Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
MR BEN
STAFFORD, MS
JANET BROWN,
MS JOAN
EDWARDS AND
MS MELISSA
MOORE
21 JUNE 2006
Q1 Chairman: Good afternoon and welcome
to the Committee, our first session on the Marine Bill. We have
just half-an-hour to get through what you want to say. Can I begin
by asking you in your memo you said, "The Marine Bill must
place the environment at the heart of the management of marine
activities". Do you think out of the Defra consultation paper
we are going to get a bill that will achieve that?
Ms Edwards: What we are very concerned
about at the moment is the consultation, as you suggested, is
very much about sustainable development. Our view is that nature
conservation needs to be given equal footing. I think I am right
in saying that when you read the document the tone is very much
there will be sustainable development and, if there is space,
we will do some nature conservation. If this Government is really
committed to protecting its marine environment, and if it is to
meet its international obligations for the ecosystem approach,
which is basically a clean, healthy marine environment, then they
have got to stick environment at the heart of this Bill. We also
have to accept that we are not dealing with a clean slate here.
The marine environment at the moment is degraded; we are not managing
it sustainably. We are not starting with a good managed sea, full
stop. It has been managed unsustainably; it is not business as
usual. We are going to have to make some strong decisions and
therefore the environment has to be at the heart of this Marine
Bill.
Q2 Joan Walley: I see where you are
coming from and how important it is that you get environment at
the heart of all of that. What do you think the greatest threat
is? What do you think we should be looking out for to make sure
that that does not get waylaid?
Ms Brown: The greatest threat
that Link sees for the UK seas at the moment and the marine environment
is the fact that it is not being managed properly. It is the whole
cumulative impact of everything in the sea which we are concerned
about; for example, the multiple uses of the sea. Sometimes out
of sight, out of mind, but everything from aggregate extraction,
oil and gas, fisheries, now renewables as well, it is all being
managed sector by sector. What we are saying is that no government
department has an overview of what is happening. No government
department is comparing what is happening with the need for nature
conservation directly and no government department can assess
the cumulative impact on our marine environment at the moment.
We know as Link that climate change is an important global issue
but that is another reason why we need to manage our seas properly
at the moment so that we can cope with what is going on there
in terms of sea level rise, movement of plankton which is important
for CO2, and it is the whole big picture that is missing in the
way it is managed at the moment in the UK seas.
Q3 Joan Walley: In terms of the Bill
itself that will go on hopefully to be the legislation that we
need to see, who do you think the people are, or the vested interests
are, or what are the reasons why we could end up with a bill that
was less than fit for purpose?
Mr Stafford: There are clearly
a large number of organisations and government departments which
have an interest in the Bill. One of the things that we are most
concerned about and one of the reasons we are very pleased that
you are holding your inquiry with the cross-governmental remit
that you have, is the many different departments which are involved
work together. Obviously Defra is leading in terms of consultation
on this Bill, but you also have the DTI as a key player, you have
the new DCLG, you have the Department for Transport and there
are obviously a lot of other economic interests as well. I know
that you will be hearing from some of the sea users later on.
We feel that the Bill is an opportunity for all of the different
stakeholders and sectors with an interest in the marine environment.
The concern would be that if anybody feels it is something which
is going to hamper how they are doing things or put enormous constraints
on what they are doing. We do not see it in that way. We think
that if the Bill is done properly it should be something which
brings benefits to all sectors, but fundamentally for us that
means getting the nature conservation parts of it right as well
and having that at the heart of the Bill.
Q4 Joan Walley: You do not think
that it is likely to be derailed in any way? There is no great
threat to us getting the Bill that we need?
Mr Stafford: I would be very surprised
and concerned if it were derailed at this stage, given that the
Government has now got to a point where it is consulting, it is
obviously committing resources to it and so on. I hope that the
different government departments and the agencies involved, the
various interests, engage proactively. I worked a few years ago
with John Randall on the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill which
was a private member's bill that had a lot of support in Parliament.
