Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minutes of Evidence


Memorandum submitted by The Wildlife Trusts

1.  INTRODUCTION

  1.1  The Wildlife Trusts welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Committee's inquiry into the marine environment.

  1.2  The Wildlife Trusts are a unique partnership of 47 local Wildlife Trusts covering the whole of the UK and the Isle of Man and Alderney. The partnership campaigns for the protection of wildlife and invests in the future by helping people of all ages to gain a greater appreciation and understanding of nature. Collectively The Wildlife Trusts have approximately 413,000 members and manage almost 2,550 nature reserves, covering more than 80,000 hectares of land, ranging from inner city urban sites to the UK's finest wildlife areas on the coast.

2.  BACKGROUND

  2.1  Central to the marine conservation work of The Wildlife Trusts is a vision of healthy marine habitats supporting a natural diversity of species. However, we also recognise the social and economic value placed on marine resources and this vision includes the sustainable management of these resources, believing that balancing the needs of wildlife and people is essential for the future of both.

  2.2  The Wildlife Trusts believe that a radically different approach to managing our marine environment is urgently required. In June 2002 The Wildlife Trusts launched a report "Marine Stewardship—meeting the challenge"[2]. This report suggests that the UK government should change its current approach to one that is founded on the principles of managing a whole ecosystem, sustainable development, and the precautionary principle. This is the challenge of marine stewardship. Integrated marine stewardship requires a radical overhaul of the present fragmented, confusing and overlapping institutional and legislative framework.

  2.3  The Wildlife Trusts have called upon the Government to set up a marine taskforce to develop this new approach to managing the seas through a detailed marine plan. A prerequisite for integrated marine stewardship is a revitalised institutional framework and new legislation to ensure that such stewardship is possible. The plan should also detail a toolkit of devices that lead to healthy marine environment. The Wildlife Trusts have set the UK Government five key challenges, these are:

    1.  A clear policy statement—a White Paper—setting out the marine stewardship approach.

    2.  A package of legislation that sets out the legislative and institutional framework required.

    3.  Reform of current institutional arrangements to bring the management of marine resources under one Ministry and/or agency at a UK and devolved level.

    4.  The development of a toolkit of approaches to deliver integrated marine stewardship.

    5.  A monitoring framework and review process to assess marine recovery and put in place necessary actions should marine stewardship fail to meet the goal of a healthy marine environment

  2.4  The Wildlife Trusts are convinced that Britain's seas are suffering because of unsustainable management. Last July we published a report called "Our Dying Seas?[3] This report highlights the serious threats that are affecting the seas around us, and the lack of any coherent planning or legislation to tackle these threats. The Wildlife Trusts have produced "Our Dying Seas?" to highlight the scale of the problem; to explain what action The Wildlife Trusts have undertaken to try and improve matters in specific areas; and to make concrete proposals of further action that needs to be taken to improve matters.

  2.5  The oceans of the world seem so limitless that it would appear to be impossible for humans to inflict such major damage that whole marine ecosystems are in peril. Yet that is exactly what is happening, not least in the shallow, productive seas that surround the UK. Every level of marine life is under threat, from the charismatic bottlenose dolphin, harbour porpoise and basking shark, to the critically endangered leatherback turtle, and unique and precious sites on the seabed, where some of our most attractive and diverse marine communities exist such as the sunset coral and the pink seafan. Even popular staples of our fish and chip culture are disappearing, with cod now following mackerel into commercial extinction in the North Sea. Yet commercial fishing for species like the sandeel continues, the crucial foundation of the food chain that feeds a wide diversity of marine life from commercial species to seabirds and dolphins. The continuation of this practice could prevent the chance of any species recovery.

  2.6  The protection of marine sites is also inadequate, with some of our most "protected sites" being damaged. Therefore, we must ensure that the practical mechanisms are put in place to ensure the adequate protection of Marine Nature Reserves or Coastal Special Areas of Conservation. And at the shore, where the sea meets the land, the loss of habitat such as salt marsh continues unabated, due to the insatiable demand for land for development. This is before we even consider the potential losses that are predicted as a result of global warming, which will place further pressure on wildlife that rely on these beleaguered intertidal zones.

