Barrier n 2 : Estimating ecosystem sensitivity to Marine Renewable Energy projects a French perspective

Transcription

1 Barrier n 2 : Estimating ecosystem sensitivity to Marine Renewable Energy projects a French perspective Sylvain Michel, project manager, AAMP - France

2 French Marine Protected Areas Agency facilities locations in 2014 AAMP s role in the licensing process of MRE projects 2

3 French MPAs : a contrasted coverage update: April 2015 French water area MPA area Ratio MPA / French water area Mainland France km² (3,7 %) km² 23,63 % Overseas km² (96,3 %) km² ( km²) 3,08 % (16,25 %) TOTAL km² (100 %) km² ( km²) 3,83 % (16,52 %) 3

4 MPAs in mainland France: details mise à jour : avril 2015 French water area MPA number MPA area Ratio MPA / French water area Mainland France km² km² 23,63 % English Channel North Sea km² km² 30,64 % Celtic Seas km² km² 6,06 % Bay of Biscay and iberic coasts km² km² 11,59 % Western Mediterranean Sea km² km² 45,68 % 4

5 Marine Protected Areas Agency in mainland France in 2015 AAMP s role in the licensing process of MRE projects Réunion titre, date 55

6 French (fixed) offshore wind projects Potential zones for 3 rd call for tender Granted zones in 1 st and 2 nd call for tender 6

7 AAMP s role in the licensing process of MRE projects Typical consenting and licensing process for a MRE project in Europe : 7

8 Intervention steps for MPA managers during a MRE projet lifecycle Call for tender preparation Check compliance between MPAs and proposed zones proposées and evaluation criteria of tenders Applications analysis Risk assessment and impact study Public debate Project confirmation and authorisation Construction, operation, dismantling Advisory or mandatory opinion on applications files regarding environnemental issues Participation to liaising and monitoring commission Recommendations to maritimes authorities and region/council authorities Collaboration for environnemental data collection or experiments on ecological impacts Recommendations to delopers and regulators Participation in public debate, in particular meetings dedicated to natural environnement (construction, connection, operation, interaction with other activities at sea : fishing, navigation, tourism, ) Writing of stakeholder position Advisory or mandatory opinion on EIA and Natura 2000 assessment Assistance to regulatory body on marine heritage stakes Participation to public enquiry Participation to the monitoring protocols design (through a dedicated committee) Ensure an objective and well-informed interpretation of the monitoring results Participation to the elaboration of adequate compensation measures Advice on adaptation of the mitigation and compensation measures following monitoring results Advice on opportunity and techniques for dismantling 8

9 Roles of AAMP and MPA managers Steps Agency MPA manager Spatial planning Preconcert Design of call for tender specifications Writing of call for tender Applicants evaluation Scoping of EIA and Natura 2000 assessment Liaising and monitoring commission Public enquiry Public debate EIE analysis Monitoring and mitigation of impacts during construction, operation and dismantling 9

10 The DPSIR method Drivers Pressures State Impacts Responses 1. Driver : the MRE project, including all related activities 3 phases : installation, operation & maintenance, decommission + auxiliary works: electrical cabling, ports adaptation, 2. Pressures: typology based on MFSD initial assessment (physical / chemical / biological) 3. State: for each component of ecosystem, including sensitivity and interrelations 4. Impact: pressure x sensitivity, for each pressure/component 5. Responses: impact x state, for each ecosystem component effect of MRE project on the whole ecosystem 10

11 The DPSIR method : concept Driver State Pressures Impact Responses 11

12 Habitat loss, physical damage, seabed and turbidity changes, underwater noise, marine litter, disturbance/collision, hydrodynamic changes, toxic contamination, nutriments enrichment, pathogens introduction, invasive species introduction, species retrieval The DPSIR method : application to MRE projects Installation, operation, decommission 12 main pressure types Regulatory framework, conservation status, sensitivities Impact Seabirds, marine mammals, fish & cephalopods (pelagic/demersal), phyto/zooplankton, phytobenthos, habitats (pelagic/bentic), exploited species (fish, cephalopods, crustaceans, seashells), trophic networks Responses 12

13 Example: pressures from human activities in the English Channel Synthesis table of pressures from human activities in marine sub-regions (MFSD initial assessment, 2012) Drivers (stresors) 13

14 Example: pressures from human activities in the English Channel Drivers (stressors) Pressure intensity 14

15 Example : main pressures from offshore windfarm projects Impact/phase Construction Operation & maintenance Dismantling Habitat destruction Collisions Disturbance Barrier effect Loss of functional zones Water quality Underwater noise and vibrations Accidental pollutions Diffuse pollutions Electromagnetism Invasives species Reef and refuge effects

