House of Commons - The Marine Policy Statement - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

The Marine Policy Statement - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Contents

3 Commentary

13. We welcome the production of the UK's first Marine Policy Statement and the implementation of a marine planning system for the UK. The UK is fortunate to enjoy a biologically diverse marine area supporting industries which are essential to our economic and social prosperity. It is right that the Government pursue the goal of a plan-led, strategic approach to development in the marine area, which makes the best possible use of the UK's marine area whilst ensuring that any development is sustainable.

14. We observe that responses to Defra's consultation were also overwhelmingly in favour of the MPS. Defra officials told the Committee during the oral evidence session that they had not encountered any individual or organisation which objected to the introduction of the MPS in principle.[14]

15. Having introduced a system which has the benefit of apparently universal support, it is crucial that Defra ensures that implementation of the Marine Policy Statement is not jeopardised or delayed by insufficient funding. Marine planning in England will be carried out by the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), a relatively new organisation which came into existence in April 2010. Given the MMO's key role in implementation of the MPS in England, we welcomed the Minister's commitment that "it will be resourced to carry out that important work".[15]

16. Defra's business plan, published on 8 November 2010, announced cuts of £30 million to the marine budget.[16] On 20 December the Department published its allocations to Arms Length Bodies for the 2010-2015 Spending Review Period. Funding to the MMO is to be cut from £30.9 million in 2010-11 to £24.4 million in 2014-15.[17] We recognise that the MMO must share the burden of reduced spending, but we would be concerned were the cuts to result in any delay to the implementation of the MPS and the creation of marine plans.

17. The Committee welcomes the production of the Marine Policy Statement as the first step in the implementation of marine planning in the UK. We were pleased that the Minister recognised during oral evidence that the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) must be properly funded to carry out its work in implementing the MPS and developing marine plans for English waters. We note the subsequently announced cuts to the MMO's budget with concern.

18. We expect the Government in its response to this report to set out in detail the calculations and assumptions on which it bases its conclusion that the allocated funding will be sufficient. In particular we request that the Government make clear whether it expects any delay in the implementation of the MPS and development of marine plans as a result of the reduction in funding.

Review of the MPS

19. The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 provides that the MPS will be reviewed as and when the relevant policy authorities (the Secretary of State in conjunction with the devolved authorities) consider it appropriate to do so.[18] The draft MPS expands on the circumstances that may trigger a review, but it does not set out any specific timescales:

When considering whether to review the MPS, the policy authorities will take account of whether there has been a significant change in the evidence underpinning the policies set out in the MPS, whether relevant new policies have been introduced that need to be reflected in the MPS, and whether the policy objectives in the MPS need to be amended. This process will also be informed by monitoring and implementation of the marine planning system.[19]

20. Defra explained in oral evidence that it, along with the devolved Administrations, had agreed to take a flexible approach to review of the MPS, with reviews taking place "roughly" every five years, but emphasised that "we would do it when appropriate [...] rather than constraining ourselves with an arbitrary deadline.[20]

21. Defra provided further details of the review process and in particular the effect that any amendment of the MPS following a review would have on existing marine plans:

Should a review of the MPS be required the existing MPS could stand, until withdrawn by the Secretary of State. This means that while revisions were being made, and a new MPS drafted, the 'standing MPS' would apply for any Marine Plans under development and any decisions being made. However, if appropriate those revisions could be a relevant consideration in the development of those Marine Plans or when making any individual development decision. Whatever happens we are committed to ensuring that the process is as clear and transparent as possible for developers and all those involved in marine planning and consenting.[21]

22. It was acknowledged by the Minister during oral evidence that amendments to the MPS and consequently to marine plans would impose costs.[22] In Defra's written evidence, it was explained that "The intention is not to burden decision makers and marine users with review after review, but to create a pragmatic system where the MPS will be reviewed only when appropriate to do so."[23]

23. It is important that the MPS remains relevant and up-to-date if it is effectively to guide decision makers in the future, and significant changes to the evidence on which it is based must be reflected in the contents of the MPS. At the same time, we would caution against unnecessary and costly reviews which would result in uncertainty for decision makers and industry. Defra must ensure that an appropriate balance is struck between these concerns so that public confidence in the marine planning system is not undermined. Defra should monitor the implementation of the MPS and marine planning, including consulting with local interested parties.

