3 Marine Conservation Zones
Background
17. A protected area is "a clearly defined geographical
space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other
effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature
with associated ecosystem services and cultural values".[72]
There are a number of different types of marine protected area
in seas and coastal areas around the UK. These include:
- Special Areas of Conservation
and Special Protection Areas, designated under the EU Birds and
Habitats Directives;
- Sites of Special Scientific Interest, derived
from national legislation; and
- Ramsar sites, designated through the Convention
on Wetlands of International Importance.[73]
The UK Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009) introduced
a new type of marine protected area; Marine Conservation Zones,
which the Government is committed to bringing into effect.[74]
Sites can be selected in English and Welsh inshore waters and
UK offshore waters around England, Wales and Northern Ireland.[75]
Marine Conservation Zones can be put in place to conserve marine
flora, fauna, habitats, or features of geological or geomorphological
interest.[76] This legislation
was passed with strong cross-party support.[77]
During its consideration in Parliament, Richard Benyon remarked
that this legislation provided "an historic opportunity"[78]
and Marine Conservation Zones could "make a real difference
to the marine environment, but that will happen only if they form
a coherent, dynamic and flexible network".[79]
Under the Act, Marine Conservation Zones can be used to protect
particular rare or threatened species or to conserve the diversity
of UK marine life.[80]
In contrast to other marine protected areas, the Act states that
when choosing sites to become Marine Conservation Zones, authorities
can "have regard to any economic or social consequences".[81]
In addition, the Act specified that Marine Conservation Zones
should help "form a network" of protected areas.[82]
18. In England, recommendations on which sites should
be selected as Marine Conservation Zones were developed by the
Government's statutory nature conservation bodies, the Joint Nature
Conservation Committee (JNCC) and Natural England, through a set
of four regional projects.[83]
These projects were intended to give local stakeholders an opportunity
to recommend possible Marine Conservation Zones in their areas
or have their concerns taken into account.[84]
In September 2011, following more than 2500 meetings over two
years,[85] these regional
projects recommended 127 Marine Conservation Zones to the JNCC
and Natural England.[86]
In December 2012 Defra announced its consultation on the "first
tranche" of Marine Conservation Zones for designation. This
consultation consisted of 31 possible Marine Conservation Zones,
which are shown below (Fig 1 and Box 1).
Box 1: The 31 sites in Defra's December 2012 consultation:
|
Cumbria Coast | Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges
|
Fylde Offshore | South of Dorset
|
Hilbre Island Group |
Poole Rocks |
North of Celtic Deep |
Stour and Orwell Estuaries |
East of Haig Fras | Blackwater, Crouch, Roach and Colne Estuaries
|
Southwest Deeps (west) |
Medway Estuary |
The Canyons | Thanet Coast
|
Lundy | Folkestone Pomerania
|
Padstow Bay and surrounds
| Hythe Bay |
Isles of Scilly | Beachy Head West
|
The Manacles | Kingmere
|
Upper Fowey and Pont Pill
| Pagham Harbour |
Whitsand and Looe Bay |
Aln Estuary |
Tamar Estuary | Swallow Sands
|
Skerries Bank and Surround
| Rock Unique |
Torbay |
|
It is the process that led to these recommendations,
and Defra's subsequent actions, that were of interest to us in
this inquiry. In this chapter, we first consider how scientific
evidence was used in producing the recommendations, before looking
at how this was balanced with socio-economic concerns. We then
turn to the next steps for the process.

Use of scientific evidence
19. In 2010 the four regional projects were directed
by Defra to find the best available scientific evidence to underpin
their selection of recommended Marine Conservation Zones.[87]
Guidance from Defra indicated that sites should be selected "on
the best information currently available" and "lack
of full scientific certainty should not be a reason for postponing
proportionate decisions on site selection".[88]
To assist with this venture, the JNCC and Natural England provided
information including a broad-scale habitat map, locations of
rare species or habitats and information about existing marine
protected areas. This was supplemented with additional local information.
After a local consultation process that involved over one million
people,[89] these projects
reported in September 2011. They recommended a total of 127 Marine
Conservation Zones around the UK.
