Memorandum submitted by WWF-UK
1. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1.1 WWF has a long history and good track
record of working for the protection of the marine environment.
We are currently devoting time and resources to seeking better
legislation, planning and management of UK seas and coasts, to
ensure marine species and habitats of international, regional
and local importance are protected.
1.2 It is clear there are gaps in the legislative
and institutional processes, which prevent effective and rapid
responses for marine environmental protection. This was clearly
demonstrated during the process to implement emergency and permanent
measures for the Darwin Mounds. Also, there has been a delay in
implementing the statute to transpose the Habitats and Birds Directives
for the UK offshore area, a process that is still far from complete.
1.3 The existing system is failing to protect
the marine environment. Moreover, maritime business and industry
continue to lose out economically due to complex and expensive
planning and consenting regimes.
1.4 WWF believes a legislative framework
in the form of a UK Marine Act is needed to fully integrate the
legislation for sustainable exploitation and nature conservation
of the UK's marine environment.
1.5 Existing legislation must also be strengthened
in order to give greater priority to environmental protection.
1.6 WWF believes that the Government reviews
currently underway offer a unique opportunity for Government to
take an overview of marine laws and management regimes. It should
bring about legislative changes and review working structures
for more effective, efficient and integrated management, planning
and protection of UK's marine environment, including the development
of a long term strategy for the marine environment.
1.7 Marine Spatial Planning is an important
management tool for implementation of an ecosystem approach, informed
by the best available data and Strategic Environmental Assessment
(across sectors and at a spatial plan level).
1.8 The sectoral approach to management
of the marine environment is hampering its protection. Government
departments should be co-ordinated by one central co-ordinating
marine authority. Such an authority should take responsibility
for integrated marine management of UK seas, have an overview
of all human activities and developments, identify cumulative
adverse effects and plan future developments and protection measures
in an efficient manner.
1.9 WWF recognises the contribution that
the implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives will make
towards UK international biodiversity obligations. However, a
number of gaps exist, particularly for the offshore (12-200nm)
area. It is imperative that these gaps, such as co-ordination
with European and International bodies regarding the management
of activities for which the UK do not have competency such as
fisheries, are addressed at the earliest opportunity, to avoid
loss/damage of important components of marine biodiversity such
as the Darwin Mounds.
1.10 A decade has passed since the Brear
oil spill. Despite this, there has been a lack of implementation
of MEHRAs. The identification of MEHRAs and the introduction of
associated protection measures aimed at reducing the threat of
an oil spill incident is needed at the earliest opportunity if
we are to avoid the impacts to wildlife and local communities.
1.11 Although there is a clear commitment
by the Government to improve the sustainable management of our
seas, as highlighted in "Safeguarding our Seas", this
inquiry is welcome as there is a clear need and opportunity to
act now to make the legislative and institutional changes necessary
to ensure fast and effective mechanisms to protect the marine
environment and the livelihoods that depend on it.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 WWF has a long history and good track
record of working for the protection of the marine environment.
We are currently devoting time and resources to seeking better
legislation, planning and management of UK seas and coasts, to
ensure marine species and habitats of international, regional
and local importance are protected.
2.2 WWF welcomes current Government considerations
of marine legislation and planning, including:
— DfT Review of planning consents in
the coastal and marine environment,
— Review of Marine Nature Conservation
(RMNC),
— Irish Sea Pilot programme,
— Consultation on "Safeguarding
Our Seas": "Seas of Change"
— EFRA's enquiry into Marine Conservation
and Government policies related to it,
— Draft Offshore Marine regulations,
and
— English Nature's development of a
Marine Strategy.
2.3 WWF works closely with Government on
marine conservation issues, and makes all efforts to input to
Government consultations and reviews, in particular the RMNC.
WWF is currently informing the Fisheries UK Project at No 10 Downing
Street's Strategy Unit and is also represented on UK's Oil and
Gas SEA Working Group. WWF also takes part OSPAR and HELCOM workshops
and meetings for the Northeast Atlantic.