16 Example: sensitivities of ecosystem components in the English Channel Synthesis table of ecosytem sensitivities in marine sub-regions (MFSD initial assessment, 2012) High impact Significant impact Low impact No impact (no interaction, or absence of pressure in the area) + Existing interaction, but undetermined impact Unknown interaction, undetermined impact * Weak confidence in the diagnostic ** Medium confidence in the diagnostic *** Strong confidence in the diagnostic State (receptors) 16

17 Example: impacts of human activities on marine mammals in French MSR Synthesis table of impacts on ecosystem components in marine sub-regions (MFSD initial assessment, 2012) State Impact on marine mammals in subregions : English Channel North Sea Gulf of Biscay Western Mediterranean Impact intensity High impact Significant impact Low impact No impact (no interaction, or absence of pressure in the area) * ** *** Weak confidence in the diagnostic Medium confidence in the diagnostic Strong confidence in the diagnostic + Existing interaction, but undetermined impact Unknown interaction, undetermined impact 17

18 Sensitivity: example of MPAs and priority habitats Offshore wind spatial planning , in the French Atlantic area Matrix of «environmental sensitivities» : State (receptors) 18

19 Sensitivity: example of MPAs and priority habitats Offshore wind spatial planning , Atlantic area : retained grid for «environmental sensitivities» 19

20 Mapping natural heritage stakes Example: species ranking of marine mammals in the English Channel Nom vernaculaire Indice de protec-tion (France + OSPAR + N2000) (P) Statut UICN France Indice de conservation (C) Repré-sentativité SRM en hiver (%) Indice de représentativité hiver (Rh) Repré-sentativité SRM en été (%) Indice de représentativité été (Re) Repré-sentativité SRM (R=max Re, Rh) Cachalots, kogias, baleines 1 VU* Grand dauphin 4 LC Marsouin commun 6 NT Phoques veaux marins 4 NT Phoques gris 4 NT Petit rorqual 1 LC Rorqual commun 1 NT Globicéphale noir 1 LC Dauphin de Risso 1 DD? Dauphin commun à bec court 1 LC Dauphin bleu et blanc 1 LC INDICE DE PATRIMO- NIALITE (IP = P+C+R) 20 20

21 Mapping natural heritage sensitivities Example: species ranking for seabirds in the English Channel Data: Summer and winter distributions from large-scale aerial surveys, for 28 species 2 types of impact from offshore windfarms: - Collision risk - Disturbance (habitat loss and population displacement) Sensitivity indices from Furness et al, Bradburry et al, 2014 Outputs: maps of seabirds sensitivity for nesting and wintering seasons 21

22 Scientific name Mapping natural heritage sensitivities English name Example: species ranking of seabirds in the English Channel Protected or hunted species Bird Directive OSPAR IUCN ranking France MSR population nesting MSR population wintering Conservation importance index Collision risk index (Furness et al., 2013) Displacement sensitivity index (Furness et al, 2013) Phalacrocorax aristotelis European Shag Protégée (art.3) Article 4.2 LC 2,5 2, ,21 Morus bassanus Northern Gannet Protégée (art.3) Article 4.2 NT (N) 4 1,5 9 5,33 3 0,31 Fulmarus glacialis Northern Fulmar Protégée (art.3) Article 4.2 LC 2, ,00 Larus argentatus Herring Gull Chassée IIB LC 2 2, ,38 Lesser Blackbacked Larus fuscus Gull Protégée (art.3) IIB (I) LC ,25 Larus canus Mew Gull Protégée (art.4) IIB VU (N) 2 2, ,36 Great Blackbacked Larus marinus Gull Protégée (art.3) II LC ,53 Phalacrocorax carbo Great Cormorant Protégée (art.3) Article 4.2 LC ,33 7 0,31 Stercorarius skua Great Skua Protégée (art.3) Article 4.2 LC ,10 Uria aalge Common Guillemot Protégée (art.3) Article 4.2 (I) EN (N) ,33 6 0,28 Stercorarius parasiticus Parasitic Jaeger Protégée (art.3) Article 4.2 LC ,33 3 0,14 Fratercula arctica Atlantic Puffin Protégée (art.3) Article 4.2 CR (N) ,67 5 0,07 Melanitta fusca Velvet Scoter Protégée (art.3) II et III EN (H) 0 5,5 8 2,67 8 0,41 Melanitta nigra Common Scoter Protégée (art.3) IIB et IIIB LC 0 2,5 5 2,67 9 0,44 Larus ridibundus Black-headed Gull Protégée (art.3) IIB LC 0 1,5 4 2,67 4 0,24 Rissa tridactyla Black-legged Kittiwake Protégée (art.3) Article 4.2 I NT (N) ,67 4 0,40 Hydrobates pelagicus European Stormpetrel Protégée (art.4) I NT (N) ,67 2 0,00 Alca torda Razorbill Protégée (art.3) Article 4.2 CR (N) ,21 Gavia arctica Arctic Loon Protégée (art.3) I DD ,51 Gavia stellata Red-throated Loon Protégée (art.3) I DD ,67 9 0,44 Gavia immer Common Loon Protégée (art.4) I VU (H) ,67 8 0,41 Puffinus puffinus Manx Shearwater Protégée (art.3) Article 4.2 VU (N) ,00 Puffinus griseus Sooty Shearwater Protégée (art.3) Article 4.2 NA ,00 Sterna paradisaea Arctic Tern Protégée (art.3) I CR (N) ,33 5 0,24 Sterna sandvicensis Sandwich Tern Chassée I VU (N) ,33 5 0,24 CR(N) Sterna dougallii Roseate Tern Protégée (art.3) I I NT(m) ,33 5 0,24 Sterna albifrons Little Tern Protégée (art.3) I LC ,33 6 0,28 Sterna hirundo Common Tern Protégée (art.3) I VU (N) ,33 5 0,24 Population vulnerability index 22