20. Defra established a Science Advisory Panel to
support the four regional projects in selecting Marine Conservation
Zones. This Panel consisted of "expert marine scientists"
who would "support the four regional projects in the Marine
Conservation Zone selection process by offering objective scientific
assessment of site proposals" and advice to Ministers.[90]
The Science Advisory Panel discussed the recommendations made
by the regional projects and sent their official advice to Government
in October 2011. The Panel's report identified a number of deficiencies
in the regional project proposals. These included: doubts about
the robustness of some data cited as evidence, questions about
the required minimum proportion of certain habitat types, uncertainties
regarding conservation objectives, over-simplicity of management
objectives, and gaps in information about the presence or extent
of marine features. However, the panel also stated "we are
content that, if the recommended network of Marine Conservation
Zones is implemented in full, ecological coherence can be achieved".[91]
21. Shortly after the Science Advisory Panel provided
their advice, the Minister announced an additional £5.5 million
for further research alongside a statement that Marine Conservation
Zones required an "adequate" or "adequately robust"
evidence base.[92] Despite
the regional projects having proceeded on the basis of best available
evidence, he reiterated this point to us, stating "we do
not require the most perfect pinpoint accuracy, but we need to
have a good, robust evidence base".[93]
This change was purportedly due to a challenge to the designation
of European marine sites in the south-west.[94]
But as Alec Taylor, RSPB, pointed out:
"best available" is exactly what the
Marine Conservation Zone process was set out to use. It is a very
different process from that which is used for designating European
marine sites, which is very much a top-down, science-led process.
The marine conservation zone process is a stakeholder-led, consensus-based
project using a vast range of both ecological and socio-economic
evidence. It could only reasonably expect to be able to use the
best available evidence at the time in order to select its sites.[95]
Charles Clover, journalist, went further, arguing
that "the 'best available evidence' is what the Act says.
The 'best evidence' is what the lawyers have required us, apparently,
to require, and that is completely wrong. It breaks the circle
of trust that the public had at the time of the Marine Act".[96]
It appeared that Defra had shifted the goalposts as the Marine
Conservation Zone selection process was nearing completion.[97]
Instead of providing evidence that reflected the best current
understanding of the marine environment in an area to support
their Marine Conservation Zone selection, Defra then required
the regional projects to produce the best, or most robust, evidence
possible, regardless of the feasibility of such a requirement.
22. Questions were raised about whether the burden
of proof created by this shift was reasonably obtainable,[98]
especially given the level of investment in marine data collection.
[99] Less than
20% of UK marine habitats have been mapped and Government would
have to "spend an awful lot of money" to get the robust
evidence it hoped for. [100]
As Professor de Mora, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, put it "you
get what you pay for".[101]
It is also questionable whether further evidence would make the
Marine Conservation Zone process any less contentious, as Dr Frost,
Marine Biological Association, explained:
There is always this sort of utopian ideal that somewhere
down the line we will have allin quotation marks"the
evidence". Science does not work like that. What science
does is it answers questions and, in doing so, raises a whole
new set of questions. [...] That is how science works. It produces
evidence, answers questions, but in doing so it opens up whole
new horizons and gaps. I am not sure that the scientific approach
is always appreciated when you are gathering evidence.[102]
23. The JNCC and Natural England reviewed the regional
project recommendations, taking into account the findings of the
Science Advisory Panel and further evidence that had been produced,
to put together their final recommendations to Defra.[103]
It recommended that all 127 Marine Conservation Zones should be
designated.[104] This
advice included an assessment of the presence, extent and condition
of marine features that each Marine Conservation Zone intended
to protect, which the Marine Conservation Society summarised as
shown in Box 2:[105]
Box 2: Marine Conservation Zone evidence base
The knowledge on the presence of features within the network is variable, particularly from inshore where there are numerous reports from diver surveys and drop-down video, to offshore where drop-down camera surveys, and side-scan sonar are rarer because of cost, and less human development and infrastructural projects.
There are 127 recommended Marine Conservation Zones within the network based on the presence of 1,205 features.
Each of these 127 sites will have a range of features and for these 1,205 features there is high, low or medium confidence on various features being present: (high = 41% (or 499 features); medium = 20%, (289) features, and low = 36% (436) features). However, just because a site has low confidence for some features does not mean it cannot be designated for other features.
