MAMBO 2 Conference 2015 Post-conference Report

MAMBO 2 Conference 2015 Post-conference Report

MAMBO 2

Measuring and Monitoring

Biodiversity Offshore

Jade Berman

Howard Platt

Shane Wolsey

July 2015

MAMBO 2 Conference March 2015 Conference Report

BTO and Ulster Wildlife ©July 2015 1 | P a g e

Promoters The MAMBO 2 Conference has been a joint initiative of the British Trust for Ornithology and Ulster Wildlife Sponsors

The conference has been financially supported by:

and also supported by:

Marine Division

Fair Head Tidal (DP Marine Energy and Bluepower) Ecologists Ireland The Challenge Fund 2015 North Down Borough Council

Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute

Department of the Environment NI Marine Division

Loughs Agency

Northern Ireland Environment Agency

We thank them all for their support.



Contents

1 Background page 3

2 Conference aims 3

3 Programme 4

4 Presentation synopses 5

5 Delegates 13

6 Feedback 14

7 Conference summary and conclusions 21

Appendices

1 Conference programme

2 Delegate list

The following Ulster Wildlife trainees assisted with conference organisation, administration and the

preparation of this report:

Dylan Gray

Oliver Franks

Cover photos:

Fish Adam Davidson

Diver Adam Davidson

Eider family Ronald Surgenor

Common Seal Ronald Surgenor



1.0 Background

The first Measuring and Monitoring Biodiversity Offshore (MAMBO 1) Conference was held on 12th

and 13th September 2013. It was well attended and well received. That conference was organised

and delivered in the context of significant issues and opportunities emerging for the marine

environment. Since MAMBO 1, in addition to further work by the statutory bodies on the Birds,

Habitats, Water Framework and Marine Strategy Framework Directives, the Marine Act (Northern

Ireland) 2013 has come into force and the Department of the Environment (DoE) Marine Division has

been working on proposed Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs).

Shortly after MAMBO 1, in October 2013, the DoE published a consultation on draft guidance on

selection and designation of Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) in the Northern Ireland Inshore

Region (Draft guidance on the proposed approach to the selection and designation of Marine

Conservation Zones under Part 3 (Marine Protection) of the Marine Act (Northern Ireland) 2013).

The European Union (EU) Regulation of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the

introduction and spread of invasive alien species is also now binding on Member States.

Apart from the likelihood of ecological changes associated with climate change and other

anthropogenic influences, an underlying issue at MAMBO 2 was the likelihood of aggressive NI

Assembly financial cuts to the Department of the Environment which turned out to be

proportionately more severe for nature conservation work in Northern Ireland.

The UK’s vision of “clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas” for

Northern Ireland seems to have made insignificant progress since the summary of key findings from

MAMBO 1, which do not seem out of place today. However, a final conclusion from MAMBO 1 was

a universal wish from delegates to ‘maintain the MAMBO momentum’ and organise another

conference – so here it is!

2.0 Conference aims

The formal aims of this conference were:

1. To build upon the network of people that was initiated at MAMBO 1, who are stakeholders

in, or are engaged in, offshore biodiversity monitoring.

2. To identify, and disseminate knowledge of, robust data gathering methodologies that are

innovative, as well as those that are well established.

3. To focus attention on marine biodiversity data deficiencies (gaps and quality), data collation

and access to data.

4. To act as a catalyst in the development of partnerships in the complex arena of biodiversity

data gathering in the marine environment.



3.0 Programme

The detailed programme is included as Appendix 1. It was structured in such a way that delegates

were given, in the first session, an overview of marine policy at both a European level and the

Northern Ireland level, thus setting the scene within which the work described by all the following

presentations was being undertaken.

The programme was then structured into subsequent sessions that described what current activity is

being undertaken, what we already know (and, of course, what we don’t know), and with an

emphasis on research methodologies that are innovative and may not be widely known.

Because the creation of a network of stakeholders was an important aim of the conference, the

programme included coffee breaks of sufficient length so as not to be rushed, and also a conference

dinner during the evening between the two conference days.



4.0 Presentation synopses

This section records a short synopsis of each presentation as provided by the presenter. A synopsis

has not been provided for all presentations. They are set out here in the same order as in the

conference programme.

“Welcome and introduction” Andy Clements, CEO, British Trust for Ornithology

[email protected]

Thank you for the invitation to come to MAMBO 2 to open the conference and to Chair much of

today, and tomorrow. Taking forward the importance of measuring and monitoring biodiversity in

the marine environment is possible because of the success and reach of the first conference we held

here 18 months ago.

BTO & Ulster Wildlife collaborate effectively to bring you all together. And it is the mix of

representatives from across the sector that defines our aim: Government, Agency, NGO, academic

and industry are all here, looking for common solutions to ensure we understand and look after

marine biodiversity.

We are now implementing the legislation, looking to finalise ‘Programmes of Measures’ for the

Marine Strategy Framework Directive during 2015. We will hear where we are from DOE Marine

Division. I’m particularly pleased that the conference programme features strong innovation and a

golden thread around the importance of evidence.

We are approaching the new Seabird Census 2016, and we need a modern solution for encouraging

volunteers, and gathering, curating, analysing and interpreting the data. BTO has strengths to share

in all these fields, and we should consider new solutions. So, let’s get the conference underway, and

resolve that through our efforts marine biodiversity knowledge grows, and informs sustainable

development in the marine environment. We need to be extra effective at this time of severely

shrinking public funds.

