Memorandum from The Royal Commission on
Environmental Pollution
1. The Royal Commission on Environmental
Pollution presented its report on the Impact of Fisheries on
the Marine Environment, Turning the Tide, to Parliament in
December 2004 as Command Paper 6392. Defra formally responded
to this on 24 May 2006 as Command Paper 6845. We commend the
Defra response to the Committee as shedding further light on the
ways in which Defra may use the powers provided in the Bill.
2. We have also been asked to comment on
the proposals for a Marine Bill and plan to do so by the deadline
of 23 June. We will be very happy to copy that response to the
Committee when it is sent.
3. In broad terms the Royal Commission welcomes
the Bill which, we see as providing important and timely new powers
to Ministers along the lines recommended in our report, in particular
in our paragraphs 11.6 on the precautionary approach, 11.7 on
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and 11.11 on a comprehensive system
of marine spatial planning.
4. We also were encouraged by the clear
statement in paragraph 4.9 of the Defra Consultation Document
that policy would be based on the precautionary principle to protect
the environment and its resources, by the explicit recognition
in 4.4(a) of the need to live within environmental limits and
by the statement in 4.5 that an holistic ecosystem approach will
lie at the heart of the strategy for reconciling and integrating
conservation objectives with sustainable social and economic development
goals. This is in line with our position in the report, and we
believe that it should result in a radical change to current policies.
5. The problem however lies in the potential
application of the ecosystem approach, in particular the interpretation
of environmental limits in relation to the marine environment
and the actions that would be justified on the basis of the precautionary
principle. In our view, the state of the marine environment is
extremely fragile, and a great deal needs to be done if we are
to avoid serious collapses, which have already occurred both in
US and EU waters. Similar conclusions have been reached by independent
reviews of this issue recently undertaken in the US, Sweden and
Germany.
6. It will also be very important to bear
in mind that safeguarding the marine environment concerns very
much more than simply managing fish stocks. We remain very concerned
that insofar as fishing is involved, Defra's response to our report
on MPAs suggest that this will be driven largely by a narrow concern
that MPAs are not, of their own a sufficient measure to protect
stocks of migratory fish, particularly cod and that they may be
very unambitious in their trials. Our report made it very clear
that we saw a large network of marine protected areas as an essential
part of a suite of measures, and that our aim was to protect the
whole marine environment and not simply to maximise the sustainable
yield of specific fish stocks. We would encourage the Committee
to take its own evidence on this.
7. We are also concerned about issues of
openness, transparency and public participation in delivering
the policies provided for in the Bill. There is a danger that
industry based stakeholders will dominate the process and environmental
issues will be squeezed out.
8. Our concerns therefore do not relate
to the Bill itself—we believe that the tools provided are
in principle the right ones—but to the way in which these
tools are likely to be applied and the extent to which they will
be used, particularly in relation to MPAs. It is also important
to see the Bill in the wider context of marine conservation and
fishing policies, which are largely determined at EU level and
in some cases, in relation to deep sea species, in an even broader
framework.
9. Much will therefore depend on the detailed
drafting of the Bill and on the way in which Ministerial powers
are to be construed in relation to the emphasis that must be placed
upon conservation issues and the use of the precautionary principle.
This is something we strongly urge the Committee and Members of
the House to reflect upon both at this stage and, in due course,
during the passage of the Bill.
10. We would be glad to discuss these issues
further with the Committee. The marine environment is a matter
on which the Commission has recently reported, and we believe
that our report was at least one of the factors influencing the
Bill. We welcome the Bill, but remain concerned that the real
drivers of policy may be too narrowly focused on fisheries issues.
Dear Mr Bench
CONSULTATION ON PROPOSALS FOR A MARINE BILL
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on
this Bill. This letter is also written in the context of Defra's
response to our report on The Impact of Fisheries on the Marine
Environment, Turning the Tide. This was received on 24 May.
We do not intend to respond formally to the Defra response other
than through taking part in consultation on the Bill. As there
is to be a separate response in Scotland, we may be in touch with
SEERAD.