There is high confidence of the extent (area of coverage) for 16% (189) of the features. Again medium or low confidence in extent should not prevent designation; it just reflects lack of investment in marine surveys on the extent of features.
There is generally low confidence on the 'condition' of features rather than presence of those features within the sites. The statutory advice given to DEFRA by the JNCC and Natural England in July 2012 states the following: "We advise that some features or sites may appear to have less information than others in terms of contribution to the network design principles and ecological benefits; however, this may be a reflection of limited data and evidence rather than an indication of their importance".
|
The Government appears to have moved the goalposts
during the Marine Conservation Zone designation process, to require
robust evidence showing the presence or extent of marine features
rather than the best available evidence reflecting our current
understanding of the marine environment. We support the principle
that Marine Conservation Zones should be based on sound scientific
evidence. We consider that the Government should adhere to its
standard of best available evidence, as set out in its initial
Marine Conservation Zone guidance, that "network design should
be based on the best information currently available" and
"lack of full scientific certainty should not be a reason
for postponing proportionate decisions on site selection".
Inclusion of socio-economic evidence
24. The inclusion of socio-economic concerns in the
decision-making process for Marine Conservation Zones was a new
development for marine protected area policy. We appreciate that
a significant investment of time and energy has been made by all
those involved in the stakeholder consultation process. That said,
evidence submitted to us and our discussions in Falmouth have
highlighted a number of concerns about the way in which socio-economic
evidence has been used. We were also concerned to hear about the
extent to which discussions had become "polarised".[106]
We consider here issues with communications and engagement, consideration
of socio-economic benefits and discussion of management measures.
COMMUNICATIONS AND ENGAGEMENT
25. We appreciate that a significant effort was made
to engage with a range of stakeholders during the Marine Conservation
Zone process. However, our meetings in Falmouth confirmed that
there were people who felt excluded from the consultation process.
It seems that more use could have been made of the contacts held
by the Marine Management Organisation to help the regional projects
get in touch with local stakeholders, particularly in local fishing
communities who may not otherwise be as forthcoming as other corporate
institutions. Local communities, whose practices may be more sustainable
should not lose out to larger industrial operations.[107]
Stakeholders told us that it could be difficult to keep up to
date with the process, particularly given the number of lengthy
reports and consultation documents being published.[108]
As Joan Edwards, Wildlife Trusts, pointed out "even now,
if you go on to the Defra website, it is very difficult to find
out where and what marine conservation zones are and what they
are trying to achieve."[109]
SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS
26. The Act provided for consideration of socio-economic
concerns when designating Marine Conservation Zones, but this
provision appears to have been interpreted solely in terms of
the socio-economic costs associated with establishing marine protected
areas. As the Minister noted, marine protected areas can also
provide socio-economic benefits.[110]
Functioning ecosystems and sustainable livelihoods are not mutually
exclusive.[111] Joan Edwards,
Wildlife Trusts, told us the Government had:
only looked at the impacts on people and industry.
It does not look at the benefits of marine protected areas. We
think that is ludicrous because we are establishing these [Marine
Protected Areas] for a really good reason. We believe this will
help bring back our marine environment into a healthy state, and
that should be good for fishermen and other people.[112]
MANAGEMENT MEASURES
27. The way in which sites would be managed after
being selected as Marine Conservation Zones was a particular concern
for people whose livelihoods or leisure activity could be directly
affected. Yet consultation on management measures for recommended
Marine Conservation Zones was not included in the regional projects
process. James Cross, Marine Management Organisation, told us
"generic descriptions about the types of management measures"
were included in discussions, but a full consultation would not
come until later in the process.[113]
The Minister did not provide further details about when management
would be discussed, saying he could not give "a precise answer"
but a consultation would happen in the future.[114]
Professor Ian Boyd, Defra's Chief Scientific Adviser, argued that
it was first necessary to identify sites before management could
be discussed and it was "absolutely right" that the
questions of what to protect and how to protect it were separated.