Unfortunately having gone through the Commons with cross-party
support it fell in the Lords but hopefully that will not be the
case with the Government bill here. The important thing is that
the discussions are happening now between different government
departments, between Westminster and the devolved administrations
and involving all of the different stakeholders. For that reason
we do welcome the consultation because it does look very widely
at the various things that should be in the Bill and gives everybody
an opportunity to come in and say now what they think should be
in there.
Q5 Joan Walley: Can I check that
WWF believes that everything is on target to deliver what we need
for the Bill?
Ms Brown: We feel the consultation
asks the right questions and gives the right opportunities for
the Bill to have the right feel. That is as far as it goes at
the moment.
Q6 Dr Turner: Your organisation says
that "nature conservation should not be seen as the Bill's
secondary goal, to be delivered as long as it does not affect
development and resource use", but we have other contributors,
like the British Ports Association, who feel that the consultation
"focuses heavily on marine ecological objectives, often playing
down the importance of social and economic factors". Does
there not seem to be something of a tension here between ecologists
and conservationists and those who need to exploit the marine
environment, albeit sustainably? Do you think it is going to be
difficult for Defra to reconcile this conflict?
Ms Edwards: The Government has
agreed to a number of international obligations about managing
the marine environment in a sustainable way and actually providing
an ecosystem approach. There are all these words and what do they
mean? We need healthy, clean seas, and the only way we are going
to do that is we are going to have to change the way we manage
our marine environment. As I said earlier, business as usual is
not acceptable. We are degrading the environment. We are going
to have to make some difficult choices. One of the things we commend
in the consultation is that Defra have looked at how practically
do you make this ecosystem approach happen? What they have suggested
is we set marine ecosystem objectives at the very heart of the
Bill. These are very much about practically making it happen on
the ground; they are about setting limits for human uses. By having
marine ecosystem objectives it might help us decide what is acceptable
and what is not acceptable in trends and limits. For example,
when it comes to fishing it might be that we have a limit for
by-catch. It might be that we accept whatever fisheries go on
there will be by-catches—that is one of the unfortunate
issues—but some fisheries catch more dolphins and suchlike
and it might be that by setting limits we can actually make decisions
on whether certain types of fisheries are acceptable or not.
Q7 Dr Turner: We have had a lot of
praise and positive comment about the work of the Marine Bill
team and the wide-ranging nature of the consultation. There also
seems to be some criticism given the length and complexity. It
fills a rather large box. Do you think this may be excluding small
groups and interested parties who have not got the resources to
deal with the sheer bulk of the consultation?
Mr Stafford: We would hope that
it is not excluding anybody in that way. I recognise what you
are saying about the consultation document. My colleagues to my
left have spent more time going through it with a fine toothcomb
and I know that they seem to have done little else for the last
few months. It is a substantial document. We feel that because
this is potentially such a large bill that it is affecting so
many different areas that effectively it is, in some ways, 25
years' work which has not been done since things like the Wildlife
and Countryside Act in 1981 which did little for marine; similarly
with the CRoW Act in 2000 which did not do so much for marine.
We feel that it is right that it is a comprehensive document and
that it deals with the full range of issues. We might say in some
areas it does not really go into much detail, for example, on
inshore fisheries which Ms Edwards may touch on later. There is
always a problem with government consultation documents which
are very long and which may be not so accessible for people who
perhaps do not have the expertise and so on. On this one we do
feel with such a substantial bill it is difficult to see how it
could have been done otherwise without leaving out substantial
sections of what will ultimately feature in there.
Dr Turner: The executive summary would
have been nice. We do not have time to read that.
Q8 Tim Farron: Many potential consultees,
including yourselves, highlight the fact that the Defra consultation
paper is deliberately light on fisheries and fishery management.
The Environment Agency themselves have expressed concern in this
respect too. What impact do you feel that this omission could
have on the new draft Marine Bill?
