Assessing the cumulative environmental effects of marine renewable energy developments: Establishing common ground

Abstract

Assessing and managing the cumulative impacts of human activities on the environment remains a major challenge to sustainable development. This challenge is highlighted by the worldwide expansion of marine renewable energy developments (MREDs) in areas already subject to multiple activities and climate change. Cumulative effects assessments in theory provide decision makers with adequate information about how the environment will respond to the incremental effects of licensed activities and are a legal requirement in many nations. In practise, however, such assessments are beset by uncertainties resulting in substantial delays during the licensing process that reduce MRED investor confidence and limit progress towards meeting climate change targets. In light of these targets and ambitions to manage the marine environment sustainably, reducing the uncertainty surrounding MRED effects and cumulative effects assessment are timely and vital. This review investigates the origins and evolution of cumulative effects assessment to identify why the multitude of approaches and pertinent research have emerged, and discusses key considerations and challenges relevant to assessing the cumulative effects of MREDs and other activities on ecosystems. The review recommends a shift away from the current reliance on disparate environmental impact assessments and limited strategic environmental assessments, and a move towards establishing a common system of coordinated data and research relative to ecologically meaningful areas, focussed on the needs of decision makers tasked with protecting and conserving marine ecosystems and services.

Cumulative effects assessment: proof of concept marine mammals

“…Another example involves the difference between stressor-led versus receptor-led CEA (Willsteed et al, 2017). A key criticism of EIA-led CEA is the stressor-led approach, which assesses how single stressors arising from a proposed development together with the same stressor arising from proximal developments or activities impact a valued receptor (Squires & Dubé, 2013;Dubé et al, 2013;Duinker et al, 2012).…”

“…To appraise how additional or novel stressors from one or many activities will impact a receptor requires sufficiently broad horizons that include consideration of the array of stresses that human activities impose on the receptor (Duinker & Greig, 2006;Duinker et al, 2012). Receptors, rather than stressors, therefore, should be the focal point of CEA and guide the identification of the various stressors to include in an assessment of how an activity or activities will impact receptors (Willsteed et al, 2017). In chapter 2 we describe the scope and purpose of the CEA presented in this report and how this relates to some of the issues mentioned above.…”

“…The first review identified an effective set of principles for practical implementation of marine CEA (Judd et al, 2015). The second review by (Willsteed et al, 2017) aimed to establish why such a variety of CEA approaches (e.g. in terms of the level of detail, stressor-versus receptor lead, see above) exists today and how this is problematic for the global ambition to implement ecosystem approach management of marine waters.…”

“…• FP7 ODEMM (Options for Delivering Ecosystem-based Marine Management) where an Ecological (or environmental) risk assessment (ERA) was developed (see (Breen et al, 2012;Knights et al, 2013;Piet et al, 2015;2017) • H2020 AQUACROSS (Knowledge, Assessment, and Management for AQUAtic Biodiversity and…”

O tiering de informações e decisões ambientais e a estrutura de planejamento de uso e ocupação do solo

“…Como discutido na seção 3.4.5, ficou evidente, pela literatura levantada, que existe relação entre o conceito de tiering e o de impactos cumulativos (ATLIN; GIBSON, 2017;HANSEN, 2014;WILLSTEED et al, 2017). De fato, parece lógico que, em última instância, o encadeamento de diversos PPPs contribuirá para a previsão de impactos cumulativos (MARSDEN, 2011).…”