Developing conservation objectives © L. Campbell

Natura conservation objectives Each Natura site requires a set of conservation objectives These have 2 main functions: –Act as basis for HRA of plans/projects –Steer development of site conservation measures

Development of Scottish COs Historically COs for Scottish SPAs and SACs were pitched in a generic manner Currently moving towards a SMARTer formulation Aim is to clarify the meaning of CO statements, removing ambiguity

The marine SPAs need to ensure that any anthropogenic activity does not:  Deliberately kill or injure significant numbers of marine birds (directly or indirectly)  Prevent use of significant parts of the site by marine birds (disturbance / displacement)  Significantly damage habitats that support the marine birds  Significantly reduce the prey base for marine birds

Draft COs The Reg 33 / MOPs circulated for this workshop contain current draft COs for each dSPA The COs will be finalised after the formal consultation when the site is classified

Worked example – Moray Firth Each set of SPA COs has a purpose statement. The purpose of this proposed SPA is to enable the application of special conservation measures concerning the marine habitat of Annex 1 and regularly occurring migratory birds, to ensure their survival and reproduction in their area of distribution. This pSPA has been specifically selected to protect: –foraging habitat used by shags breeding at nearby colony SPAs; and –areas used by wintering divers, grebes and sea ducks.

Conservation Objective 1 1. To avoid deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying species or significant disturbance to the qualifying species, thus ensuring that the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes an appropriate contribution to achieving the aims of the Birds Directive for each of the qualifying species; and

What are the aims of the Birds Directive? Article 2. “Member States shall take the requisite measures to maintain the population of the species referred to in Article 1 at a level which corresponds in particular to ecological, scientific and cultural requirements, while taking account of economic and recreational requirements, or to adapt the population of these species to that level.” This is the Birds Directive equivalent of FCS.

Conservation Objective 2 2. To ensure for the qualifying species that, subject to natural change, the following attributes are maintained in the long-term. 2a. The species as a viable component of the site. 2b. There is no significant disturbance of the species or significant reduction in ability of the species to utilise important parts of the site. 2c. There should be no significant reduction in extent, distribution or quality of habitats supporting the qualifying species and their prey.

Supplementary advice Additional text to clarify the meaning of the high-level statements Part of the formal conservation objectives Consistent across all dSPAs, but can differ in detail from site to site depending on the nature of the qualifying species and their supporting habitats

Interpretation The COs are meant to be SMART (or at least SMARTer than previous approaches) Should allow all stakeholders to understand how they are applied We know they currently fall short of the mark Consultation (both informal and formal) should indicate where further clarity is needed

Clarification of key terms Significant disturbance Significant reduction in use of site Significant reduction in quality of habitat Natural change Long term The species as a viable component of the site

What do we mean by “significant” Link to Article 2 – undermine Birds Directive equivalent FCS But we believe FCS applies at biogeographic scale in EC EC draft Art 6 guidance “the general objective of achieving FCS ….. needs to be translated into site-level conservation objectives. It is important to distinguish between conservation objectives of individual sites and the overall objective of achieving FCS.”

Site contribution to impact on FCS So we need to explore the contributions that site-level killing or disturbance or reduction in use / habitat might make towards an impact on wider FCS. Such an assessment will inevitably be an expert judgement, but requires a robust rationale. e.g. site-level disturbance should not prevent bird usage of more than xx% of the site and this exclusion should not last more that yy years. e.g. predicted incidental mortality of birds due to a project should not exceed xx individuals.

Natural change Link to a SNCB paper currently being developed by Natural England. This sets out the concepts of “natural variability” and “natural shifts” in the status of a species and habitats It distinguishes these from anthropogenic sources of change

Long term The period within which the condition of feature attributes should be restored from any perturbations. This is taken to be equivalent to one generation length and this differs from species to species.

The species as a viable component of the site We need greater clarity here Some would argue that this could be defined by setting a numerical target for each species, linked to baseline levels But marine bird populations are difficult to monitor and numbers are likely to vary considerably from year to year. So what would a realistic target be?

Population targets We propose that where a marine SPA acts as a foraging area for birds from a nearby breeding colony then a link could be made to population targets at these colonies i.e. the marine SPA provides foraging habitat and prey sufficient to support a target population of xx birds at colony Y

How are COs used in HRAs? COs are fundamental to the HRA process –In screening for LSE –In checking in AA for no adverse affect on site integrity If a plan or project undermines any of the SPAs COs then it will be difficult to conclude NAESI and the plan or project should be refused (subject to IROPI)

Zonal assessments Multi-species sites with species-specific hotspots and seasonal occurrences In principle all qualifying species are protected year round in the SPA In practice HRAs will focus on species-specific impacts in relevant zones and seasons Species distributions and zones may change over time so HRAs for substantive projects are likely to require new survey information

Key question for participants Have we made these COs clearer? Do you understand what they are saying? Do you think they are appropriately pitched?