Talk delivered by Abigail McQuatters-Gollop (Plymouth University) at the British Ecological Society- Marine Biological Society Brexit and the Marine Environment meeting. London, 31 Oct 2017
Brexit and the marine environment - key priorities for biodiversity
1. Brexit and the marine environment -
key priorities
A biodiversity perspective
Dr Abigail McQuatters-Gollop
1@anaturalstate
2. @anaturalstate
UK vision for marine environment
UK high level marine objectives, Defra (2009)
Clean, healthy, safe, productive and
biologically diverse oceans and seas
4. @anaturalstate
• Ecosystem and regional seas
approach
– Ecologically meaningful
– Transboundary thinking and action
• Implemented by OSPAR and UK
• Habitats and species focus
• Biodiversity and foodwebs =
unique
MSFD
5. @anaturalstate
MSFD delivery – big UK investment!
• Indicators -> environmental
targets (GES)
Science underpins all
elements
6. @anaturalstate
MSFD significant achievement
• First ever target-based
assessment of UK seas
– Globally rare, cutting
edge
– Climate change and
anthro pressures
• Used to inform mgmt.
measures:
– MPAs
– Fishing practices
– Nutrient regulation
– Invasive spp vectors
7. @anaturalstate
Biodiversity risks if no MSFD?
Dissolution
of ecosystem
protection
Reduced
investment
in evidence
provision
Loss of
integrative
management
approach
Loss of UK
influence in
science-
policy
Inability to
implement
ecosystem
approach in UK
waters
8. @anaturalstate
Dissolution of ecosystem protection
• Reduced ambition for biodiversity targets
– Priority on economics (fisheries, development,
etc)
• Proactive biodiversity management or
catastrophe–response?
• Lack of enforcement – consequences for not
delivering?
9. @anaturalstate
Reduced investment in evidence
provision
• Diminished investment in biodiversity monitoring
– Currently EU impetus
– Reduced ability to detect change
• Lack of strategy and investment in indicators and
targets
– Reduced capacity to link state-pressure changes
– Inability to determine cause of change
• Failure to provide robust evidence for decision
making
10. @anaturalstate
Loss of integrative approach
• Pressures not managed holistically
– Economics vs conservation
– Integrative effects of pressures
• Unrealistic to manage UK waters in isolation
– Mobile species
– Transboundary management measures
• Wicked problems require transboundary
collaboration
11. @anaturalstate
Loss of UK influence in science-policy
• UK leading supporting research and
implementation of MSFD biodiversity
elements – good for UK
• UK role and influence in OSPAR and ICES post-
Brexit?
• UK lacks key science and policy skills
• Across-border working essential for
progressing delivery of MSFD and ecosystem
approach
12. @anaturalstate
Inability to deliver ecosystem approach
• Each step
integral to
holistic
management
• How to balance
commercial
interests v
biodiversity
protection?
13. @anaturalstate
Not black or white….
• Best case scenario: MSFD through OSPAR
– Consequences for non-delivery?
• Medium case scenario: leave MSFD but
management of UK habitats and species in
isolation
– Lack of transboundary consideration
• Worst case scenario: leave MSFD, stop
proactively managing species and habitats
– Catastrophe/disaster mobilisation
14. @anaturalstate
Opportunities
• UK could increase ambition for biodiversity protection
and ecosystem approach to marine management
• UK could increase investment in science and
monitoring leading to robust advice
• UK could get deal with Europe for freedom of
movement, maintaining our research presence
• UK could lead the way with conservation management
(e.g. MPAs in our OSTs; microplastic reduction)
Opportunities (like this meeting) for UK marine
community to influence Brexit outcome
15. @anaturalstate
Priorities for marine biodiversity
• Consequences for non-delivery of ecosystem
protection
• Provision of robust evidence for decision making -
> continued investment in monitoring and
applied research
• Maintenance of UK influence in international
science-policy
• Remain in the OSPAR process -> transboundary
integrative approach
• Maintenance of ecosystem approach to
managing marine habitats and species
Transboundary science and collab is key
Globally, largest implementation of ecosystem approach
Considerable investment to make these indicators and targets scientifically robust and meaningful
Explain figure - how MSFD works
Monitoring is KEY
UK targets and indicators being used for OSPAR implementation (in most cases) which is great for UK
OSPAR example already published
Big progress since CP2
Will these lead to reduced ambition for biodiversity targets?
Will we be in the situation where we aren’t proactively managing but just responding to catastrophe?
European Commission won’t be enforcing EU law – so no consequences for not delivering environmental protection or sustainable use objectives
Pressures not managed holistically leading to conflicts where winner could be based on economics (fishing and habitats, for example)
Ecosystem approach is trans-boundary and just managing UK waters in isolation is not scientifically realistic. Mobile species such as marine mammals and commercially-important fish stocks are trans-boundary.
UK presence must be maintained at ICES
Management measures also must be considered trans-boundary as pressures in one country can impact state of marine environment in others, eutrophication example.
Our biggest risk is that we will stop managing our marine waters with an ecosystem approach and lose our holistic management strategy that we’ve developed through working with EU and the MSFD. The danger is that habitats and species conservation will lose out to economic interests, impacting UK marine biodiversity.
There are a few different MSFD scenarios that could happen post-Brexit
A lot of uncertainty but it’s meetings like this that created the opportunity for us, the marine community, to try to steer the Brexit outcome.