  2.7  The enormity of these problems demands immediate action and commitment from national, regional (?), and local Government to ensure effective protection of the marine environment. The challenges of a dying sea are matched by the challenge of sustaining those industries dependent on the marine resource. The expanding marine sector is highly export-oriented and is a major provider of jobs. However, the marine industries are plagued by a confusing regulatory and consent system governed by a wide range of government departments and other authorities. Many industry leaders believe that unless the system becomes more transparent and simpler to use, they will be forced to develop in other EU waters.

  2.8  Supporting a vibrant marine industrial sector and ensuring thriving marine biodiversity is a challenge that lies at the heart of sustainable development.

3.  GOVERNMENT ACTION TO DATE

  3.1  The crisis has long been acknowledged. In 1992, the UK Government signed the OSPAR Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic. The Convention committed the UK to:

    —  Take all possible steps to prevent and eliminate pollution and necessary measures to protect the maritime area against the adverse effects of human activities so as to safeguard health and to conserve marine ecosystems and, when practicable, restore marine areas which have been adversely affected.

  3.2  This included the requirement to publish Quality Status Reports (QSRs). When published in 2000, the QSRs highlighted the damage being caused by anti-fouling treatments, endocrine disrupters, radio-active substances, eutrophication, oil spills and ballast water and that fact that most fish stocks are now at the point of collapse.

  3.3  The wide ranging array of regulatory and policy initiatives over the last 30 years, developed in response to specific events, new legal obligations, problems encountered due to the lack of proper management or protection and to public pressure, are clearly not enough. The lack of both a systematic and co-ordinated approach and an overall vision for managing the marine resource has brought our seas to the brink. Critical issues include:

    —  The lack of a national vision or statement—There is no single government statement on the marine environment that either draws together the areas for which DEFRA, DTLR, DTI, MOD and others are responsible nor addresses better co-ordination of devolved and non-devolved matters.

    —  A poor strategic framework—Below low water mark, there are no policy instruments to bring together regulation over a wide range of activities within a common framework. Management and consenting regimes for potentially damaging activities are largely sectoral, and environmental considerations are predominantly incidental to the main purposes and powers of the bodies that operate them.

    —  A complex statutory structure—The myriad of policies that govern the marine environment place varying degrees of environmental responsibility on relevant bodies. Examples include the Water Resources Act 1991, the Water Industry Act 1991, the Transport and Works Act 1992, Merchant Shipping Acts and Offshore Regulations and the Sea Fisheries (Wildlife Conservation) Act 1992.

4.  THE MARINE STEWARDSHIP REPORT

  4.1    The Government acknowledges that the present management of our seas is failing, and has committed itself to significantly improving the situation. On 1 May 2002, the UK Government published its first Marine Stewardship Report (MSR). It describes how the government will enhance marine nature conservation to conserve biodiversity as well as improving the management of marine resources and developing scientific research to help government make more informed policy decisions. In stating that the report represents the first step, it acknowledges that "much remains to be done to turn our vision into reality".

  4.2  The Wildlife Trusts entirely agree with these sentiments since the report is basically a review of the present, clearly inadequate set of initiatives. The right words are used but the report contains insufficient action, which will improve and change the current unsustainable approach. Inaction is justified through yet more evidence gathering of the marine wildlife disaster we know is underway. Integrated management is discussed and then effectively dismissed through 44 separate initiatives to be undertaken over an 18-year period.

  4.3  There is much to support in the report: commitment to clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas underpinned by six underlying principles—sustainable development, integrated management, conservation of biological diversity, robust science, the precautionary principle and stakeholder involvement and integrated through an ecosystem-based approach is exactly what is required. However, the seas need a clear process and legislative timetable to put that commitment into place. The report fails entirely to put in any new powers or actions at a UK level.