2.4 WWF believes that the findings of current
Government reviews listed above offer a unique opportunity for
Government to take an overview of its management of UK seas and
coasts and develop a new legislative framework in the form of
a Marine Act.
2.5 WWF's Oceans Recovery Campaign has commissioned
work that will inform and aid current thinking on protection,
planning and management of the marine environment through a Marine
Act, this includes a draft Marine Act and a study to identify
where unnecessary costs and time are currently spent on dealing
with planning consents in the marine environment.
2.6 WWF welcome the progress to date on
implementing the Habitats and Birds Directive, however, note a
number of flaws, which are addressed in this submission.
3. EFFECTIVENESS
AND URGENCY
WITH WHICH
THE GOVERNMENT
IS PURSUING
POLICIES FOR
THE PROTECTION
OF THE
MARINE ENVIRONMENT
3.1 The various sectors of management, Government
commitments and policies are outlined in the Government's publication:
"Safeguarding Our Seas". However, WWF does not believe
that this publication can be accepted as a "strategy for
conservation and sustainable development of our marine environment"
as stated on the cover, unless the document is actively taken
forward. The document and current Government reviews should be
taken forward by:
— developing a long-term marine strategy,
— this would include setting longer-term
objectives for the sustainable use of the marine environment,
— spatial planning—the creation
of an centrally-co-ordinated and comprehensive planning mechanism
to ensure that the myriad of activities that take place in the
marine environment are carried out sustainably, with minimum conflict
between users and without being a threat to the biodiversity of
our seas, and
— improved coherence in legislation—taking
a single-sector approach has meant that resources are not being
used optimally, mainly as a result of user conflicts and costly
planning and consenting regimes. This has often been detrimental
to the health of our marine environment.
3.2 WWF believes that Government has a unique
opportunity to deliver each of these important targets now, by
developing an overarching UK marine legislative framework in the
form of a Marine Act.
3.3 WWF believes a Marine Act would bring
together all the building blocks of current marine legislation,
and enable much needed changes to be made, not only those for
nature conservation but also those for development and management
issues.
4. INSTITUTIONAL
OR OTHER
BARRIERS WHICH
MIGHT HINDER
THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF POLICIES
FOR THE
PROTECTION OF
THE MARINE
ENVIRONMENT
4.1 WWF believes that the current sectoral
approach to management of UK waters is not only constraining protection
of the marine environment, but is costing unnecessary time, effort
and finances.
4.2 Protection and recovery does not only
require conservation designations in certain areas, but also protection
by spatial planning and sustainable use of UK seas. Species need
space to breed, grow and feed and are often transient. Coastal
geography is dynamic and ever changing and requires adaptive management.
4.3 Current sectoral management of the marine
environment fails to identify cumulative effects of all developments
and activities that may have an adverse impact on marine wildlife
and this can only be done within an integrated management and
planning framework.
4.4 There is an urgent need for Government
sectors to work in an integrated way enabled by a new formal mechanism
to ensure UK's top level of marine planning and management does
not take a sectoral route but minimises damage to the marine environment
and minimises costs in time and resources by:
— cross-sectoral integrated working
in Government,
— informed planning decisions from
the outset,
— using all available data, including
the application of GIS, and
— implementing the precautionary approach,
thereby avoiding conflicts of interests, loss of
habitats and species, and achieving the best use of marine resources
by sustainable management of marine activities including extractive
industries, renewable energy, shipping movements, recreational
activities and wherever possible, fishing activities.
4.5 Access to informative data is constraining
protection of UK's coasts and seas and is a barrier to best management
of offshore developments and activities.
4.6 Co-ordination of data and availability
for decision-makers and developers is needed as an important management
tool for marine spatial planning and to implement an ecosystem
approach. Often developers are forced to employ consultants to
regurgitate environmental data for each separate new development
proposal.
4.7 WWF believes that marine data currently
held by various organisations should be collated and made available
through a central co-ordinating mechanism to those that need it
and have a right to access it, thus fulfilling UK commitments
under the Aarhus Convention.