Scope of the MPS

24. The Marine and Coastal Access Bill placed no obligation on policy authorities to create a joint MPS covering all UK waters. The Joint Committee which scrutinised the draft Bill was concerned by the prospect of two or more separate MPSs for the UK's marine area:

We believe it is essential that an MPS has the active support and approval of all of the devolved administrations, just as it is equally important that the UK Government participates in the Scottish proposals. We regard the production of an agreed Marine Policy Statement that has consensus across the devolved administrations, including Scotland, as an imperative, and consider that the designation of machinery to achieve this if at all possible should be placed on the face of the Bill.[24]

25. In the event, the draft MPS has been agreed with each of the UK's devolved Administrations and has been published as a joint document covering all UK waters. The Minister believed that this would give "a degree of coherence" to the planning system.[25] The draft MPS explains that the UK Administrations will be expected to co-ordinate when planning for activities which extend across national or Marine Plan area boundaries, sharing evidence and deciding on timings of the development of marine plans.[26]

26. A consequence of the joint approach is that the MPS does not provide detailed policy or practical guidance, as its contents must be applicable across the different policy and planning frameworks in the devolved Administrations. Defra acknowledged that this approach has impacted on the level of detail that can be provided in the draft MPS:

The draft MPS has been developed to strike a careful balance in ensuring that it provides the necessary level of detail to provide certainty and clarity of approach, while respecting those aspects of policy making that are devolved.[27]

27. We share the view of the Joint Committee that examined the draft Marine and Coastal Access Bill that it would be undesirable for more than one MPS to be operational in UK waters, and we commend Defra and the devolved Administrations for their efforts to agree a UK-wide document which will bring a more coherent approach to planning in the UK marine environment. We note that this approach has, though, brought its own attendant difficulties by limiting the amount of detailed policy and practical guidance that is provided in the draft MPS.

Interaction with the terrestrial planning regime

28. A recurrent criticism in the consultation responses was the lack of detail provided on how marine planning would interact with the terrestrial planning regime. Colchester Borough Council commented that "the current consultation draft lacks detailed information about how the two systems will work together [...] the current situation is likely to result in confusion and duplication, unless arrangements are put in place to properly integrate and streamline the two systems".[28]

29. It is of course desirable that terrestrial and marine developments complement each other. As the Minister acknowledged, "There are very few [marine] activities that will not impact a terrestrial planning authority".[29] There will also be a physical overlap between the marine and terrestrial planning areas: Marine Plans extend up to the level of mean high water spring tides while local authority boundaries generally extend to mean low water spring tides.

30. Defra is of the view that guidance on how this interaction will work in practice should not be provided in the MPS. Instead, Defra's parallel consultation document on marine planning in England has a chapter devoted to terrestrial planning and links between terrestrial and marine planning authorities. This approach is largely due to the different planning regimes across the devolved Administrations:

The crucial thing is that the roles of local authorities work differently in terms of the planning process within each of the UK administrations, so to go into institutional administrative processes in the MPS would not be necessary to ensure consistency at UK level.[30]

31. Another issue mentioned by consultees was the impact of the introduction of the Localism Bill. In his evidence to us, the Minister appeared confident that changes to the terrestrial planning process contained in the Bill would not impact negatively on the production of Marine Plans:

I do not see that the change to the planning process or any elements of the Decentralisation and Localism Bill will cause any problems; if anything, it will allow local people to have more say.[31]

32. We note the concerns raised by consultees regarding the level of detailed guidance on the interaction between terrestrial and marine planning. We welcome the progress that Defra has made on this issue through the parallel consultation on marine planning in England. Changes to the terrestrial planning landscape introduced by the Localism Bill must be properly taken into account before the guidance is finalised.

Content of the MPS

LEVEL OF GUIDANCE

33. One of the most frequent criticisms of the draft which was identified in consultation responses was the level of guidance which the MPS provides. Many consultees felt that the MPS did not go far enough in providing guidance on how conflicts between different policy objectives should be resolved, for example by prioritising the key activities listed in the draft MPS. The Joint Links (an umbrella organisation for voluntary environmental organisations across the UK) commented that "the aspirational nature of the MPS, which only includes high-level policy statements and objectives to allow for UK-wide application, creates a gap between the MPS and marine plans and decision-making."[32] Similarly, the National Trust voiced concern that "the content continues to lack purpose and goes little further than recounting the aspirations for marine planning set out in the High Level Marine Objectives", and attributed this in part to the "UK-wide concordat" which prevents the draft MPS from "setting specific spatial planning objectives and establishing clear policy direction".[33]

34. Defra made clear in its written evidence that the MPS is not intended to prioritise any one activity in the marine area over another, and that the intention is that this level of detail will be provided in individual marine plans:

The Marine Policy Statement therefore provides clarity, as it identifies activities to which a degree of priority is expected to be attached and general policy direction at a UK level. However, it does not say which activities should take priority over another, or provide a "flow chart" for decision making, as this needs to be determined by each administration when considering specific areas in the marine planning process. Priorities are dependent on local considerations such as resource availability, geography, spatial restrictions, density of complimenting/ conflicting activities etc.[34]

35. This approach reflects the fact that the draft MPS is a joint document across the UK Administrations, each of which may make different policy decisions about priorities for marine development.

