Conclusions and recommendations
1. We
commend WWF-UK, and those bodies with whom it works, for drawing
up its own draft Marine Bill and for pressing DEFRA to move forward
in this area. Likewise we commend DEFRA for the openness of its
dialogue with WWF-UK and other interested bodies prior to its
decision to go ahead with plans to introduce a Government Bill
for the marine environment. (Paragraph 9)
2. The Government
is to be encouraged to establish a robust structure within the
Bill for the resolution of conflicts between those who appear
to favour the economic or social pillars of sustainable development
over the environmental pillar, and vice-versa. However, it is
clear to us that all users of the sea will have to observe environmental
limits if the marine environment is not to be degraded still further.
In that respect, environmental issues, including marine conservation,
must be placed at the very heart of the Bill. (Paragraph 15)
3. It is very disappointing
that the timetable for the Marine Bill has slipped. We believe
that some of the delay has been caused by uncertainties and doubts
at the outset as to what the scope of the Bill ought to be. (Paragraph
19)
4. We call on DEFRA
to establish as soon as possible what the next stage of the process
is to be, to issue a draft Bill or another consultation which
deals with the detailed substance of the Bill, and—if the
latter—to commit itself to place the draft Bill before Parliament
before the end of the next Session, 2006-07, with a view to its
enactment as early as possible in Session 2007-08. If a further
round of consultation does not materially affect the timing of
the draft Bill being brought before Parliament then we think it
essential that such a round proceeds. It would be unsatisfactory
were the Bill's timetable to slip any further. (Paragraph 19)
5. It is disappointing
that the consultation issued by DEFRA in March does not suggest
that the future Marine Bill will be as holistic a piece of legislation
as so many hoped for, or as really appears to be needed. While
a new consultation may lead to more areas than just the modernisation
of Sea Fisheries Committees being brought from the domain of fisheries
into the draft Bill, DEFRA needs seriously to consider how successful
a Marine Act will be which fails to integrate something as central
as fisheries into the rest of the marine environment. (Paragraph
27)
6. We press DEFRA
to inform as much of the second consultation as possible with
the substance of the responses on matters relating to fisheries
received from the first consultation: and to extend the proposals
for the Marine Bill to cover as many fisheries issues as possible
in order to ensure legislative and administrative integration.
(Paragraph 27)
7. It is unsatisfactory
and counterproductive that the oil and gas industries were given
a veto over whether or not they would be part of the new, so-called
integrated licensing scheme. As with fisheries, if one of the
key purposes of the Marine Bill is legislative and administrative
integration, then the oil and gas licensing veto frustrates that
purpose. While going back on his assurances to the industry might
be difficult for the Minister, he must work with those within
the industry who can see the benefits of belonging to the new
scheme in order to explain to the rest of the industry why he
now must integrate them into the scheme something which so many
other users and marine groups wish to see. (Paragraph 28)
8. We believe it is
right to praise DEFRA for the work that it has done in preparation
for the consultation paper, for the paper itself, and for the
work that has gone on since it was published in terms of Marine
Bill Forums and Newsletters. The Bill Team within DEFRA has been
commendably open, hard-working, conscientious and patient (Paragraph
29)
9. Almost all those
from whom we received memoranda and took oral evidence had occasion
to praise DEFRA and the Bill Team for the manner in which all
aspects of the consultation, and the pre-consultations discussions,
were handled (Paragraph 29)
10. DEFRA needs to
show greater leadership to try and encourage coordination and
coherence in decisions made by the Scottish and Welsh administrations
and the UK Government. All efforts must be made to make the legislation
for the marine environment around all of the UK, from shallow
to deep waters, as seamless a robe as possible. We hope that the
UK Government and devolved administrations will accept that the
unique overlapping nature of the marine environment—foreshore,
tidal waters, offshore waters and sea-bed—requires the concerted
use of their powers. (Paragraph 34)
11. DEFRA must punch
above its usual weight in these discussions. Not only is it important
that DEFRA convinces its colleague departments of the importance
and centrality of sustainable development and environmental limits
for the future of the marine environment, but it must attempt
to do so quickly. Further delay, taking into account the ongoing
degradation of marine biodiversity, is unacceptable. (Paragraph
37)
12. A toothless, non-statutory
system of marine spatial planning would not act to create integration,
will not improve the current complexity, contradictions and clashes
of interest in planning and the marine environment, and would
therefore represent a wasted opportunity. We believe that the
marine management organisation which results from the Marine Bill
needs to have effective powers, beyond the deployment of advice,
to develop and administer spatial planning at sea: this planning
must be reasonably flexible, but also robust, so that industry,
business, and leisure interests can all be accommodated and assisted
within the proper environmental limits. (Paragraph 41)
13. We hope that DEFRA
will take RCEP's concern on board and ensure that marine protected
areas are not focused too narrowly on fish stocks. (Paragraph
43)
14. It is vital that
marine protected areas are placed on a strong statutory basis
and include where necessary some zones—to be reviewed over
time—of absolute exclusion. While there will need to be
some flexibility in the setting up and supervision of marine protected
areas, it must be borne in mind that the application of the precautionary
principle and the establishment of environmental limits has to
lie at their heart. (Paragraph 45)
15. The establishment
of an marine management organisation and the rolling out of a
programme of marine spatial planning which has to be flexible
and capable of proper review must be supported by sufficient funding
to ascertain enough reliable and current detailed information
about the marine environment to inform good and robust decision-making.
While DEFRA still has to provide further information on the cost
implications of the Bill before it is introduced to Parliament,
clearly it would be unfair, especially in the case of the renewable
energy industry, for users to bear all the financial burden of
information provision. We look to DEFRA to ensure that any new
marine management organisation will have enough resources to acquire
the sort of level of detailed data needed to support reliable
and soundly-based marine spatial planning. (Paragraph 48)
16. DEFRA deserves
credit for how it has conducted the consultation, and for its
work in the stages which led up to it, and for how it has listened
fairly to all the different interests involved. It is to be hoped
that there will indeed be another round of consultation before
the draft Bill emerges, and that the content of that consultation,
or of the draft Bill following, reflects at least some of the
concerns raised in this Report, so that the eventual Marine Act
will be as integrated and successful a measure as all those currently
involved in discussions over it wish to see. (Paragraph 49)
| 