4.8 The UKHO/METOC SeaZone project http://www.seazone.com/
provides an example of a conduit to collate and provide access
to data in UK waters. Ideally, various levels of data should be
made available to audiences such as the public, stakeholders,
decision-makers and prospective developers.
4.9 Furthermore, collation of data will
help to identify gaps in knowledge and where further research
is required to inform planning and management.
4.10 Lack of integrated management in Government
is hampering protection of species and habitats that are important
to the integrity of UK coasts and seas. Marine Spatial Planning
could aid protection and sustainable management of such species
and habitats, for example: flatfish whose survival may be threatened
by cumulative effects of pipelines and cables and the extractive
industries, and cold water corals such as the sea fan threatened
by inshore fishing activities.
4.11 Current complex planning and consents
regimes are a barrier to restoring coastal wetlands because it
is a long and costly process for landowners and planning authorities
to support such restoration. The UK is losing its coastal wetlands
at an unprecedented rate due to a combination of hard sea defences
and sea level rise yet these areas are internationally important
as a refuge and feeding ground for migratory birds and as fish
nursery areas.
4.12 Bio-prospecting research is underway
and already discovering marine species with medicinal properties.
It is important to protect biodiversity of UK species that may
have medicinal properties through sustainable use of marine resources.
5. IMPACT OF
INTRODUCING STRATEGIC
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS
5.1 WWF welcomes the application of Strategic
Environmental Assessments (SEA) in UK waters.
5.2 However, in order to be effective for
protection of UK's marine environment we believe SEA should be
implemented through a spatial planning mechanism and applied to
the consideration of all activities and developments together
rather than sector.
6. THE LIKELY
IMPACT OF
DESIGNATING SPECIAL
AREAS OF
CONSERVATION AND
SPECIAL PROTECTION
AREAS LINKED
WITH THE
HABITATS AND
BIRDS DIRECTIVES;
AND THE
DELAY IN
DOING SO
6.1 The Habitats Directive (Council Directive
92/43/EEC) represents the most important conservation legislation
in Europe because it attempts to conserve biodiversity based on
sound scientific evidence, and the designated areas are intended
to protect a representative sample of Europe's threatened or potentially
threatened habitats and species. Together with the Birds Directive
(Council Directive 79/409/EEC) the aim is to establish a network
of sites throughout the Community territory—the Natura 2000
network.
6.2 WWF recognises the progress the UK has
made in developing the Natura 2000 network for the inshore (0-12nm)
area, but highlight the current gaps in the Habitats Directive
eg insufficiencies in representing the full range of marine habitats
and species, lack of sites for certain species (harbour porpoise).
Consequently the Natura 2000 network alone will not fulfil the
range of international and national obligations. It is imperative
that a network of marine protected areas (mpas) is developed which
fully represents the range of UK biodiversity and ecosystems,
and this is integrated within a consistent policy on marine nature
conservation, thus recognising that whilst a network of mpas will
play a significant role, they represent one mechanism in a suite
of tools to achieve marine nature conservation. Development of
this work must reflect the status of the devolved countries.
6.3 WWF recognise the work currently being
conducted to fill the gap to extend the Habitats Directive in
the offshore area, but are disappointed that is has taken more
than two years to seek protection from damaging fisheries activities
for the Darwin Mounds, and will have taken four years to introduce
legislation to formally implement the Habitats Directive in the
offshore area.
6.4 Further delay to the application of
the Habitats and Birds Directives in the offshore environment
could have dire consequences for potential sites, as the Darwin
Mounds case illustrates. Human activities with potentially damaging
impacts to prime conservation sites continue in the marine environment.
Whilst some scientific information on such sites is available
to inform decision making and a strategic environmental assessment
is required prior to consenting for a number of activities the
legal vacuum will allow uncertainty and confusion to remain with
potential negative impacts for future candidate sites.