“Marine Strategy Framework Directive Update and the NI Marine Science Strategy” Claire

Vincent, Principal Scientific Officer, DOE Marine Division. [email protected]

This paper will present the progress to date on implementing the Marine Strategy Framework

Directive in Northern Ireland. The Directive is the most important development from Europe in

protecting our regional seas and adds to the protection, conservation and sustainable use provided

by other Directives to date. The presentation will emphasise the interdependency of the Directives,

with the revised Common Fisheries Policy, and will specifically examine the emerging programme of

measures for Northern Ireland. In meeting the new monitoring requirements of the Directive, a

Northern Ireland Marine Science Strategy has been drafted. However, with the recent

announcement on the creation of a new Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs,

the launch of the Strategy has been deferred. Both DOE and DARD are currently working to the

principles set out in the draft Strategy.

“An Ecologically Coherent and Well Managed Network of Marine Protected Areas for Northern

Ireland” Joe Breen, DoE Marine Division [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]





The UK has a commitment under the various European Directives and the United Nations

Convention on Biodiversity to contribute to an ecologically coherent network of well-managed

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) by 2020.

The network will include (where relevant to the marine area): Special Protection Areas (SPAs),

Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSIs), and RAMSAR sites,

along with the new type of designation, Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs).

Linking MPAs together into an ecologically coherent network, supported by wider environmental

management measures will achieve benefits more effectively than individual sites can alone. A well-

designed network will contain MPAs of different sizes, containing a range of habitats and species.

Previously, the priority for marine nature conservation focused on meeting the obligations of the

Birds and Habitats Directives. This included finalising the suite of marine SPAs for birds and marine

SACs for habitats and relevant species.

It is anticipated that the SPA programme, under the Birds Directive, and an additional SAC for

harbour porpoise will complete our current marine obligations under these Directives.

Marine Conservation Zones More recently, following the enactment of the Marine Act (Northern

Ireland) 2013, the focus has moved to the identification and designation of sites to protect a range

of representative and threatened, rare or declining species and habitats of national importance.

These are referred to collectively as Priority Marine Features and will form the basis of MCZ

designation and include marine species, habitats and geological features.

Since the enactment of the Marine Act, the Marine Division has been busy gathering data, designing

the network and producing associated documentation and organising stakeholder workshops. The

current process of stakeholder engagement is very much a pre-consultation which has been

supplemented by a series of bilateral meetings with specific stakeholders and focus groups. It is the

Department’s belief that this open and transparent pre-consultation will greatly assist the formal

consultation that will commence by December 2015.

Following the various engagements we have now prepared proposed site boundaries for four new

sites. The proposed sites are:

Rostrevor Bay in Carlingford Lough, for Seapens

Belfast Lough for the longlived Arctic Clam

Red Bay for Seagrass (third party nomination)

Rathlin Island for Black Guillemots and deep seabed

We have delayed progressing Lough Foyle (native oyster) due to jurisdictional issues and Dundrum

Bay (Deep muds) due to a reanalysis of Mud sufficiency in the network by DEFRA following

representations from the County Down Fishing industry.

We had also considered protecting Common Skate in the Maidens off Larne but a project supported

by the Challenge Fund yielded no data on which to make an evidence based assessment at this

moment in time.



Map 1 - Potential MCZs and Areas of Search

The thrust of the most recent workshop, hosted by the Northern Ireland Environment Committee

was to discuss refinement of the MCZ boundaries and to open discussions on potential management

options for the individual sites. Delegates also received an update on UK driven initiatives in relation

to additional SACs for

Harbour Porpoise and

seaward extensions to the

existing SPA site within

Northern Ireland.

The draft boundaries for

the proposed MCZs, the

Irish Sea Harbour Porpoise

SAC and extensions to local

SPAs are detailed in the

following 3 maps.

Next steps Following

the workshop, the

Department will revise the proposals to take into account any issues or suggestions that are

identified. If necessary, further bi-laterals will be held with stakeholders to discuss specific sites or

issues.

Further surveys will be undertaken to fill any outstanding evidence gaps and Impact Assessments

will be undertaken to advise on the level of protection required and the management implications

for each site.

By 31 December 2015 the proposed MCZs will be ready for three month public consultation.

Map 2 - Recommended Draft SAC for Harbour Porpoise (Initial JNCC advice)

1. North Minch;

2. Southern Hebrides;

3. North Channel & Northeast Irish Sea;

4. North Anglesey;

5. West Wales;

6. Bristol Channel;

7. Southwest North Sea

8. Moray Firth, Southern Trench and

Smiler’s Hole



Map 3 - Proposals for Special Protection Areas

“Scampi TV: New methods for collaborative stock assessment of Nephrops norvegicus in the

western Irish Sea” Annika Clements, Project Leader in Seabed Habitat Mapping, AFBI

[email protected]

The Dublin Bay Prawn, Nephrops norvegicus, is the largest fishery in Northern Ireland following the

collapse of the white fish industries, and is currently worth over £17.9 million per year to the NI fleet

alone. The fishery is focussed mostly on the western Irish Sea mud patch (‘ICES Functional Unit 15’)

and extends across UK and RoI waters, and is fished by a number of fleets. Due to catchability

issues, stock assessment using trawling does not provide accurate population information. To

ensure sustainable management of the fishery, accurate population monitoring is vital, and

underwater TV methods have been developed and proven as the most reliable method for assessing

stock. Burrow density surveys have become a mainstay of the cross-border stock assessment, and

are undertaken jointly by the Marine Institute (RoI) and AFBI (NI) each year. The “Scampi TV”

method development and its application is discussed as a good example of cross-border

collaboration which works to ensure appropriate management of this vital fishery.

“Monitoring biodiversity using environmental DNA” Philip Francis Thomsen, Centre for

GeoGenetics, Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.

[email protected]

Ecosystems across the globe are under significant threat, suffering from various forms of

anthropogenic disturbances, which are greatly impacting global biodiversity, economy and human

health. Reliable monitoring of species is crucial for data-driven conservation actions in this context

but remains a challenge owing to non-standardized and selective methods that depend on practical

and taxonomic expertise, which is steadily declining.