[115] He continued:
clearly, what we have not managed to do is to
make sure that the stakeholders understand that separation and
that their voices will be fully heard within the "What are
we going to do about it?" or "How are we going to manage
it?" question. At the moment, we are still on the question
of what is going to be protected and consulting on that. Once
that is out of the way, there is another process to be put in
place that will fully engage the local stakeholders that might
be affected by this, particularly those who have commercial or
economic interests, so that they will have a full say in what
happens eventually.[116]
This lack of clarity on management measures creates
uncertainty regarding the outcome of the Marine Conservation Zone
process for stakeholders, and may even have contributed to a backlash
against the project, fostering misleading stories, for example
that all activities will be banned, even walking dogs on beaches.[117]
Dr Jean-Luc Solandt, Marine Conservation Society, stated "people
will see lines on maps but want to know what happens in them.
When we get clarity in the measures, then we can have a really
decent conversation with stakeholders at the local level."[118]
28. We are not convinced that the issues of what
to conserve and how to conserve it can be separated as easily
as the Minister suggests, particularly in a stakeholder-driven
process with negotiations happening at a local level to decide
which sites should be chosen to be protected on the basis of their
biological importance and socio-economic impact. People need to
understand what Marine Conservation Zones mean for their lifestyles
and livelihoods. The absence of a substantive discussion on likely
management measures perpetuates uncertainty, undermines local
support for Marine Conservation Zones and creates room for scare-mongering.
We recommend that the Government produce a clear statement on
how management measures will be decided and tailored to specific
Marine Conservation Zones, alongside a clear timetable showing
when these will be discussed.
Defra's current consultation
29. Defra, at time of publication, was considering
31 of the 127 sites recommended to become Marine Conservation
Zones. It considers these 31 to be "suitable for designation
in 2013" whilst anticipating "additional Marine Conservation
Zones to be designated in the future."[119]
Defra stated that these sites have been selected on the following
criteria:
Whether a Marine Conservation Zone, and all of
its features, are suitable for designation in the 2013 tranche
depends on the levels of confidence in the scientific evidence
and the balance between the site's conservation advantages and
the socio-economic costs.[120]
30. We heard concerns that the balance being struck
had shifted too far towards socio-economic concerns and away from
conservation priorities, both during the site selection process
and Defra's current consultation, with scientific evidence left
"disadvantaged" as a result.[121]
During site selection, the boundaries of recommended sites were
changed so that the final recommendations include "sites
that are either not in the most ecologically important areas or
have been reduced, clipped or changed as a result of the socio-economic
considerations".[122]
Indeed, the Science Advisory Panel reported "the identification
of locations for protection has relied greatly on socio-economic
considerations with biodiversity often of secondary consideration
or taken account of late in the process".[123]
The selection of sites for the first tranche has in effect become
a political decision about what weight to attach to socioeconomic
and environmental concerns.[124]
As Professor Boyd described "there is going to be a judgment
call to be made about where the balance sits in terms of costs
and benefits to particular conservation features or socio-economic
features."[125]
31. In their recommendations to Defra, the JNCC and
Natural England highlighted 59 sites that were at higher risk
of damage or deterioration.[126]
Indeed, the Wildlife Trusts told us they had evidence of one of
these sites being damaged since being recommended for protection.[127]
However, only a limited number of the 59 sites identified as being
at high risk by the JNCC and Natural England have been put forward
for consultation in the first tranche, despite these having "a
stronger case for earlier designation".[128]
We compared the 31 sites selected by Defra to the 59 sites recommended
by Natural England and the JNCC for early designation on the basis
of being at higher risk of degradation. Only eight sites were
on both lists. The level of crossover is outlined in Box 3.[129]
28 sites recommended for earlier designation are not in Defra's
current consultation.