In broad terms the Royal Commission welcomes
the Bill which we see as providing important new powers to Ministers
along the lines we recommended in our report, in particular in
our paragraphs 11.6 on the precautionary approach, 11.7 on marine
protected areas and 11.11 on a comprehensive system of marine
spatial planning.
We also were encouraged by your very clear statement
in paragraph 4.9 that policy would be based on the precautionary
principle to protect the environment and its resources, and by
the explicit recognition in 4.4(a) of the need to live within
environmental limits. This is very much in line with the position
we take in our report, and we believe that it should result in
a very radical change to current policies, including the reversal
of the presumption in favour of fishing and the introduction of
extensive Marine Protected Areas, which we recommend in paragraphs
11.6 and 11.7 of our report.
We are concerned about Defra's likely interpretation
of what environmental limits are in relation to the marine environment
and what action would be justified on the basis of the precautionary
principle. In our view, the state of the marine environment is
extremely fragile and there needs to be a great deal done, if
we are to avoid serious collapses which have already occurred
both in US and EU waters. Similar conclusions have been reached
by independent reviews of this issue recently undertaken in the
US, Sweden and Germany.
It will also be important to bear in mind that
safeguarding the marine environment concerns very much more than
simply managing fish stocks. We remain very concerned, from your
response to our report, that policy on Marine Protected Areas
may well be driven largely by a narrow concern that they are not
of their own a sufficient measures to protect stocks of migratory
fish (cod). Our report made it very clear that we saw Marine Protected
Areas as part of a suite of measures, and that our aim was to
protect the whole marine environment and not simply to maximise
the sustainable yield of particular fish stocks.
Our concerns therefore do not relate to the
Bill itself, as we believe that the tools provided are in principle
the right ones, but on the way in which these tools will be applied
and the extent to which they will be used, particularly in relation
to marine protected areas. It was also important to see the Bill
in the wider context of marine conservation and fishing policies
which are largely determined at EU level and in some cases, in
relation to deep sea species, in an even broader framework.
Our Chairman would like the opportunity to discuss
these issues with Ben Bradshaw and we will be getting in touch
with his office. I am also copying this letter to the Environment
Audit Committee to whom we have already responded in broadly similar
terms for their inquiry on the Bill.
The attached document sets out our detailed
responses to some of the questions which you have asked. We have
not attempted to answer all of them, but only those where we believe
that we are in a position to comment. Clearly some are only relevant
to particular stakeholders. Much will also depend on the fisheries
aspects of the Bill on which you are not consulting in as much
detail at this stage. We await with interest the conclusions you
draw from this exercise, and will want to continue to work with
you to ensure that the experience we gained in producing our report
is available to Defra in its important work on the Bill.
Yours sincerely
Tom Eddy
Secretary to the Commission
RCEP ANSWERS TO THE CONSULTATION QUESTIONS
ON THE MARINE BILL
SECTION 8—PLANNING
IN THE
MARINE ENVIRONMENT
Q1: Yes. We recommended a comprehensive system
of marine spatial planning in paragraph 11.11 of our report.
Q2: This should be statutory, again as we
recommended in 11.14 of our report.
Q3: Yes. In our report at 11.11 we said that
the system should:
— set out the principles and long term
goals for protecting the marine environment and promoting the
sustainable use of the seas;
— develop integrated regional management
plans to guide all major uses of the sea, including fishing. These
should ensure high standard of marine protection and be subject
to strategic environmental assessment; and
— have a statutory basis as well as
a clear framework for public participation.
We also recommended that the UK Government should
promote the principle of marine spatial planning at European and
international level.
Q4-6: This is covered in answers to question
3.
Q7: We believe that a planning system would
actually help to manage conflicts between sectors and provide
more certainty for business. In our report at 11.12 we recommended
an investigation of the possible synergies between various regulatory
and marine protection regimes.
Q8: As a UK body our aim is to see a comprehensive
system covering all UK waters. We recognise that devolution may
mean that this is apportioned to various administrations who will
need to work together to deliver a coherent whole.