DNA obtained from degraded and environmental samples is continuously being used in biodiversity

monitoring. Especially environmental DNA (eDNA) – DNA obtained directly from water, soil etc. –

has proven a successful avenue in both ancient and contemporary environments, and may be an

appropriate candidate for the conservation challenge, since it is cost-efficient, easy-to-standardize





and non-invasive. The rapid advance in DNA sequencing technology has revolutionized the use of

eDNA and opened new frontiers in ecology, evolution and environmental sciences. Coupled to DNA-

metabarcoding (simultaneous identification of multiple DNA-sequences from a complex sample), it is

now possible to study entire species assemblages in an ecosystem using a cup of water or a scoop of

soil.

In my talk, I will give an introduction to the achievements of eDNA, especially for monitoring macro-

organisms in contemporary ecosystems as a mean for biodiversity assessment. I will focus mainly on

aquatic systems – both freshwater and marine, and address challenges and perspectives of eDNA for

biodiversity monitoring.

“Marine mammals and renewable energy projects: challenges and progress” Carol Sparling, SMRU

Marine [email protected]

It is widely recognised that there is a need for long term and sustainable forms of energy generation.

Renewable energy is an important part of the move to low carbon technologies, a move which is

essential to mitigate climate change. However, uncertainties surrounding the environmental risk of

marine renewable energy technologies have the potential to slow down the growth of the industry.

Potential interactions of renewable energy projects with marine mammals raise two main concerns:

a) mortality and injury resulting from collisions between animals and the moving parts of tidal

turbines, and b) injury, disturbance and behavioural change as a result of activities associated with

construction of offshore wind farms. There is a need to understand marine mammals’ functional use

of high energy marine environments, to measure animals’ responses to underwater noise and to

collect data and develop frameworks for the translation of individual level responses to population

level consequences. This talk presents recent work from the Sea Mammal Research Unit and its

consulting arm SMRU Consulting to understand these interactions, detailing the challenges of

predicting, monitoring and measuring these interactions and describing some of the solutions being

developed to meet these challenges. A number of case studies are presented: the impact of the

SeaGen tidal turbine on harbour seal behaviour in Strangford Lough; the estimated sound exposure

to harbour seals during offshore wind farm construction in the Wash and the behaviour of harbour

seals in tidal environments around Scottish coasts.

“Protecting Marine Mammals in the Offshore: Why We Need the New Tool of ‘Important Marine

Mammal Areas’ — IMMAs” Erich Hoyt, Research Fellow, WDC, Whale and Dolphin Conservation,

and Co-chair, IUCN Marine Mammal Protected Areas Task Force. [email protected]

We are only beginning to identify and protect marine mammals in the offshore marine environment.

Marine mammals have been thought to be too wide-ranging and data for identifying habitats are

lacking. Since 2004, the number of declared protected areas for whales and dolphins increased from

359 to 575 mainly in national waters with a further 175 areas at the proposal stage (Hoyt 2011).

However, compared to 15.4% protected areas on land, all 7,000 MPAs worldwide cover only about

3.4% of the surface of the world ocean, with only 0.25% on the high seas (Juffe-Bignoli et al. 2014).

Furthermore, those MPAs being set up are mostly located along the coasts of continents and islands

— not in the offshore.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), through its regional workshops to identify ecologically

or biologically significant areas (EBSAs), is working to identify habitat on the high seas that may lead





to MPAs or marine spatial planning (MSP). Still, whales, dolphins and other marine mammals are

largely being left out. The CBD EBSA workshops have only recently begun to use marine mammal

data as primary criteria yet still only for a few of the 130 marine mammal species. An accelerated

effort needs to be undertaken over the next five years leading up to 2020 to fulfill agreed Aichi 11

targets to protect at least 10% of the ocean. This is meant to help avert the decline of healthy ocean

ecosystems that support biodiversity and ecosystem services, as well as fishing, whale watching,

marine tourism and other industries.

How can protection efforts be accelerated and made effective? BirdLife International, with its

Important Bird Areas (IBAs) approach, has spearheaded bird habitat protection. In 2012, the world

seabird atlas identified marine IBAs in national waters and on the high seas. In Oct. 2013, the

International Committee on Marine Mammal Protected Areas (ICMMPA) co-founded the Marine

Mammal Protected Areas Task Force under the IUCN Species Survival Commission and the World

Commission on Protected Areas. Adapting the BirdLife approach, the first activity of this Task Force

has been the consideration of the concept of Important Marine Mammal Areas (IMMAs) with

workshops to define and test IMMA criteria and to propose a program of work at the Third

International Conference on Marine Mammal Protected Areas (ICMMPA 3) in Adelaide, Australia in

November 2014. The developing IMMA criteria draw upon and is compatible with criteria for the

CBD EBSAs, key biodiversity areas (KBAs) and the US and Australian biologically important areas

(BIAs).

IMMAs are defined as discrete portions of habitat, important to one or more marine mammal

species, which have the potential to be delineated and managed for conservation. Thus, IMMAs are

not MPAs or other political designations, but are ecological. The identification of IMMAs will lead to

stronger proposals for EBSAs, MPAs with a marine mammal component, and consideration of zoning

and network design within existing MPAs and marine spatial planning initiatives. IMMAs may also be

identified for species and areas subject to shipstrike, noise and bycatch, with modification of ship

traffic (lanes or slow down) or fishing gear methods, rather than MPAs or other habitat protection.

In future, IMMAs may be useful for monitoring for climate change.

The value of the IMMA concept will soar if it is adopted by a wide variety of users from local

communities to government and regional and international agreements. The MMPA Task Force has

taken care to fit in with existing initiatives, providing a tool that is missing in offshore biodiversity

conservation planning.