Box 3: Comparison of "at risk" sites and sites in consultation
|
in consultation/not "at risk"
| not in consultation/"at risk"
| in consultation/"at risk"
|
Aln Estuary | Beachy Head East
| Beachy Head West |
Blackwater, Crouch, Roach, Colne Estuaries
| Bembridge | Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges
|
Fylde Offshore | Cape Bank
| Cumbrian Coast |
North of Celtic Deep |
Celtic Deep | East of Haig Fras
|
Pagham Harbour | Compass Rose
| Folkestone Pomerania |
Rock Unique | Dover to Deal
| Hilbre Island Group |
Swallow Sands | Dover to Folkestone
| Hythe Bay |
Upper Fowey and Pont Pill
| East Meridian | Isles of Scilly
|
| East Meridian - Eastern side
| Kingmere |
| East of Celtic Deep
| Lundy |
| East of Jones Bank
| Padstow Bay (and surrounds)
|
| Greater Haig Fras
| Poole Rocks |
| Holderness Offshore
| Skerries Bank (and surrounds)
|
| Inner Bank
| South Dorset |
| Markham's Triangle
| Southwest Deeps (west)
|
| Mud Hole
| Stour and Orwell Estuaries
|
| Norris to Ryde
| Tamar Estuary |
| North West of Jones Bank
| Thanet Coast |
| Offshore Brighton
| The Canyons |
| Ordford Inshore
| The Manacles |
| Sefton Coast
| Medway Estuary |
| Slieve Na Griddle
| Torbay |
| South East of Falmouth
| Whitsand and Looe Bay |
| South of Celtic Deep
| |
| South of Falmouth
| |
| South Rigg
| |
| Swale Estuary
| |
| Thames Estuary
| |
32. There is a lack of clarity regarding why the proposed 31
Marine Conservation Zones were selected for designation first,
despite the JNCC and Natural England's advice that 59 sites, 51
of which are not included in the first tranche, are currently
at high risk of further damage. The Government should set out
the reasons for not putting these sites forward for consultation
and outline action being taken to prevent further damage to these
areas as the Marine Conservation Zone process continues.
We agree with the principle that socio-economic concerns should
be taken into account when designating Marine Conservation Zones.
We recognise that it is difficult to balance socio-economic and
scientific concerns. However, at present it is not clear why certain
sites are being progressed and others not. Given that the weight
given to socio-economic concerns compared to scientific evidence
is a political judgement, we recommend that the Government
should publish the criteria being used by Defra to select sites
for conservation.
Next steps
33. It has been over three years since the Marine and Coastal
Access Act was passed, with cross-party consensus that Marine
Conservation Zones were necessary and widespread public support.[130]
Despite this, the designation process has been repeatedly delayed
and Marine Conservation Zones have become increasingly controversial.
The project seems to be in danger of losing sight of its original
vision for marine conservation in the UK. Charles Clover told
us that "nobody knows what the bloody things are for and
no Minister has ever said. While we are in this position, we will
go on failing".[131]
We are concerned that a clear vision for Marine Conservation
Zones has not been articulated by the Government. We recommend
that it does so in the response to this report.
34. There is extensive frustration among industry
and other stakeholders over the delays to this process, which
have created uncertainty and allowed sensitive environments to
be further degraded.[132]
The Minister seemed to have no clear plans for the future, beyond
indicating he would evaluate the findings of the consultation
"with a view to designating towards the end of the summer
or into the autumn".[133]
This delay appears to stem, in part, from a fear of judicial review.
The Minister expressed concerns about leaving the process open
to being "buried in the courts",[134]
although he insisted that he had not been "closeted with
Defra's lawyers on this".[135]
We were disappointed to hear that he could not "say precisely
when the next tranche will be announced".[136]
We were pleased to hear that the Minister is keen to move the
Marine Conservation Zone process forward, but we have not seen
this intention translated into action. The Minister should not
let his priorities be set by fear of judicial review. Further
delay to the process perpetuates the uncertainty that has already
been damaging to the Marine Conservation Zone project. We recommend
that Government set out a clear timetable for designation of this
tranche and future tranches of Marine Conservation Zones, with
a clear commitment to an end date by which the ecologically coherent
network of marine protected areas, as the Marine and Coastal Access
Act 2009 requires, will be established.