23 Mapping natural heritage sensitivities Example: species ranking for seabirds in the English Channel Scientific name English name Conservation importance index Population vulnerability index Phalacrocorax aristotelis European Shag Morus bassanus Fulmarus glacialis Northern Gannet Northern Fulmar 8 0,21 9 0,31 7 0,00 6 0,38 Larus argentatus Herring Gull Lesser Black-backed 8 0,25 Larus fuscus Gull Larus canus Mew Gull 7 0,36 Larus marinus Phalacrocorax carbo Stercorarius skua Uria aalge Stercorarius parasiticus Great Black-backed Gull Great Cormorant Great Skua Common Guillemot Parasitic Jaeger 6 0,53 7 0,31 4 0, ,28 3 0,14 Fratercula arctica Atlantic Puffin 12 0,07 Melanitta fusca Velvet Scoter 8 0,41 Melanitta nigra Larus ridibundus Rissa tridactyla Common Scoter Black-headed Gull Black-legged Kittiwake 5 0,44 4 0, ,40 Hydrobates pelagicus European Storm-petrel 8 0,00 Alca torda Razorbill 12 0,21 Gavia arctica Arctic Loon 6 0,51 Gavia stellata Red-throated Loon 6 0,44 Gavia immer Common Loon 8 0,41 Puffinus puffinus Puffinus griseus Sterna paradisaea Sterna sandvicensis Sterna dougallii Manx Shearwater Sooty Shearwater Arctic Tern Sandwich Tern Roseate Tern 9 0,00 3 0,00 8 0,24 6 0, ,24 Sterna albifrons Little Tern 5 0,28 Sterna hirundo Common Tern 7 0,

24 Mapping environmental sensitivities Example: overall «environmental sensitivities» in the French part of English Channel, offshore wind spatial planning

25 Case study : floating OWF in the Mediterranean Sea 2 project in the bay of Fos-sur-mer lead by EDF-EN A test site: Mistral 6 km offshore, 2 wind turbines during 5 years permit granted in July 2014 A pilot farm: Provence Grand Large 13 km offshore, 13 wind turbines during 20 ans Permitting under process AAMP s contributions Technical analysis on Mistral project November 2013 Technical analysis on PGL project March 2014 Participation in scientific committee Since May 2014 On-going partnership Additional study of wind energy impact in the IndexPuf project (monitoring of puffins flight height using bird-mounted altimeters) Co-funding by EDF-EN expected 25

26 Mistral & Provence Grand Large projects 26

27 Mistral & Provence Grand Large projects: Impact matrix from D/P/S/I assessment Pressures 27

28 Spatial planning of floating OWF in the French Mediterranean Sea Calendar steps 8 December 2014 CMF : start of liaising process January-February 2015 Liaising meetings 7 April 2015 Synthesis meeting April 2015 October 2015-May 2015 Public consultation AAMP s contributions Design of maps synthetising ecological stakes 28 January 2015 Animation of «environnement» thematic meeting January-April 2015 Dedicated working group for Gulf of Lion Natural Marine Park The report sent to the Minister by the regional authorities takes account of all the provided recommendations on ecological stakes. 28

29 Spatial planning of floating OWF in the French Mediterranean Sea 29

30 Spatial planning of floating OWF in the French Mediterranean Sea 30

31 Conclusions, perspectives Challenges : Drivers: require a detailed-enough description of the MRE project Pressures: evaluation requires a detailed description of all phases (construction, operation & maintenance, dismantling) State / Sensitivities: poorly known for many species and ecosystem components Impacts: also depend on ecosystem baseline and tendency, and applied mitigation measures Responses: depend on inter-relations between ecosystem components, interactions between several impacts, as well as cumulative impacts of nearby activities and projects 31

32 Conclusions, perspectives Conclusions : A risk-based method relies on a very careful assessment (taking account of site and project specificities): A 3D problem: drivers / pressures / sensitivities project impact Drivers Impact Environmental monitoring effort should be proportional to the level of risk. Poorly known impacts should be adressed by scientific research programs. 32

33 Thank you for your attention! Any questions? 33