Ms Edwards: We were extremely
disappointed that the issue of fisheries was not included in the
consultation, particularly as Defra last year on a number of occasions
refused to comment on inshore fisheries because we were going
to be consulted in the Marine Bill consultation so we were quite
surprised at how light it was. We do welcome the press statement
made yesterday by Mr Bradshaw in the fact that he is going to
keep Sea Fisheries Committees but he also accepts that they need
to be fully modernised and that legislation is required within
the Marine Bill to make sure that the Sea Fisheries Committees
can do a good job. Obviously one of the difficulties with the
Sea Fisheries Committees is that they were set up a hundred years
ago and they are using legislation that was set up a hundred years
ago. What we want is for the Sea Fisheries Committees to be given
the legislation that allows them to be proactive and to license
fisheries. At the moment it is very much something happens and
they can bring in a bylaw which might take two years, it is a
very slow process, very reactive. What we want is proactive management
of our inshore fisheries. We hope that the next consultation on
the Marine Bill will include inshore fisheries. One of our concerns
is the Marine Bill consultation talks about having an integrated
approach to the marine environment and yet you leave out inshore
fisheries. Potentially that is one of the most damaging industries
and it needs to be taken into account. It needs to be there as
part of our marine spatial planning process but it also needs
to take into account some of the nature conservation measures
that have been introduced.
Q9 Mr Chaytor: I would like to ask
about the planned licensing regime. Do you think that defence
activities should be part of the new integrated licensing regime?
Ms Brown: In general we think
that the licensing regime should be more integrated than it is.
Q10 Mr Chaytor: Specifically should
defence activities be part of the integrated licensing regime?
Ms Brown: It is an area we have
not done an awful lot of work on. I would be happy for us to go
away and perhaps produce a note for the Committee on that because
we would need to think about that quite seriously. You are right,
that is an issue that has not been debated publicly.
Q11 Mr Chaytor: What about oil and
gas? You are clear that oil and gas should be part of the integrated
licensing regime even though the Government's argument is there
are security issues related to oil and gas. Why are the security
issues related to oil and gas different from the security issues
related to explicit defence activities?
Ms Brown: We are disappointed
that oil and gas are left out and we do not feel that is a valid
argument. We do not want it left at arms-length from what happens
in marine spatial planning, for example. We feel that control
of that licensing should be brought in and integrated with the
control of other licensing concerns in the Marine Bill.
Q12 Mr Chaytor: You do not think
it is a valid argument that there are security issues relating
to oil and gas installations?
Ms Brown: We do not feel that,
no. We feel that oil and gas, and oil particularly, has quite
an effect. Exploration for oil and extraction of oil in the marine
environment does have a serious effect on the marine environment.
At the moment we have a concern that it is given this ultimate
priority over everything. For example, at the moment of the blocks
which are being put up for exploration off Wales, one of those
is directly onto the coast of Strumble Head where the cetaceans
there are important for tourism, they are important to the local
economy, yet the oil industry is still being allowed to think
about exploring that area which could seriously damage the local
economy. If you have got marine spatial planning rather than a
separate sector being dealt with on its own we think that would
give it a better way for that to be considered properly.
Mr Stafford: It looks in some
ways like the statements about oil and gas in the consultation
are a post hoc rationalisation of a decision that had already
been made. Why did they decide to leave this particular sector
out? It seems a decision had been taken and then it was felt some
sort of justification would be needed for it. If this Bill is
all about integration, as Ms Brown said, and about getting a much
more rational and coherent approach to the marine environment,
then exempting one entire sector from it just seems to be a slightly
strange way to go from our perspective.
Q13 Mr Chaytor: Are there other arguments
in favour of bringing oil and gas within the integrated licensing
scheme? You have mentioned the wildlife conservation and the biodiversity
arguments.
Ms Brown: Ideally we want to see
a more balanced approach to the whole licensing regime. We do
not want a sectoral competitive approach. If we are going to have
marine spatial planning and everything to be properly considered
together then the licensing regime must be streamlined and more
efficient than it is now. We are not asking for another layer
of bureaucracy; nobody wants that. We think this is a great opportunity
to streamline the whole licensing regime and make it work properly
so that we have a proper one-stop-shop, for example.