72 http://www.unep-wcmc.org/about-protected-areas_163.html
Back
73
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the UK, JNCC and Natural England,
June 2012 Back
74
The Coalition: our programme for government, HM Government, 2010,
p18 Back
75
The Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 gave Scottish Ministers powers
to designate marine protected areas in Scotland's seas. The Northern
Ireland Assembly's Marine Bill includes provision for Marine Conservation
Zones in Northern Ireland's inshore waters. The Welsh Government
has undertaken its own Marine Conservation Zone designation project
for its inshore waters. Back
76
Marine and Coastal Access Act Part 5 117 (1) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/23/part/5
Back
77
Q 321 [Richard Benyon], See also HC Deb 2009 27 Oct Col 211 and
HC Deb 23 June 2009 Col 767 Back
78
HC Deb 23 June 2009 col 760 Back
79
HC Deb 23 June 2009 col 762 Back
80
Marine and Coastal Access Act Part 5 117 (4 and 5) Back
81
Marine and Coastal Access Act Part 5 117 (7) Back
82
Marine and Coastal Access Act Part 5 123 (2) Back
83
Net Gain, Balanced Seas, Finding Sanctuary and Irish Sea Conservation
Zones Back
84
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/marine/mpa/Marine Conservation
Zone/default.aspx Back
85
Ev 101 para 2 Back
86
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/marine/mpa/Marine Conservation
Zone/default.aspx English territorial waters and UK offshore waters
ad Back
87
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/biodiversity/marine/documents/guidance-note1.pdf
These were Balanced Seas, Irish Sea Conservation Zones, Finding
Sanctuary and Net Gain. Back
88
Ev 101 para 3 Back
89
Q 8 [Joan Edwards] Back
90
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/protected/Marine
Conservation Zone/Marine Conservation Zone-sap.htm Back
91
Ev 101 para 4 Back
92
http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2011/11/15/wms-marine-conservation-zones/
Back
93
Q 321 [Richard Benyon] Back
94
Q 8 [Dr Solandt] Back
95
Q 2 [Alec Taylor] Back
96
Q 266 [Charles Clover] Back
97
Q8 [all], Q214 [Dr Frost] Back
98
Ev w1 para 6 Back
99
Q 5, Ev 99 para 4.1 Back
100
Q 217 [Dr Frost] Back
101
Q 217 [Professor de Mora] Back
102
Q 216 [Dr Frost] Back
103
JNCC and Natural England's advice to Defra on recommended Marine
Conservation Zones, July 2012, p1, http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/2030218?category=1723382
Back
104
JNCC and Natural England's advice to Defra on recommended Marine
Conservation Zones, July 2012, p1 Back
105
Ev 138 para 2.8 Back
106
Q 222 [all] Back
107
Q 13 [Alec Taylor] Back
108
See, for example, http://www.defra.gov.uk/consult/2012/12/13/marine-conservation-zones-1212/
Back
109
Q 26 [Joan Edwards] Back
110
Q 328 [Richard Benyon] Back
111
Q 222 [Dr Frost] Back
112
Q 33 [Joan Edwards] Back
113
Q 283 [James Cross] Back
114
Q 332 [Richard Benyon] Back
115
Q 335 [Professor Boyd] Back
116
Q 335 [Professor Boyd] Back
117
Q 25 [Joan Edwards] Back
118
Q 31 [Dr Solandt] Back
119
http://www.defra.gov.uk/consult/files/Marine Conservation Zone-condoc-121213.pdf
Ministerial foreword Back
120
Consultation document /2 Back
121
Q 220 [Dr Frost], Ev 98 para 4.2, Ev 109 para 15, Ev 138 para
2.7 Back
122
Q 12 [Alec Taylor] Back
123
Science Advisory Panel Assessment, November 2011, http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/sap-mcz-final-report.pdf
p4 Back
124
Q 328 [Professor Boyd] Back
125
Q 328 [Professor Boyd] Back
126
JNCC and Natural England's advice to Defra on recommended Marine
Conservation Zones, July 2012, p3 Back
127
Q 11 [Joan Edwards] Back
128
JNCC and Natural England's advice to Defra on recommended Marine
Conservation Zones, July 2012, p386 Back
129
Sites taken from Natural England's advice package p 386-387 and
Defra's consultation document p 2-3 Back
130
Q 243 [Charles Clover] Back
131
Q 259 [Charles Clover] Back
132
Q 3, Q 42 [Joan Edwards] Back
133
Q 337 [Richard Benyon] Back
134
Q 322 [Richard Benyon] Back
135
Q 323 [Richard Benyon] Back
136
Q 336 [Richard Benyon] Back
|