Same Space, Different Standards: A Review of Cumulative Effects Assessment Practice for Marine Mammals

Abstract

Marine mammals are vulnerable to a variety of acute and chronic anthropogenic stressors, potentially experiencing these in isolation, successively and/or simultaneously. Formal assessment of the likely impact(s) of the cumulative effects of multiple stressors on a defined population is carried out through a Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA), which is a mandatory component of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process in many countries. However, for marine mammals, the information required to feed into CEA, such as thresholds for disturbance, frequency of multiple (and simultaneous) exposures, interactions between stressors, and individual variation in response, is extremely limited, though our understanding is slowly improving. The gaps in knowledge make it challenging to effectively quantify and subsequently assess the risk of individual and population consequences of multiple disturbances in the form of a CEA. To assess the current state of practice for assessing cumulative effects on marine mammals within UK waters, 93 CEAs were reviewed across eleven maritime industries. An objective framework of thirteen evaluative criteria was used to score each assessment on a scale of 13-52 (weak - strong). Scores varied significantly by industry. On average, the aquaculture industry produced the lowest scoring CEAs, whilst the large offshore windfarm industry (≥ 20 turbines) scored highest, according to the scoring criteria used. There was a significant increase in scores over the sample period (2009-2019), though this was mostly attributed to five industries (cable, large and small offshore wind farms, tidal and wave energy). There was inconsistency in the language used to define and describe cumulative effects and a lack of routinely applied methodology. We use the findings presented here, along with a wider review of the literature, to provide recommendations and discussion points aimed at supporting the standardisation and improvement of CEA practice. Although this research focused on how marine mammals were considered within UK CEAs, recommendations made are broadly applicable to assessments conducted for other receptors, countries and/or environments. Adoption of these proposals would help to ensure a more consistent approach, and would aid decision-makers and practitioners in mitigating any potential impacts, to ensure conservation objectives of marine mammal populations are not compromised.

Navigating the unknown: assessing anthropogenic threats to beaked whales, family Ziphiidae

“…severity) of each threat to individual animals. While integrating lethal or sub-lethal stressors in population-level assessments remains challenging, and depends on the nature of the threat, exposure and context, understanding direct effects on individuals is a critical component of assessing cumulative or population-level impacts [15][16][17].…”

“…Interactions between multiple stressors are complex and the effects are not well understood for most cetaceans, though our understanding is slowly improving [15][16][17]209]. The cumulative impacts faced by individuals and populations may be localized or general, vary over space and time, and past threats may continue to influence present status (e.g.…”

A New Perspective on Financial Risk Prediction in a Carbon-Neutral Environment: A Comprehensive Comparative Study Based on the SSA-LSTM Model

“…Private firms constitute 20% of our sample. (3) Financial Health: We evaluate a range of financial indicators of the companies, as suggested by previous financial risk assessment studies [49], including their operational capability, debt-repayment ability, growth potential, profitability, liquidity, and leverage ratios. (4) Regional Electricity Market: The supply and demand status of regional electricity markets are assessed, in line with the findings of [50], to determine their influence on the production and sales of the enterprises.…”