  The Marine Stewardship Challenge

  The Marine Stewardship Report should be able to answer these questions:

    1.  How will the Government establish a marine management system that has biodiversity conservation at the heart of sustainable management of the marine resource?

    2.  How will the Government develop an integrated strategy that delivers sustainable development?

    3.  How can the Government monitor the state of the seas to check its policies are working?

    4.  How will the Government adequately implement European Union (EU) requirements for strategic environmental assessment, environmental impact assessment and deliver its obligations under the Habitats and Birds Directives and fulfil recent commitments made at OSPAR and at the North Sea Conference?

5.  A NEW APPROACH

  5.1  Integrated marine stewardship—a new approach

  5.1.1  The Wildlife Trusts have set out to government a new approach that we believe can answer the Marine Stewardship Challenge. It is an approach based on sustainable development and the precautionary principle; an approach that provides for long-term stewardship based on caring and understanding; an approach that integrates all concerns—biodiversity, fishing, industry—into an ecosystem-centred framework. The principles upon which integrated marine stewardship is based are set out below.

Principles for marine stewardship

  Sustainable development—Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Brundtland Report, 1987).[4] In a marine context, this would ensure that economic development is framed in ways that both protects the marine environment and is socially beneficial to the people who live, work and visit our seas and coasts.

  Integrated management—A strategically co-ordinated approach to managing marine resources.

  The precautionary principle—The precautionary principle recognises the limitations of knowledge. To be alert to—and humble about—the potential gaps in knowledge that are included in our decision-making process is fundamental. Where knowledge levels are simply not good enough to predict environmental impact, the precautionary principle confers an approach that minimises risk.

  An ecosystem-centred approach—This approach is based on considering impacts of all activities across the whole marine ecosystem. It recognises that a healthy marine environment provides a range of `free' environmental goods and services to society.

Restoration of the seas—The approach seeks to put the marine environment onto a recovery path that restores the seas to a healthy state.

  This diagram sets out how Government might deliver Marine Stewardship


Annex 1 sets out a more detailed view on how the Marine Stewardship Challenge could be delivered.

  5.2.1  Integrated marine stewardship requires all UK marine regulators, stakeholders and users to take responsibility for the marine environment. An overhaul of the present confused and overlapping arrangements is essential. Developing a coherent institutional framework requires Cabinet Minister responsibility, the creation of a separate marine department or agency or consolidation of marine responsibilities into an existing department/agency.

  5.2.2  Environmental responsibilities for coastal waters are presently devolved. Given that marine ecosystems operate as whole entities that transcend legal and geographical boundaries, it is essential that devolved arrangements include careful co-ordination to avoid duplication and confusion. This approach has already been taken by DEFRA through the Review of Marine Nature Conservation's Regional Sea Pilot which has ensured the project boundary is based on regional sea rather than country boundaries.

  5.3  Primary legislation

  5.3.1  Integrated marine stewardship requires primary legislation. The Wildlife Trusts marine stewardship challenge called on the Government to publish a White Paper that sets out the Government's vision of integrated marine policy and management. In order to implement this vision there will be a requirement for a package of new legislation, including a Marine Act and/or devolved Acts.

  Lessons from abroad

  An integrated approach to marine policy is not a new idea. Other parts of the world have successfully developed this approach. [5]

  Australia—In 1996, Australia initiated its Oceans Policy—a response to some 34 reviews (since 1989) arguing for the pressing need for integrated marine policy and that Australian seas under its jurisdiction be well managed and protected. Launched in 1998, the policy is coordinated by a new National Oceans Office and has had a good reception, although concerns still exist over the protection/exploitation balance. Nevertheless, this process is fundamentally guided by the ecosystem approach—a prerequisite for managing the vastness of the Australian tropical to Antarctic Ocean.

  Canada—Similar legislation is used by Canada, integrating policy, long term regional economic development, sustainability and the delivery of an ecosystem approach.[6]

6.  THE MARINE STEWARDSHIP TOOLKIT

  6.1  Assessment tools

  The Wildlife Trusts believe that at the heart of delivery of the Marine Stewardship Challenge there is the need for integrated planning and management. We believe two assessment tools are of particular use in developing integrated stewardship plans: Strategic Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Assessment.