Q9: Covered by Answers 15 and 31.
Q10: Yes. As is clear from our answers to
the previous questions.
Q11: We believe that the strategic environmental
assessment and where appropriate, environmental impact assessments
should be used. We set out in recommendation 11.20 that the operation
of the EC Habitats Directive should be improved to protect the
marine environment.
Q12: We think that the policy statement covers
much of the ground although it should give more emphasis to environmental
limits and the Precautionary Principle as set out in section 4
of your consultation document. However we do fully accept the
principle at 8.64(i) that some activities could be compatible
with other objectives. In particular we did envisage that some
marine protected areas where there were restraints on fishing
could be combined with areas set aside for energy generation such
as wind farms or tidal or wave power which might also mean that
in practical terms there would have to be restrictions on fishing
in those areas.
Q13: This is an area we covered in sections
11.48 and 11.49 of our report. We believe the policy should be
developed on the basis of public participation but are anxious
to ensure that stakeholder engagement does not lead to policy
development process which is unduly dominated by commercial interests.
There is a difficulty here because a marine environment is a key
area that does not have a natural constituency in the same way
that terrestrial environments have. That is why we recommended
a package of educational and public awareness raising measures
in that section of our report.
Q14: We believe that the body should operate
on the principles of public participation set out in 11.48-11.49
and also to deliver the safeguards we mentioned in 11.44 in the
context of the Regional Advisory Councils. Those principles could
be those by which a marine spatial planning authority should operate
in relation to the need to take full account of environmental
implications and be subject to independent oversight. As to the
role of the body; we would see essentially the system delivering
the same type of comprehensive oversight of planning as applies
on land. Those bodies of course derive authority from their local
democratic foundations and that would be a challenge for the marine
spatial authority. This is not an areas on which we commented
in our report but clearly you would need some form of democratisation
of the system particularly in relation to coastal areas and the
adjoining local authorities and the conservation authorities.
Q15: We envisaged the marine spatial planning
system in 11.11 in our report as comprehensive, both in terms
of the policies covered, but also the sea area to be covered.
Clearly political issues and devolution would generated certain
boundaries although because of the nature of the marine environment
and the issues it would be necessary for cross boundary working
and to ensure that the sea as a whole were at some level managed
comprehensively even if this would devolve to lower level plans
in more detail.
Q16: Yes. Otherwise there would be complications.
We said it should be comprehensive.
Q17: The need for public participation clearly
means that the arrangements have to be broken down into manageable
chunks but these do have to be coordinated so that the whole area
is planned on a basis which recognises the environmental and geographical
aspects of the areas covered.
Q18. As said before the system need to be
comprehensive. In that sense it would need to cover all human
activities which currently take place in the sea even if, as may
well be the case, the conclusion is that some of them such as
non powered recreational boating could be permitted in all areas
other than those where it is unsafe for the participants. The
legal framework needs to be one which empowers the authority to
consider new unforeseen developments and should not therefore
be based on a definitive list which would create difficulties
if new activities were to evolve.
Q19. See Answer 18.
Q20: This should reflect the criteria established
under our recommendation 11.7 and the need for further research
11.54 but not be delayed until this work is complete 11.2.
Q21: This is covered by the earlier answers,
particularly 13.
Q22: We strongly support the emphasis on
the Precautionary Principle in section 4 of the consultation document
and on the need to live within environmental limits. In our view
this means the 30% marine protected areas (MPAs) we recommended
in section 11.7 of our report.
Q23: We believe this should be done on the
basis of local participation and consultation with the public
and stakeholders. In our report we recognise that local interest
had a key role to play in determining which areas should be specified
as marine protected areas and no take zones. There will be some
areas of such high environmental value or such high vulnerability
that they will be natural candidates but as set in the analysis
of the Irish Sea pilot project at 8.67 of our report and in the
examples on page 201 there are lots of possible options for some
of the areas.
Q24: As in the above question, this is really
set out in some detail on pages 199-201 of our report. Clearly
detailed maps and charts showing precisely what can and can't
be done in each area is a prerequisite of any spatial planning
system whether on land or at sea.