“Using spatial variation in trends to investigate the effectiveness of alternative traits to identify

the state of seabird populations” Nina O’Hanlon, PhD Research Student, University of Glasgow

n.o'[email protected]

Coastal marine environments contain some of the most diverse and productive habitats, yet, despite

their importance, pressure on these habitats has increased markedly over the last several decades.

As top predators, seabirds have the potential as monitors of the quality of shallow coastal habitats.

Currently, data used to monitor the state of populations focuses on counts, which provide invaluable

information; however, detecting significant changes in numbers can be difficult. Instead we aim to

investigate the effectiveness of an alternative suite of easy to monitor traits to identify the state of

seabird populations that may give a greater resolution than population counts. We exploit existing



spatial variation in population trends across Northern Ireland and south-west Scotland to validate

alternative monitoring tools. Using historic seabird data, spatial variation was identified in three

seabird species associated with coastal habitats nationally and within the study area; herring gull

Larus argentatus and European shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis. Exploiting this spatial variation,

colonies which are known to have contrasting population trends can be compared to determine

which traits help to provide an early warning that a population experiences adverse environmental

conditions; enabling management and conservation actions to be considered more immediately.

“Seabird monitoring in Northern Ireland” Kerry Leonard, BTO NI Seabird Coordinator

[email protected]

Seabird monitoring in Northern Ireland has taken a step forward on the last two years. A Northern

Ireland Seabird Co-ordinator role, provided by the British Trust for Ornithology and funded by NIEA,

was created in 2013. The main aims of the role are to facilitate an increase in annual seabird

monitoring across Northern Ireland; act as a regional coordinator for the collection and

dissemination of seabird data in NI; encourage and manage the involvement of volunteers in the

collection of data; and to champion the evolution of NI towards being a role model region within the

SMP. The ‘story so far’ is presented.

The Northern Ireland Seabird Network (a loose network of all those interested in seabird recording

in Northern Ireland) has been created. A register of sites has been developed covering all sites in

Northern Ireland. The entire coastline is now covered. In 2012 nineteen people were involved with

seabird monitoring and research in Northern Ireland, covering eighty sites as defined by the new

Seabird register. In 2013 thirty-four people were involved with seabird monitoring and research,

covering 125 sites. In 2014 this had increased to fifty-five people monitoring 155 sites and as of

February 2015 there are fifty-nine members. Volunteers have been recruited by direct request,

emails to the BTO NI list, Facebook and training events. Two editions of the Northern Ireland Seabird

Report have been created, an important baseline for future study.

“Monitoring and managing noise in UK waters: implementing the MSFD” Mark Tasker, Joint

Nature Conservation Committee, Aberdeen [email protected]

The European Marine Strategy Framework Directive aims to achieve Good Environmental Status in

European Seas by 2020. One of the features of Good Environmental Status is that underwater sound

should not adversely affect the marine environment. The first steps in achieving this objective are

the establishment of mechanisms to understand how much underwater sound derived from two

anthropogenic sources is being made in our seas. This is challenging in itself, but a second step is to

understand whether or not these sounds are having an adverse effect, with a third step being “how

to manage” if there is found to be a problem.

Loud, impulsive low- and mid-frequency sound is the first of the types being assessed (the other is

low frequency continuous sound, such as that emitted by shipping - this sound was not described

further in this talk). This comes from human activities such as pile driving and seismic survey. At

close range these sounds could cause physical or physiological damage to organisms, though it is

believed that response by organisms, mitigation and the relative rarity of these sounds will minimise

the direct risk of population level effects. One of the responses though is for organisms to move





away from such sounds, creating broad scale gaps in the distribution of populations. Modelling is

needed to understand when such gaps might become significant.

Modelling will also be needed to add in other anthropogenic factors affecting populations, including

from the second source of noise being assessed under MSFD, low frequency continuous sound, so

that an overall good environmental status can be achieved for populations of marine species.

Ultimately such modelling might lead to management measures to avoid significant effects and the

real challenge then is likely to be balancing the management of the various human pressures. The

talk reviewed progress in these areas and provide some thoughts on ways forward.

“Can citizen science contribute to the evidence-base that underpins future marine policy?” Kieran

Hyder, Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science. [email protected]

The uptake of evidence generated through marine citizen science by policy makers is limited and is

lower than for the terrestrial environment. In this presentation, the role of citizen science in delivery

of the evidence-base that underpins marine policy is asssessed. There are no simple rules for policy-

relevant citizen science, but drivers include: lack of data, the potential to collect data using other

means, the use of citizen science by other organisations, and volunteer expertise. There are many

challenges to the uptake of marine citizen science and these vary between policy-makers, scientists

and citizens. Challenges include data quality, data access, motivation of volunteers, and accessibility

of sites, but these are being addressed through best-practice guides and new opportunities using

web and mobile technology. Citizen science can contribute to the evidence-base alongside

monitoring, remote sensing, and modelling, but only if the quality of citizen science studies are

judged on a case-by-case base. Citizen science has an important role in supporting future marine

policy, representing one part of an integrated solution.

“Marine tourism business and science, a sharks tale from Scotland” Shane Wasik, Basking Shark

Scotland

The Hebrides is one of the best areas for sightings basking sharks in the world with high numbers

migrating there in summer. Basking Shark Scotland is a wildlife tourism business based on the west

coast of Scotland. Owner Shane Wasik, a marine biology graduate, blended exciting water based

tourism with citizen science to form a unique eco-tourism product. The company employs biologist

graduates and has partnerships with official researchers. All shark expeditions have a scientific

element, during these trips the staff study shark sightings, behavior, sex, identification markings and

shark food (zooplankton). The in-water shark encounters on the trips also affords an opportunity to

engage in underwater study. This method has been un-available to traditional scientific studies on

the shark populations previously and new discoveries were quickly attained by the business. Given

the frequency of tourism voyages, the ability to capture a large data set has been discovered.