Q14 Mr Chaytor: In terms of the impact
of different forms of energy generation are you saying that the
impact of oil and gas is fundamentally different to the impact
of wind and wave?
Ms Brown: There is still pressure
to extract our oil resources but it should be carefully considered
alongside renewable technologies that are coming on line now and
surely they are going to have less damage on our marine environment
and the general environment in the longer term so that needs to
be considered fully as well.
Q15 Emily Thornberry: Perhaps one
of the most important parts of this proposed legislation is the
marine spatial planning aspect. You say, "MSP is urgently
needed to deliver an ecosystem-based approach to the management
of activities at sea and to ensure sustainable use of precious
marine resources" and that "it is key to improving the
planning and management of all activities in the UK seas".
You have already told us a little bit of what you think about
spatial planning. I wondered if there was anything more. I know
that you are generally supportive of the suggestions. Can you
use this space to tell us if you have any concerns?
Ms Moore: We are very pleased
that marine spatial planning will be a core component of the Marine
Bill. We like the proposals in the Marine Bill consultation. We
feel that it absolutely must be statutory. It has to be binding
which means the decisions must be made in accordance with the
plan unless there are material considerations. It must be comprehensive
so we do not just want a mapping exercise or policy documents
and it must be based on core principles of sustainable use, ecosystem
approach and precautionary principle.
Q16 Emily Thornberry: Moving on to
the Marine Management Organisation, which again you are generally
in favour of, it will cover the whole of the UK but the regulatory
impact assessment in the Defra consultation Paper assumes that
"the functions which are the responsibility of the devolved
administrations would not pass to a single MMO". Does this
mean that it is not going to work? Tell us what you think about
that.
Ms Brown: We think it still could
work and we think an MMO is much needed because of this sectoral
approach by government departments at the moment. We will need
an MMO to lead on marine spatial planning for UK seas out to the
continental shelf. Link is concerned about the way the devolved
countries will work with the MMO. For example, in Wales they are
still considering how that might work for them. They do not want
a new agency but they are not totally against some sort of marine
board within the Welsh Assembly Government. We do want the devolved
countries to work closely and collaborate with the UK MMO so that
marine spatial planning and everything else in the Marine Bill
can work across the whole of the UK.
Q17 David Howarth: I want to talk
briefly about Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). You have welcomed
the inclusion of those in the consultation paper but you have
concerns about again whether that is statutory or voluntary and
about whether the proposal meets all of your requirements.
Mr Stafford: There are a number
of options again for marine protected areas in the consultation.
We think they should be statutory. From our perspective this is
one of the biggest issues in the Bill and if the Bill does not
deliver proper protection for marine wildlife which includes these
marine protected areas then it will not have fulfilled the promise
that we see for it. It will not have followed on from the Marine
Wildlife Conservation Bill to which I referred and the protection
of sites that was envisaged there. What we think is very important
is that there are new mechanisms put in place by this Bill, a
mechanism for designating a representative network of what we
call nationally important marine sites because these will be sites
which are not necessarily covered by some of the EU legislation
which is bringing in protected areas and that within those or
sometimes a whole nationally important marine site might be a
highly protected marine reserve because it was of particular importance
to safeguard its ecological interests or to keep it in a pristine
state. We think these sorts of gaps are things that the Bill must
fill. Looking at legislation as it currently stands, the Wildlife
and Countryside Act of 1981 introduced marine nature reserves
but since then only three have been designated at Lundy, Skomer
and Strangford Lough and that is a mechanism which the Government
itself has accepted is not working, so something needs to be done
to better protect nationally important sites in the way that I
have suggested. We do not think that the SSSI mechanism on land
is the way to do it either. SSSIs are a very good mechanism for
land but they rely in large part on issues of land ownership and
management and that obviously is not applicable in the same way
in the marine environment. We really feel that a whole new system
is needed but, as you say, it needs to be statutory and there
needs to be a teach behind these proposals to make sure that they
do make a difference.