  6.1.1  Strategic environmental assessment

  Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) has to be transposed into UK legislation by 2004 under the EU SEA Directive (2001/42/EC). The DTI has already undertaken to use this methodology to license future UK continental shelf oil and gas exploration. SEA ensures a formalised, systematic and comprehensive approach to evaluating the environmental impacts of policies, plans or programmes to be used for publicly accountable decision-making. The assessments provide a mechanism for ecosystem-scale consideration that may not always be possible through individual project assessment.

  SEA should:

    —  Encourage consideration of environmental and social objectives at all levels.

    —  Facilitate consultation between various Government bodies and stakeholders and enhance public involvement in the evaluation of environmental and social aspects.

    —  Encourage consideration of alternatives that are either not obvious or not practical at the project environmental impact assessment (EIA) stage.

    —  Render some individual project EIAs redundant or less extensive in scope, if the impacts of a plan or new programme are fully assessed at the SEA stage.

    —  Allow effective analysis of cumulative effects and facilitate consideration of combined impacts, which may be overlooked or outside the scope of individual project EIAs.

    —  Provide opportunities for identifying areas where there may be beneficial cross-over between the needs of different users of the marine environment (eg combining wind farms and fishery no-take zones).

  Perhaps most importantly, SEA should determine appropriate and inappropriate sites for projects and facilitate spatial planning decisions. For further information on SEA see Annex 2.

  Making SEAs work

  Currently, SEAs have been applied in isolation by different sectors. This approach is ineffective, as it cannot resolve inter-sector conflict. Applying SEAs in a more holistic manner aligns the approach with both the Common Fisheries Policy and the OSPAR Convention and significantly addresses the marine stewardship challenge. For example, the present UK oil and gas sector-specific SEAs are deficient because they fail to take account of potential conflict with other sectors: such as fishing, aggregate extraction and offshore power generation. By only assessing product and project impact, rather than policy impacts (eg a low carbon economy), they do not deliver an ecosystem-centred approach.

  6.1.2  Environmental Impact Assessment

  Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) enable a systematic examination of the environmental consequences of a project in advance of the development predicting negative impacts and developing mitigation proposals. Reviews have shown that present EIA practice is poor[7], in part because of the

    —  lack of detailed guidance;

    —  poor scrutiny systems by authorising Government departments;

    —  inadequate historical baseline data and, inadequate current empirical research;

    —  lack of will at Government level to oversee and improve the process.

  There are also limitations inherent in the EIA process in that it:

    —  reacts to development proposals, so cannot steer development away from environmentally sensitive areas;

    —  has a limited ability to address alternative developments or mitigation measures;

    —  does not adequately consider cumulative impacts resulting from a number of developments being undertaken in a given sea area, and

    —  does not adequately consider in-combination impacts resulting from the interactions of a number of different activities (eg aggregate extraction and fishing) being undertaken in a given sea area.

  6.1.3  EIA conclusion

  EIA is a powerful assessment tool and an essential part of the "ecosystems approach" toolkit. However, EIA guidance and practice for UK marine industries needs to be reviewed and improved in order that EIA fulfils its proper function. Moreover, its inherent limitations are such that EIA is only an effective tool when applied in combination with SEA, in order to provide a strategic overview and context for individual developments.

  6.2  Spatial planning

  Once the resource has been assessed, the threats identified, and the risks have been calculated, spatial planning decisions can begin to be made. Spatial planning is about the appropriate location of all maritime activities including the provision of a representative network of Marine Protected Areas, including Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas, a network of national sites, fishery no take zones, permanent or temporary areas of no exploitation and shipping designations such as Marine Environmental High Risk Areas. A planning body or agency needs to be established to ensure that there is a transparent, integrated and strategic approach to the decision—making process that involves all stakeholders. Spatial planning should be carried out at a regional sea level (eg the Irish Sea).