Although this business is unique, there is a large worldwide opportunity for motivated tourism

businesses with quality staff to collect environmental data that is highly beneficial to the scientific

community.




5.0 Delegates

The conference was designed to attract delegates from a broad range of sectors, but with specific

emphasis on government, NGOs, industry and academic sectors. In this aim it was successful with

the number of delegates from each sector as follows:

Sector Number of delegates % of delegates

Government 19 28%

NGOs* 28 42%

Commercial** 11 16%

Academic 9 14%

Total 67 100%

* Includes volunteers

** includes consultants and fishing interests

Delegate feedback both during the conference and afterwards has indicated that this broad cross

section of attendees has been an important component of the success of the conference.

An important aim of the conference was to provide networking opportunities and to create a

network that continues post-conference. To this end all delegates were provided with a delegate list

which included contact email addresses – see appendix 2.



6.0 Feedback

6.1 Key points from workshop sessions

Q1 Data – What do we need and how can we get it?

Ideas around ways to capture data were stimulated by the themes raised by the conference

speakers, by specific concerns of the attendees, and by the current and projected financial climate

for the environmental sector. Some of the key points raised were:

On the theme of citizen science, the success of apps such as BirdTrack indicates that there is

scope for apps with more specific goals, e.g. tracking only red-listed species.

For citizen scientists who want to get more involved, there is scope for producing

surveying/monitoring kits with instructions, designed to be used accurately without

supervision.

Professionals should be formally using existing social media sites (Facebook, Reddit etc.)

both to engage with citizen scientists and to confirm their species IDs.

Projects such as the Shore Thing have demonstrated that work with schools, particularly

GCSE and A-Level students, is beneficial for basic data collection as well as students’

engagement; links to GCSE and A-Level curricula should be made clear, incentivising schools

to take part.

Simple forms could be left at harbours and other accessible places, allowing citizen scientists

to immediately note any sightings.

Engagement of the marine environmental sector with relevant industries (e.g. offshore

developers, fishermen, aquaculturists) and some hobby groups often lags behind general

public engagement initiatives; a specific issue is that industries should be asked to share

their own relevant data.

The potential for data collection within industry was also discussed – e.g. the Navy

monitoring noise, fishermen monitoring marine litter as well as collecting direct biological

data. Other vessels of opportunity – e.g. planes – could be used to collect data just as

commercial ships are used for cetacean surveys.

Remote sensing methods are now key to the monitoring of many groups, and are

particularly valuable in the marine environment as they can be more cost-effective than

large teams of boats and divers.

Environmental DNA recording could be explored as a useful method for a range of species,

including benthic invertebrates.

Tried-and-tested methods of professional recording should not be forgotten, and the need

for monitoring on both broad temporal and spatial scales should be stressed. Good quality

density, distribution and productivity records are needed, as is background environmental

data.



Data from industry groups and environmental professionals should be placed in a standard,

open-access location, and every effort should be made to standardise data collection and

data storage methods between environmental organisations.

A large amount of “new” data could be mined from unpublished research, notebooks etc.

which could contribute to datasets around temporal trends.

Q2 How do we enable these ideas to be put into practice?

This session stressed standardisation and simplification of methodologies and avoidance of

duplication of effort, including work towards monitoring programmes run jointly by NGOs, academic

institutions and government bodies. Programmes involving a variety of individuals and organisations

collecting data can work well as long as central quality checking takes place.

Many professionals are concerned about training in the environmental sector–much of the

knowledge about best practice in biological monitoring is held by experienced professionals

who do not necessarily have structured opportunities to pass on their experience; training

sessions with these professionals should be formalised, possibly through the Environmental

Recorders Network?

The bank of expertise should also be preserved by ensuring that networks of experts are

used and accessible (e.g. professionals in the sector making use of social media groups).

Volunteers who contribute data should be treated as a valuable resource, and new

volunteers encouraged; this could include discounted membership of environmental

organisations, and should include specific funding for payment of volunteer expenses and

training to ensure organisations comply with best practice.

Many delegates also stressed the need to inspire the public and that, even though the

effects of public inspiration and engagement campaigns may not be immediately

measurable in financial terms, environmental organisations must consider these longer-term

effects.

Communications should clearly demonstrate how each environmental project is linked to

wider issues (e.g. climate change) and how it can help the Government keep its international

commitments.

Regarding funding and the need to find new funding streams, it was considered that there

are many more opportunities in the private sector that are not currently being exploited –

e.g. developers and other organisations wishing to improve their “green credentials” by

sponsoring environmental projects.

The industrial funding available should be pooled so that it is easier to access – this could be

mandatory rather than voluntary if necessary.

Those working in the environmental sector should also consider potential national and

European sources like Interreg, the Heritage Lottery Fund and the Challenge Fund.



Some delegates had personal experience successfully using crowdfunding websites for

environmental projects, which can be used to increase public understanding of those

projects as well as raising funds.

Considering the success of the Challenge Fund and the growing problem of plastics in wet

wipes as marine litter, ideas such as a wet wipe tax funding environmental causes would

seem a reasonable measure – polluter pays.

Q3 What should be the take-home messages from the conference?

It is increasingly necessary to keep up pressure on governments to support long-term

monitoring, while simultaneously broadening the search for funding opportunities and data

collection methods. All environmental sector organisations should be aware of and engaged

with sources of European funding such as INTERREG.

Aims of current research are often too abstract. More research should be targeted to solving

some of the current issues in the marine environment, and these links to wider issues should

be communicated clearly both to policy makers and the public.