Q25: Obviously this is essential and was
what we recommended in our report 11.13 and in the answers to
the questions above.
Q27: We recognise the need for public participation
and that there are established rights in this area but we do have
to recognise that those rights relate in many cases to an extremely
fragile and rapidly declining resource base which needs proper
protection in the interests of everyone including those currently
exploiting that resource. Fishery resources should and could be
renewable but in many cases they are not. Property rights are
an important aspect but must not be over emphasised or lead to
fudges which do not ultimately give an adequate degree of protection
to the marine environment. Individual rights on land or at sea
cannot justify misuse of natural resources or an abuse of our
obligation for stewardship to protect the environment in its own
right and for the benefit of future generations.
Q29: This should clearly be based on public
participation and as we said in relation to fisheries in 11.44
subject to independent oversight and an early review of its scope
success and environmental impact. The statutory environmental
bodies on the assumption that they are not directly involved in
the management process might be suitable for such reviews.
Q30: There need to be reviews at different
timeframes for different purposes. Much will depend on the nature
of the objectives for managing a particular area. You might also
consider a one-way-street system whereby early reviews which indicated
that objectives were not being met, for instance environmental
quality was not improved, could lead to early implementation of
stricter standards but a need for a longer timeframe to establish
that objectives were being met and/or overachieved if there were
to be any suggestion of relaxing controls. The history of marine
exploitation particularly fishing, has been littered with examples
of premature relaxation of restrictions vitiating the benefits.
Q31: There will clearly be a need for these
strategic environmental assessments to take account of land based
activities. This is particularly important in relation to the
marine environment and the problems which can arise from diffuse
pollution and river water quality and discharges. Clearly liaison
with Natural England, the Environment Agency and the equivalent
devolved bodies would be necessary in a wider context which is
based on the Precautionary Principle and the need to protect the
marine environment.
SECTION 9, LICENSING
MARINE ACTIVITIES
We do not have a view on these issues as our
report really focused on fishing. Our general position as set
out in relation to question 22 is that there could be synergies
in some areas. We believe however that as a general principle
new activities such as carbon sequestration would need to be very
carefully assessed. Whilst we appreciate the principles underlying
question 36 in reducing regulatory burdens through streamlining
of the system we believe, as is the stated aim of the better regulation
policy, that important environmental safeguards must be maintained
and that the framework can be made more efficient but not less
effective.
SECTION 10—PROTECTING
THE MARINE
ENVIRONMENT
Q52: We have difficulty with this question
insofar as it appears to be based on a premise that there could
be a class of process for which it was not relevant to consider
marine ecosystem objectives. Surely these objectives are overriding
and apply to all activities in all parts of the sea. The conclusion
from an environmental analysis might well be that the impact of
a particular process in relation to marine ecosystem objectives
was negligible or that it was outweighed by the societal benefits
but there can never be an example where the process should have
not least be worked through.
Q53: It follows from the answer to 52 that
the answer is clearly yes.
Q54: Yes this is essential.
Q55: In our report at section 11.20 we saw
enhancing the existing marine nature reserves and their legal
framework as a short term measure. In principle we would be happy
for the new mechanism to replace this but much would depend on
the detail. There must be no question of losing that little we
have.
Q56: We believe that the lists at your 10.53
and 10.54 are a reasonable basis. In particular we welcome the
inclusion of representative species and habitats as well as vulnerable
species and habitats as this would be very much consistent with
our 30% model. However given that we are talking about primary
legislation we wondered whether it would be wise to frame these
lists as illustrative and not to set up a framework which would
mean that another category which is not currently foreseen would
not be covered without new primary legislation.
Q57: We believe that there would be many
sites which could be managed to achieve multiple objectives. We
would certainly not like a narrow system which prevented the site
being managed to achieve other than a single or even its primary
objective. If for instance you wanted to protect a physical feature
of the site for geological interest we don't see that this should
not mean that you could also perhaps be allowed to introduce measures
which restricted fishing beyond those which were necessary to
avoid damage to the geological features from fishing gear.