6.5 The legal situation for meeting the
requirements of the Natura 2000 network in the offshore (12- 200nm)
marine environment is particularly complicated. While some activities
such as oil and gas exploration are regulated nationally, fisheries
is under the competence of the European Union via its Common Fisheries
Policy. One of the most significant factors in the success of
offshore SACs is likely to be international and inter-governmental
co-operation and co-ordination. This will be importance not only
at an administrative level but also between the many sectors that
utilise the offshore area. The European Commission will have key
role to play in the success of offshore Natura 2000 sites.
6.6 A key constraint in delivering the Directives
in the maritime area is the logistics and increased resources
needed for developing a knowledge base and providing adequate
enforcement measures. Whilst lack of information should not be
an excuse for not acting, it will be equally important to improve
our knowledge on the processes that drive offshore ecosystems,
and what constitutes "natural change" or "favourable
conservation status" in achieving the aims of the Directives.
It is vital that this work is adequately resourced.
6.7 The LIFE Living with the Sea project
provides useful information and guidance on ensuring Natura obligations
on dynamic coastlines. One constraint to the application of this
work will be the lack of clear leadership and accountability between
Ministry divisions with respect to driving the process forward.
Institutional change that improve clarity eg responsibilities
and priorities, both intra-departmental and inter-departmental
has the potential to offer streamlined and more efficient use
of resources.
7. THE DELAY
IN IDENTIFYING
MARINE ENVIRONMENT
HIGH RISK
AREAS
7.1 The UK has over 15,000 kilometres of
coastline, which is exposed to the potential hazards associated
with shipping operations. As a consequence there is recognition
that sensitive parts of the coastline need to be identified as
areas of high risk and offered special protection from shipping
impacts. WWF believes that shipping designations such as Particularly
Sensitive Sea Areas and the identification of marine environmental
high risk areas (MEHRAs) along with the introduction associated
protection measures (APM) are urgently required as part of a broader
suite of measures to reduce the risks and impacts resulting from
shipping activities.
7.2 The maritime area represents an important
asset to UK Ltd in terms of socio-economic (fisheries and tourism)
and environmental goods and services. As an example of the environmental
and economic consequences of a major oil spill, it has been estimated
that as a result of the Brear incident (1993) in which 85,000
tonnes of oil was spilled compensation payments of £52 million
were made. Although less than one per cent of the load was washed
ashore the sea and sediments were badly polluted including the
Fair Isle Channel. Inshore fisheries (including the Nephrops fishery)
and salmon farms were badly affected, with oil concentrations
up to 20,000 times higher than normal, and the harvests were lost.
Fishing in the area was suspended for several weeks. Fish, shellfish,
marine mammals and various bird species were all affected by the
spill. The Shetlands are known for their large colonies of birds,
and many rare species stop there during migration. It is estimated
that up to 32,000 birds could have perished because of the Braer
oil spill. Continued delay in the introduction of MEHRAs and associated
protective measures, therefore, presents a significant risk of
a major oil spill incident threatening sensitive components of
the environment and local communities and livelihoods.
7.3 In its report Safeguarding Our Seas
(p37) the Government states that "the government is committed
to reducing the risk of oil pollution occurring from accidental
or deliberate shipping discharges by taking pre-emptive action
through international and national fora". Yet whilst the
majority of recommendations from the Donaldson report have been
followed up, the maritime community still awaits, nine years later,
the identification of MEHRAs and APMs.
7.4 The Government report Safeguarding Our
Seas (p42) highlights stakeholder engagement as an important element
in the development of MEHRAs. However, whilst stakeholders were
given the opportunity to consult on the original risk assessment
methodology, WWF-UK views this an inadequate level of engagement
and opportunity for seeking additional expertise. It appears unlikely
that stakeholders will be given the opportunity to consult on
the identification of sites, however a consultation document is
currently expected for APMs. The MEHRAs process, thus far, has
been piecemeal and inconsistent, apparently due to resource pressures.
7.5 WWF-UK welcome the opportunity to sit
on the governments Marine Pollution Advisory Group, but note that
inconsistency in the regularity of meeting has been a hindrance
to its potential value and would like to see the group take a
more pro-active role on important shipping issues such as MEHRAs.
12 September 2003
| 