More citizen science programmes and methods can and should be rendered acceptable for

use by policymakers, and that perception of citizen science by policymakers may be a larger

hurdle than ensuring citizen science programmes themselves reach the appropriate

standards. Publication and peer review of data obtained in citizen science projects would

help ensure its quality.

Eco-tourism, in partnership with/by NGOs and academic institutions, could provide

significant funding streams as well as another method for data collection.

There is a pressing concern to ensure the bank of expertise/knowledge about species ID,

survey and monitoring methods is maintained and does not diminish with the loss of

colleagues to retirement or with organisational financial difficulties.

Organisations should not be afraid to use resources on inspirational activities, as the long-

term future of marine monitoring efforts and conservation efforts in general will never be

secure without increased public engagement.

All organisations involved in environmentally relevant areas (academics, industry and NGOs)

should integrate their monitoring programmes where possible, to avoid duplication of effort

and data. The data should be open-access, and should be published without unnecessary

delay.



6.2 Post-Conference feedback

Delegates were invited to give feedback on their experience at the MAMBO 2 conference, by filling

in an online survey sent out by email. Twenty-three survey forms were returned. In this section, the

responses of the delegates will be summarised.

The responses to the survey have been quantified as follows, a score of 5 is ‘very satisfied’, a score of

4 is ‘satisfied’, a score of 3 is ‘neither’, a score of 2 is ‘dissatisfied’ and a score of 1 is ‘very

dissatisfied’. The delegates were asked the question, how satisfied were you with the following

aspects of the conference?

Aspect Score

Pre-conference contact and information 4.52

Conference relevance to your interests 4.52

Conference content – talks 4.65

Conference content – workshop 4.22

Duration and timing of the conference 4.57

Venue and facilities 4.48

Food and refreshments 4.78

Value for money 4.52

The overall response to this portion of the survey shows that there was a high level of satisfaction

among the delegates, with many ‘very satisfied’ responses being received.

Delegates were also asked to answer the questions below. A synopsis of the responses is adjacent to

the questions.

What was the best feature of the conference?

The speakers – in particular the range and quality of presentations and subjects, particularly the eDNA and basking shark tourism talks

Ample time for networking with delegates at coffee breaks and drinks

The workshop session gave focus to thoughts for the future

Good discussion & lack of pressure ( pressure normally due to cramming in too many speakers)

What was the least useful component of the conference? (Some skipped or said none)

The workshop needed to come to a ‘Message from MAMBO’ and have an agreed resolution/press conference with resolutions that will have wider impact

Absence of commercial fisheries sector

Lack of academics

Breaks could have been shorter

Some talks not relevant to personal field

Difficult to hear throughout



More focus could have been given on the inter-connectedness of different aspects

Too much emphasis on policy on first morning.

Did you enjoy the conference?

Every respondent said yes, very much so etc.

Good chance to meet people

The frequent, long breaks gave the chance to get speaking to everyone.

How do you think the conference will have been useful to you?

It will inform my work protecting NI’s environment

It highlighted the chasm between what is needed and the ability to provide it as well as suggesting some creative solutions for data collection and analysis

Good to hear about work areas I am not normally involved in, meet new contacts and learn new information

Useful update on current marine biodiversity issues across a broad range of topics and who is working on it

More knowledge of what is going on in NI.

What innovative and/or useful methods or data sources do you know about, which would be beneficial in Northern Ireland marine management and monitoring?

Making use of the ideas mentioned regarding citizen science

More input from the fisheries management side

The setup of a sea watching national monitoring scheme (making use of data already being collected by birdwatchers etc, also new data collected by volunteers)

Getting commercially collected data made publically available could add to conservation decision making

Using survey data from marine renewable projects

Using eDNA methods could be particularly useful for skate and other elusive species

Joint thinking between academics and marine management

Using apps to record basic sightings or other data, particularly useful offshore

There should be more cross-boundary governmental/NGO collaboration.

How can we source the resources (e.g. funding, people, time) in order to carry out effective marine management and monitoring in N.I.?

Set up a taskforce to investigate/procure EU funding

Making use of citizen science to complement a strong and well organised national monitoring programme

Working in partnership between various sectors. Utilize the university system to support regulators and NGOs’ efforts

Diversify funding and income so not reliant on government funding

External funding (e.g. crowd sourcing) and evaluating the value of non-peer reviewed data



Encouraging the use of volunteers in data collection, while making this beneficial by providing training and possibly reduced cost membership to organisations

Open and continued communication to ensure everyone knows what is occurring and that available data is known and utilised

Becoming more marketable

What would be your take home message or recommendations for future work and/or collaborations post-MAMBO 2?

Vital that marine monitoring is strategically expanded and fully funded

Explore innovative methods globally and how these may be applied here

The development of partnerships to access funding, and plan and deliver research and monitoring

Consider less obvious options for collaboration. Think global – act local

There should be more input from fisheries

Focus on increasing good quality data collection – funding cuts mean there will be a need to diversify methods to achieve this. No single easy answer

Joined up thinking towards managing the environment. We often want the same things but are pitted against each other by default

Keep the conference theme broad with a balance across many aspects of biodiversity, consider the ecosystem view

Information should be more readily accessible and shared between groups, furthering of knowledge should come before personal gain

The impression I got from the groups working in NI marine environment was quite inspirational, in the way that everyone was well connected, informed and willing to collaborate – I would work more toward engaging across borders

Greater public awareness is critical, only possible with funding to NGO’s and governmental bodies

Should there be a MAMBO 3 conference?

Yes, but with some changes e.g. more central location

Yes, provided there is a greater emphasis on broadening the range of people attending (it seemed majority of audience were either speaking or directly involved)

Yes, but with a longer lead in time to allow conference specific presentations to be written

Yes, with more participation on a NI level.