Ms Edwards: You might be surprised,
but Ben has mentioned we have three marine nature reserves but
they are not highly protected. There is only one part of the seabed
in the UK waters that is highly protected at the moment. That
is 0.001% of our seabed, so it gives you an idea compared to the
land it is a major issue. We are not protecting our marine environment.
Some of you may have seen TV coverage last night of Lyme Bay.
Over 12 years ago local divers and local fishermen came to the
Wildlife Trusts to talk about the damage that was being done to
the seabed by scallop dredgers. The damage is still going on.
English Nature made a statement yesterday that one of the big
reefs within Lyme Bay was completely trashed last week by some
of the scallop dredgers. We have lost communities of biodiversity
which might have taken 50 to 100 years to establish and within
one night they were totally destroyed. That just gives you an
idea. We really need some urgent progress. We cannot continue
to protect our marine environment in the way that we are. At the
moment the only way we can get highly protected areas is using
indirect fishery legislation. The statutory nature conservation
organisations need the power and need the legislation to be able
to establish marine protected areas in the marine environment.
Those marine protected areas need to be set up for biodiversity
purposes as a primary objective. We are a little concerned that
Defra is suggesting that marine protected areas should perhaps
be multiuse so they are good for lots of people—good for
fishing, conservation, good for archaeology—our view is
the primary objective for marine protected areas has to be biodiversity.
Q18 David Howarth: Would you agree
with the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution that we are
seeing the setting up of a lot of useful tools but there is a
concern about how they might be used and, following on from what
you have just said, the extent to which they would be used? Is
that a concern that you would share?
Mr Stafford: The issue of extent
which was picked up by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution
is quite a difficult question to answer. At the moment one of
the problems we have is the lack of knowledge of what there is
out in the marine environment. We know that there are valuable
sites along the South Coast and the South West Coast. A lot of
these have been discovered almost by accident by people diving
and things like that. In other areas our knowledge is extremely
deficient, so we think it would be difficult to say, for example,
what percentage of the sea should be designated in this way. Work
needs to be done before that happens. We have a concern that in
the consultation there is talk about what percentage might be
designated. We think it is too early to say that but we do need
to do that research work and need to look comprehensively at the
marine environment to decide how much of it should be protected
in this way, and how much of it should be highly protected. Another
issue is if you are talking about a representative network it
sometimes may not mean protecting all of a particular habitat—you
may just protect a certain amount of it—but in other cases
if a habitat or feature is so rare and so threatened you might
say that you protect it all. There are a whole range of issues
which are going to have to be explored and much better researched
as this legislation goes through.
Ms Edwards: The percentage issue
is very dangerous because people start adding in percentages and
the next minute you are talking about 90% of your seabed being
protected. What we would like to see is scientific criteria established
to select these sites. We would also like a flexible management
system. What we want is a management plan for each site that you
stop only the activities that are particularly damaging in that
particular site. It is not going to be the same for everywhere.
It might be that certain fisheries are acceptable in certain MPAs
where other fisheries might not. It does not mean we want to ban
fisheries everywhere. That is my concern at the moment about the
percentage issue.
Q19 Dr Turner: Coming back to devolution
again, the consultation paper declares that the Government's commitment
to devolution will not waver. Obviously if we are going to have
successful management of the coastal environment it has got to
be integrated across land and sea boundaries. Certainly the Environment
Agency see it as a matter of some concern and they say it is unclear
what mechanisms will be in place to address the devolution issue.
Do you share that view and, if so, what measures to you think
should be incorporated into the Bill to make sure that we do integrate
things around the whole of the UK?
Ms Moore: I absolutely share the
view that to implement the ecosystem approach we need to have
marine spatial planning at the regional sea level. If you take
the Irish Sea, for example, we need close cooperation with Wales,
the Scottish Executive and Northern Ireland. As environmental
organisations we support the UK Marine Bill providing a framework
for bespoke devolved legislation. By having this UK framework
and then bespoke legislation we believe that we will be able to
deliver the ecosystem approach and integrated management at the
regional seas level.
| 