36. It is understandable that consultees are concerned that the MPS does not provide much in the way of practical guidance. This is a particularly pertinent issue in England, where full marine plan coverage is not expected until 2021, with the MPS expected to be the source of guidance in the interim period.

37. The RSPB[35] and the National Trust[36] proposed that this issue be addressed by the introduction of some form of national plan to sit between the MPS and regional marine plans. However, the Minister suggested that the creation of a national plan for England would "create an extra tier of activity, which I want to avoid".[37]

38. Defra's decision not to prioritise any one activity over any other in the MPS reflects both the devolved situation, and the Department's belief that decisions about priorities are best taken at a local level and informed by relevant local considerations and evidence. However, we were struck by the sustained criticism of this approach in the consultation responses, and it is clearly a matter of concern. Given the absence of detailed guidance about policy priorities in the draft MPS, it is essential that sufficient clarity is provided in individual marine plans.

39. We recommend that Defra keeps this approach under review as marine plans are developed, and reconsiders whether a national plan for England would be appropriate once the first marine plans have been completed in the East inshore and East offshore regions.

EUROPEAN OBLIGATIONS

40. The UK is subject to several relevant EC Directives which govern management of the UK's marine and coastal environment. These include the Marine Strategy Framework Directive,[38] Water Framework Directive,[39] Habitats Directive[40] and Wild Birds Directive.[41] The MPS makes reference to these Directives as relevant considerations that marine plan authorities must take into account when developing marine plans.[42]

41. The Marine Conservation Society suggested in its consultation response that adoption of the draft MPS as it stands could lead to contravention of these Directives:

Whilst the MPS lists the relevant EC Directives and international obligations within them it does not provide insufficient information [sic] on how the UK will achieve both them and our industry objectives. In a number of places the MPS and the associated AoS [Appraisal of Sustainability] indicate that the industry objectives should take precedence. The Directives sometimes seem to be considered more as something to work through or around [...] This could lead to possible systemic failure by the UK to meet the requirements of these Directives.[43]

The Minister assured us that he was satisfied that this was not the case:

There is no inference in this whatsoever that somehow this is a shortcut process or puts us as a country in any way at risk of falling foul of those directives. We know that that involves a very great cost, and we would not want to do it anyway because we want to be seen as good stewards.[44]

42. We note the concerns raised that the MPS could be at odds with the UK's obligations under relevant European Directives. The Minister has assured us that this is not the case. We recommend that Defra and the MMO consider carefully the interaction between the UK's existing obligations and the MPS and marine plans to ensure that they are consistent with the Directives.

FISHERIES

43. The draft MPS sets out the key activities that take place in the marine area and details the pressures and impacts associated with each of them. Examples of these activities include shipping, tourism, dredging and energy production, as well as fisheries. As explained above, the draft MPS does not seek to prioritise any one of these activities over any other, but we explored the position of fisheries in oral evidence. The Minister told us that he is confident that implementation of the MPS will not have an adverse effect on fishing communities:

It is one of the only socio-economic activities that has been given the precise guidance through this document that the impact on fisheries must be treated as a major consideration, so it is right up there as a really important issue. It would go contrary to all our policies not just on fisheries but on the whole concept of food security and other issues if we tried to create a framework that made life yet harder for an industry that has found it extremely tough to exist in recent years.[45]

44. We welcome the Minister's assurance that the fishing industry will not be adversely affected by implementation of the MPS, and we will look to see that this is borne out in the development of marine plans. We believe that sustainable and productive fisheries are key to UK interests and we are likely to return to this issue as proposals for reform of the Common Fisheries Policy are developed further in 2011.

14 Q13 Back

15 Q15 Back

16 Business Plan 2011-2015, Defra, November 2010, www.defra.gov.uk. Back

17 Defra's Arms' length bodies allocations,www.defra.gov.uk Back

18 Marine and Coastal Access Act, para 46 Back

19 UK Marine Policy Statement: A draft for consultation, p 18, Defra, July 2010, www.defra.gov.uk Back

20 Q 55 Back

21 Ev 15 Back

22 Q 58 Back

23 Ev 15 Back

24 Joint Committee on the Draft Marine Bill, Report and formal minutes, HL Paper 159-I, HC 552-I, para 91. Back

25 Q 34 Back