Do you have any other feedback?

Government agency talks should be conference-specific.

Showed how what we are doing in NI fits into global picture, we could make better use of contributions from other sea users

Well organised and interesting programme – 2nd day numbers dropped, 2 days too long?

Exceptionally well organised. Well done all, excellent event



Thank you for a lovely and enjoyable conference. We came up with good recommendations but no firm action point given to certain groups or people. Can we have some form of access to the presentations given on the day?

Excellent conference, thank you. Venue for future conference would be better if moved to Belfast

Great initiative from the BTO and Ulster Wildlife, thanks for hosting it and to all involved

Needs to attract more student researchers, perhaps with a better discount rate or offering a session of 5 minute talks by post grad students

Hope the outputs from the workshop can be utilised or put into practice. Thank you all associated with organising and funding the conference, a credit to Northern Ireland



7.0 Conference summary and conclusions

MAMBO 2 provided a platform for the publication of BTO’s Northern Ireland Seabird Report 2014

and the launch of the Northern Ireland Seabird Network, which assist BTO and the Seabird

Coordinator to encourage and co-ordinate seabird surveyors including citizen scientists, and ensure

results are published appropriately and submitted to policymakers.

Both MAMBO 1 and 2 focused on novel data gathering methodology, both around biological

populations and human impact on the marine environment, and policy issues; however, much of the

discussion at MAMBO 2, in light of recent impacts on the environmental sector, concerned the cost-

effectiveness of methodology and efforts to target research, and the talks included a topic relevant

to all interested in the marine environment - marine protected areas (the current MCZ process and

the concept of Marine Mammal Protected Areas).

There were three main themes to MAMBO 2 – measuring and monitoring populations, measuring

and monitoring human impact on the marine environment, and the role of citizen science. The talks

on methodology demonstrated the constant progress being made to improve and refine techniques.

Many of the talks on the first theme concentrated on proxy measures for data collection

(environmental DNA, Nephrops burrow count, spatial variation in seabird traits used to monitor

habitats) and on mobile fauna. Delegates agreed that many proxy measures are innovative,

demonstrably effective and cost-effective.

In 2013, MAMBO 1 concluded that the role of citizen science needed to be explored, and Kieran

Hyder and Shane Wasik’s talks in 2015 demonstrated that there is now more information available

about best practice in citizen science, its uses and limitations, which can be used in designing

monitoring projects.

An important conclusion of MAMBO 2, relating to citizen scientists, volunteers, and experienced

professionals is that:

1. monitoring projects and environmental organisations must make the best use of the human

resources they have;

2. organisations should support experienced professional recorders by providing regular formal

training in practical biological monitoring skills;

3. we all must ensure that volunteers are valued, and treated as “unpaid professionals”.

MAMBO 1 also stressed the need for a single data portal accessible by conservationists, developers

and policymakers and for data to be published and shared in a timely fashion; however, plans for a

NI Marine Portal have fallen through and many 2015 delegates had experienced recent delays in

data sharing.

4. a single, accessible portal is necessary to the progress of measuring and monitoring marine

biodiversity.

On the issue of funding for biological monitoring projects, it was concluded that:



5. environmental professionals in Northern Ireland must explore new and alternative funding

sources – including industry sponsorship, European programmes, crowdfunding, as well as

appropriate Government funding.

We hope delegates’ conclusions and recommendations provide a useful overview of the current

state of marine biological monitoring in Northern Ireland, and can be referred to by colleagues in all

roles when considering new initiatives and new ways of working. The final message from MAMBO 2

is that professionals in the marine environmental sector in Northern Ireland:

6. must work together to provide joined-up structures and procedures capable of incorporating

a growing range of data collection methods and stakeholder participation, and innovative

funding options, so that all these can be harnessed and none of them wasted.

We will also make use of delegates’ feedback when organising future events, including further

efforts to attract undergraduate and postgraduate students, the commercial fisheries sector and

other sea users, more specific/narrower resolutions, and a publicity-friendly overall post-conference

message. Thank you to all speakers, delegates and those who provided feedback and

recommendations.



Appendix 1 Conference programme



Day 1 Thursday 19

th March 2015

09.30 am Registration

10.00 Welcome and Introduction Andy Clements, BTO

Session 1 The Context update Chair: Andy Clements

10.30 NI Marine Science Strategy Claire Vincent, Marine Div. DoE

10.50 An Ecologically Coherent and Well Managed Network of Marine Protected Areas for Northern Ireland

Joe Breen, Marine Div. DoE

11.10 Coffee

Session 2 Measuring and Monitoring Populations Chair: Andy Clements

11.50 Scampi TV: New methods for collaborative stock assessment of Nephrops norvegicus in the western Irish Sea

Annika Clements , AFBI

12.20 Using baited stereo-video to collect baseline data for a Scottish MPA

Joanne Clarke, IBIS, University of Glasgow

12.50 The case for using underwater video for assessing motile fauna in the waters of NI

Richard Unsworth, Swansea University

13.20 pm Lunch

Session 3 Chair: Howard Platt

14.30 Monitoring biodiversity using environmental DNA

Philip Francis Thomsen, University of Copenhagen

15.00 Marine Mammals and renewable energy projects: challenges and progress

Carol Sparling, SMRU Marine

15.30 Coffee

16.15 Keynote Chair: Howard Platt

16.15 Protecting Marine Mammals in the Offshore: Why We Need the New Tool of ‘Important Marine Mammal Areas’ — IMMAs

Erich Hoyt, Whale and Dolphin Conservation and IUCN Marine Mammal Protected Areas Task Force