  6.3  Management tools

  Once spatial planning decisions have been made on the types of activities that should be permitted and appropriate locations identified, a set of management tools must be applied. These tools can be divided into two main groups: spatial controls (requiring appropriate legislation to control activities in each sea area) and level controls (setting out, for example, consent conditions, limits on extraction, volume/concentration of polluting discharge, limits on fishing, quantity of aggregate extraction).

  6.4  Enforcement measures

  Such control requires enforcement. Current enforcement is carried out by a plethora of organisations and Government departments, including the Ministry of Defence. All use their own working platforms but patrol the same areas. In a number of circumstances these services have joined forces to tackle certain issues such as drug smuggling. In order to be cost effective and to avoid duplication, law enforcement in the UK's marine environment needs to be rationalised. However, it is important to remember that by including the full range of stakeholders and users in the development of strategies, plans and controls there will be greater "buy-in" and a reduced need for enforcement.

  Lessons from abroad

  Australia—The proposed Australian Coast Guard will operate as Australia's maritime police force. Its officers will have the full range of law enforcement powers charged with the detection, surveillance and law enforcement response to human smuggling, drug smuggling, illegal fishing, search and rescue operations, maritime safety and environmental protection.

  The USA—The United States Coast Guard has four strategic goals: Maritime Safety, Maritime Mobility, National Defence and the Protection of the Nation's Natural Resource. In their strategic plan 1999, the Commandant stated that its goal for the nation's natural resource is to help the nation recover and maintain healthy populations of maritime protected species stating the Coastguard will eliminate environmental damage and natural resource degradation associated with all maritime activities.

  6.5  Recovery tools

  Given inadequate management, and resultant over-exploitation and damage, recovery tools are needed to restore habitats and wildlife populations (including rebuilding fish stocks). An example is provided by the Scoble Point project, which aims to re-create a rocky seabed habitat in the Salcombe-Kingsbridge Estuary which was smothered in dredge spoil some 14 years again. Granite blocks have been carefully sunk to provide a substrate for recolonisation.

  6.6  Regulation

  Integrated marine stewardship also requires an appropriate regulatory framework delivered through new primary legislation, consolidating legislation to harmonise and fill gaps, amending legislation where it is currently out of date; and repealing and replacing legislation where it is no longer necessary or appropriate. A Marine Act or Acts could also provide the framework for legislative reform to address marine environmental management.

  6.7  Research

  The assessment and planning process will highlight future research needs. Existing marine and coastal research programmes of all UK research councils should place a priority on funding practical research that helps to achieve the aims of this Marine Stewardship Challenge. Action must be taken swiftly because of the delays between providing funding for research and the availability of results.

7.  SUMMARY

  The Wildlife Trusts believe that the UK, as a maritime nation, can no longer sustain its current use and approach towards the management of the marine environment. It is not meeting its international obligations, nor is it meeting the demands of its people and coastal communities.

  We must adopt a new approach, based on sustainable development and the precautionary principle. We must provide for the long-term stewardship of our marine environment through an integrated approach to the management of all our concerns whether fishing, the extractive industries or our marine biodiversity. We must rise to marine stewardship challenge.

Joan Edwards

The Wildlife Trusts

11 September 2003

Annex 1

  1.  Set Vision

  1.1  Long term—eg clean and healthy seas

  1.2  Short term—action required

  2.  Set general principles

  2.1  Precautionary

  2.2  Polluter pays

  2.3  User pays

  3.  Set general approach

  3.1  Integrated

  3.2  Transparent

  3.3  Flexible

  3.4  Pragmatic

  3.5  Holistic

  3.6  Strategic

  4.  Develop Toolkit

  4.1  Assessment tools

  4.1.1  SEA (non sectoral)

    —  socioeconomic

    —  ecological

    —  risk assessment

    —  root cause

  4.1.2  EIA

  4.2  Delivery tools

  4.2.1  Spatial planning (should involve mapping and decision making about what activities take place and where, cost benefit analysis will be a valuable tool)

