these recreational activities are noise and visual disturbance to birds and physical disturbance to habitats.

As part of the review, members of the Strategic Stakeholder Group (SSG) were invited to a meeting on 17 January 2011. The emerging findings of the work were presented and members were invited to raise any questions and comments.

ABPmer update to SEMS Management Scheme

To ensure the conservation objectives of the SEMS continue to be met;
To ensure that changes in site usage are updated; and
To ensure that improvements in knowledge and information are taken into account (including condition of the habitats and species for which the site is designated).

There are two other Solent Maritime SAC features that have been identified to date as unfavourable, although the draft condition assessments for these features are incomplete. These are ‘Atlantic salt meadow’ and Salicornia and other 'annuals colonising mud and sand’. Based on available evidence, the reasons for this draft unfavourable judgement have been considered to be saltmarsh erosion and coastal squeeze mostly due to coastal defences along the coast, and water pollution (and excessive algal growth) from agriculture and discharges.

The information that has been reviewed and presented in this update report, in particular Natural England’s draft condition assessments and Defra’s EMS risk review, indicates that features of the SEMS have deteriorated since the sites were originally designated and that certain high risk activities need further management consideration as part of the SEMS MS. Opportunities for updating the existing SEMS MS tables and bringing them in line with Defra’s strategic EMS risk review are explored in detail as part of Deliverable 2 for the SEMS MS review. Additional management considerations or delivery mechanisms that might be required to manage key high risk activities and ensure that the conservation objectives of the SEMS are met are also discussed and presented. It is important to note, however, that recommendations have been made based on available evidence and ultimately Natural England will need to advise as to whether these are sufficient to ensure that the SEMS MS continues to meet its legislative requirements to protect the SEMS.
s were causing damage or deterioration to the site. 'Key risk areas' indicated where the greatest risks were most likely to occur. Further action beyond simply categorising an activity as a 'key risk area' was required in order to investigate any potential link between deterioration or disturbance of a habitat or species and an activity. A framework was therefore put in place for continued mechanism through annual monitoring over a 6 year rolling timetable to establish whether the conservation objectives were being met. The framework also included a mechanism to set-up topic groups for “key risk areas” which may be causing damage to the site.

Since 2004 the Solent Forum has facilitated the monitoring of SEMS and collated the reports into an annual monitoring report. In May 2009 the 5th Annual Monitoring Report was produced. The Solent Forum established a Bait Digging Topic Group to manage this “key risk area.

2011 Update

To ensure the conservation objectives of the SEMS continue to be met;
To ensure that changes in site usage are updated; and
To ensure that improvements in knowledge and information are taken into account (including condition of the habitats and species for which the site is designated).

Any updates and changes in legislation and associated strategies, plans and projects relevant to the SEMS area have been reviewed.One key change to the legislation is the 2009 Habitats Regulations Amendments which have extended the provisions of Special Nature Conservation Orders (SNCOs) from land to water, providing an additional mechanism for restricting certain marine operations within European sites. All the legislative drivers and the application of associated strategies, plans and projects will continue to contribute to the management of the SEMS. This falls in line with one of the principles of the SEMS MS to integrate the sustainable management of the site wherever possible with both existing and future plans and initiatives (statutory and non-statutory) to avoid duplication of effort. The management measures identified in other plans and initiatives will remain the mechanisms through which these are implemented.

Natural England’s draft condition assessments have identified that the ‘seagrass’ attribute of the Solent Maritime SAC sub-feature, ‘intertidal muddy sand communities’ is in unfavourable condition.This unfavourable condition has been maintained in the Western Solent since the baseline status was established and has shown a decline at Chichester and Langstone Harbours and Southampton Water. The reasons attributed to this change in trend are green algae pollution (from eutrophication), shellfish dredging and bait digging. The only other SEMS qualifying interest features with confirmed unfavourable condition status are Shelduck and Sanderling at Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA (Natural England, 2010c).

There are two other Solent Maritime SAC features that have been identified to date as unfavourable, although the draft condition assessments for these features are incomplete. These are ‘Atlantic salt meadow’ and ‘Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand’.Based on available evidence, the reasons for this draft unfavourable judgement have been considered to be saltmarsh erosion and coastal squeeze mostly due to coastal defences along the coast, and water pollution (and excessive algal growth) from agriculture and discharges.

A key piece of work that has informed the SEMS MS review is Defra’s EMS risk review. Defra commissioned Natural England to undertake a strategic review of risks from all ongoing activities within EMS, in order to identify and prioritise actions required to ensure site features are maintained or restored to favourable condition.; Activities were classified as those which could pose a high, medium, low, or no risk to EMS features. Activities which could pose a high risk were those which have been prioritised by Natural England as potentially requiring additional management measures to avoid deterioration and disturbance in line with the obligations under the Habitats Directive. High risk activities that have been identified to be an issue in the SEMS are bait digging, clam dredging and recreational activities causing disturbance. Activities classified as a medium or low risk were considered to have existing management systems in place and/or less potential to pose harm to site features.

Key Principles of the Management Scheme

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).