17.15 Interim roundup Andy Clements, BTO

19.00 Drinks reception sponsored by Ecologists Ireland

19.30 Welcome to NI Seabird Network and launch of NI Seabird Report 2014

Julian Greenwood

20.00 Conference Dinner sponsored by D P Energy

MAMBO 2 Conference

Measuring and Monitoring Biodiversity Offshore

Programme



Day 2 Friday 20th

March 2015

08.45 am Registration

Session 4 Chair: Howard Platt

09.15 Development Case Study

Fair Head Tidal Consent Process Overview

Fair Head Tidal, Clodagh McGrath, D P Energy

09.50 Using spatial variation in seabird traits to monitor coastal marine habitats

Nina O’Hanlon, IBIS, University of Glasgow

10.20 Seabird Monitoring in Northern Ireland Kerry Leonard, BTO

10.40 Monitoring and managing Noise in UK waters: implementing the MSFD

Mark Tasker, JNCC & ICES

11.15 Coffee

Session 5 Citizen Science Chair: Andy Clements

11.45 Can citizen science contribute to the evidence-base that underpins future marine policy?

Kieran Hyder, Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science

12.15 Marine tourism business & science, a sharks tale from Scotland!

Shane Wasik, Basking Shark Scotland

12.45 Seabird 2016? Mark Tasker, JNCC

13.00 pm Lunch

Session 6 What next?

14.00 Workshop: How can we MAMBO for less while still being effective?

Jade Berman, Ulster Wildlife

15.00 Coffee

15.30 Recommendations for future priorities and conference round-up

Jade Berman & Howard Platt, Ulster Wildlife

16.00 Conference close

Promoters The MAMBO Conference is a joint initiative of the British Trust for Ornithology and Ulster Wildlife

Supporters The conference is supported by:

Sponsors

The conference is sponsored by:

Marine Division

Sponsors




Appendix 2 Delegate list



Edward Adams Belfast Met [email protected]

Colin Armstrong DoE Marine Division [email protected]

Edward Ashford Ulster Wildlife [email protected]

Lydia Ashford Ulster Wildlife [email protected]

Ana Almeida RSPB [email protected]

Allan Archer BTO [email protected]

Phil Atkinson BTO [email protected]

Stephanie Bennett DoE Marine Division [email protected]

Charlotte Barnes BTO volunteer Jade Berman Ulster Wildlife [email protected]

Suzanne Beck AFBI [email protected]

Camilla Bertolini QUB [email protected]

Danian Bettles DP Marine Energy [email protected]

Hannah Bischoff Ulster Wildlife [email protected]

Kenneth Bodles NIMTF [email protected]

Paddy Boylan Loughs Agency [email protected]

Joe Breen DoE Marine Division [email protected]

Girvin Buick BTO volunteer [email protected]

Carly Burns Belfast Met [email protected]

Niall Burton BTO [email protected]

Joanne Clarke IBIS, University of Glasgow [email protected]

Andy Clements BTO [email protected]

Annika Clements AFBI [email protected]

Hugh Edwards DoE Marine Division [email protected]

Jennifer Firth DoE Marine Division [email protected]

Stephen Foster DoE Marine Division [email protected]

Oliver Franks Ulster Wildlife [email protected]

Jennifer Fulton Ulster Wildlife [email protected]

David Galbraith BTO volunteer [email protected]

Dylan Gray Ulster Wildlife [email protected]

Julian Greenwood BTO volunteer [email protected]

Mary Greenwood BTO volunteer Helen Henratty DoE Marine Division [email protected]

Isabel Hood Strangford & Lecale Partnership [email protected]

Erich Hoyt Whale and Dolphin Conservation [email protected]

Rebecca Hunter Ulster Wildlife [email protected]

Kieran Hyder Cefas [email protected]

Catherine Jamison QUB [email protected]

John Kerr DP Marine Energy [email protected]

Kerry Leonard Sterna Environmental [email protected]

MAMBO 2 Conference

Measuring and Monitoring Biodiversity Offshore

Delegate List



























Patricia Mackey North Down Borough Council [email protected]

Stephen McCabe NIEL [email protected]

Adam McClure RPS Consulting [email protected]

Neil McCulloch NIEA [email protected]

Anthony McGeehan Author [email protected]

Clodagh McGrath DP Marine Energy [email protected]

Nuala McQuaid DoE Marine Division [email protected]

Adam Mellor AFBI [email protected]

Joris Minne DP Marine Energy [email protected]

Chloe Murray-Gillot Belfast Met [email protected]

Doris Noe Ulster Wildlife [email protected]

Julia Nunn CEDaR [email protected]

Nina O'Hanlon IBIS, University of Glasgow n.o'[email protected]

Howard Platt Ulster Wildlife [email protected]

Davy Procter Spark 4 [email protected]

Ian Procter Consult First [email protected]

Carol Richmond BTO volunteer [email protected]

Kylia Smyth DoE Marine Division [email protected]

Carol Sparling SMRU Marine [email protected]

Ronald Surgenor BTO volunteer ronaldsurgenor

Mark Tasker JNCC [email protected]

Philip Francis Thomsen University of Copenhagen [email protected]

Richard Unsworth Swansea University [email protected]

Claire Vincent DoE Marine Division [email protected]

Dave Wall Ulster Wildlife [email protected]

Shane Wasik Basking Shark Scotland [email protected]

Ryan Wilson-Parr Ecologists Ireland [email protected]

Shane Wolsey BTO [email protected]

Promoters The MAMBO Conference is a joint initiative of the British Trust for Ornithology and Ulster Wildlife

Supporters The conference is supported by:

Sponsors


Marine Division

Sponsors



















MAMBO 2 Conference 2015 Post-conference Report

Documents

Transcript of MAMBO 2 Conference 2015 Post-conference Report