    —  MPAs

    —  MEHRAs

    —  No exploitation areas

    —  Areas for certain activities

  4.2.2  Regulatory controls

    —  spatial control

    —  levels

    —  permits

    —  licenses

  4.2.3  Economic controls

    —  environmental taxes

    —  environmental charges

  4.3  Enforcement

  4.4  Recovery tools

  4.5  Focused research

  4.5.1  Demonstration projects

  4.5.2  Best practice

  5.  Strategy for implementation

  5.1  Marine Act and nested marine legislation

  5.2  Dedicated regulatory authority?

  5.3  Budget

  5.4  Monitoring

  6.  Institutional change—The development of a common stewardship approach

  6.1  Full stakeholder participation

  6.2  Partnership

  6.3  More public and sector awareness

  6.4  More openness

  6.5  Common data sets

Annex 2

STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

  Strategic Environmental Assessment is a formalised, systematic and comprehensive process of evaluating the environmental impacts of policies, plans or programmes and their alternatives. SEA involves the preparation of a written report on the findings of the evaluation, and the utilisation of findings in publicly accountable decision-making. Put more simply, SEA is a process that assesses the impacts of activities undertaken on a area-wide, regional, national or even international scale as opposed to just examining the impacts that may be associated with an individual project, as would be the case with a project Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

  SEA potentially achieves the following:

    —  Encourages consideration of environmental and social objectives at all levels, including those of policy development, plans/programmes and specific project objectives;

    —  Facilitates consultation between various government bodies and stakeholders and enhances public involvement in the evaluation of environmental and social aspects of policies, plans and projects;

    —  Encourages consideration of alternatives that are either not obvious or not practical at the project EIA stage;

    —  May render some individual project EIAs redundant or less extensive in scope, if the impacts of a plan or new programme are fully assessed at the SEA stage;

    —  Allows effective analysis of cumulative effects and facilitates consideration of in-combination impacts, which are likely to be overlooked or outwith the scope of individual project EIAs; and

    —  Provide opportunities for identifying areas where there may be beneficial cross-over between the needs of different users of the marine environment (eg combining wind farms and fishery no-take zones).

  Perhaps most importantly of all, by facilitating special planning decisions, SEA can determine areas that are inappropriate or appropriate for development.

  Whilst the primary concerns of SEA is examining environmental impacts, it need not be limited to environmental considerations. SEA can also be used to assess the implications of a policy programme or plan for social or economic structures. For example SEA might be used to take account of the potential impacts of proposed actions on socio-economic factors including:

    —  Population demographic and distribution;

    —  Economic conditions;

    —  Employment;

    —  Cultural values and assets;

    —  Overall quality of life;

    —  Social structure; and

    —  Societal resources.

  EIA versus SEA

  Due to its later emergence as an assessment tool, SEA tends to be viewed as an extension of EIA. Rather, SEA should be seen as a prerequisite to EIA, providing the essential context and overview. Together, these tools can be used to produce a comprehensive system of environmental assessment. By applying SEA at an early stage, many of the shortfalls found within EIAs are addressed, as is indicated in the table below:

  Summary of the scope of SEA and EIA
SEAEIA
StrategicSpecific
Applied to policies, plans and projects Applied to individual projects
Area/region basisSite basis
Can consider cumulative and in-combination effects Difficult to consider cumulative and in-combination effects
Greater degree of flexibilityConstrained to specific projects



  The SEA Directive

  In 2001, the EC Directive on Environmental Assessment of Certain Plans and Programmes (2001/42/EC, known as the SEA Directive) became law within the European Union. European member states are currently working to transpose the Directive into national law by 2004. The purpose of the Directive is to ensure that: "environmental consequences of certain plans and programmes are assessed during preparation and before adoption".[8]

  SEA and the UK offshore oil and gas sector

  Over recent years it has become increasingly apparent that SEA can be used as a valuable tool to address the environmental impacts resulting from the offshore oil and gas industry. Much of the impetus for applying SEA to offshore oil and gas has come at an international level. For example, in 1997 the International Offshore Oil and Gas Experts Meeting in the Netherlands recognised that:

        "Prior assessment is important and baseline assessments/studies valuable in predicting impacts. Some parties do not consider environmental impact assessment to be sufficient to determine impacts and believe that strategic environmental assessment is necessary to accommodate cumulative impacts"[9].