Q58: Yes. This was implicit in our analysis
of the way in which marine protected areas could be designated
taking account of local interests and factors. But this must be
done carefully. We would not want to be in a position where marine
protected areas which restricted fishing covered 30% of the seas
but delivered few benefits because they were concentrated on those
areas with the sparsest fish populations because of natural factors.
There needs to be a balancing here.
Q59: Yes, but this needs to take account
of the issues discussed in question 30. It is difficult to
see how many of these sites could be de-designated although there
may be special factors such as an historic wreck which ultimately
deteriorated because of natural processes so there was nothing
left to protect. This must be a fairly rare occurrence.
Q60: Yes.
Q61: Yes, but not altered too often and only
with full respect to the Precautionary Principle and the overriding
need to respect environmental limits and to deliver real improvements
in marine conservation.
Q62: We made it very clear in our report
that marine protected areas were part of an overall policy with
flanking measures to restrict fishing activities through decommissioning,
changes in committed gears etc. There would also need to be significant
change in CFP. We believe that all of this needs to be delivered
and recognise that it will not be easy. It should not be used
as an excuse to delay introduction of a comprehensive MPA policy.
Q63: This goes right back to our primary
recommendation reversing the burden of justification for intervention
in the marine environment in line with Precautionary Principle.
Clearly the emphasis must be on assessing potential impact before
any activity is licensed. Too often action has been taken after
the event when the damage has been done so as to minimise further
damage.
Q64-66: We believe that the authority and
Natural England and its devolved counterparts would need liaise
about individual sites. Much would depend on the nature of the
site and the objectives for conservation for the land and sea
elements. We don't believe that there is necessarily a single
answer which would be the best one for all conceivable sites.
Q67: Our report mentioned many examples that
the conservation bodies would be better placed to give a more
up to date response.
Q68: We are not in a position to take a view
but would want the outcome to at the very least maintain existing
levels of protection. Option C appears to be the most problematic
from that point of view.
Q69: Again the conservation bodies would
be best placed. The main concern of our report was not unlicensed
activities but the extent to which the licensing arrangements
in the fishing sector did not provide sufficient controls. In
principle if there were areas where there were activities which
are currently unlicensed which are causing damage to marine ecosystems
then we believe that these should be controlled possibly through
byelaw making as in question 70.
Q70-72: In principle yes, if necessary, see
answer to question 69.
Q73: Our report focused on fishing and its
impact on the marine environment. It is clear that in this sector
there has been a very substantial degree of illegal activity.
It is therefore essential that offences are not only clearly defined
but that enforcement is rigorous, penalties punitive and that
due emphasis is put in defining conservation measures on policies
which are relatively easy to enforce. For instance an MPA where
no fishing could take place is clearly easier to enforce than
policies based on restrictions on the type of fishing or the type
of equipment to be used or on the amount of fish which can be
caught by a particular operator.
Q74-76: In our view nature conservation activities
should be undertaken by those with a primary remit for this work.
Insofar as there is an interface with fishing and the control
of fishing marine conservation issues have to be given priority.
SECTION 11—THE
POTENTIAL FOR
A MARINE
MANAGEMENT ORGANISATION
This is not an area which we covered in detail
in our report. However we acknowledge that a single body would
be a reasonable mechanism for delivering the comprehensive system
of marine spatial planning which we recommend. In particular we
draw attention to our recommendations 11.16 that the principle
objectives of UK policy should be to protect the marine environment.
So whatever else the body does it must be competent to do this
and have sufficient resources. We would draw attention to the
series of recommendations in our report at 11.52-11.55 related
to research and the need to engage with the natural environment
research council and to encourage independent research. It would
follow from this general approach that we would not particularly
see it as necessary for CEFAS to be absorbed into the new organisation.
But we would see it as an important outcome that the organisation
was engaged with the research community and in a position to encourage
input and put resources into development of data from research
into the marine environment from a wider range of potential contractors
and sources.
| 
