Supplementary written evidence submitted
by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
I would like to thank the EFRA Committee for holding
the hearing on the Marine Policy Statement (MPS) on 24 November
2010 and I look forward to receiving your report in due course.
I thought it would be useful to follow up with additional clarification
and information on a couple of points.
The first is on the review processes for the MPS
and Marine Plans themselves. The Marine and Coastal Access Act
2009 states that the MPS will be reviewed when considered appropriate
by the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the devolved authorities,
which have adopted the MPS. The MPS has been written to be future-proof,
so that it should stand the test of time. However, circumstances
may arise that make revision appropriate, for example, if, through
the development of Marine Plans, the evidence base underpinning
the MPS is subject to significant change, or if new policies are
introduced that need to be reflected in the MPS. The Act does
not set out a specific time period for review, we have therefore
indicated in the MPS factors which would be taken into account
when determining whether a review is appropriate.
All Marine Plans must be made in accordance with
the MPS unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise, in
which case the public authority must state its reasons. 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until withdrawn by the Secretary of State.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.
A review of the MPS would also not trigger a wholesale
review of existing Marine Plans. In accordance with the Marine
and Coastal Access Act, a report on the review of a Marine Plan
must be published every three years. Following this, the marine
plan authority must consider whether the Marine Plan needs to
be amended or reviewed. At this point, any changes resulting from
the adoption of a new MPS could be incorporated into a revised
Marine Plan.
I hope that this has clarified the issue. When the
MPS is reviewed, this will be done openly and transparently. The
intention is not to burden decision makers and marine users with
review upon review, but to create a pragmatic system whereby the
MPS will be reviewed only when appropriate to do so.
I also thought for completeness that it would be
useful to provide you with the full break down of the expected
costs of marine planning in England covering preparation, implementation,
monitoring and review. These figures cover a 20 year period and
are taken from the initial Impact Assessment which was consulted
and is currently being refined as a result.
December 2010
MARINE PLANNING SYSTEM IMPACT ASSESSMENT
(2010)—BASED ON A 20 YEAR ASSESSMENT PERIOD
| COSTS (£m)
| Total Transition (Constant Price) Years
| Average Annual (excl. Transition) (Constant Price)
| Total Cost (Present Value) |
| Low | N/A | 10
| N/A | N/A |
| High | N/A |
| N/A | N/A |
| Best Estimate | 40.2 |
| 1.0 | 42.3 |
Description and scale of key monetised costs by "main
affected groups"
Costs to MMO, initially for preparing plans and funding Sustainability
Appraisal and independent investigation of plans, and on an ongoing
basis for reviewing and amending plans. Costs to Industry, Local
Authorities and Primary Consultees of providing input to plan
preparation and amending plans on an ongoing basis. Training costs
to MMO, industry and Local Authorities.
Other key non-monetised costs by "main affected groups"
None identified.
TRANSITION COSTS IN CONSTANT PRICES, £M
| Government
| Industry | TOTALS 20 YR
|
| Plan Preparation & training | 20.0
| 0.8 | 20.8 |
| Independent investigation of Plans | 7.0
| 0 | 7.0 |
| Costs for Sustainability Appraisals | 12.4
| 0 | 12.4 |
| Total | 39.4 | 0.8
| 40.2 |
ONGOING COSTS IN CONSTANT PRICES, £M
| Government
| Industry | TOTALS 20 YR
|
| Plan Preparation for amendments | 8.2
| 0.8 | 9.0 |
| Independent investigation of amendments |
1.1 | 0 | 1.1 |
| Sustainability Appraisals of amendments |
2.0 | 0 | 2.0 |
| Total | 11.3 | 0.8
| 12.1 |
PRESENT VALUE OF COSTS, £M
| Government
| Industry | TOTALS
|
| TOTAL (20 yr NPV) | 41.1 |
1.2 | 42.3 |
| BENEFITS (£m) | Total Transition (Constant Price) Years
| Average Annual (excl. Transition) (Constant Price)
| Total Benefit (Present Value) |
| Low | N/A | N/A
| 29 | N/A |
| High | N/A |
| 379 | N/A |
| Best Estimate | N/A |
| 204 | See below |
Description and scale of key monetised benefits by "main
affected groups"Economic benefits of reduced transaction
costs, including costs of conflict, legal costs, search costs
and administration costs, and of accelerated investment. An EU
report estimated these for 2020 and 2030. The estimates reported
above are for 2020 as that is halfway through the assessment period.
Further work is being done to validate these exploratory estimates
and assess the profile of benefits throughout the assessment period:
for these reasons a total figure is not provided for now
Other key non-monetised benefits by "main affected groups"Improved
investment climate, leading to economic growth. Reduced pressures
on ecosystems from marine activities and the goods and services
they provide and potential localised social and economic benefits.
Further work is in progress as part of the IA consultation.
| Key assumptions/sensitivities/risks Discount rate (%)
| 3.5 |
On costs the main assumption is that previous experience of terrestrial
planning and of the Marine Spatial Planning project in the Irish
Sea provides a reasonable guide to costs for developing and administering
marine plans.
On benefits, an NPV is not presented in this version as more work
is required to validate and extend the assessment of benefits.
The current assumption is that overall marine planning will result
in a 1% reduced in transaction costs for those sectors facing
conflicts. Without further validation this is exploratory.
| 