  The recent introduction of the SEA Directive has had a considerable positive effect within the UK. Although the requirements of the Directive do not have to be implemented until 2004, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has taken a policy decision that SEA will be undertaken prior to future wide-scale licensing of the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS) for oil and gas exploration and production. To date SEA has been undertaken for two areas of the UKCS. SEA1 covers the area to the north and east of the Shetlands—known as the white area and formerly subject to a territorial dispute by the UK and the Faeroe Islands; SEA2 covers the "mature" areas of the North Sea already subjected to extensive offshore oil and gas activity.

  Limitations of the current UK approach to SEA

  Welcome and progressive as the current SEA process is, by itself it is unlikely to comprehensively address the major threats currently faced by the UK's marine environment. This is for reasons including:

    —  The current SEA programme is sector specific, focusing upon the environmental impacts resulting from the further expansion of the oil and gas industry. While oil and gas exploitation can potentially produce major impacts upon the marine environment, so do a number of other activities such as fishing, aggregate extraction and the development of offshore renewable power generation; and

    —  At present the Government is applying the SEA process to plans and programmes but not to policies, as a result of the current scope of the SEA Directive. Consequently, no consideration is being given to the indirect impacts that the use of the products resulting from further oil and gas development might have upon the marine environment. For example, the production and burning of, potentially, millions of tonnes of fossil fuel will contribute to further climate change that in turn will influence the oceanography and ecology of the UK's marine environment.

  The Wildlife Trusts believe that in order to combat these shortcomings SEA should:

    —  Be extended to all activities likely to have a significant impact upon the marine environment; and

    —  Form a key assessment tool within an integrated, coordinated and strategic management regime for the UK's marine environment, which has the ecosystem approach at its core. Such a management regime should be brought about through the bringing into force of an Oceans or Marine Act for the UK.

  Overall conclusions

    —  EIA and SEA are powerful assessment tools and are both essential items in the "ecosystems approach" toolkit.

    —  EIA guidance and practice for the UK marine industries needs to be reviewed and improved in order that EIA fulfils its proper function.

    —  The use of SEA should be expanded to cover all uses of the marine environment—in addition to oil and gas exploitation—that may have a significant environmental and/or social impact.

    —  SEA should form a key assessment tool within an integrated and strategic system of marine management, which is based on the ecosystem approach and brought into effect through a UK Oceans or Marine Act.

Lisa Browning and Joan Edwards

The Wildlife Trusts

August 2003



2   The Wildlife Trusts. Marine Stewardship-Meeting the Challenge. Joan Edwards. July 2002. Back

3   "Our Dying Seas?" The Wildlife Trusts. Colin Speedie and Joan Edwards. July 2002. Back

4   Our Common Future (the Brundtland Report)-Report of the 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press.1987. ISBN 0-19-282080-X. Back

5   The Wildlife Trusts and WWF. Time for a different approach for the marine environment. Marine Update 45. June 2001. Joan Edwards and Sian Pullen. Back

6   The Wildlife Trusts and WWF Marine Update 47. Lessons from abroad. Malcom Mc Garvin. Back

7   The Wildlife Trusts and WWF Joint Marine Programme has reviewed EIA applications by comparing environmental statements of a random selection of projects against the Commission's DGXI's environmental checklist. Results were poor. A review of environmental statements produced for offshore oil and gas developments. Mick Green (2000) Environmental Impact Assessment in the Marine Environment. A report to the Joint Marine Programme of the Wildlife Trusts and WWF. Marine aggregate extraction. A review of selected Environmental Statements. Report to the Joint Marine Programme of The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK. Dr Miles Hoskin and David Marshall, MER (2003). Back

8   SEA Directive, 2001/42/EC. Back

9   Cabinet Office, Code of practice on written consultation, November 2000. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 22 March 2004